RE: It's been said before but...

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: It's been said before but...

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: It's been said before but...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 2:57:02 AM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

Marshall...

I don't think you read my initial post...If everyone does reinforcement EXCEPT france, simultaneously, and sends it to france...

...then france loads the turns SEES ALL PLACEMENT....and then can decide when to move...this would maintain game balance...

we just have france do everyone's turn, in whatever order he/she gets it...then do france's turn...

the other phases...this wouldn't be necessary...

it just would really make the game better....too many games are lost to slow progress...people can die by the time the game gets finished! I would guess it would take an average of 2-3 years per game at the current system with 2 day turnaround...

I would agree with this. I would PREFER if GB were likewise singled out (see my previous post), but I can tolerate it in the name of getting the game played. As long as the concept doesn't get lost once TCP/IP comes around.

_____________________________

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 dodod)

Post #: 31

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 2:58:20 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

So what's wrong with dodod's brillant suggestion? Everyone sends their reinforcement to France at the same time, France (as the dominant land power) does her turn, then sends out the files to the other players.

I think most peolpe agree that naval reinforcement is not really an issue.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 32

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 3:02:49 AM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

So what's wrong with dodod's brillant suggestion? Everyone sends their reinforcement to France at the same time, France (as the dominant land power) does her turn, then sends out the files to the other players.

I think most peolpe agree that naval reinforcement is not really an issue.

I'm willing to accept that. However, to say naval is not an issue can only come from lack of experience. I'm playing GB now, and I look at the fleets and strengths of EVERY fleet on the map EVERY turn. This is how I've always played GB, and it has worked in the past to help a lot.

But, I agree it's an order of magnitude less important to the game than the French stuff is. Which is why I would accept it as a compromise.

_____________________________

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 Dancing Bear)

Post #: 33

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 3:19:10 AM

Soapy Frog

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

I don't even see why it is neccessary for France to have this special treatment. I'm sorry i just can't see how other countries' reinforcements are going to seriously affect France's 99% of the time; and the rest of the time it is France's leader placement that he desires to do last, which works just fine if the phase is simultaneous.

There is no need to pile on unnecessary complexity. Simultaneous for everyone is just fine.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 34

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 3:27:38 AM

Soapy Frog

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

And to add to that, most reinforcements will go into existing corps (invisibly) & garrisons, most countries cannot place more than 1 corps worth of reinforcements in any given turn. Russia is not going to place "a bunch of corps" in some sort of whacky surprise maneuver that the French player can't easily anticipate.

Mountain out of a molehill.

And Jimmer your analysis is way off. Reinforcements is just a small chunk of the logistical side of the game. The actual ORDER of reinforcements is an even smaller chunk of that... so you are just full of hot air IMHO.

The game could actually be workably made to have simultaneous Movement & Combat phases as well, however I would say that that is a much larger structural change than making simultaneous what is simultaneous 99% of the time in face to face games anyway.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 35

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 4:42:18 AM

pzgndr

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

With all due respect to the original board game rules of play, there are a lot of fog of war effects that could be emphasized in the computer version, if only as options if nothing else. It amazes me that the FOW option is not really FOW at all. Why should we have omnipotent intelligence for where all enemy corps and leaders are, where reinforcements arrive, etc.? In many games players designate where units are built at the time of purchase, and that's where they arrive months later. Having a simultaneous reinforcement phase provides considerable flexibility compare to those kinds of restrictions; players get to wait unit the arrival date for selecting where reinforcements arrive. To me, it's somewhat unrealistic and gamey to be allowed to wait and see where an opponent places reinforcements and then be able to place factors and leaders at a whim. I wouldn't mind eventually seeing simultaneous reinforcements and spotting ranges for enemy corps/leaders, etc. As an option. That's just me.

Regardless, why not just provide an option for simultaneous reinforcement? It could apply for both pbem and solo games. If and when TCP/IP is implemented, players can choose what they want. There's an obvious speed advantage for pbem games and a less obvious disadvantage regarding play balance. But no need to argue about game implementation if we can just have an option. Those who want the reinforcement sequence should have that ability. Question though. Like GB and France can select move order prior to their move phases, might it be possible to have simultaneous reinforcement selected as a default for a pbem game and then allow GB or France to request sequenced reinforcement during the diplomacy phase? This could be something the host could toggle on/off to keep the game moving quickly except during a few critical periods where some players may want the extra advantages associated with seeing where opponents place reinforcements. Just a thought.

Another comment about TCP/IP and PBEM. In the Strategic Command series, players do have the ability to switch back and forth. Games saved in one mode can have their files copied into the other mode's save directory and play resumed at that point. There may be issues associated with multiplayer files and it may not be so simple to have a single save game file to swap back and forth. There may be an extra step or two that the host may need to perform. But in principal it should be doable.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 36

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 4:44:40 AM

dodod

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline

it would seem that with the current coding, some country would likely have to load all the players turns anyway...so it could perhaps be set up that for each of the "simultaneous phases" the last player currently would load these and then the computer can do its calculations...

this would really really speed things up and make it more exciting.

In regards to GB...they go second after spain anyway...so not much benefit there in regards to turned decision as to when to go.

I really believe this would be an outstanding addition to the game...

(in reply to Soapy Frog)

Post #: 37

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 6:26:12 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

In regards to GB...they go second after spain anyway...

Right. They go second. After Spain. And before everybody else.

In the original game, they went last.

EIANW's design forfeited the naval reinforcement phase to speed up the game. During that change, they also moved GB to the front of the order (second, after Spain).

_____________________________

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 dodod)

Post #: 38

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 7:23:48 PM

dodod

Posts: 147
Joined: 12/26/2007
Status: offline

I think that's fine. we have to realize that this is not a board game and if there is improvement or requirements for making the game work, then sometimes it's worth it. I think loss of interest in a game will be more when it drags out, and just from the number of people that have posted here it is obvious that many others are sick of waiting forever to have their turn come up. If it turns out that there is such a disadvantage for a country with simultaneous moves, then an editor can compensate by giving more ships/troops etc to balance things out. The goal here should be to have a playable game, not a replica of the board game. Suggestions for options should always be welcome because while the board game was great, it doesn't mean it can't be improved.

ideas will make this better, and issues like real FOW is up for discussion. It makes sense to add these things as an option with some more programming...it just might make for a better game. And for those people that complain that france and england will lose out...well, you always have the option of picking another country...as it is, everyone wants to be france or england as they bid high for them....

an editor would allay everyone's fears...and allow for unique games. Playability, however is in every game and if a game takes too long to play, people won't play it.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 39

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 7:33:02 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dodod

I think that's fine.�we have to realize that this is not a board game and if there is improvement or requirements for making the game work, then sometimes it's worth it.� I think loss of interest in a game will be more when it drags out, and just from the number of people that have posted here it is obvious that many others are sick of waiting forever to have their turn come up.� If it turns out that there is such a disadvantage for a country with simultaneous moves, then an editor can compensate by giving more ships/troops etc to balance things out.� The goal here should be to have a playable game, not a replica of the board game. Suggestions for options should always be welcome because while the board game was great, it doesn't mean it can't be improved.

ideas will make this better, and issues like real FOW is up for discussion.� It makes sense to add these things as an option with some more programming...it just might make for a better game.� And for those people that complain that france and england will lose out...well, you always have the option of picking another country...as it is, everyone wants to be france or england as they bid high for them....

an editor would allay everyone's fears...and allow for unique games.� Playability, however is in every game and if a game takes too long to play, people won't play it.

You are missing the whole point of what I said: GB goes EARLY now. They went LAST in the board game, but now they go second. That's a big change, and there's no reason for it to have been changed.

_____________________________

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 dodod)

Post #: 40

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 8:46:04 PM

Soapy Frog

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

If it were simultaneous that would fix the problem there, Jimmer ;)

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 41

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 9:25:43 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

If it were simultaneous that would fix the problem there, Jimmer ;)

No. What it would do is cover up the problem. A fix would require GB going second-to-last in reinforcement (or, putting naval reinforcement back in).

_____________________________

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 Soapy Frog)

Post #: 42

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/24/2008 10:18:03 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

If it were simultaneous that would fix the problem there, Jimmer ;)

No. What it would do is cover up the problem. A fix would require GB going second-to-last in reinforcement (or, putting naval reinforcement back in).

Yes, put the naval reinf phase back in and make IP play, that will solve the problem.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 43

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/25/2008 12:27:37 AM

KenClark

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Naval reinforcement means "where do I place Nelson". Really, if you can't figure that out you deserve to wait one turn and do it the next. This is really a trivial game balance issue when GB already has a lot of advantages they never had before.

Making reinforcement simultaneous would hurt France and GB. OK. Not by much.

Making reinforcement simultaneous would speed up the PBEM game by about 33%. Yay!

I think I see a winner here.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 44

RE: It's been said before but... - 6/25/2008 1:24:52 AM

NeverMan

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

If this game was EiA I would be against simul reinf phase, but since it's some bastard hybrid of EiA and since the bastard hybrid gives more power and advantages to France and GB than did the classic EiA, I just don't see why this is a problem.

(in reply to KenClark)

Post #: 45