multiplayer games

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

multiplayer games

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 >> multiplayer games

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

multiplayer games - 8/3/2004 10:55:35 AM

rodo_benzo

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/23/2004
Status: offline

Sorry if I missed the point but apart PBEM, what about TCP/IP games ?
Are they going to be delivered immediately when the game will be released ?
If yes, how mny players maximum ? and what about stability during beta test ?

Thank you.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: multiplayer games - 8/3/2004 12:54:02 PM

eg0master

Posts: 161
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline

TCP/IP is planned for a latewr release - not the first release if I remember correctly.

_____________________________

24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.

(in reply to rodo_benzo)

Post #: 2

RE: multiplayer games - 8/3/2004 2:12:03 PM

rodo_benzo

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/23/2004
Status: offline

aaarrggh !!! too bad !
I really hope you are wrong :(

_____________________________

(in reply to eg0master)

Post #: 3

RE: multiplayer games - 8/3/2004 4:11:22 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Hey guys:

That is correct egOmaster! IP is in a later release. It should be a lot easier implementing IP than converting this monster of a game to the PC BUT the testing that we're doing right now prohibits us from doing a lot of dev work on new features.

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to rodo_benzo)

Post #: 4

RE: multiplayer games - 8/3/2004 5:34:40 PM

rodo_benzo

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/23/2004
Status: offline

Allright :(

but then 3 questions (as the game was initially annonced with tcp/ip feature)

1) is the patch with tcp/ip feature will be available for free ? (not like civilization III and their "unfamous" 'Play the world' extension pack they sold for the price of a full game in order to allow their 'clients' to play multiplayer games (civ III was originally announced to be multplayer tcp/ip ... :(

2) what could be the delay between the release of the vanilla version of EIA (end of august right ? :lol: ) and multipayer patch ? 3 months ? 6 ? more ? (hey, just asking a rough answer , very rough not committing hey :) )

3) question: how long is one standard game's turn duration ?? does it not prohibit tcp/ip games ?? (maybe it should have been my first question ... lol )

thank you :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 5

RE: multiplayer games - 8/3/2004 9:20:03 PM

NeverMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rodo_benzo
3) question: how long is one standard game's turn duration ?? does it not prohibit tcp/ip games ?? (maybe it should have been my first question ... lol )

I dont know about the PC game, but on the boardgame, after diplomacy was finished with, one could probably finish their turn (pre-combat) in a matter of 20-30 minutes or maybe sooner. This will make a TCP/IP game
difficult to get through but still make it faster than PBEM if the players have the time and patience to wait for each person.

When I played the boardgame, we usually dedicated one day a week (Saturdays from about 9/10 - 4/5) and could get through almost a whole year of peace (give or take an eco phase) or right around one eco phase (three months) if there was a significant land war happening. Yes, this game is VERY long and most people have never even played a whole game. I have played A LOT of EiA games and have only finished less than a handful of them.

I can certainly say, however, even if you don't finish the game, the time played is well worth it. I play for fun and to win, but if I don't finish it doesn't stop me from playing another game of EiA later down the road. Man, I love this game.

(in reply to rodo_benzo)

Post #: 6

RE: multiplayer games - 8/4/2004 3:36:50 AM

Titi

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

True, a player turn can be very long when a war is happening but it's only true if you're involved in it.

If you aren't you can make a lot of other things in the board game.
It's the perfect time to have a lot of fun and say a lot of jokes.

And in a TCP/IP game, you still have a connection to surf the web if needed with your multitask

system.

And for me TCP/IP is far better than PBEM with all the interactions than can occur during opponent phase : like sea interception, retreat in the city, depot destruction, insurrection corp appearance ...
The big problem with EiA was to find seven dedicated players in the same city, not really to find a free space in the calendar to have the meeting. So TCP/IP can solve the first part while allowing some form of normal "live" game.

So please give us the TCP/IP

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 7

RE: multiplayer games - 8/4/2004 3:44:30 PM

Marshall Ellis

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

Hey guys:

The only thing I can say is that we'll get to it as soon as we can! Sorry for the general answer but that's about all I can do now!

Thank you

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Titi)

Post #: 8

RE: multiplayer games - 8/4/2004 6:03:32 PM

shanebosky

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/23/2004
Status: offline

Neverman,

Players wouldn't have to wait for each other in an ip game if the turns were being played simultaneously, which could then be executed in turn (which would add an element of FOW). What do you think?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 9

RE: multiplayer games - 8/4/2004 6:49:26 PM

rodo_benzo

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/23/2004
Status: offline

but I think that simultaneous turns is a completely different technology and would require a completely different game engine no ? (except if EIA was designed with this aim from the begining ...)

_____________________________

(in reply to shanebosky)

Post #: 10

RE: multiplayer games - 8/4/2004 8:52:34 PM

shanebosky

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/23/2004
Status: offline

rodo,

The phases would be executed one after the other, but for smooth play each player could be working on his turn at the same time. Don't know what this would do to the code situation though.

(in reply to rodo_benzo)

Post #: 11

RE: multiplayer games - 8/4/2004 9:37:58 PM

NeverMan

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

Simultaneous play should really be reserved for a completely different game, not EiA.

EiA was not designed for simul play, therefore, I would think it a bad idea. It's not "Diplomacy", it's a much more complex game than that.

(in reply to shanebosky)

Post #: 12

RE: multiplayer games - 8/4/2004 11:28:05 PM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Simultaneous play should really be reserved for a completely different game, not EiA.

EiA was not designed for simul play, therefore, I would think it a bad idea. It's not "Diplomacy", it's a much more complex game than that.

Completely agree. This has been hashed out a number of times. One of the key structures of EiA is the player turns and the special abilities that France and GB have with regard to this.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 13

RE: multiplayer games - 8/5/2004 7:22:27 PM

Titi

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Simultaneous play should really be reserved for a completely different game, not EiA.

EiA was not designed for simul play, therefore, I would think it a bad idea. It's not "Diplomacy", it's a much more complex game than that.

Completely agree. This has been hashed out a number of times. One of the key structures of EiA is the player turns and the special abilities that France and GB have with regard to this.

I think you miss the point : working simultaneously to plot your moves is completly different than having simultaneous move.

When playing the board game and no war is happening or even a war where you don't want to be involved or where you can't (like enforced peace), the players of my groups were playing with simultaneous mouvement for those wanting. With the courtesy of declaring to other player any movement than can be tendancious with this aspect.
It's just a wat to pace up the game, and playing a 18 month period in a single evening.
By the same way, when you start and evening by a french declaration of war, it's common to see him move first and do his move in a number of seconds.

it's just planning, nothing to do with simultaneous move.

I think it won't be too much for marshall to program a screen where you can pre-plot your move, forage, garrison and depot use for your turn, but submitting it only when it's time and with the ability to change some part of it if the movement of another player require it.
You won't be forced to use it, just can if you want.

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 14

RE: multiplayer games - 8/6/2004 9:03:16 AM

John Umber

Posts: 110
Joined: 7/2/2003
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I think you are getting at "the general house rule".
Nothing happens, lets speed up things... three months of nothing, just buy your next set of troops.

The thought of a "preplanning" order is very good. This saves some time, but on the other hand will most people do this already in a pbem. I think most people plan several turns in advance. I never launched an invasion without figuring out my objectives from the start. Where do I wish the main battle to take place, will I attack or defend? Terrain has saved many hard austrians in the games I played. Those mountains can be a pain for the french, if used correctly!

Nice with a "plan screen" to move troops and etc.
I would feel like "le grand general"....

_____________________________

John Umber

(in reply to Titi)

Post #: 15