speeding up play

[borner]

I know this has been brought up before, scattered in previous threads, but based on recent experience, I wanted to offer a thread for discussion here.

In two different games, players have left after becomming fustrated that the game is mostly file management, not gaming. While I understand that combining phases will take some things away from traditional EiA, I think this is well worth it. know of several players now that have left as they spend an hour loading files, and 20 minutes playing the game. Yes, doing reinf and Dip phases together and having them all gathered by the host will impact things to a minor degree, but will save days, if not a week or more, trying to get through a month of game time.

I cannot think of any other way to reduce the number of file needed to get through a turn, and thus speed things along. I am not even sure if this is something Marchall can do with the game program. If so, I would be interested in a yes/no opinion of other players out there in the fourm if overall the feeling is that such a change would be worth what is given up to speed along game play, as most games have players from different time zones or nations.

my vote is yes.

[NeverMan]

I'm all for cutting corners to speed the game up (which says a lot about exactly how slow the game is now, IMO, since I'm a more EiA purist).

The game is somewhat enjoyable but I am tiring quickly of the long process. If the game was faster it might be worth it to stick out those games where it looks like there is a winner early on but at the moment, it's not worth playing those games out for me.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm against putting Dip and Reinf together, this is just not good, IMO; however, I don't have a problem with simul Dip, which would probably be about the same amount of time as Dip/Reinf together not done simul.

[Dancing Bear]

I agree with Neverman, Borner, and many others on this topic, and game speed should trump EIA purity, as long as the balance between the major powers is maintained (i.e. no one power gains or losses a significant advantage (and it has to be a significant advantage)). The much anticipated “skipping” feature will help somewhat, but more needs to be done. Other items discussed are:
 
a) Simultaneous phases (diplomacy, reinforcement, and economics), which Marshall reports would be a technical challenge (simultaneous reinforcement also drew some flak because of the slight affect on game balance, but I think the general agreement was, that if it was optional it should go in).
 
b) Pre-programming a nation’s reinforcement during the diplomacy phase, which would essentially combine the diplomacy and reinforcement phases, but allow those players who wanted a separate reinforcement phase to still have one (this would be combined with auto placement of minor neutrals without corps/fleets, and have a trigger to ignore the pre-programmed reinforcement orders and revert to the normal process if there was a change in the DOW status of a major power or minor neutral with corps/fleets). Again this appeared to be a technical challenge.
 
c) Borner’s suggestion of simply combining diplomacy and reinforcement, which I’m sure will draw a similar line of resistance to a simultaneous reinforcement phase, but likely more intense. Players will point out that placing reinforcements after being made aware of the DOW against them is a strategy for nations that are generally on the defence, like Austria and Prussia, which then affects the game balance that is the heart of the game.
 
Personally, if we can’t have a or b from above, I could live with Borner’s suggestion.
 

[eske]

As mentioned elsewhere, simlutanious diplo and econ phase seems natural to the game.
Combined with Bears option C, preprogrammed reinf, to me looks like optimal solution. But simply combined with being able skip reinf, goes a long way down that road.
 
Lacking the above having combined diplo-reinforcment as a game option would be a bonus.
 
/eske
 
 
 

[borner]

Anything will help

[mr.godo]

In addition to making phases simultaneous, battles could be simultaneous as well. The only reason for making it linear is to keep the data file in tact. The use of a single threaded data file is what makes this game slow. Everything has to be stacked on in order for it to run.

One minor mechanic that I find particularly annoying is the loading of game files. Load next, ok, load next, ok, load next, ok, load next, ok... Why can't all the available files just be loaded in sequence?

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

In addition to making phases simultaneous, battles could be simultaneous as well. The only reason for making it linear is to keep the data file in tact. The use of a single threaded data file is what makes this game slow. Everything has to be stacked on in order for it to run.

One minor mechanic that I find particularly annoying is the loading of game files. Load next, ok, load next, ok, load next, ok, load next, ok... Why can't all the available files just be loaded in sequence?

Battles will probably NEVER be simul simply because the engine requires A battle to fought to completion until another can begin.

Auto file loading? That can be looked at. It is much better than it was simply becuase in version 1.00 you also had to manually choose the file itself!

[Dancing Bear]

i would not put auto-loading of files as a top priority. Sim dip would be better.

[mr.godo]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
...
Battles will probably NEVER be simul simply because the engine requires A battle to fought to completion until another can begin.
...

I can understand needing to have all the battles completed before a turn is over, but to have the system dependent upon having one battle process at a time? That doesn't sound like an engine problem, but what's behind the engine.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
...
Battles will probably NEVER be simul simply because the engine requires A battle to fought to completion until another can begin.
...

I can understand needing to have all the battles completed before a turn is over, but to have the system dependent upon having one battle process at a time? That doesn't sound like an engine problem, but what's behind the engine.

The sequential battle mode is from the original EIA. The results of some battles could affect choices made
in other battles (such as reinforce attempts; win/loss; etc). I think that if you had asyncronous battles that
that would change the flavor of the game.

[eske]

Agree with Gweelock here. The sequence of battles can be crucial.
However it is phasing player who decides his sequence - as it is in EiANW now.
Why not let phasing player chose to run all the battles he wants to simultaniously ??
He is still in control of the chronology, and doen's lose any advantages, does he ?
 
 - however Marshalls statement on the engines requirements still stands, so not much point in discussing this...
 
/eske

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
...
Battles will probably NEVER be simul simply because the engine requires A battle to fought to completion until another can begin.
...

I can understand needing to have all the battles completed before a turn is over, but to have the system dependent upon having one battle process at a time? That doesn't sound like an engine problem, but what's behind the engine.

LOL! You're spot on!

Not that you care but ...

The original engine designer (ME) made the design decision that EACH battle must be fought to completion before ANY other battle could begin and the phasing player decides the order in which they are resolved. This sounds much like the original EiA huh? That was intentional.

[mr.godo]

Would having sequential battles not be a function of playability for a board game rather than a requirement of the simulation? I would propose that it was a means of keeping the game progressing. How exactly would you tell your opponent "okay, let's stop here and move on to the battle in berlin!"? You finished the battle you started because it would be too difficult to keep track of the phase you were in. Sequential makes sense in ftf play or against the computer where you're getting an immeidate response. However, when you have to wait hours or days for a response from your opponent, bundling the battles might be a nice shortcut to quicken the pace.
However, as mentioned above, this is a moot point.

[Marshall Ellis]

Moot indeed but I understand your point.
I could really streamline the game by simply rolling a 1d6 to decide each battle but that would go a little far IMO
 
 

[dodod]

I have to agree...I can't stand playing a game for months, then someone quits because of mechanics or worse, the game goes too slowly..

It wastes everyone's time, as someone new will have new ideas and any alliance can be meaningless when a new country takes over.

PLEASE do something....to have econ, diplo and reinforcements done together...this would be very helpful...

those that have some need for old rules, fine, play your way, but have the option for most of us that get tired of a week passing without doing a single phase!

Remember, that france can do it's reinforcement last if all phases are turned to france...so he can still pick movement based on diplomacy results. Also England currently doesn't have that luxury except with spain, so it would be less limited for them...

This is really really critical...it just becomes a waste of effort after months of playing!!!!

[Jimmer]

Just a point: Game speed (i.e. the slowness of the game) IS from pure EIA. Perhaps some don't remember, but it took well over a year to complete a grand campaign game, playing weekly for 6 hours (plus the diplomatic time spent outside of game time, which easily eclipsed actual at-the-table game time). This game isn't a whole lot slower than that, actually.

So, the tradeoff is not speed vs. EIA purity. The tradeoff is whether to change the game (again and/or more) in order to speed up a game that was known to be slow when started. Some people didn't like the length of EiA. They played Diplomacy or Machiavelli instead. I was drawn to this game (EIA) for reasons that are directly related to the speed of play! The game cannot be both as complex and as deep as this game is, and still be played in an evening. Star Fleet Battles or Wooden Ships and Iron Men could be played in an evening. But, they simulate only a tiny fraction of "life" that this game simulates.

When our group tried to play Diplomacy or Machiavelli (or Blue Max, for that matter), our natural bent towards complexity caused us to eventually ... invent a campaign version of the game! It would take longer. We knew that. It was a tradeoff worth making to have a deeper and richer gaming experience. Starfire: Same thing. Star Fleet Battles: Same thing. The list goes on and on. Heck, we even tried to make a campaign game out of Titan!

But THIS game provided all of that in one box. We didn't have to invent a game around a typical game to satisfy our lust for complex gaming. Here was a game that could be played for a year or two and still be fun!

Guys, I do NOT want speed over EIA. Even what has happened thus far to the game has made it "EiANW" rather than EIA. People here have frequently blamed EiH for the changes, but that's pure hogwash. Yes, EiH was used and yes it was different, but it was MORE complex and I'm guessing even SLOWER to play than pure EiA was!

No, the reason the game is changed from EiA MOSTLY is because of speed. Nearly every improvement done just because of speed (in any PBM or PBEM game, not just this one or ones on computers) speeds up the game, but nearly always does so with a sacrifice in the game itself. PBM and PBEM have always at least doubled playing time. In the days of paper mail, 10-to-1 is more accurate. Anybody who has played a PBEM game AND the original (on a board) knows this.

Is speed worth it? Perhaps. But, please stop arguing that the speed loss is caused because it isn't as close to original EiA as it could be. Almost 100% of the speed loss can be directly linked to the game being designed for email. And, much of what was EiA was sacrificed to make it a playable PBEM game.

Could it be "fixed" by having network capability? Absolutely not, at least not just IP play as has been suggested. Because, such a position completely ignores the real reason by PBM and PBEM campaign games came about: Because it's nearly impossible to find 7 players to all be in the same room at the same time, week in and week out, for 1-2 years.

The only way to solve all of the issues is to have it be an online game (as in, players log in to a server for all game functions). The server must be available over the Internet to all prospective players. And, multiple games at a time have to be hosted by this server, using IP as the transaction medium. If the game were served like this, THEN EiA would be a possibility (including all of the steps in each of the phases, etc.)

This game is EiA-like, NOT EiA. And, it is EiH-like, NOT EiH. It can only be legitimately be compared to a PBM or PBEM version of either of those.

[dodod]

I think you miss my point.

the default is the way you want...you can keep that...

but there should be a way to satiate what many many people in this forum are stating...in EVERY game I have played, people have complained about the speed...so in order for your theory to work, you need 7 such players...

I think there would be few people who would not want a faster game...much faster

I have played the board game, and while it may take a year to play, these games will take much more! Furthermore, boardgames are with people you know...these games are often with people who you don't know, and it is easier for them to quit...leaving everyone having invested time and a sudden game changer...

It seems that since so many people complain about the speed, it may be worth addressing it...

It may take a lot of programming, but certainly, it would be worth it.

[Jimmer]

That misses MY point (which wasn't addressed at you anyhow, but here goes):
 
The game is slow because it is PBEM. It's not fair to blame a lack of EiA-ness or lack of IP play or anything else. The ONLY way to speed up the game is to remove depth. It may be obvious or it may be subtle, but that's the lay of the land.
 
I agree that it would be nice to speed up play. But, don't blame what is not at fault (not you personally, but we as a group).

[Jimmer]

By the way, I completely support efforts to speed things up (to a point, sometimes). But, it will always come at a price. The question is whether the price is worth it.

[Dancing Bear]

Pure EIA also had things like lots of manual accounting, thousands of tiny counters, coke stained maps, BO etc, which I am more than happy to leave behind.

I with speeded up the game, but keeping the essence of EIA. I think it can be done with toggle type switches to turn on things like skipping when they are needed and turn them off when they are not. The trade offs are well worth it if you want to keep 7 players in a game.

The has been a lot of good discussion in these forums on what the essence of EIA is, so we should be able to figure what made the game great, and what sucked about the old board game and can be improved because someone (Al Gore?) invented the internet.