What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message


Ashtar -> What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (5/20/2008 3:38:43 PM)

First of all my thanks to Marshall and all his staff for the good work they have been doing.

Next, a list of what is still missing for good playability:

1. NAVAL RULES are still incomplete:

1.A - NAVAL EVASION:
You should be able to evade attacks at sea with 1-2 out of a 1-6 roll. This rule is still missing - this is very important since its lack seriously unbalance the game in British favors:

1.B - POLITICAL POINT LOSS/GAIN FOR FLEETS:
It should be 1/2 point per fleets and not one (due to smaller fleets in EIA w.r.t. EIA).

1.C NAVAL PURSUIT
Winning stack could chose to pursuit the losing stack and blockade the port where they have been retired.

1.D - BUG WHEN ATTACKING A FLEET IN BLOCKADE BOX:
The game treats attacks from a sea area to a fleet in a blockade box (without no other fleet being actually in the blockaded port) as if coming FROM the blockaded port). THIS IS A BUG.

1.E - BLOCKADE BOX LANDING:
Corps loaded on fleets in blockaded box can be unloaded on all land zones adjacent to the naval zone(s) containing the blockade box. In EIA, from a blockade box you can unload your corps only in the land area containing that port. THIS IS A BUG that was documented before, but I am not sure it has been fixed in 1.2j. Was it fixed?


2. POLITICAL POINT LOSS/GAIN FOR LOANED CORPS/FLEETS:
Was this rule finally included in 1.20j? There was a discussion thread, but I have seen no official comment on this.
If yes, how was it exactly implemented? And if not, IT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE IN 1.30


3. MISCELLANEA:

3.A - DARDANELLES CONTROL:
Trade, sea supply and fleets movement through the Dardanelles should be authorized by the power sitting in Constantinople

3.B - NEW POLITICAL COMBINATIONS:
The Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Westphalia could be welcomed additions (especially the former)

3.C - BRITISH TRAINING:
Portugal and Hannover, if British free state for more at least 24 consecutive months, should enjoy a morale boost of their infantry to 4.0

3.D - WINTER ZONE BUG:
Sardinia and Corsica should be in the Winter zone, but currently they are not.

3.E - TRIVIAL COMBAT: REINFORCING and GUARD COMMITMENT FOR SINGLE CORPS:
Currently, AI automatically runs lonely defending corps. You can give them pre-defined orders, and that is good. Unfortunately single corps will never ask for reinforcements if a friendly stack is near, neither they will commit their guard. This has created some NASTY consequences in my games, as the scuffling of the entire French fleet in Amsterdam due to the lack of reinforcements. Two simple ways out of this:
a) Let the defending player control a single corp is i) he could reinforce it or ii) It has some committable guard factors inside.
b) Let the AI control on defending single corps become an option, so that players can run all their combat if they want.

3.F - Sometimes (I think if fleets are present in the besieged port/blockade box) sieges take place during naval combat turn and not during the regular land combat turn. THIS IS A BUG.







Ashtar -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (5/20/2008 3:46:31 PM)

Second part for documentation:

NAVAL EVASION:
Why it is very important to have this rule:

A common British tactic to achieve Naval dominance is surprise attack: declare war on a potential future enemy with some of his fleet at sea, set your naval movement order to move before him and concentrate your entire fleet on a quick attack on his fleets. This is especially devastating against Spain - suppose he is tempted from joining France against GB - since you can move after France (thus using your fleet to keep the French one blockaded) and before Spain (thus attacking his ships with all your fleets). Next month, you simply switch your movement order to first and resume the blockade of the French fleet.
This way, with a single strike you can be sure to inflict heavy losses on your target (typically between 13 and 26 ships), while immediately recovering the pp's lost to declare War.

Naval evasion strongly limits this tactic, offering a 2 out of six chances for this surprise attack to fail. This way, you are not sure of recovering your lost pp's and you risk having to face a new enemy fleet at full strength. Without this rule, no fleet other then British will ever be safe outside a port, especially if within 7 sea zones from the Channel.

The original rule:
quote:

6.3.2 POSSIBLE EVASIONS: The major power upon which an attack is declared may attempt to evade unless the attack is caused by an interception or is in a port or blockade box. If the evasion is unsuccessful a combat will be fought. If the evasion is successful, the phasing player may not then attempt to attack any other stack remaining in the area.

6.3.2.1: Every time the phasing major power intends to attack a stack, the non-phasing stack may attempt naval evasion. This is done by the non-phasing stack's controlling player rolling a die. if a "1" or "2" is rolled, the non-phasing stack evades combat and is retreated according to the naval retreat after combat rules (see 6.3.5.1-treat the evading side as if it were the loser of a combat and the attacking side as if it were the winner).

6.3.2.2: There are no political points for a successful evasion.



NAVAL PURSUIT, EIA rule:
quote:

6.3.5 NAVAL RETREAT AND PURSUIT: The survivors of one side in a naval combat must retreat. Retreat moves are always made before pursuit moves and the retreat and pursuit moves of one naval combat must be made before the next naval combat is resolved.

6.3.5.1 SEA AREA RETREATS AND PURSUITS: The naval combat loser retreats all fleets that were in the combat to the one nearest unblockaded friendly (including an ally's port, with access permission and if the loser wishes to use it) port within seven movement points (losing player's choice if more than one possible port is equally close). Some, none or all of the victorious fleet(s) may pursue to follow the losing fleets and blockade that port.

6.3.5.1.1: If no eligible port is available, or at the loser's option, the loser retreats to any one adjacent sea area of the victor's choice (a sea area into which movement is not possible may not be selected). Retreating or pursuing fleets may not be intercepted. In this case there is no pursuit and the victor remains in the area where the combat occurred.

6.3.5.1.2: A fleet may neither retreat nor pursue into or through a sea area north of the ice line during winter or into or through the Dardenelles sea area without the permission of the major power controlling Constantinople (if any).

6.3.5.2 PORT RETREATS: If the naval combat takes place in a port, the attacking fleets (win or lose) must always retreat to the port's blockade box, and the defending fleets remain in the port (no pursuit).

6.3.5.3 BLOCKADE BOX RETREATS AND PURSUITS: If the naval combat takes place in a blockade box the loser must retreat to that port, if and only if, the combat resulted from the movement of the loser's stack from that port, and in any other case must retreat in accordance with sea area retreat rules (see 6.3.5.1). Pursuit is the same as a sea area pursuit. EXCEPTION: Since movement between a blockade box and its port is free (see 6.2.1.2), the victor (even if the phasing side with all movement expended) in a blockade box naval combat may be, if the port is friendly or with access permission, moved into the port following the naval combat.

6.3.5.4 NAVAL RETREAT AND PURSUIT EXAMPLE:
Continuing the example from 6.3.3.4; as the French Player lost (8 ships lost to 6) he must retreat to the nearest unblockaded friendly- controlled port within seven movement points or be moved by the British to an adjacent sea area. Great Britain gains "4" political points for the win (including "+1" extra for NELSON), and France loses "3" political points because the loser had 3 fleets. France decides to retreat to a nearby home nation port and Great Britain decides to follow up and blockade that port.


and finally, BRITISH TRAINING (an optional rule, to be true):
quote:

12.3.2 BRITISH TRAINING: Great Britain proved quite adept at turning certain minor country troops into first-class soldiers, notably the Portuguese and Hanoverian (the "King's German Legion" or "KGL") troops that they trained. Under this option, after 24 continuous months as a British-controlled minor free state, the morale of the army factors in the Hanover or Portugal corps is considered to be "4.0" for both infantry and cavalry in those corps. Garrison infantry factors of these nationalities retain their usual ("2.0") morale.





StCyr -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/8/2008 11:29:33 AM)

Don´t worry Ashtar, I am sure Marshal will have a look on this after he managed to understand the supply rules, give him some time please.




Marshall Ellis -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/8/2008 2:47:22 PM)

All of these are things that I will look at. The key will be the priority that we place on them. The naval pursuit is something that I realize we need to look at perhaps a little sooner. Now, I am wirking on the AI and will be here in the area for at least version 1.03.







Ashtar -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/9/2008 6:35:19 PM)

quote:

All of these are things that I will look at. The key will be the priority that we place on them. The naval pursuit is something that I realize we need to look at perhaps a little sooner. Now, I am wirking on the AI and will be here in the area for at least version 1.03.


Thanks Marshall, I am sure this thing will finally turn out a true jewel.

And for what regards priority, yes, I think the Naval rules (Evasion, pursuit, political points and blockade boxes combat) should be on top for what regards rules issues. Right now I am playing GB in a pbem with 6 others experienced players and I feel I have too much of an easy life...




Froonp -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/10/2008 7:23:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

quote:

All of these are things that I will look at. The key will be the priority that we place on them. The naval pursuit is something that I realize we need to look at perhaps a little sooner. Now, I am wirking on the AI and will be here in the area for at least version 1.03.


Thanks Marshall, I am sure this thing will finally turn out a true jewel.

And for what regards priority, yes, I think the Naval rules (Evasion, pursuit, political points and blockade boxes combat) should be on top for what regards rules issues. Right now I am playing GB in a pbem with 6 others experienced players and I feel I have too much of an easy life...

Give us TCP / IP play too.




bresh -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/10/2008 4:05:42 PM)

When talking naval additons..
I would prefer adding primary retreat port. Or something like that.

I dont see why its random, its not like it was in EIA. 
The defender could chose a port within its reach.

Regards
Bresh




LeBaron -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/12/2008 5:41:54 PM)

Good points, I agree.

Perhaps also alternate major powers ?




NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/12/2008 6:42:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LeBaron

Good points, I agree.

Perhaps also alternate major powers ?


Not sure what you mean. Do you mean Alternate Dominant Power rules or do you mean adding additional MPs to the game?

If you mean adding additional MPs to the game then that should be done through the editor, IMO.




KenClark -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/12/2008 8:45:48 PM)

Hey Patrice, nice WiF counter you have there :-).

I'd just like to be able to play PBEM with some stability and have some of the basic rules implemented than have a less-stupid AI, personally.

Of course, ideally the game would support online play too, but given the time zone differences that we play with already (we have players in the UK and Canada in my group) I can live with pbem.




Froonp -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/13/2008 7:47:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

Hey Patrice, nice WiF counter you have there :-).

Yes, a MWiF counter indeed [:D]

quote:

I'd just like to be able to play PBEM with some stability and have some of the basic rules implemented than have a less-stupid AI, personally.

Of course, ideally the game would support online play too, but given the time zone differences that we play with already (we have players in the UK and Canada in my group) I can live with pbem.

France is one timezone only for example, and there are a whole lot of EiA players in France who feel that PBEM just sucks, that it is simply too slow, and who would like to pay for direct TCP/IP. Frankly I believe the dev team is just too narrowminded with this so called USA multiple time zone problem. People used to gather in a single house for playing the EiA boardgame in the past (and today too) so how you could think that they could not gather around TCP/IP play is beyond me. This said, if selling half what can be sold is enough for them, then keep on avoiding TCP/IP, this is a good way of efficiently halving the sells. [&:]




Marshall Ellis -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/13/2008 2:07:21 PM)

Ouch!

As a member of the narrowminded dev team (Premiere member in fact) :-), I must state for the record that I'm not opposed to adding this functionality! This is just simply further out at this point because frankly there are only a few people on the boards who are asking for it. I will have to add this eventually in the engine not just for EiANW but for future games.




KenClark -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/13/2008 4:34:31 PM)

Oh don't get me wrong, TCP/IP play as if you were actually in front of a virutal board would be ideal, and all my EiA friends (and myself) were mystified as to why it wasn't implemented.  This would allow for proper combined movement, for example.  I would drop PBEM in a second if we could do TCP/IP.  I think all gamers expect TCP/IP implementations in modern games, nowadays, but given the long design history of this game I can see why it wasn't a top priority when it began.

That being said, my current PBEM group is located in six different cities (3 in Ontario, Canada, 2 in Montreal, 1 in the UK) and a TCP/IP game involving North America and the UK is not practical, so PBEM is a useful option.




Froonp -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/13/2008 4:50:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Ouch!

As a member of the narrowminded dev team (Premiere member in fact) :-), I must state for the record that I'm not opposed to adding this functionality! This is just simply further out at this point because frankly there are only a few people on the boards who are asking for it. I will have to add this eventually in the engine not just for EiANW but for future games.

Sorry for the "narrowminded", but I just can't understand how a game like EiA can be transformed into a computer game without the TCP/IP feature. I sincerely hope it will be the case sometime soon. I have friends who bought it and play PBEM and are severely disappointed because it takes years to complete a turn. Gathering people for 3-4 hours in a row is what you do in face to face game, so you can do it with TCP/IP too. With PBEM, people come & go permanently, and you only wait for hours to play 10 mn.




KenClark -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/13/2008 6:01:04 PM)

That being said Patrice, if you forced your PBEM people to sit at their computers for 3-4 hours at a time you could motor through a lot of turns just using the PBEM interface.




bresh -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/13/2008 6:47:54 PM)

Game really needs better "naval retreats".
Just now in one pbm game im playing Turkey, GB attacked and forced the remainders of the Turkish fleet to retreat.
Naval battle happened in area727, outside Tunis.
Access was just given by the french.
Tunis port was Turkish occupied with garrison, but minor not conq.
Tripoli was garrisoned and Tripolitania was Turkish conq 2 move points away.
Genoa was Fr conq, and garrisoned 3 move points away.

Game retreated the turkish fleet to Toulon??? Which was also 3 move points away ungarrisoned.
Thats just plain stupid !

Eighter it should go for best habor defense in garrisoned own city/or allied, within 7 move points it is able to enter. 
Or you should be able to set a priority retreats.

Regards
Bresh




NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/13/2008 8:16:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

That being said Patrice, if you forced your PBEM people to sit at their computers for 3-4 hours at a time you could motor through a lot of turns just using the PBEM interface.


BINGO! PBEM with everyone at their emails is ALMOST as fast as IP play, not quite, but it's pretty close. Just tell these "disappointed" people to sit at the comp for a few hours to play. Apparently, they can't do that so how do you expect them to sit for IP play??




gazfun -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 6:09:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

That being said Patrice, if you forced your PBEM people to sit at their computers for 3-4 hours at a time you could motor through a lot of turns just using the PBEM interface.


BINGO! PBEM with everyone at their emails is ALMOST as fast as IP play, not quite, but it's pretty close. Just tell these "disappointed" people to sit at the comp for a few hours to play. Apparently, they can't do that so how do you expect them to sit for IP play??

I agree, with Neverman, it doesnt take much to get a feww people organised for a few hours in a similiar time zone with PBEM.
But it was the first best option to start with between the two modes, that was agreed to.




Froonp -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 12:48:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenClark

That being said Patrice, if you forced your PBEM people to sit at their computers for 3-4 hours at a time you could motor through a lot of turns just using the PBEM interface.


BINGO! PBEM with everyone at their emails is ALMOST as fast as IP play, not quite, but it's pretty close. Just tell these "disappointed" people to sit at the comp for a few hours to play. Apparently, they can't do that so how do you expect them to sit for IP play??

It's not that they can't, but there is a difference between both. PBEM means waiting tens and tens of minutes without any single thing happening in the game and then playing 3 minutes, and then wait wait wait, and TCP/IP means that you see the actual moves right when they're done, everything is live.
Playing EiA using Vassal seems more appropriate than playing Matrix EiA.




pzgndr -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 3:45:26 PM)

quote:

Playing EiA using Vassal seems more appropriate than playing Matrix EiA.


Then use VASSAL if all you want is basic pbem without all the other features that a computer adaptation version provides.

But if you want a computer game version, it is important to support the ongoing bug fixes and AI improvements first. There are some PBEM improvements planned and then TCP/IP will eventually get implemented. Be patient.

quote:

People used to gather in a single house for playing the EiA boardgame in the past (and today too)


Play hotseat.




Froonp -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 4:03:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Then use VASSAL if all you want is basic pbem without all the other features that a computer adaptation version provides.

You are confusing Vassal with Cyberboard. Vassal allows for direct live TCP/IP play. Your opponent moves a counter ==> You see it moved on your end immediately.




Froonp -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 4:04:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
But if you want a computer game version, it is important to support the ongoing bug fixes and AI improvements first. There are some PBEM improvements planned and then TCP/IP will eventually get implemented. Be patient.

I was under the impression that TCP/IP would never be considered for this game. Do you think I am wrong ?




pzgndr -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 4:08:19 PM)

quote:

I was under the impression that TCP/IP would never be considered for this game. Do you think I am wrong ?


You ARE wrong. Game enhancement to add TCP/IP play is ID #91 on the current bug tracking list. Now, take a number and wait your turn.




Froonp -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 4:12:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

I was under the impression that TCP/IP would never be considered for this game. Do you think I am wrong ?


You ARE wrong. Game enhancement to add TCP/IP play is ID #91 on the current bug tracking list. Now, take a number and wait your turn.

I am glad I'm wrong.
[:D]




Soapy Frog -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/14/2008 11:07:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Play hotseat.

Oh god can you imagine playing EiANW hotseat when you could just break out the actual boardgame? Never in a thousand years.




delatbabel -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/15/2008 5:10:00 AM)

If you have an idea for a future patch / enhancement, you can add that to the bug tracker.

The brand new bug tracker is here: http://eiamantis.babel.com.au/

If you have an interest in one of the existing bugs / enhancements then you can make comment on that in the bug tracker, and asked for the priority to be raised (be aware that v 1.03 is primarily aimed at improving the AI, things like TCP/IP play may be considered for future releases but probably won't be in 1.03). If enough people claim that a fix should be higher priority then we'll look at raising it.




delatbabel -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/15/2008 5:11:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Oh god can you imagine playing EiANW hotseat when you could just break out the actual boardgame? Never in a thousand years.



Yeah, the hotseat game looks after all of those boring numbers for you and allows you to concentrate on strategy.

It also allows you to have, say, 2-6 players and the rest controlled by the AI, and not have to worry about UMP rules.




Ashtar -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/15/2008 3:14:27 PM)

Sorry, just found out a simple solution to implement naval evasion without altering the current DB structure.
Can we get it in 1.03 Marshall? I think it will greately improve balance in naval rules.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1786656

thanks




NeverMan -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/15/2008 4:02:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Oh god can you imagine playing EiANW hotseat when you could just break out the actual boardgame? Never in a thousand years.



Yeah, the hotseat game looks after all of those boring numbers for you and allows you to concentrate on strategy.

It also allows you to have, say, 2-6 players and the rest controlled by the AI, and not have to worry about UMP rules.


It also forces you to use crappy EiH rules and adds MANY bugs into your game that would otherwise NOT be there (EDIT: AND it takes away a TON of very critical EiA rules), sorry delatbabel, but I don't see how ANYONE can defend hotseat. Why was it implemented? I dont' know. Why was this time not better spent on fixing bugs or IP PLAY???? I don't know. For some reason or another, Matrix decided to make EiANW less robust than EiA, which is fairly counter-intuitive since EiANW is a COMPUTER game.

Matrix has made a TON of bad design decisions when it comes to this game, but I am hopeful that some will get fixed. Hotseat; however, can go the way of the dinosaurs.




Soapy Frog -> RE: What is still missing in the game - future patches priorities (6/15/2008 7:10:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
Yeah, the hotseat game looks after all of those boring numbers for you and allows you to concentrate on strategy.

It also allows you to have, say, 2-6 players and the rest controlled by the AI, and not have to worry about UMP rules.

Good one. AI... wow... thanks I'd rather use UMP rules. Hey AI is tough to program no doubt about it, however its definitely not a selling point. As for all the rest the board game is way better if you have any number of players face to face because, as Neverman said, you aren't forced to use this whacky half-assed EiH conversion. Who thought using EiH as a basis was a good idea anyway? Almost NO EiA groups ever actually used it. Heck, I played an FTF game with the creator of EiH and even HE didn't want to use his own rules.

Seriously if you can get any number of players face to face, play the actual board game.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375