Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What about 1.04

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> What about 1.04 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What about 1.04 - 7/30/2008 6:53:48 PM   
bOrIuM

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 2/13/2006
Status: offline
Hey, now that 1.03 is almost done, what can we expect for 1.04, except the normal fixing of bugs ? We already have talked about that, but its was just suggestions from players. If I can do a list, I think that improvements in the PBEM is the most important thing to do now. The AI was tweaked so stand alone user can play at the game without winning the game in 1807 and that the most fun part of the game is to play PBEM versus other players. And we already talked about Diplo and Econo phases to be played at the same time.

What can we expect about 1.04 ?
Post #: 1
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/30/2008 11:57:03 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
Well, these are your opinions.  I personally do not believe the PBEM is more fun.  I find it too slow to truly enjoy.  So for more, playing against the AI is much more fun.  UNfortunately the AI is not there yet for putting up a decent fight.  Many of the dumbd deicions have been reduced, but Now training the AI on how to think, when to attack, when to defend and how to defend are all natural next steps.  If it was up to me, not one second would be spent on any PBEM.  I understand this is my opinion though.  But for 1.04, I'd like to see AI improvements that show the computer thinking when it defends (not just building a big stack), that shows France being the aggressive beast it should be, and that shows GB wisely using it's fleets and high moral to gobble costal minors, assist lesser MPs in the battle against France, and so on.  I think the big thing for 1.04, if he can get it ready in time, will be the ability to play the traditional EiA rules instead of EiANW.  We shall see what he cooks up though.

(in reply to bOrIuM)
Post #: 2
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 12:13:40 AM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1716
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Ray,

Would you feel differently if PBEM was more streamlined? What if Internet play was available? Would you still be all about the AI then?

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 3
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 2:55:30 AM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Why do people enjoy playing EIANW against an incapable computer program -- th AI - when human players are FAR superior...
Lets face it...no matter how much time Marshall spends 'programming' the AI to _seem_ smarter, a human player is always going to beat the AI every time. DULL   

Six Humans, on the other hand, were always the opponent in the orginial EIA, and PBEM is the avenue to recreating that, and the challenge and enjoyment it represents.

Diplomacy with the "AI" just cannot happen.....Negotiation with the "AI" is non-existant.......Deal making -- Forget it........Dirty tricks, back stabs, lying from an AI   Not happening EVER

As NeverMan alludes to, time spent on improving PBEM play or including TCP/IP play lets these things possible and happen beter then any supposed AI will or would ever offer....

IMHO, if you want to play against a computer, there are better games then EIANW....

If you want to play Empires in Arms, against other humans, EIANW is the easiest way for that to happen.....

Lobbying for PBEM improvements in EIANW v1.04  and beyond....

AresMars

[Edited: Corrected some typos...there are more, but I have yet to find all the bugs...]

< Message edited by AresMars -- 7/31/2008 2:59:06 AM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 4
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 3:24:39 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
I have been vocal that either AI or IP play are where time should be spent. My problem with PBEM is that its simply too slow. EiA by it's nature is a slow game to start with. I remember games in high school where, even when we got together for 3-4 hours 1 day a week, there would still be weeks where I did virtually nothing. Just 1 day of that old F2F gameplay can take potentially 1-2 months in a PBEM game. And heaven forbid somthing should happen that someone quits halfway through, or someone makes a dumb decision that almost dictates how the game will play out. With IP play, and the right group of committed guys, and the right implementation, I think you can re-create that feeling of being in a room with 4-6 other guys. PBEM is simply way to slow and boring for my tastes.

And to Ares, I agree that programming AI is not easy. But to say it is impossible for a computer to play this game competently is absurd. I do not claim it would be easy. I do not claim it wouldn't be time consuming. I also understand you are coming from the bias that you want to see PBEM improvements. However, the AI could be made much more intelligent. There are many other games out there, such as RTS games, that have very capable AI. Try the new Civilization Revolutions game on xBox 360. I don't claim it is anywhere nearly as intricate as this game, but if yuo play that game on hard, it is TOUGH. The AI thinks thigns through. Knows what to build. Knows when you appear weak. It knows how to probe for weaknesses, and then sensing weakness with send forces en mass. AI can be as smart as you want it to be. It just takes time and ingenuity.

With all that say, Neverman I would be very open to IP play. In fact I think thats whre resources should be spent. Not only that, I think multiple threads should be going so that Matrix can start compiling lists for interface idea, gameplay tweaks, or any other suggestions the players on these forums could offer for how the IP version should play. Sadly, for me anyway, the only good I see on the horizon is the return of the original EiA rules. Everything else indicates that Matrix is committed to the PBEM for the time being...something that will certainly make you happy.
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray,

Would you feel differently if PBEM was more streamlined? What if Internet play was available? Would you still be all about the AI then?



< Message edited by RayKinStL -- 7/31/2008 3:27:37 PM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 5
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 4:48:17 PM   
NeverMan

 

Posts: 1716
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline
Ray,

1. I've been a proponent of Internet play for ~ 4 years now. So that would make me "happy" (as you say).
2. You didn't answer my question: If PBEM was more streamlined, would that interest you? For example, if eco and dip phases were simultaneous. Something like that. The game would no longer be as slow.
3. Since you haven't played in a PBEM game I'm curious as to how you know it's "slow". I am currently in 3, and your right, 2 of them are very slow; HOWEVER, one of them is VERY FAST. I actually believe that at times we get through more play than you would if you sat down once a week for Internet play for 5 hours. My point is that it all depends on the players. In those 2 games the turnarounds are very slow (48 hours) and people really take their time. In those 2 games, yes I absolutely agree with you that the game is too slow and is quickly losing my interest, but I'm still playing and it's not the end all be all of my existance, so it's there. In my 1 game, people are super committed to playing a fast game and we have covered over a year in ~2 months real time. Maybe we all work at computer workstations, I don't know, but it's really going fast, which is great.

If the PBEM was streamlined even more than these PBEM games would really go fast if you have a group of dedicated players (which, I admit, is apparently hard to find).

(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 6
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 4:51:31 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I'm working on 1.04 as we speak and a few things to note:

1. We will spend more time on AI improvements.
2. Standard fixes.
3. ???

I am investigating PBEM streamlining and it will be rather large. The engine's turn resolution is totally sequential which means loading France's reinforcement before Russia's is illegal and will not work. It will also negate the auto catchup feature I installed in 1.02. I have also discovered that setting any phase where a unit may be created (garrison) to simulataneous execution will cause huge problems since units have unique ids. These ids will not be duplicated in the current sequential execution method since only one nation could create a a unit at a time. In simulataneous execution there could be duplicated ids for separate units. So what does this mean?

Reinforcement phase cannot be simulatenous PERIOD. (It probably shouldn't be anyway).
Land and Land combat phases cannot be simultaneous PERIOD. Garrisons could be created in each case.

Anyway, this is just an update on PBEM streamlining which I am still looking at. Will keep you posted.











_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to RayKinStL)
Post #: 7
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 5:18:21 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Ray, I like to think that I respect everyones Point of View - yours included. I hope you understand my POV also.

I love EIA and I really dont feel that a computer can play EIA, or EIANW as well as a human can....period.

Programs are limited by their programming....humans are capable of MUCH more....and make better mistakes! 

PBEM _IS_ slow, and I can see how players find "versus AI" preferred - I am just not one of those people.

My comment "Lobbying for PBEM improvements in EIANW v1.04  and beyond.... " was a bit sarcastic, however, I still prefer playing games against people.....(i STILL spend hours playing other games against a computer when my girlfriends lets me....the downside of getting older and having responsibilies)

BTW, for the record, I still play against the AI and find marked improvements myself.  WELL DONE!

I am not even sure I am in favor of PBEM streamlining, as I enjoyed the set-by-step process of the EIA rules.  It is very cool that Marshall is still looking at what MIGHT be possible.


(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 8
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 5:38:15 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars
Programs are limited by their programming....humans are capable of MUCH more....and make better mistakes! 



That's the best explanation of why the AI will never reach the quality of a human player that I've heard LOL! Maybe I've been working to hard to make it good as opposed to humanly flawed? :-)




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 9
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 5:38:45 PM   
gwheelock

 

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

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I'm working on 1.04 as we speak and a few things to note:

1. We will spend more time on AI improvements.
2. Standard fixes.
3. ???

I am investigating PBEM streamlining and it will be rather large. The engine's turn resolution is totally sequential which means loading France's reinforcement before Russia's is illegal and will not work. It will also negate the auto catchup feature I installed in 1.02. I have also discovered that setting any phase where a unit may be created (garrison) to simulataneous execution will cause huge problems since units have unique ids. These ids will not be duplicated in the current sequential execution method since only one nation could create a a unit at a time. In simulataneous execution there could be duplicated ids for separate units. So what does this mean?

Reinforcement phase cannot be simulatenous PERIOD. (It probably shouldn't be anyway).
Land and Land combat phases cannot be simultaneous PERIOD. Garrisons could be created in each case.

Anyway, this is just an update on PBEM streamlining which I am still looking at. Will keep you posted.





Technical suggestion for unit ids

Marshall - it sounds like you are using an "IDINT" (this is what M$ SQL SERVER would call it) - a unique integer
number for each unit. Is this correct? If so; how hard would it be to switch your id to GUIDs. GUIDs can be
geneated asyncronously & are still unique. They take up slightly more tablespace than IDINTs; but you
already seem to have large amounts of empty space in your data tables (judging by the compression
you get from zipping) so this doesn't sound like a problem.


The other option would be to partition your id space : France gets ids 1-1000000, Britain gets 1000001 - 2000000, etc.
and you don't just allocate the next number; you allocate the next number belonging to the creating player.

Just a couple of ideas.
Guy





< Message edited by gwheelock -- 7/31/2008 5:39:55 PM >

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 10
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 5:55:49 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Guy:

Appreciate the ideas. I have never played with GUIDs but I always heard that you are not guaranteed a unique ID across different machines or am I wrong? I have thought about the number segregation scheme and this may be possible and even easier although it would require some renumbering functions of all exisiting units (conversion of older games).

Thanks for the help!



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 11
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 6:57:28 PM   
RayKinStL

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 7/4/2008
Status: offline
I have never played in a PBEM game and I will tell you why. I am currently OBSERVING a few through various internet groups, and while I find it entertaining, the joy in watching those is that when the updates come, they come, and I don't care. I remember when I played EiA in high school. Some weeks just couldn't get by quick enough for that fix. When I had big ideas in my head, I couldn't wait to get back to the board. While watching those games is slightly entertaining, there is no way I'd be havnig fun as one of the players. They are just painfully slow. It sounds like you got lucky and found a really good PBEM game, but I think that is an exception rather than the rule.

I won't lie. Even IP play scares me. Even if you get a group of guys who committ to playing every Sunday (as an example) from 5-10, it only takes one guy each week to derail things. I'd hate to be knee deep in a good game and then start getting in scenarios where every week it seems like someone is having something come up. One of the things I'd love to see for IP play is the ability for EiA to not have to be "full screen" to run. That way a group could use AIM for diplomacy (as well as their chat room feature for general discussion/BSing while someone is moving). This would allow Marshall to not even have to bother with creating a chat feature. He could then just focus his efforts on allowing someone to host, and having everyone's moves sent to the host, which would then spit them back out to other clients attached to the game. In all honesty, and I am no game programmer, I would think that it shouldnt be THAT hard to make IP play, if you just count on someone else like AIM, Yahoo, or MSN to handle all the chat functions. Simply focus efforts on moving gameplay between connected IP addresses, and allow someone as host to perform all the send and receives, and it should be relatively doable. The only change to the game interface would be in allowing the game window to be minimized, maximized, and resized like a regular Windows pop up box.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Ray,

1. I've been a proponent of Internet play for ~ 4 years now. So that would make me "happy" (as you say).
2. You didn't answer my question: If PBEM was more streamlined, would that interest you? For example, if eco and dip phases were simultaneous. Something like that. The game would no longer be as slow.
3. Since you haven't played in a PBEM game I'm curious as to how you know it's "slow". I am currently in 3, and your right, 2 of them are very slow; HOWEVER, one of them is VERY FAST. I actually believe that at times we get through more play than you would if you sat down once a week for Internet play for 5 hours. My point is that it all depends on the players. In those 2 games the turnarounds are very slow (48 hours) and people really take their time. In those 2 games, yes I absolutely agree with you that the game is too slow and is quickly losing my interest, but I'm still playing and it's not the end all be all of my existance, so it's there. In my 1 game, people are super committed to playing a fast game and we have covered over a year in ~2 months real time. Maybe we all work at computer workstations, I don't know, but it's really going fast, which is great.

If the PBEM was streamlined even more than these PBEM games would really go fast if you have a group of dedicated players (which, I admit, is apparently hard to find).



< Message edited by RayKinStL -- 7/31/2008 7:01:26 PM >

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 12
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 7:56:05 PM   
gwheelock

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Guy:

Appreciate the ideas. I have never played with GUIDs but I always heard that you are not guaranteed a unique ID across different machines or am I wrong? I have thought about the number segregation scheme and this may be possible and even easier although it would require some renumbering functions of all exisiting units (conversion of older games).

Thanks for the help!




They are not completely guaranteed unique, no; but the possible number is quite large. Guids are what windows itself runs off of (just take a look in the registry & you'll find TONS of them)

(If you generate 1 billion GUIDs every second for the next 100 years, the probability of creating just one duplicate would be about 50%. If EIANW gets to the point where
this is a problem; you can just buy M$ itself & change things )

Creating ID blocks would probably be easier; however. I suspect that you wouldn't
acatually have to "convert" older games. Just start id blocks HIGHER
than the highest possible existing unit & then assign NEW units in those blocks
as they are created. Existing units continue to use their old (low number) values
as long as they exist. As long as you don't use algorithms (other than unit CREATION
ones) that EXPECT units to be in certain number ranges; you should be ok.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 13
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 8:06:57 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Guy:

Appreciate the ideas. I have never played with GUIDs but I always heard that you are not guaranteed a unique ID across different machines or am I wrong? I have thought about the number segregation scheme and this may be possible and even easier although it would require some renumbering functions of all exisiting units (conversion of older games).

Thanks for the help!




They are not completely guaranteed unique, no; but the possible number is quite large. Guids are what windows itself runs off of (just take a look in the registry & you'll find TONS of them)

(If you generate 1 billion GUIDs every second for the next 100 years, the probability of creating just one duplicate would be about 50%. If EIANW gets to the point where
this is a problem; you can just buy M$ itself & change things )

Creating ID blocks would probably be easier; however. I suspect that you wouldn't
acatually have to "convert" older games. Just start id blocks HIGHER
than the highest possible existing unit & then assign NEW units in those blocks
as they are created. Existing units continue to use their old (low number) values
as long as they exist. As long as you don't use algorithms (other than unit CREATION
ones) that EXPECT units to be in certain number ranges; you should be ok.



Very good point. Only newly created units would have to comply to their range. Got any free time (8-9 days a week)? Want to do some code? :-)




_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 14
RE: What about 1.04 - 7/31/2008 9:17:31 PM   
gwheelock

 

Posts: 563
Joined: 12/27/2007
From: Coon Rapids, Minnesota
Status: offline
Actually if you are looking for an assist; yes I would be interrested. I am VERY familer
with the old Turbo-Pascal (over 8 years) as well as a year of Delphi (tho it was
Delphi-3 ... its been awhile - been doing VB/FoxPro/SQL lately)

Guy

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 15
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 8:36:23 AM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 658
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline
Just as a thought, how hard would it be to create 1812 and 1813 scenarios for the game ? It would be nice to be able to play something a little different for once.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to gwheelock)
Post #: 16
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 12:41:14 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
David:

The editor should allow you to do this yourself.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 17
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 1:01:58 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 658
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

David:

The editor should allow you to do this yourself.



Yes but where is the editor ? Or perhaps I should say when ? I know that when released the editor will be exceedingly useful, but there is presumably a heck of a lot of work to go through before that and I guess it's not too high on the priority list (and probably rightly so)

My point was that a couple of scenarios (which already existed in the board game so we're not breaking new or controversial ground here) could be knocked up relatively easily because (I presume) the game framework is already in place to accommodate this. So I presume it would be just a matter of number crunching rather than actual software development.

_____________________________

Regards
David

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 18
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 1:23:43 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
David:

Q: When?
A: When I get my head above the water.

When the bug list is done with major issues then I'll retouch with the editor. Much of the code is already there.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 19
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 1:35:29 PM   
DCWhitworth


Posts: 658
Joined: 12/15/2007
From: Norwich, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Q: When?
A: When I get my head above the water.



<throws you a lifejacket>

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 20
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 1:41:42 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 653
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: Watertown, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

David:

Q: When?
A: When I get my head above the water.

When the bug list is done with major issues then I'll retouch with the editor. Much of the code is already there.



Life jacket, Pshaw. I am pulling you onto dry ground!

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 21
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 1:53:10 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
So Marshall it looks like simultaneous reinforcement will not work without vast amounts of coding, but what about diplomacy and eco phase, and the ability to a player to opt to let the game to skip a naval phase during the reinforcement phase? I’m not sure from your post if they are still too difficult.

The is also another reason simultaneous reinforcement might not work, is that if reinforcement was simultaneous, it would be possible for lets say if the Russian and Prussian players both decided to put 20 infantry into Warsaw, this would exceed the cities capacity and would not be allowed. However, the game would not be able to resolve this and an error would occur.

You could limit reinforcements into cities to only home nation or controlled minors. Would this help with the coding problems you describe above? If so, I can live without the ability to reinforce troops into foreign territories for the sake of speed. The PBEM game is so slow it takes a die hard fan to carry on.

(in reply to DCWhitworth)
Post #: 22
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 2:05:09 PM   
Mardonius


Posts: 653
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: Watertown, NY
Status: offline
Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius

_____________________________

"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 Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 23
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 5:37:46 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Why do people enjoy playing EIANW against an incapable computer program -- th AI - when human players are FAR superior...

Like he said, because it's faster. I want to play for 3 hours and be done. Against the AI, I can do that. Against humans, it's three hours between phase steps, at best.

_____________________________

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 AresMars)
Post #: 24
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 6:08:18 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius


These would certainly be easier. I cannot see why diplomacy couldn't be this way. As for the eco phase, I must ask for opinions from a typical Russian and Turkish player as to if for example:
Should Russia see the unit LEVY of Turkey in December which would happen before Russia's eco phase and what eco decisions might this affect?






_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Mardonius)
Post #: 25
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 6:16:38 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I am investigating PBEM streamlining and it will be rather large. The engine's turn resolution is totally sequential which means loading France's reinforcement before Russia's is illegal and will not work. It will also negate the auto catchup feature I installed in 1.02. I have also discovered that setting any phase where a unit may be created (garrison) to simulataneous execution will cause huge problems since units have unique ids. These ids will not be duplicated in the current sequential execution method since only one nation could create a a unit at a time. In simulataneous execution there could be duplicated ids for separate units. So what does this mean?

The phases do not need to be simultaneous. What needs to happen is that each player's choices for the phase must be COLLECTED asynchronously. Then, the choices for each player can be APPLIED sequentially (just as now). Finally, they are DISPLAYED to each player at the same time.

In fact, you are going to HAVE to implement it this way in order to fix the major security hole I reported last night.

_____________________________

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 Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 26
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 6:20:19 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5626
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Jimmer:

Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.

BTW: I fixed the security issue you noted last night by only displaying the current player's estimated pp total. No others are visible.



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Jimmer)
Post #: 27
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 6:56:04 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock
They are not completely guaranteed unique, no; but the possible number is quite large. Guids are what windows itself runs off of (just take a look in the registry & you'll find TONS of them)

(If you generate 1 billion GUIDs every second for the next 100 years, the probability of creating just one duplicate would be about 50%. If EIANW gets to the point where
this is a problem; you can just buy M$ itself & change things )

Creating ID blocks would probably be easier; however. I suspect that you wouldn't
acatually have to "convert" older games. Just start id blocks HIGHER
than the highest possible existing unit & then assign NEW units in those blocks
as they are created. Existing units continue to use their old (low number) values
as long as they exist. As long as you don't use algorithms (other than unit CREATION
ones) that EXPECT units to be in certain number ranges; you should be ok.


The other thing you could do, Marshall, is to create your own "GUID" internally to the game. Yes, you would have to translate that into real GUIDs once you get to the system level, but that may only be needed on rare occasions, and you can use a translation matrix to do it. Microsoft does THIS, too (try following a product's GUID through the registry some time, and you'll see what I mean -- there are dozens of them for every application, all doing roughly the same thing, and more doing other jobs).

_____________________________

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 gwheelock)
Post #: 28
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 7:00:38 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
The is also another reason simultaneous reinforcement might not work, is that if reinforcement was simultaneous, it would be possible for lets say if the Russian and Prussian players both decided to put 20 infantry into Warsaw, this would exceed the cities capacity and would not be allowed. However, the game would not be able to resolve this and an error would occur.

That can happen only with TRUE simultaneous reinforcement. But, all that is really needed is simultaneous listing of orders for each player. Then, the turns get applied.

In the scenario you outline, the second player's troops would have to be treated as if repatriated (and, probably a window should come up stating it). Worst case (for other scenarios), an error could be flagged and the game would request a correction before continuing. I would guess this kind of transaction sequencing issue would come up only rarely, though, so it shouldn't slow the game down much.

_____________________________

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 #: 29
RE: What about 1.04 - 8/1/2008 7:05:40 PM   
Jimmer

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.

BTW: I fixed the security issue you noted last night by only displaying the current player's estimated pp total. No others are visible.



There were two parts to it. The Nation Status Display (the place where alliances, wars, etc, are displayed) was partially updated as well.

If you correct both, that should do it.

_____________________________

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 Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> What about 1.04 Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.270