1.03.13 BETA summary

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1.03.13 BETA summary

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 >> 1.03.13 BETA summary

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 4:39:23 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Hey guys:

We should have our final candidate in the next few days since it looks like we are ready for primetime. I wanted to take a few minutes and outline a few things to look for:

1. Awaiting battle file from "X" messages in pbem games should be taken care of now. Now you guys will not have to send games to me for fixing and returning!

2. AI smarter! It still needs some work BUT you should see the AI using money smarter, moving smarter, making alliances better and DOW decisions better. We still need to improve this and will continue our efforts.

3. Crash fixes. There are 4 crash fixes in this BETA as well.

4. Can add / subtract money and pps in the PBEM admin menu.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

Post #: 1

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 5:48:38 PM

NeverMan

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

I personally don't think it's a good idea to have a built-in cheat method for the game host, but that's just me.

I mean the only reason this was asked for and needed is because the game wasn't working properly as it was. It should be up to the developer to correct this, not give a method of manipulation to the host, JMO.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 7/22/2008 5:49:33 PM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 2

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 5:50:51 PM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I personally don't think it's a good idea to have a built-in cheat method for the game host, but that's just me.

I mean the only reason this was asked for and needed is because the game wasn't working properly as it was. It should be up to the developer to correct this, not give a method of manipulation to the host, JMO.

As long as it leaves a very visible trail in the game log for all players to see it can only be a help as it allows the host to correct things where the players agree without the risk of unnoticed cheating.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 3

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 7:43:39 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I personally don't think it's a good idea to have a built-in cheat method for the game host, but that's just me.

I mean the only reason this was asked for and needed is because the game wasn't working properly as it was. It should be up to the developer to correct this, not give a method of manipulation to the host, JMO.

You don't like it then don't give the host GA capabilities. You have that option. The host can already play your turn with the AI, replace you or skip you. This was designed to give the host a little more flexibility if something goes wrong. This is also not an excuse to NOT fix something???

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 4

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 8:31:23 PM

NeverMan

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

Oh, I didn't see anywhere that this was going to be an option for each individual player, if that is the case then I think it will be fine. Also, I think I agree with Jan that there should be a paper trail of any and all changes/manipulations by the host.

I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 5

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 9:11:43 PM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Oh, I didn't see anywhere that this was going to be an option for each individual player, if that is the case then I think it will be fine. Also, I think I agree with Jan that there should be a paper trail of any and all changes/manipulations by the host.

I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

Neverman i think its mostly for the ongoing games who already encountered bugs, so that they could if they wanted fix pp $ to resolve bug old bugs who may be fixed for new games, instead of having to start over.

Like maybe your group wants to use the St. Petersburg captial enemy occupied cutting Russian income etc as it was in EIA ?

I welcome the editor, as long as all editing is shown in the gamelog, and maybe just limited to pps and $ for now, then host wont see other classified info...

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 6

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 10:46:04 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

All manipulations are logged and known to all.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 7

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/22/2008 10:48:06 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

I hear ya but if I implemented everything correctly then I'm sure the world would have ended on the next day :-) LOL!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 8

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 12:07:41 AM

gazfun

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

quote:

4. Can add / subtract money and pps in the PBEM admin menu

Sorry, but I disagree from the point of view with this proposed feature, that it will create the same situation that occurred with the old paper game.
People will winge and wine and argue about 1PP or 5 or so money points.
Even with bugs that are in the game, gamers can work around it, as if it is a rule in the game.
Its about playing the game, for what you can do or not do, not "If I winge enough for long enough Ill get my way anyway, to convince the GM to see it my way in the end"

This will leave it open to making decisions about small issues that I have seen of late in my view, and does not contribute to playability, and reducing it to a fewer nitch players only.
This will not in my view contribute to community based game.

< Message edited by gazfun -- 7/23/2008 12:11:41 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 9

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 1:12:00 AM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

I hear ya but if I implemented everything correctly then I'm sure the world would have ended on the next day :-) LOL!

That was a good one, I actually did LOL. hehe

Seriously though, I can see the usefulness of it to current games that have gone awry; however, for future games (when the vast majority of the game is implemented the way you want it to be) I can't see this feature doing anything good.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 10

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 7:59:28 AM

Adraeth

Posts: 400
Joined: 9/24/2007
From: Italy - near Florence
Status: offline

Glad to know that the AI is going to be "pimped"

_____________________________

www.histwar.fr/
---
Periods i like: age of muskets, napoleonics, modern combat.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 11

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 12:53:26 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

I hear ya but if I implemented everything correctly then I'm sure the world would have ended on the next day :-) LOL!

That was a good one, I actually did LOL. hehe

Seriously though, I can see the usefulness of it to current games that have gone awry; however, for future games (when the vast majority of the game is implemented the way you want it to be) I can't see this feature doing anything good.

I cannot argue with that. Good points indeed.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 12

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 5:07:18 PM

Jimmer

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun
Sorry, but I disagree from the point of view with this proposed feature, that it will create the same situation that occurred with the old paper game.
People will winge and wine and argue about 1PP or 5 or so money points.
Even with bugs that are in the game, gamers can work around it, as if it is a rule in the game.
Its about playing the game, for what you can do or not do, not "If I winge enough for long enough Ill get my way anyway, to convince the GM to see it my way in the end"

This will leave it open to making decisions about small issues that I have seen of late in my view, and does not contribute to playability, and reducing it to a fewer nitch players only.
This will not in my view contribute to community based game.

These are the things it would allow corrections for:

1) Docks the declaring power 2 PP for a multi-district minor DoW, but only gives 1 back when he conquers it?
2) Grants the navy heading out of a blockaded port wind guage, thus allowing victory in an battle he should not be able to win?
3) Forces a corps invading a port to forage when there is a depot available for invasion supply?
4) Prevents the corps in #3 from besieging the city, because it has already foraged (even though it did not use movement points)
5) Economic manipulation was tallied for a nation whose national capital was occupied, forcing him even further into instability (and, eventually, fiasco, since he couldn't turn it off until he had won his capital back). This DID give him a few troops, but since it took away most of his money, they weren't very useful.
6) etc.

All of the above (and more) occurred in ONE pbem game within the first two game years. The game editor is to be used to correct for bugs in the game, rules violations (by the computer), etc. It is absolutely essential until the game is perfect (in other words, forever).

_____________________________

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 gazfun)

Post #: 13

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 6:08:02 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun
Sorry, but I disagree from the point of view with this proposed feature, that it will create the same situation that occurred with the old paper game.
People will winge and wine and argue about 1PP or 5 or so money points.
Even with bugs that are in the game, gamers can work around it, as if it is a rule in the game.
Its about playing the game, for what you can do or not do, not "If I winge enough for long enough Ill get my way anyway, to convince the GM to see it my way in the end"

This will leave it open to making decisions about small issues that I have seen of late in my view, and does not contribute to playability, and reducing it to a fewer nitch players only.
This will not in my view contribute to community based game.

These are the things it would allow corrections for:

1) Docks the declaring power 2 PP for a multi-district minor DoW, but only gives 1 back when he conquers it?
2) Grants the navy heading out of a blockaded port wind guage, thus allowing victory in an battle he should not be able to win?
3) Forces a corps invading a port to forage when there is a depot available for invasion supply?
4) Prevents the corps in #3 from besieging the city, because it has already foraged (even though it did not use movement points)
5) Economic manipulation was tallied for a nation whose national capital was occupied, forcing him even further into instability (and, eventually, fiasco, since he couldn't turn it off until he had won his capital back). This DID give him a few troops, but since it took away most of his money, they weren't very useful.
6) etc.

All of the above (and more) occurred in ONE pbem game within the first two game years. The game editor is to be used to correct for bugs in the game, rules violations (by the computer), etc. It is absolutely essential until the game is perfect (in other words, forever).

1. Should be fixed within the game.
2. Should be fixed within the game.
3. Should be fixed within the game.
4. Should be fixed within the game.
5. Should be fixed within the game.
6. All future and current problems should be fixed within the game.

We are sitting on patch 1.02k and the game is really not "release" ready still, after 6 months. I just think that rather than spending time to make it so that the admin can correct for all the programs shortcomings, why not just fix the shortcomings?

The admin/host shouldn't have to constantly be checking and correcting the programs problems. I believe that should be the developer/distributor's job.

All the checking and correcting is going to add more time to the game, put off new players, etc. If you are going to do all this checking why not just use Cyberboard or Vassal?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 14

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 8:34:11 PM

eske

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

How about using this kind of in-game-adjustments for letting the host execute effects of house-rules.
It is not possible to make all houserules a pregame option.

So this can - with some effort of the host of course - change the PP's gained or lost during the game wether in battles, naval battles, DoW's or whatever. It can change unit cost, forced repatriations etc. ...

I can also imagine it used for giving players advantages (also called handicaps) for making more interesting games or for "fixing" a nation to make it more enjoying to play - and there is a lot of other uses I can't imagine.

All in all a very flexibel solution to an otherwise endless line of special requests.

- maybe a way to add VP's and aquired MP's comes next...

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 15

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/23/2008 9:00:43 PM

gazfun

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

Im inlined to agree with Neverman, the game, will be run by Committee, these errors should be fixed in game, human error will make some guy pay the price.

THe committee options in the game will run to, and you will be frightened to do anything in fear of, "gee what will the others think if I did this" type of scenario.
If run by committee the the French player will always be out voted, this is no way to run a wargame

_____________________________

(in reply to eske)

Post #: 16

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 12:49:55 AM

gwheelock

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

Since any "house rules" would have to be voted on before the game
starts (pre-bid); "France" would not be out-voted because anyone
could end up BEING France. (Would you vote to completely handicap
the position YOU might end up playing?)

After that; the only adjustments would be for programming problems
that clearly violated the written rules of the game.

No need to worry about the game being "run by Committee"
(probably of "Public Safety"

)

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 17

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 1:01:57 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

In the boardgame players can make adjustments any way they like (normally by popular vote), why not in the PC version as well. I think its a good feature to have.

(in reply to gwheelock)

Post #: 18

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 2:21:06 AM

gazfun

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: krak

In the boardgame players can make adjustments any way they like (normally by popular vote), why not in the PC version as well. I think its a good feature to have.

Not while the game is currently playing, it wont work.
as GWEELOCK say has to be voted in at start, and thats it, not while a game is going.

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 19

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 2:22:39 AM

gwheelock

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: krak

In the boardgame players can make adjustments any way they like (normally by popular vote), why not in the PC version as well. I think its a good feature to have.

I'm not saying that that is a bad idea; I'm just saying that these house rules
have to be set before the game starts (& not changed mid-game) so that
everyone knows what the effects will be & can adjust their country bids
accordingly.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 20

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 3:52:59 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Well our Gold Coast group like the idea. I hope it makes it as an option at least. That way if you don't like it don't use it. I like the idea of being able to remedy a problem if it arises. Rather than a game or player being upset because 'computer says no'

(in reply to gwheelock)

Post #: 21

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 4:06:46 AM

gazfun

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: krak

Well our Gold Coast group like the idea. I hope it makes it as an option at least. That way if you don't like it don't use it. I like the idea of being able to remedy a problem if it arises. Rather than a game or player being upset because 'computer says no'

This simplistic..........in reality its a lot differant than that

_____________________________

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 22

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 4:19:21 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

Well. i dont think all players just vote againt one.

Anyway, as far as i read Marshall cant fix all, like St. Petersburg occupied by enemy troops during eco-phase.
This editor would allow a game to adjust Russias $ and pp to actually apply the EIA-rule, and been in EIANW-rulebook from the start.

Otherwise Russia is completely safe from GB/SP and i doubt any games who started before this was reported, where aware of the rulechange.(1.Capital).

Some suggested moving the Capital there, but then its Turkey who looses his chance.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 23

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 7:25:19 AM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

If you dont like it then dont use. I fail to see why there is a need to complain about something like this. Obviously, it does not mean that bugs should not be fixed - but this allows groups who so desires to correct things until a real fix comes along. I say again - if you dont like it then dont use it and stipulate so when joining a game to avoid any risk of getting into an argument later on.

Several people have infact asked and asked again for something like this - so try to remember than noone can please everyone all the time.

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 24

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 8:36:09 AM

gazfun

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

Well I have an opinion like you and everyone else.
Im just trying to say, that using this CAN cause problems for PBEM players, while in a current game, even after all is agreed to before hand.

_____________________________

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 25

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 9:46:58 AM

eske

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

While I like as much flexibility as possible I recognize presence of such options opens up for discussions about rules and oppinions during a game.
And such discussions can of course cause the feeling that some players are trying to win the game that way, which easilly can stop the game right there.

But I believe if proper agreements are made up ahead of the game it won't happen. And I do hope players can be trusted to avoid such trouble, so this option can remain also after it no longer is needed for 'in-game bugfixing'.

Btw. would it be interesting to have a host, not playing the game ?

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to gazfun)

Post #: 26

RE: 1.03.13 BETA summary - 7/24/2008 4:23:58 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Didn't realize there were so many opinions LOL!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to eske)

Post #: 27