1.03 status update for June 17th!

[Marshall Ellis]

I hear what you guys are saying but we never hid the fact that this was a hybrid. This was never meant to be just EiA. This was meant to be EiANW??? Optioning out items can be done although it still requires is a little work to complete.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I hear what you guys are saying but we never hid the fact that this was a hybrid. This was never meant to be just EiA. This was meant to be EiANW??? Optioning out items can be done although it still requires is a little work to complete.

I understand what you're saying, you guys did what you thought was best at the time, but it's a little unfair (and Matrix should have thought about this beforehand) to call a game what it is not. It's not Empires in Arms and that's the name you guys gave the game. It's a misrepresentation.

[KenClark]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Well, I for one, don't find ALL of the EiH rules bad. The map, for example is much better, at least on land. Plus, the idea of having every neutral minor gain factors when DOWed, so they're not pushovers, that's good, too.

Plus, there's no way we'll EVER get pure EIA as it was in the box (with or without errata). Can't be done, because of the programming constraints. Even TCP/IP wouldn't allow for it. It's just too complex. For example, there were about 20 steps to just the diplomacy phase. Something had to be given up in order to make a playable game.

But, making all potential changes be optional would be an excellent compromise. Until we have to draft a 20-page contract specifying which rules we're playing with ... [;)]

I actually find the map to be somewhat problematic due to the balance issues. Having all those extra minor countries changes the political balance quite substantially, which I am sure no-one has playtested. The minors all having garrison factors is annoying - I liked the fact that you could have them as walkovers and only certain nations had defences. This was actually historic! I don't really mind that rule mind you.

And for EiA out of the box to be implemented TCP/IP is by no means impossible, I think you underestimate the ability of Marshall to program these things!

Having many of the rules be options would be great though, but I suspect hard to implement.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I understand what you're saying, you guys did what you thought was best at the time, but it's a little unfair (and Matrix should have thought about this beforehand) to call a game what it is not. It's not Empires in Arms and that's the name you guys gave the game. It's a misrepresentation.

It would be a misrepresentation if we simply called it Empires in Arms and said nothing but "this is exactly the same as the original Empires in Arms, no differences".

This IS the officially licensed adaptation of Empires in Arms to the computer, licensed from, reviewed and approved by ADG. It is NOT without any differences from the board game.

This also does contain some EIH rules. That was never made a secret and in fact there was discussion ongoing regarding those changes for years (literally) while this was in development. We said over and over again that this incorporated elements of EIH as well. Along the way several changes were in fact made to bring it closer to original EIA as a result of discussions on this forum. I do think that in time with scenario editing and optional rules we'll be able to get a bit closer to "straight" EIA but I think this is as faithful an adaptation as could reasonably be expected. The difference of a computer interface vs. a tabletop with a board game alone end up requiring certain differences and supporting multi-player PBEM is another key area where differences almost become a necessity for sanity.

In any case, our goal is to make it as good as we can and we'll continue to look for ways to address player requests.

Regards,

- Erik

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: KenClark

And for EiA out of the box to be implemented TCP/IP is by no means impossible, I think you underestimate the ability of Marshall to program these things!

I didn't mean it would be impossible to create. I meant it would be impossible to make playable. In a typical one month turn, there were roughly 300 different steps that the players (in aggregate) had to go through. You got to react to other players' declarations of war, for instance. One at a time, in order. It's just not feasible on a unless shortcuts are taken.

Humans, playing the boardgame, used shortcuts, and never thought about them much. Like, going back to pay for a counter you forgot to pay for. This is especially hard when you ran out of money. Humans generally just backtracked and did the movement/forage over again. But, the computer can't allow that and remain secure.

[Soapy Frog]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
Well, I for one, don't find ALL of the EiH rules bad. The map, for example is much better, at least on land. Plus, the idea of having every neutral minor gain factors when DOWed, so they're not pushovers, that's good, too.

I disagree on both these points. I have no problems if extra minors and forces for minors without corps are included as optionals, but to be frank it seriously messes with game balance to introduce a lot of untested changes of this nature, and then make them a mandatory part of the ruleset.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: KenClark

And for EiA out of the box to be implemented TCP/IP is by no means impossible, I think you underestimate the ability of Marshall to program these things!

I didn't mean it would be impossible to create. I meant it would be impossible to make playable. In a typical one month turn, there were roughly 300 different steps that the players (in aggregate) had to go through. You got to react to other players' declarations of war, for instance. One at a time, in order. It's just not feasible on a unless shortcuts are taken.

Humans, playing the boardgame, used shortcuts, and never thought about them much. Like, going back to pay for a counter you forgot to pay for. This is especially hard when you ran out of money. Humans generally just backtracked and did the movement/forage over again. But, the computer can't allow that and remain secure.

Jimmer, come on man, they have real time stock analysis and you're telling me we can't make an EiA adaptation with IP play?

My Counter-Strike game requires WAY MORE than 300 things going away at once and they managed that pretty darn well. There are many games I could name, the list goes on and on. I don't think it's unreasonable, but at this point, seeing as how unrobust the code seems to be, maybe you are right. BUT, we could at least have a close IP play version of the utterly-painfully slow PBEM EiHNW.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I understand what you're saying, you guys did what you thought was best at the time, but it's a little unfair (and Matrix should have thought about this beforehand) to call a game what it is not. It's not Empires in Arms and that's the name you guys gave the game. It's a misrepresentation.

It would be a misrepresentation if we simply called it Empires in Arms and said nothing but "this is exactly the same as the original Empires in Arms, no differences".

This IS the officially licensed adaptation of Empires in Arms to the computer, licensed from, reviewed and approved by ADG. It is NOT without any differences from the board game.

This also does contain some EIH rules. That was never made a secret and in fact there was discussion ongoing regarding those changes for years (literally) while this was in development. We said over and over again that this incorporated elements of EIH as well. Along the way several changes were in fact made to bring it closer to original EIA as a result of discussions on this forum. I do think that in time with scenario editing and optional rules we'll be able to get a bit closer to "straight" EIA but I think this is as faithful an adaptation as could reasonably be expected. The difference of a computer interface vs. a tabletop with a board game alone end up requiring certain differences and supporting multi-player PBEM is another key area where differences almost become a necessity for sanity.

In any case, our goal is to make it as good as we can and we'll continue to look for ways to address player requests.

Regards,

- Erik

The misrepresentation is like you guys claiming you have a Ferrari but in the fine print it says "replica" but it's "officially" licensed by Ferrari so it must be a Ferrari right? wrong.

Yes, I know the discussion went on for years. I was there. I stated my case time and time again for both IP play AND original EiA rules. If I remember correctly there were more people who supported these two than not yet Matrix decided to go the way of the few (who were screaming very loudly) and now it's not working out.

This game has been out for quite some time now and comes MUCH CLOSER to resembling someone's hobby than it does the product of a professional software company. It seems this game has gotten little support from Matrix and continues to do so. I guess I find it difficult to believe that Matrix is planning on supporting this project long enough to get to where it should be, from a purely financial standpoint I don't think this game will garner enough profit for Matrix to continue to sink money into it, it's reputation is getting around fast.

I don't mean to sound harsh, it's just that the facts kind of come across that way.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

... yet Matrix decided to go the way of the few (who were screaming very loudly) and now it's not working out.

So, now they should do what YOU want, simply because you are saying it "louder"?

Your position might merit an "I told you so". But, that's it.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

... yet Matrix decided to go the way of the few (who were screaming very loudly) and now it's not working out.

So, now they should do what YOU want, simply because you are saying it "louder"?

Your position might merit an "I told you so". But, that's it.

LOL. No, they should do it they way most people want it done, which just happens (by coincidence) to be what I also want. I'm not saying anything loudly. If they don't want people's opinions about the subject, they shouldn't have public forums.

[Soapy Frog]

If Neverman bought the game he can say what he likes. And he is pretty much right, the majority wanted (and still want) EiA as close as we can get it. Seems strange to throw your paying customers curveballs.
 
Sad to say I am quite sure there are many people who bought the game hoping for EiA and have since thrown it in the garbage and will never take a 2nd look at it.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

If Neverman bought the game he can say what he likes. And he is pretty much right, the majority wanted (and still want) EiA as close as we can get it. Seems strange to throw your paying customers curveballs.

Sad to say I am quite sure there are many people who bought the game hoping for EiA and have since thrown it in the garbage and will never take a 2nd look at it.

Fortunately, I didn't buy the game, yet. I wanted to buy my friend a copy so he could play with me in PBEM games but he read the forums and told me not to waste my money.

[pzgndr]

I didn't buy the game, yet.

No soup for you!! [:'(]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Yes, I know the discussion went on for years. I was there. I stated my case time and time again for both IP play AND original EiA rules. If I remember correctly there were more people who supported these two than not yet Matrix decided to go the way of the few (who were screaming very loudly) and now it's not working out.

I fail to see the misrepresentation. Can I understand how people might be disappointed who weren't following along with these discussions? Yes, sure. I also agree that the release turned out to be much more problematic than we expected and that's not typical for us and it's disappointing to us that we're still fixing issues six months later. But if you were here and even participating, then I don't see how you can claim we misrepresented anything. It's one thing to say that it did not meet your expectations, but that's different than misrepresentation.

We are supporting the game, plan to keep supporting it and we also understand the number of people hoping for future options to remove the EIH changes. We've been releasing pretty frequent incremental betas and less frequent official updates. Our goal is a 1.03 release focusing on AI improvements within the next month and to continue doing roughly a release per month if possible. I think allowig some of the EIH changes to be optional in the future is a possibility and I think the addition of the editor will also help with that.

Regards,

- Erik

[alaric318]

greetings, i am with matrix, indeed, empires in harms on the web, aside matrix edition, speaking just about former board game version, as been seen, well, for some years untill now as an enhancement to the system, in example, i prefer matrix recruitments costs that the around triple cost in straight empires in arms, at the least, If I Remember Correct, in default empires in arms, cavalry cost 7 manpower, near to this, guard units, so, the starting army for all nations, being less than 50% "army container capacity" is imposible to replace trough all the war, more troops decrease the luck factor and the fog of war effects with his surprises, good things, for me, my opinion is that when the editor is released we can make the setups at complete freedom, this alone, is enough to worth the purchase, is one of the more complexity games of all wargame-bookcase genre, so, is a powerfull endeavor to make it work on the computer, added enhancements and options only can bring a better game, this time, playable, much more than the board version, so, with pbem capability the support to the EiA community is the better seen on all time, ok, just my true, in truth, opinion,
 
best regards,
 
murat30.

[NeverMan]

Murat: It's pretty obviuos that I disagree, but that's ok, we can have different opinions. It's just that most people who seem to be on this forum seem to prefer EiA to EiH. In fact, under the mods threads there is a guy who is modding things to look more like EiA, which I think is awesome.

Erik: I never said the game was misrepresented to me. I said it was misrepresented and it was and still is. For someone who doesn't look through the forums before buying the game and think they are getting the old ADG EiA. Why is the AI being worked on when there are still so many bugs in this game? Are these bugs just going to be left in the game so that Matrix can say "look an AI that is good, please buy more copies now"?? I don't think that's a good long term business strategy, but it's your company.

[anarchyintheuk]

It says its an 'officially licensed adaptation of EiA'. Nowhere does it say that it's a port of the game. I fail to see the misrepresentation.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Erik: I never said the game was misrepresented to me. I said it was misrepresented and it was and still is. For someone who doesn't look through the forums before buying the game and think they are getting the old ADG EiA. Why is the AI being worked on when there are still so many bugs in this game? Are these bugs just going to be left in the game so that Matrix can say "look an AI that is good, please buy more copies now"?? I don't think that's a good long term business strategy, but it's your company.

Where did you get the impression we had stopped working on bugs?

[baboune]

All good points.

IMHO, the launch was a disaster.  The game still is.  Lots have thrown the towel.  Only a few are still left on the forums.  I am hugely disapointed by EIANW.

Now for positive, it is great to have a tool for MP to play EiA.  Can it be improved? yes a lot.  Does it have to be EiA exactly? I hope not cause original EiA as pointed by Matrix is a board game so there is lot to gain by making it a PC game.

Examples:
+ Lots of phases in the game could be made simultaneous like Diplomacy, reinforcements, economic phases and even movement.  Would it be the same game? No.  It could be fast EiA or EiA a la Diplomacy.
+ You could extend the game to cover many different periods (1792, etc.)

I fail to see the misrepresentation. Can I understand how people might be disappointed who weren't following along with these discussions? Yes, sure. I also agree that the release turned out to be much more problematic than we expected and that's not typical for us and it's disappointing to us that we're still fixing issues six months later. But if you were here and even participating, then I don't see how you can claim we misrepresented anything. It's one thing to say that it did not meet your expectations, but that's different than misrepresentation.

Lol...  You sold a game as a finished product while the game is a beta.  That is misrepresentation. 

I am sorry I did not read the forums much before buying it.  I was expecting something bad but not that bad. 

From the main site, description of the game:
"Playable either solitaire against the AI or by e-mail. "

• Official licensed adaptation of the classic Empires in Arms™ board game
• Encompasses the important aspects of diplomacy and warfare during the Napoleonic Wars from 1805 to 1815
• Control any one of seven major powers of the period (France, Great Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Spain or Turkey)
• Includes some enhanced rules and play options added over the years by Empires in Arms players

Yes I was expecting something very different than what I got:  Light ships, minors everywhere, lots of added rules that unbalance the game, bad UI, lack of information, not EiA, etc.

[baboune]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Where did you get the impression we had stopped working on bugs?

Rofl... These are not just bugs. They are fundamental design problems or unfinished tasks. Why can you not say that?