TCP/IP

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

TCP/IP

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> TCP/IP

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

TCP/IP - 12/19/2007 6:26:50 PM

DodgyDave

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline

i heard som refer to TCP/IP and that would make it easier to play the pbem,
so now asking, how does TCP/IP improve game play, what does it do differently, then how we play the pbem now?

Post #: 1

RE: TCP/IP - 12/19/2007 7:28:07 PM

Suvorov928

Posts: 157
Joined: 10/1/2005
Status: offline

Well, IF you could gather all 7 players together for a game session, then you could fly through some turns. As soon as you did your turn, the other player would be right there ready to go as well. Not to mention, land combat would be greatly sped up, as all players would be there to select chits, commit the guard, call for reinforcements, etc., all without sending files back and forth.

(in reply to DodgyDave)

Post #: 2

RE: TCP/IP - 12/19/2007 7:42:42 PM

DodgyDave

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline

ok, well we want TCP/IP then :)

(in reply to Suvorov928)

Post #: 3

RE: TCP/IP - 12/19/2007 8:03:06 PM

Suvorov928

Posts: 157
Joined: 10/1/2005
Status: offline

It would be nice. If we could find 7 players who could agree to meet online even 1 day a week to play, we could have a fantastic game going. It would almost be like playing F2F.

(in reply to DodgyDave)

Post #: 4

RE: TCP/IP - 12/19/2007 8:12:22 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

It would be a nice addition.

(in reply to Suvorov928)

Post #: 5

RE: TCP/IP - 12/19/2007 9:26:32 PM

dauphan129

Posts: 95
Joined: 12/12/2007
Status: offline

I do hope that it happens! Also I hope you can do both. PBEM and TCP/IP that way you can do slow turns between those get togethers. My crowd would be lucky to manage once a month get togethers.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 6

RE: TCP/IP - 12/20/2007 3:55:20 AM

yammahoper

Posts: 231
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, LANability would be great. Three to seven palyers would be very cool. We normally had five players in our TT days.

yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to dauphan129)

Post #: 7

RE: TCP/IP - 12/27/2007 6:39:03 AM

gwheelock

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dauphan129

I do hope that it happens! Also I hope you can do both. PBEM and TCP/IP that way you can do slow turns between those get togethers. My crowd would be lucky to manage once a month get togethers.

Actually; I hope that they design it to allow/require less than the entire crew...
TCP/IP is most useful during the combat phase & what is actually NEEDED at any
one gettogether in that phase is the PHASING player plus anyone he is at war with...

(in reply to dauphan129)

Post #: 8

RE: TCP/IP - 12/28/2007 2:34:43 AM

Soapy Frog

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline

Something like Civ4's pitboss or Dominions 3 server functionality would be awesome, i.e. one person hosts the game on a persistent basis and the players connect when they will/can to play their phases.

(in reply to gwheelock)

Post #: 9

RE: TCP/IP - 1/1/2008 11:51:34 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

Hey guys I would love to see the ability to play over ip rather than PBEM. I have never done PBEM before and Im really hesitant to start as it sounds like it requires patience I dont have. However it seems like in this game multiplayer is a must, so please add TCP/IP play so I dont have to learn patience!

< Message edited by Mus -- 1/1/2008 12:03:55 PM >

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 10

RE: TCP/IP - 1/1/2008 12:05:09 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

Hey guys I would love to see the ability to play over ip rather than PBEM. I have never done PBEM before and Im really hesitant to start as it sounds like it requires patience I dont have. However it seems like this game might require PBEM.

Same for me. Except for the patience that I have, but playing with my friends online, linked by Teamspeak does the job far better than PBEM. I play Vassal games of World in Flames that way.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 11

RE: TCP/IP - 1/1/2008 7:01:54 PM

ETF

Posts: 1748
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

What there is no TCP/IP?

I refuse to buy modern wargames without it.................well maybe if they promise to revisit it :)

_____________________________

My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 12

RE: TCP/IP - 1/2/2008 8:50:05 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

In another thread on this subject, the game designers mentioned that they had done a "survey" of EiA and EiH boardgame players, and PBEM was the overwhelming favorite among them. While I would love to play over IP, it's a LOT more complicated to make that work than PBEM. So, I certainly can understand why they chose to implement in PBEM only at the beginning.

There was a thread earlier where someone mentioned how you could use a "server" to hold the game files, and then fake the game into believing you were using email. I can't recall where that was, though, nor do I know how to do it. Perhaps one of the designers will see this and remind us?

(in reply to ETF)

Post #: 13

RE: TCP/IP - 1/2/2008 8:55:54 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

In another thread on this subject, the game designers mentioned that they had done a "survey" of EiA and EiH boardgame players, and PBEM was the overwhelming favorite among them.

I wonder where this survey was conducted, and with what EiA players. The EiA players I know all don't understand how the designers could leave TCP/IP aside.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 14

RE: TCP/IP - 1/3/2008 3:54:24 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
In another thread on this subject, the game designers mentioned that they had done a "survey" of EiA and EiH boardgame players, and PBEM was the overwhelming favorite among them. While I would love to play over IP, it's a LOT more complicated to make that work than PBEM. So, I certainly can understand why they chose to implement in PBEM only at the beginning.

Im with Froonp on this, cant understand how TCP/IP play could be left out of the original plan. I understand that the programing part for handling a TCP/IP game is more complicated but clearly the rules of the original boardgame is better suited for direct play. Many of the features that had to be adapted to work in PBEM makes the game feel frustrating - like when you forget to tick a box to support an ally etc or when you need to send multiple mails to resolve a combat (commiting guards, reinforce etc).
More than anything the politics/diplomacy and Naval part is what suffers from the PBEM implementation (like when you tell your fleet to intercept weaker and it ignores the invading fleet couse it has a ship or two more, not fun if ur england or when u forget to give the order to withdraw to ur cosack or cav corp and in many cases when it comes to diplomacy as peace conditions where the lose dont control the province u clicked anymore etc or the political landscape change so you no longer want to support an ally etc etc )

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
There was a thread earlier where someone mentioned how you could use a "server" to hold the game files, and then fake the game into believing you were using email. I can't recall where that was, though, nor do I know how to do it. Perhaps one of the designers will see this and remind us?

Its easy to copy the game files to a shared directory and let other players fetch them there, just download them and place them in the correct folder.
But even if this feature makes the game go alot faster its still imo cumbersome to play this game over mail, much couse you often only do one or teo things or like in say prussias naval phase just push end turn and then have to wait for hours or even days until its ur turn again, i just doubt i have the patience for it.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 15

RE: TCP/IP - 1/3/2008 7:38:03 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

It was the people on this forum, I believe.

I can see why, as players, we would all prefer to have both options. But, as coders, TCP/IP would add another year to the development cycle, all by itself. Big gaming shops might be able to afford this, but small ones simply can't. The game, as it sits, puts some mashed potatoes or Mt. Dew onto the tables of a few guys, so they can survive long enough to get more out.

These guys (whom I have most likely never met, until coming to this forum) seem to like this game. They built it because it needed to be built. There's not exactly an army of people wanting this game, you know. If they sell 10,000 copies, that barely keeps the lights on. And, I suspect, selling 10,000 copies will be close to a miracle in this market.

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 16

RE: TCP/IP - 1/3/2008 8:48:28 AM

zaquex

Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

It was the people on this forum, I believe.

I can see why, as players, we would all prefer to have both options. But, as coders, TCP/IP would add another year to the development cycle, all by itself. Big gaming shops might be able to afford this, but small ones simply can't. The game, as it sits, puts some mashed potatoes or Mt. Dew�onto the tables of a few guys, so they can survive long enough to get more out.

These guys (whom I have most likely never met, until coming to this forum) seem to like this game. They built it because it needed to be built. There's not exactly an army of people wanting this game, you know. If they sell 10,000 copies, that barely keeps the lights on. And, I suspect, selling 10,000 copies will be close to a miracle in this market.

what ur saying might be true at least to a certain extent although i think a year is a bit long.

However adding tcp/ip would probably make this game interesting for a 10000 times larger market than the PBEM one wich is rather small.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 17

RE: TCP/IP - 1/3/2008 6:23:35 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

I agree. But, basically, I'm trying to put myself in their shoes for a bit:

"We need to get this game out the door. Can we do both TCP/IP play AND a strong AI AND PBEM, all in one release?"

"Yes, but it will take 6 man-years to develop and write. We can chop off a year for IP and a year for a strong AI, but that will leave the game as only a PBEM game. Is that acceptable to the players?"

< insert "ask the players" poll here >

"The players are OK with that, as long as we eventually get all three pieces. Let's put it out a year or two early, but with the component they really want ready to go. We'll add the other components later, and this method will help us not bankrupt the company while we write the thing to completion."

"Sounds fair. But, we'll get complaints, you know?"

"Yup. But, I think they'll understand. Some won't, but enough will to make it worthwhile to do it."

(in reply to zaquex)

Post #: 18

RE: TCP/IP - 1/3/2008 10:07:38 PM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

The AI would be more difficult to do correctly than TCP/IP play. Many games simply never achieve anything resembling a competent AI and give them all kinds of material bonuses to keep them in the hunt.

TCP/IP Play should be easily done. Really guys, PLEASE move forward with this ASAP.

Maybe we should have a public poll asking, "What should be priority: Stronger AI or TCP/IP Play?"

First vote: TCP/IP Play hands down.

< Message edited by Mus -- 1/3/2008 10:10:57 PM >

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 19

RE: TCP/IP - 1/3/2008 10:10:50 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

A second vote for TCP/IP as the next big update.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 20

RE: TCP/IP - 1/3/2008 10:35:14 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

I agree that the "next big update" should be TCP/IP play. If they can get that going correctly, we'll probably have no problem keeping 7-player games together.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 21

RE: TCP/IP - 1/4/2008 3:12:03 AM

Titi

Posts: 153
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Montr�al
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I wonder where this survey was conducted, and with what EiA players. The EiA players I know all don't understand how the designers could leave TCP/IP aside.

Hi Fabrice,

It was done on the forum a year ago. The posts were done mostly by :

1) old players of the table game that requested PBEM or an AI knowing the difficulty to find 6 skilled opponents.
2) new players that have never played the game and wanted an AI to learn it.

Nobody in the project at that time was wise enough to understand that a decent AI for a complex game like EiA would be impossible to write, either cause they knew EiA but nothing in computer code or they knew computer but nothing of EiA.

The worst is i feel that Matrix support this mistake in the hope of selling more copies.
They lost me on this game but that left me more time for WiF

with all the wonderful job you and others are doing on it.

As for TCP/IP we were only 2 or 3 to support it.
It's our curse as wargamers, as we are playing "old games", we need to play them the "old way", so no innovation.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 22

RE: TCP/IP - 1/4/2008 2:38:31 PM

LarkinVB

Posts: 1887
Joined: 10/9/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

I won't hold my breath for network code. It isn't that easy to do and most likely too much work for a patch.

(in reply to Titi)

Post #: 23

RE: TCP/IP - 1/4/2008 2:49:00 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

I won't hold my breath for network code. It isn't that easy to do and most likely too much work for a patch.

It's not easy but it is doable, and Matrix has plenty of experience making it happen with their games. After the first bug fix patch, I would expect the next major update would be the editor and other scenarios. After that, I could see TCP/IP becoming a priority for a patch.

(in reply to DodgyDave)

Post #: 24

RE: TCP/IP - 1/4/2008 3:15:33 PM

DodgyDave

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline

after the patch, they should put priority on TCP/IP or AI, because what will we do with other campaigns or editor, if no one wants the game, due to very slow pbem gaming or useless AI?

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 25

RE: TCP/IP - 1/4/2008 4:06:46 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Well, pbem shouldn't be any slower than playing via VASSAL or some other pbem program. The first patch should resolve a few minor issues with the pbem process and then it should be about as good as it can get. Until TCP/IP gets implemented, if at all, there's still hotseat for local playgroups to get together and use. Didn't they used to meet in person anyway to play the boardgame?? (Just kidding.)

I don't want to start another inane AI argument here, but my thought is that with a few modest improvements in the first patch or two the AI can become considerably better. It is after all functioning - declaring war, building units, maneuvering and fighting battles, etc. - but it's priorities are misplaced. As a novice, I found the AI to be OK for learning the game but after a few weeks now its weaknesses are annoying. However, a few adjustments to how the AI gets itself into wars/alliances and its ability to fight with stacked corps should help a lot.

Anyways, a few improvements should bump the AI up into the "OK" range (ie, not useless) and should be made in conjunction with the editor and other scenarios for the second patch. Those other scenarios will need to be developed first so further AI development and playtesting can best address the full spectrum of the grand campaign. Implementing TCP/IP and a more comprehensive update to the AI to bump it into the challenging range will both require significant time and effort. TCP/IP may be the better bet for priority here, since AI development will be a longer term effort.

(in reply to DodgyDave)

Post #: 26

RE: TCP/IP - 1/4/2008 5:35:46 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

I'm thinking "out loud" here:

I wonder if TCP/IP play can be crafted in by simply allowing a client/server kind of connection?

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 27

RE: TCP/IP - 1/4/2008 9:22:11 PM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LarkinVB

I won't hold my breath for network code. It isn't that easy to do and most likely too much work for a patch.

Yeah its real tough thats why 99% of all games have it.

If Matrix wants this game to be a bigger success they will make TCP/IP a priority. Heres an example conversation Ive had with several other gamers:

Me: Check this game out, looks promising, its a Napoleonic era turnbased wargame where each player controls one of the major powers of the era.

Them: Napoleonic?

Me: Yeah. Think Risk but a hundred times more complicated so you can get really into it.

Them: Wow this looks really cool maybe I will get it and we can play that with X, Y and Z

Me: Well I havent bought it yet because its only PBEM for now, not really sure why.

Them: Whats PBEM?

Me: Play by email. You make your moves and then send the files to your opponents and so on.

Them: LOL. Sounds really boring. Must take forever to play a game.

Me: Yeah...

< Message edited by Mus -- 1/4/2008 9:24:02 PM >

(in reply to LarkinVB)

Post #: 28