What would you like to see next in EiANW?

[MarshallEllis]

Hey guys:

Help me out here a little and tell me where your priorities are. I'm curious.
Keep in mind that I'm assuming critical bugs are P1. This is looking beyond.

[pzgndr]

FYI, I voted for Editor, but I'm less concerned about having an editor to use personally (for now) than I am in seeing an editor for you and your playtesters to develop more scenarios and alternative OOBs. 
 
I'd say there's a burning priority to at least provide the original OOBs for the current 1805 campaign, so we could all have a mostly standard EiA game in addition to the current EiH variant?  I'm curious to see what the differences are.  Might this be possible for v1.03?

[NeverMan]

I voted for streamlining PBEM, although I still say this should be the next priority, after reading pzgndr I can see why people are voting for the editor. People are hoping that the editor will give them the ability to re-create Empires in Arms. Unfortunately, it seems from multiple posts by Marshall that some things are just not re-creatable due to the way the code was designed, so, IMO, I am sticking with streamlining PBEM. I'm just not sure I have 10 years to devote to play this game, maybe 5, but 10 is a long time.

I also think that since the "battle file" thing, which has now crippled (stopped) 2 of my games a total of 3 times in the last month, that 1.03 (if this is fixed in it) should get put out ASAP.

[Ashtar]

I guess you know my ideas: [:D]
tm.asp?m=1810101

In particular, naval rules are now half broken - too much of a GB advantage - and they should be fixed
to a reasonable level (pp gain, evasion and pursuit needed).

Also supply and loaned corps are to be fixed (== not taking part in battles if their original owner is not art war)

[Jimmer]

I voted for editor. However, I want to qualify that I do NOT mean "scenario editor". I mean "host-editor": An editor that allows the host to make adjustments to a live, currently ongoing game:
 
PSD adjustments
VP adjustments
Cash additions or subtractions
Property ownership
Troop changes
etc.
 
Gwheelock made a list of these changes that should be required. That list could be built upon, but just getting SOMETHING out there will help.
 
For example, in the current game, I've lost 6 political points across 5 quarters because of game bugs. I gained one as well, but I currently have an alliance with Turkey because of that, and that may or may not be acceptable. Austria in our current game is down 5 PP just in the last two econ phases, due to the economic manipulation not being reset when capital occupied bug. Currently, these things are impossible to overcome. But, if there were a host-editor, they would be relatively easy to correct for, while the game bug itself gets fixed.
 
My higher priority if you meant "scenario editor", would be PBEM streamlining that does not sacrifice game elements. No further damage can be done to the diplomacy phase by making it simultaneous, so that would be acceptable. However, once TCP/IP comes out, I would like to see the diplo phase re-opened up for more precision (i.e. do the sub-steps in order again, as in the original game). Also, it would be acceptable if, internally to the game, it still operated one nation at a time.
 
Making reinforcement simultaneous would be acceptable provided GB and France are allowed to go last, and separate from the other five powers.
 
Making economics simultaneous would be perfectly fine. If an internal game item requires knowledge of GB's trade choices first, the game can do them in order, but it doesn't have to wait for GB to be done. It can make the calculations at the end.
 
AI improvement is a distant third. Yes, I would like a challenging AI, but the AI will never equal a human, so it's not a priority to have one.
 
A tutorial does not matter at all to me. However, I suspect it matters a great deal to Matrix. And, it could end up mattering to me, if the pool of players dries up. So, I wouldn't object to a higher tutorial priority.
 
One thing to note, though: A tutorial is NOT going to get  alot of votes, because most of the posters are already veterans of EIANW. So, you should weight this differently.

[NeverMan]

Well as Jimmer pointed out simply having an option for "EDITOR" is a bit confusing, as some care about a scenario editor while others really want (and need) a host editor. There is a big difference, IMO.

I also agree with Jimmer that if (and hopefully when) IP play comes about, the steps should be broken back up to reflect the game of Empires in Arms and how it is played, if nothing else than at least have the proper steps.

[gwheelock]

Actually; I suspect that MOST of the items that would be needed by the "host-editor" will also be needed
by the "scenario-editor" (they will just be done pre-game) & hopefully a lot of the h-e code will be
reusable in the s-e.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Actually; I suspect that MOST of the items that would be needed by the "host-editor" will also be needed
by the "scenario-editor" (they will just be done pre-game) & hopefully a lot of the h-e code will be
reusable in the s-e.

While one might be encompassed by the other, it's not a 1:1 relationship, therefore, I assume that the s-e will be quite more extensive than the h-e, time that could be better spent (once the h-e is done) streamlining PBEM.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Well as Jimmer pointed out simply having an option for "EDITOR" is a bit confusing, as some care about a scenario editor while others really want (and need) a host editor. There is a big difference, IMO.

I also agree with Jimmer that if (and hopefully when) IP play comes about, the steps should be broken back up to reflect the game of Empires in Arms and how it is played, if nothing else than at least have the proper steps.

Yes, keep this "in mind" for long term.

NOTE: I would be perfectly happy to see any such "breakdown" of steps be done as an optional rule, however. EIANW is its own game, and some players will prefer it to EIA simply because of the lesser complexity. We shouldn't take that option away just because TCP/IP gets implemented.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
While one might be encompassed by the other, it's not a 1:1 relationship, therefore, I assume that the s-e will be quite more extensive than the h-e,...

I agree. This is precisely why I would like to see an h-e rather than a s-e (first -- I still want an s-e, just down the road a bit).

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

I voted for editor. However, I want to qualify that I do NOT mean "scenario editor". I mean "host-editor": An editor that allows the host to make adjustments to a live, currently ongoing game:

PSD adjustments
VP adjustments
Cash additions or subtractions
Property ownership
Troop changes
etc.

I have added this to the bug tracker as issue 149.

I suggest that if you have ideas and suggestions for the in-game host editor then probably make those as notes on that issue.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
I have added this to the bug tracker as issue 149.

I suggest that if you have ideas and suggestions for the in-game host editor then probably make those as notes on that issue.

Will do. Thanks!

By the way, it was gwheelock's idea, not mine, in case you are assigning credit.

[itmc09]

Would put PBEM security on top of the list. At the moment just one cheating player would ruin months/years of play for everybody else [:-]. I believe that this is what is discouraging quite a bit of people from buying the game now.

Streamlining PBEM should also be a must as I can see even veteran grognards being discouraged from playing because of the slow turnaround. Simultaneous phases is definitely the way to go even if I would put that as an optional. In my gaming group there is a virtual consensus on the necessity of simultaneous diplomacy/economic phases, but not eveybody agrees on simultaneous reinforcements.

BTW we noticed a definite improvement on the stability of the game in PBEM after 1.02k. After several restarts of PBEMs due to bugs I can finally start to see the light...

[MarshallEllis]

Appreciate the answers guys!
I'm keeping this poll open until the end of next week in case someone is on vacation.
 

[Dancing Bear]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but doesn't the 1.03 have the AI improvements being asked for by many, therefore the AI is already improved and PBEM streamlining should be next.

[pzgndr]

Marshall mentioned something else in another thread:

The two capital scenario may force me to make DB structural changes that will OBSOLETE ALL current games! That OK?

The v1.03 patch may be an interim step towards a more-or-less stable game version for multiplayer games. I appreciate the AI improvements, but I fully support fixing/resolving the bugs and rules deviations and getting pbem up to speed as a priority. Marshall's comment highlights another issue for long-term consideration. It would be good to identify upfront all DB structural changes needed to eventually resolve most everything on the current bug tracker list and go ahead and implement those structural changes early, so that hopefully new games started with say v1.04 will not be obsoleted by future patches. Most things that improve the game executable and interface, add new scenarios and enhance the AI shouldn't affect ongoing games as long as the data structures aren't changed. The point is to get the game data structures stable as soon as possible so players won't have to restart games every few months. Just a thought.

[dodod]

I think streamlining pbem games has to occur first, although I don't see how an editor could not happen at the same time.  the editor uses existing code, so fix the pbem likely with some new code, then the editor will last indefinitely..and allow other scenario game play.
 
AI improvement can always happen...but if the pbem game is faster, there would be less need for ai for many of us.