1.02k BETA preview

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Minedog

"We're focusing on fixes now - new features are possible once everyone's happy with stability and issues."

I have to say I find this kind of bizarre planning. Why fix bugs when it is the major features that are broken?

1. Combined Movement - without true combined movement, the game is not reflective of Napoleonic warfare and diplomacy. Loaned corps is not combined movement (not to mention the PP difference of winning battles) - allies don't always actually help each other, or help less than they might.

2. Battle views - the battle screen that fails to show the map. Ergo there is little or no knowledge of what other battles are taking place. Very, VERY important in the overall view, especially for reinforcement options.

3. Movement views - my experience, particularly in PBeM is that corps simply teleport around in a instant. So that guard corps which was at Dresden could now be anywhere withing 3 hexes. I want to watch the units move.

4. Maintenance costs - all the new fleets, why? More to the point, why do they cost the same to maintain each without any change to the national income. Particularly effects Turkey.

5. Kingdoms - the actual historical kingdoms, Westphalia, Italy, 2 Sicilies etc.

Then there are the straight out operational bugs, the forage calculations in some instances using the initial area. Cities under siege foraging twice (at least) once for the garrison, once for the corps.

So sure, I want a bug free game, but I can't see the point of fixing bugs when the major and operational features of the game are faulty, and in changing those, new bugs will be found and old bugs will become irrelevant. For me the aim is not a bug free game, the aim is to get the game to be properly Empires in Arms, and then to be bug free.

While I totally agree with 1, 2 and 4, particulary 1 and 4, the overall problem was that somewhere along the line EiH man got his hands in this game and tried to ruin it, that's why there are all those wacky ass rules. Matrix would have been better served making EiA and then making an Editor. That said, we can't go into the past and what is done is done, so I say that for the sake of going forward, fix the bugs.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

While I totally agree with 1, 2 and 4, particulary 1 and 4, the overall problem was that somewhere along the line EiH man got his hands in this game and tried to ruin it, that's why there are all those wacky ass rules. Matrix would have been better served making EiA and then making an Editor. That said, we can't go into the past and what is done is done, so I say that for the sake of going forward, fix the bugs.

I agree about the EiH bit, albeit 'ruin' is a bit strong, tinker perhaps. For me they've been some of the more problematic areas of the game with difficulties in the implementation and downright bad documentation in important places.

I'd like to see some justification of the various EiH changes. e.g. What was the thinking behind some of the corps size changes ?

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: Minedog

"We're focusing on fixes now - new features are possible once everyone's happy with stability and issues."

I have to say I find this kind of bizarre planning. Why fix bugs when it is the major features that are broken?

I think you are failing to distinguish the difference, in computer terms, between bugs and features.

Bugs are things that are not working as they were intended. A feature is something new to be added to improve the game. Most of us are agreed that the priority should be fixing the errors in the game as it stands, not adding in new features.

Of course the issue is clouded by the fact that the computer game is based on a board game and so people are looking at the board game and saying this or that thing isn't in the computer game so it must be a bug, which it isn't. The computer game doesn't mirror the board game 100% and never will, by design.