Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

progress

 
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 >> progress Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
progress - 10/28/2009 10:31:34 PM   
ndrose

 

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
I see a lot of issues getting knocked off the bug list on Mantis. Good stuff!
Post #: 1
RE: progress - 10/29/2009 8:56:34 AM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Just a coding away over here!


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to ndrose)
Post #: 2
RE: progress - 10/30/2009 2:18:36 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
You are making great progress, and the types of bugs we are reporting are also generally minor these days (I'm also very interested in seeing 1.08 out).

Do you fell confident enough to release 1.07.01 as an official version, instead of a BETA? I think there are a lot of us still in 1.06.03 waiting for an official release, and there are a lot of good fixes in 1.07.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 3
RE: progress - 10/30/2009 7:11:56 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
Good question.

I like to know too, because we though on trying a new game (and bug reporting) with the final 1.07 if it it release with a few days (as it was told) but if it will be out in 2 weeks we will start with the beta.

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 4
RE: progress - 10/30/2009 12:57:22 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I am going to do one more BETA (1.07.01) then go official.
If you are following Mantis you will note that most of my work is already on 1.08. I am pretty much done with 1.07!
I should be ready to BETA 1.08 IMMEDIATELY after 1.07 general release. At that time, I will also make sure that the BETA PBEMers get their 1.08 test game running. Biggest change in 1.08 is that Diplomacy and Economic phases are simul now!


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 5
RE: progress - 10/30/2009 1:38:51 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Sim dip and eco are going to breath fresh life into this game as a PBEM game (although there are a couple of other small things that would also help get rid of the remaining delays). The slow speed of the the current PBEM game has really held it back. Very much looking forward to 1.08.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 6
RE: progress - 10/30/2009 2:21:30 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I am going to do one more BETA (1.07.01) then go official.
If you are following Mantis you will note that most of my work is already on 1.08. I am pretty much done with 1.07!
I should be ready to BETA 1.08 IMMEDIATELY after 1.07 general release. At that time, I will also make sure that the BETA PBEMers get their 1.08 test game running. Biggest change in 1.08 is that Diplomacy and Economic phases are simul now!



I really honestly believe that you will see a much bigger increase in game times than you did with "skipping".

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 7
RE: progress - 11/2/2009 1:57:03 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
Neverman, you'll need both sim dip/eco, skipping (to deal with the reinforcement and naval phases), and maybe another trick or two to get a reasonable paced game.

Continous skipping of the reinforcement phase, by players not at war, should almost be a house rule. Even for powers at war that have a land phase before their opponents, can skip their reinforcment phase as they can issue what ever orders they need to during their land phase anyways.

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 8
RE: progress - 11/2/2009 6:59:45 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
I don't see the issue with the rienforcement phase, even is not at war country will build up army. Except for France and Englad who can change their move order, all other country use reinforcement only when they have reinforcement to place? So an auto-skip if no reinforcement can be useful for all the other country.

Second point for country not at war, may be a MAJOR change of the rule should be done. That is change the way country at war and peace play the pbem (only for pbem) : Country at war works normally, but country at peace does a combined reinforcement, land and naval phase before (or after) countries at war play their naval (or land phase). Peace turn could be conducted simultaneously as another way of speeding up the game or in the land phase order (France playing last) if you are more conservative.

I think that this will create a problem for surprise attack considering the order of play, so a country at peace should have the option to play a combined move but would not be able to declare war next turn.

lobbying : best way to speed internet game and be true to the origiane EiA : TCP/IP

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 9
RE: progress - 11/2/2009 12:48:50 PM   
Marshall Ellis


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

I will not be making a major change to the phases past this version. There will NOT be options to combine or simul execute the reinf phase. Skipping is about as far as I will go for reinf. As far as TCP/IP? Still don't know yet. There is still too much in the que right now for me to look at it...



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 10
RE: progress - 11/2/2009 3:16:40 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
I was just probing with the merging phase idea (and only for country at peace). I wait for other people to react to this and I understand that this version should be finished first. (TCP/IP should come first )

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 11
RE: progress - 11/2/2009 6:12:08 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Yea, I would really like to code the TCP/IP (some is done already ;-) ) but I have some other goals ahead of me BUT my health and age are OK for now so I am acting on the assumption that I will be there to do it!


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 12
RE: progress - 11/2/2009 10:21:27 PM   
ParJ

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 1/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Yea, I would really like to code the TCP/IP (some is done already ;-) ) but I have some other goals ahead of me BUT my health and age are OK for now so I am acting on the assumption that I will be there to do it!


Marshall,

I think I've been involved in a TCP/IP discussion a couple of years ago, but haven't posted much at the Forum since then. TCP/IP play is a definitive must to attract my old EiA buddies to play, but it needs to be different than a quick PBEM (where the game passes control and the game status to the next player) or a substitute instead of playing multiple people on one PC.

To make effective use of the on-line time, planning and moving must be simultaneous (in that you can make a pre-move before it's actually you turn and only make the changes when it's your turn) or at least be possible to click and look at units and change the peace, control settings and garrison and fleet orders. Many players will be inactive over long periods of enforced peace and you will not like to be tied to the computer. When playing the boardgame some players made yhe build phases in advance for up to 9 turns. Passing control to the AI is not an option, since that can really mess things up.

I think that the entire game will require a re-design to be effective in TCP/IP, but maybe that's the plan?

Regards

Oto

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 13
RE: progress - 11/3/2009 7:13:08 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

To make effective use of the on-line time, planning and moving must be simultaneous (in that you can make a pre-move before it's actually you turn


True, that would be nice.

quote:

at least be possible to [...] change the peace, control settings and garrison and fleet orders.


Normally useless as a TCP/IP game should ask dinamically those things like in the FtF game.

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to ParJ)
Post #: 14
RE: progress - 11/3/2009 12:02:25 PM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
You try something radically different for sim play. Instead of 7 players, each moving in sequence, why not have three sim land phases, where players could move a maximum of one space per sim turn (France could move twice in one turn, once).

This would mean 3 land phases instead of 7 (although most players would not be moving, so could skip after the first land phase). It would also change the dynamics a lot, possibly making the game quite realistic in terms of what commanders faced at the time. Could be quite interesting.

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 15
RE: progress - 11/3/2009 12:52:52 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
What do you mean by simul move? I'm not sure how that would work since France's last move capability really only works IF France can see what the other nations did? Am I missing something here?


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 16
RE: progress - 11/4/2009 2:28:17 AM   
NeverMan

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What do you mean by simul move? I'm not sure how that would work since France's last move capability really only works IF France can see what the other nations did? Am I missing something here?



I think they are talking about designing a whole new game, not EiA.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 17
RE: progress - 11/4/2009 10:18:36 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
Dancing bear is getting us outside EiA. This could  not be in the normal game. Marshall you are right, the last move has it full effect only in YGIG. Dancing is speaking for a wego system like guns of august. May be intringuing but for a tool box in version 3.0

< Message edited by Skanvak -- 11/5/2009 5:05:15 PM >


_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 18
RE: progress - 11/4/2009 12:58:00 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
I love listening to possiblities BUT man I have learned not to stray from EiA or you will get the full wrath! :-0


_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 19
RE: progress - 11/5/2009 2:56:48 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
I bet. My suggestion was more of a far out suggestion, not to be taken too seriously.

Although, just to push it a bit further. If you allowed sim land phase, you might as well not have a seperate naval phase, and allow fleets to move 2 sea areas, for each single area a land unit could move during a single movement/combat phase.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 20
RE: progress - 11/5/2009 1:09:01 PM   
Marshall Ellis


Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline
The engine could certainly do it (Simul move was original design spec) BUT not EiA! I was almost executed by my first testers when they saw it and you guys would do the same! LOL!



_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games



(in reply to Dancing Bear)
Post #: 21
RE: progress - 11/6/2009 2:09:32 AM   
Dancing Bear

 

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
I can imagine.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)
Post #: 22
RE: progress - 11/8/2009 12:14:05 AM   
ParJ

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 1/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:


quote:

at least be possible to [...] change the peace, control settings and garrison and fleet orders.


Normally useless as a TCP/IP game should ask dinamically those things like in the FtF game.


Asking this "dynamically" would of course be better, but I also imagine that this would also change the game in a way that would make it different from a PBEM or mutiple players on one computer (haven't tried that mode, maybe it's already included?). I wouldn't mind this difference since that's something I like with the boardgame (leaving a corps that can fit in a city and allow it to retreat into the city, stopping at least one opponent corps from advancing through, as an example). And this would require more of a change to the game than allowing you to manipulate the orders using the same interfaces as exist in the game right now.

It would be nice if Marshall could share how he envisions a TCP/IP game? If it's just an integrated PBEM file processor that will allow you to view opponent moves on-line I think that would be a waste of time and the PBEM that exists in the game today will work fine. A TCP/IP game need to flow quicker and the only way that can happen is if you can prepare your actions in advance. Even in a game against the AI moving corps and dropping off garrisons takes time, especially sinc you don't have an indicator that shows the strenght of garrisons on the icon (include that on ships as well, as it would reduce the clicking time). Separating and finding corps with unit counters all the same size is also time consuming.

The game has improved a lot over the last two years (it is that long since it was released, right?) and with some AI work shoudl be even better in another year. But I do think the AI needs some "grand strategy" to be included. Before a DOW, the value need to be estimated. What effect will this have now on the PP scale? What effect will it have if/when you lose it? What can be expected in money, manpower or units built? Any other actions must also be measured in your army strength and Victory Points gained.

Regards,

Oto

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 23
RE: progress - 11/8/2009 9:12:28 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
I came to think that designing the game for PBEM from start (option I supported at the time) was a mistake. The game is Face to Face and should have been devellopped for this use to be close to the original boargame then a simplified game should have done for the PBEM (as we are doing now).

I guess allowing TCP/IP is the occasion to make the game in TCP/IP (and LAN), hotseat or single player exactly like the original game and reserve the structure we are actually using for PBEM.

I do think that the original UMP rule is better than an AI or we should have dedicated people to code the AI because I think it is a big task for Marshall alone.

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to ParJ)
Post #: 24
RE: progress - 11/8/2009 9:45:44 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I came to think that designing the game for PBEM from start (option I supported at the time) was a mistake.o code the AI because I think it is a big task for Marshall alone.


Without PBEM this project may never have taken off.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 25
RE: progress - 11/8/2009 4:15:46 PM   
NeverMan

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I came to think that designing the game for PBEM from start (option I supported at the time) was a mistake.o code the AI because I think it is a big task for Marshall alone.


Without PBEM this project may never have taken off.


If you mean because of "demand" then I disagree. If you mean because Matrix misjudged the audience of this game, then I agree completely.

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 26
RE: progress - 11/8/2009 4:18:43 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Without PBEM this project may never have taken off.


I have evidence of the contrary that I did not know at the time. Thought inclusion of PBEM was a mandatory feature it should have come after faithful adaptation of the boardgame (game engine) as it need streamlining that make the experience quite different.

I back neverman statement.

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 27
RE: progress - 11/8/2009 10:09:10 PM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
You are free to disagree, but without PBEM this game would lack the financial support it needed to be created. And then you would have no game.

Maybe that would make some of you happy, but for others we're in it for the long haul.



_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to NeverMan)
Post #: 28
RE: progress - 11/9/2009 7:18:58 AM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
Who say without? I said develop TCP/IP first then develop PBEM. I never say without.

Beside I perfectly know that we all asked for PBEM but now I realize that was not the good way to go (I have look at other games that goes the other way round and that works better, the PBEM being a downgrade of the original system (as in EiANW) you choose between the two and let player choose which kind of game they like).

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 29
RE: progress - 11/9/2009 7:41:31 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
I replied to Neverman not you. Sorry you were confused.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> progress Page: [1] 2   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

0.359