Impressions of this game

[bresh]

Well the AI still needs alot.
I wanted to check something about Poland, so started a quick-test-game vs Hard ai's as Prussia. Did nothing only forage alliances nothing else.
 
1805. January, Austria DOW'ed Laulitz even when it was out of reach ??
Another thing, Laulitz appears to transform itself without Prussia doing so to a conq(Notiched this in March) ?
And in March 1805 Austria with 1 corps present in Bologna, DOW's Tuscany+Papacy+Naples ????
Havent checked what the other MPs been doing.
 
Regards
Bresh
 
 
 

[GShock]

Carry on Ellis, im happy to see it's getting along better lately. [:)]

[Marshall Ellis]

Thanks guys!
 
 

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I agree that skipping will make some big gains. I am seeing this already in my tests.

Is it equal to or better than your original estimate of 30% faster Marshall?

[Marshall Ellis]

It greatly depends on who you are playing.
If I am playing Au or Pr then skipping the naval is expected and AWESOME! Add a continuous skip in the reinf phase also helps! I will be playing a timed solo without skipping and with skipping to compare, hopefully this friday. I will let you know what I find...
 
I am thinking that for Pr Au that the gains may be more than 30%! Think about it...
 
Standard non eco turn = Dip, Reinf, Nav, Land, Land Combat
With skipping = Dip, Land, Land Combat
 
I'm excited at what I see so far!
 
 
 
 
 
 

[gazfun]

well im looking forward to it, I hope it will be official soon, as we have that back to counter pool bug still, after redoing the turn.
I think it originats from those ships outside portugal, that where sent to holland in the game

[mr.godo]

Why wait the hour?

As part of your 'tests'. Simulate the pain players experience in waiting for a phase that should take five minutes max. How long does it take to process a diplomatic phase in your group? Time it. Player gets the file, saves it in the folder, starts the game up, loads the turn, processes the turn, saves the file, zips it, then emails it. What does that take? Three minutes? Then for seven players, that should take about 20 minutes. It should take 1/7 of the time if you could submit the turn simultaneously from all players, although the limiting factor then becomes the host.

A non-happening phase like diplomacy shouldn't take that long. Us working stiffs may not have the luxury of waiting twenty minutes for a file. I'm usually doing something else, then check my mail and notice I received something an hour ago. Then I'll process it to the next player, who is likely gone to bed and the phase takes another day.

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

Why wait the hour?

As part of your 'tests'. Simulate the pain players experience in waiting for a phase that should take five minutes max. How long does it take to process a diplomatic phase in your group? Time it. Player gets the file, saves it in the folder, starts the game up, loads the turn, processes the turn, saves the file, zips it, then emails it. What does that take? Three minutes? Then for seven players, that should take about 20 minutes. It should take 1/7 of the time if you could submit the turn simultaneously from all players, although the limiting factor then becomes the host.

A non-happening phase like diplomacy shouldn't take that long. Us working stiffs may not have the luxury of waiting twenty minutes for a file. I'm usually doing something else, then check my mail and notice I received something an hour ago. Then I'll process it to the next player, who is likely gone to bed and the phase takes another day.

Well in our group where we have a minimum of a 24 hour turn around for files to be uploaded, now sometime there is 3 to 5 files uploaded in the same day. sometimes less, but the game keeps ticking
So at the moment we have done 1.5 game years in about 6 months, with the skipping feature this will change by at least 30% therefore we should do 2 years of gaming in the same time.
Probably more because you would get a higher involvement from players because of the faster game file returns.

[Tanan Fujiwara]

In one of the pbem groups I am, we did try the mp option but called it off after the fourth restart due to multiple bug issues… this was a couple of months after the game was released and I believe that this problems have been solved with the more recent patches.

In any case and just for feedback, right now I am in two pbem games through Cyberboard. In “Mosquetes”, a 1796 campaign game, after a year of playing time we are in September 1799, that is almost three years of game time… In “Tintas & Espadas”, also a 1796 campaign game, we are moving at a slower pace, about 2 game years in about 9 months…

Imo, if the pbem feature does not let you choose among the different options, rules EiA vs EiH or scenarios; the phases are going to be simultaneous or skipped; and the playing pace is slower than a cyberboard game, which does let you choose all of the above at the players will, then pbem really needs to be changed or improved a lot for the game to offer a rich and rewarding mp playing experience… right now, I think it comes out on the loosing side if you compare it with the vassal or cyberboard…

In regards to AI, imo the game is not suited for solo play whatsoever under any circumstance…

I believe that the game needs a complete overhaul and needs to be redone from scratch, but I now that this is by now totally impossible, so I would settle for a mp that would offer at least the same degree of playability than vassal or cyberboard…

My best.

[pzgndr]

I believe that the game needs a complete overhaul and needs to be redone from scratch, but I now that this is by now totally impossible, so I would settle for a mp that would offer at least the same degree of playability than vassal or cyberboard…

A complete overhaul, in what way?? VASSAL supposedly has everything the pbem gamer already wants/needs: original map, classic EiA OOBs, strict adherance to the original rules, etc. If that's all some players want, then that's already available. But it is no doubt a PITA to exchange email files back and forth among several players in various locations and time zones. So what exactly is this lofty "degree of playability" all about? How is it that VASSSAL might be more playable than what the current EiANW offers?

Beyond being just another pbem software package, which is relatively uncomplicated, a computer game version of the boardgame should provide more. At the top of this list is AI; a competent computer opponent is necesary for decent solitaire gaming, as well as having a decent opponent to fill in for when less than seven human players are available. Game options for things like real fog of war, where the computer can honestly mediate between players, would provide some valued added. Game options for different rules/options should be available in both EiANW and other pbem software, so that's nothing new.

But a complete overhaul? Completely change the game, or change the EiH stuff back to EiA? With the editor and forthcoming scenarios, we should begin to see more classic EiA OOBs and scenarios; that's easy. But to significantly change gameplay, which is already pretty close to the original gameplay, then you're proposing to change the game itself into something different. There's already plenty of angst that this game isn't pure gospel EiA, as if that means something. If one wants a new game redone from scratch which is designed as a computer game for computer gamers, then Crown of Glory or some other PC game may be the ticket. The challenge of taking a classic board wargame with all of its inherent face-to-face player interactions and trying to bang such a square peg into the computer game round hole is bound to generate criticism, as it has.

EiANW, once it is truly completed with all planned bug fixes, addition of new scenarios and game editor, robust game options to choose between EiA and EiH, AI improvements and other game enhancements, should be fine. It should not need a complete overhaul.

[Marshall Ellis]

I hope it doesn't need a complete overhaul becuase that would mean 4 more years without EiANW
The AI will be constantly improving.
Apologize for the frustration that the AI has caused but it will get better!
 
 
 
 

[Gravit]

My big gripe with this game is that it was sold as a functioning game and it wasn't and still isn't. If Matrix had placed a big print disclaimer such as:
"EIA is in Beta format but was released prematurely before it is ready.  Please press yes to purchase the pay-play beta test or please click HERE for alternate titles of Matrix games that are fully functional until the playable version of EIA becomes available."
 
A disclaimer would have set the correct expectations, but instead I purchased the only computer game in 2008 and am stuck with a crowd scattering STINK bomb!
 
Yes, this is a complicated game, but now we see WIF on the same path as EIA. 
 
ADB, shame on you for allowing your titles to be skunked out like this.  Hold Matrix to higher standards!

[SlapBone]

ORIGINAL: Gravit

EIA is in Beta format

Hello...this is 2008 (almost 2009) and we are already up to DVD.

[pzgndr]

but now we see WIF on the same path as EIA

It appears that WIF is on a much different path, hopefully for the better. Its design goal from the start was to create a computer adaptation of the classic board game as close as possible and the support team seems to be doing a good job helping to ensure that's the case for release. EiANW, as Marshall has described it, started off as a Napoleonic game based on EiA, then adopted EiH features as a design decision with limited support from the community, and now is being painfully retrofitted for classic EiA to satisfy the grogs; not exactly a smooth plan to be emulated. But ultimately, like one of those Family Circus cartoons where the kid bounces all over the neighborhood, the final EiANW game should be great and worth the long long wait. [:)]

ADB, shame on you for allowing your titles to be skunked out like this.

So where are all the whiz-bang game programmers out there working furiously to adapt complex board games to the computer for a handful of niche fans?? You might think all those World of Warcraft programmers and graphics guys making big bucks could spend a few weekends cranking out something wonderful for a simple board game designed by a 13-year-old and the big profits would just come rolling in. And then again, maybe not. [8|]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Gravit


but now we see WIF on the same path as EIA. 

I'm interested to read why you think this is the case. Please explain. Thanks.

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

Hello Marshall,
I'm new to the game having not even played the original board game either, however my interest in the Napoleonic era prompted me to buy the game and I like to play solo.
My main interest is in the naval side of the game as I adore the big 1st rates 3 deckers having visited Victory at Portsmouth many times in the past.
I have listened to a lot of the comments on this forum, and can tell that the general feeling is the a i is weak, so any clue as to when update 1.06 will be available for download, I'm running 1.05 at present and also find it pretty lame + the naval simulation is very poor, but apart from that very good game.

Regards, Hellfirejet.

[fvianello]

Hellfire,
this game (as the original boardgame) is not made to play solo, but it's a killer when played with 6 other people. Play some games against the AI to learn the rules, then forget about playing solo and join a PBEM game.

[Marshall Ellis]

HellFireJet:

Appreciate the post! The AI is much better today than in earlier versions. It's not done yet and personally I don't think it will ever rise to the level of an experienced friend across a game table BUT I would like it to challenge you a bit more than it does today so you will see incremental changes / improvements in this area over the next several releases.