RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission

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 >> RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/6/2008 4:48:41 AM

delatbabel

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 31

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/6/2008 5:46:07 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

I agree with Del.

Matrix makes it hard for 2 reasons:

1. First, Matrix decided to call a duck a swan: they called this game Empires in Arms. This is going to confuse a lot of people into thinking that this is Empires in Arms (imagine that!! DUH!!), when in fact it's not.

2. The manual should be able to explain the differences but it's riddled with errors, so it's mostly useless. It also does a VERY POOR job of telling people HOW to play the game, which has been discussed ad nausem.

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 32

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/6/2008 1:09:26 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was not done simply because it would be xtremely difficult to implement in the current DB. This was a purposeful. We can certainly log this BUT it may be a while before we see this.

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for logging it. That's a great idea so that we can collect deviations.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to delatbabel)

Post #: 33

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/7/2008 7:20:21 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

I took an action to do this early on, but forgot about it. I'll do it sometime over the weekend (probably a chapter at a time).

_____________________________

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 delatbabel)

Post #: 34

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/7/2008 9:40:57 PM

gazfun

Posts: 1046
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Australia
Status: offline

Its would be a greta feature, as player are basically playing here in hindsight, and are attacking on Frances grab for minors after Napoleon one a lot of victories against the Austrians.
If it started in 1792, there would be more free states open, and make players do more diplomacy than what happens now

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 35

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/18/2008 4:13:31 AM

borner

Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

I have seen the Dominant status change several times, although mostly following an French or GB surrender with them loosing it. I have seen Spain gain this status - in a bargin with France to join, and actually obtained it myself as Russia. It was quite fun!

It does add much to the game, but I am unsure how much trouble it would be to add to the game, plus, given that the main focus still in on bug extermination, I am not sure it is even something that can be looked at currently

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 36

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/18/2008 3:18:44 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to borner)

Post #: 37

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 8/18/2008 6:52:38 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Understood, but I'd rather have it logged and then we can list it as a "rules deviation" so that people know there really is a difference. One of the big issues I have with EiANW is that there is no actual formal list of rules deviations between this and EiA. In the long term it would be nice to see it fixed but let's get the higher priority stuff done first.

I took an action to do this early on, but forgot about it. I'll do it sometime over the weekend (probably a chapter at a time).

I started this, but it's a lot more complicated than I thought it would be. Not because the rules are similar, but simply the gravity of the differences. It starts right in the table of contents. In order to match up the other rules, I have to re-number them all (actually, make the comparison routine realize that they are the same rule). This is proving non-trivial; I originally thought it would be easy.

_____________________________

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 Jimmer)

Post #: 38

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 11/10/2008 2:47:24 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Marshall:

Any updates on the feasibility of the alternate dominant powers come version 1.06 or so?

best
Mardonius

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 39

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 11/10/2008 4:00:10 PM

Murat

Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date.

With words like "problematic" "difficult" "complicated" being used to describe this, 1.06 being the next one out and a host of other more immediate bug fixes needed for the current versions as listed in other threads, what do you think? And that quote was on dominant powers.

< Message edited by Murat -- 11/10/2008 4:13:33 PM >

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 40

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 11/10/2008 4:05:37 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Just kicking the ball down the field, Murat. Also, if you read the previous posts closely, you'll notice that the words you are parsing out are referring to the Confederation of the Rhine/Holy Roman Empire surrender terms, not per se to the concept of Alternate Dominant Powers.

< Message edited by Mardonius -- 11/10/2008 4:09:04 PM >

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 41

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 11/10/2008 5:49:58 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date.

With words like "problematic" "difficult" "complicated" being used to describe this, 1.06 being the next one out and a host of other more immediate bug fixes needed for the current versions as listed in other threads, what do you think? And that quote was on dominant powers.

Not ready yet (Dominant status). Still alot ahead of me.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Murat)

Post #: 42

RE: Alternate Dominant Powers Omission - 11/10/2008 6:00:47 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

Thank you Marshall. I will check back in a couple of months.

Dear Murat:

My intention was/is to keep this conversation moving so we can keep this topic heading toward the front burner.

I am not, however, in the habit of accepting counterfactual jabs. You insinuated that my request for information was insipid with your "What do you think?"

Back on August 18th Marshall said that dominant powers would be " A little problematic" It is now November 10th.
I do not think that this time lag is unreasonable between inquiries. What do you think?

No where that I can see did I see Marshall write "complicated" or Difficult" in reference to Domiant powers which you directly averred that he did, in the context of insinuating that I was hasty or stupid. Morever, it is near two months since there was a word on this subject. Last time I checked we are now on official version 1.04.7. Enquiring about inclusions in 1.06 or thenabouts is not unreasonable.

I would implore you to remain civil.

Thank you,
Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Murat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
This might be a little problematic at first since the requirements are different for each MP and even then there are many things I would rather add first (Editor, tutorial, EiA classic scenario, IP play, etc.) so this is on the back burner for now BUT I would consider it at a later date.

With words like "problematic" "difficult" "complicated" being used to describe this, 1.06 being the next one out and a host of other more immediate bug fixes needed for the current versions as listed in other threads, what do you think? And that quote was on dominant powers.