playable yet? Part II

[borner]

I hate it when work gets in the way of things!
 
Turkey can be a blast to play if you do it right. Prussia not so much. I have always wanted to try Prussia allied to france from the start, but it would seem to really unbalance the game too much! Only time I have seen it done, GB, Russia and what was left of Austria joined up and we hammered him repeatedly until he was in civil disorder and eventually down to 3 provences.

[NeverMan]

I enjoy playing Prussia, it's a challange for sure... it gets much more interesting late in the game.

As for being allied with France from the start, that's a slippery slope.

[Marshall Ellis]

I like Turkey the best! If you can get use to the feudals and use them well then Turkey can be a threat.

[borner]

if you have the cash, turkey is great..... shocking to see how mnay players as France to not see things that way and buy turk help early.

[Marshall Ellis]

You got that right Borner! Cash is King or Grand Vizier in this case You had better line up early with either Fr or GBr (HINT: France typically gives more cash in the AI side)

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: borner

if you have the cash, turkey is great..... shocking to see how mnay players as France to not see things that way and buy turk help early.

You could always play as Turkey and allocate more money to Turkey via the editor [:)]

[Marshall Ellis]

Good idea Graham LOL!

[borner]

new bug. Invading Turkey as russia, and a garrison disappeared between the land and eco phase.

[Marshall Ellis]

Do you have the save?

[borner]

host may have, not sure. It was there when I did my turn, but not after. did a backup, and still not there. just plain strange.  not sure if turkey got the money and manpower for the provence or not. at least with the editor the host can adjust the money plus orminus o compensate a little bit.

[Marshall Ellis]

If you can then get the host to send to me and I'll take a look because I haven't had that happen in a while.

[Grapeshot Bob]

To get us all back on topic the answer STILL seems to be no.
 
If I was Matrix I'd be ashamed to have my name on this piece of crap.
 
 
 
 

[borner]

careful bob, Erik will drop the hammer on you if you talk like that!!!!  

[NeverMan]

To give an update:

It depends, if you are going off of "does the executable work and can you move pieces around on the board, etc.." then YES, it's very playable.

If you don't mind disappearing corps, missing/miscalculated PPs/VPs, possible cheating in PBEM games, etc.. then YES, it's playable.

If you expect Empires in Arms, then NO, it's not playable.

[Grapeshot Bob]

ORIGINAL: borner

careful bob, Erik will drop the hammer on you if you talk like that!!!!  

But constructive criticism is the only real fun I get from this game. It has been over a year for goodness sake!

I still don't think it will be truly playable in a year from now.

I will never buy another Matrix game unless it has been out for several months and gotten good reviews or unless I have beta tested it and seen how good it really is. Trusting them to have something playable shipped is not possible.

If Matrix were really concerned they would offer all of us our money back.

I'm thinking about suing them to get my money back, could someone tell me what state are they incorporated in? Do we have grounds for a class-action suit?



GSB

[NeverMan]

LOL, bob, I don't think so but you could try... I don't know, I thought Erik was out of Vermont but there is NO telling where the company is Incorporated... either way, it's a funny joke.

Seriously though, I think this falls under the "buyer beware" category and the only real action you can take is to not support the company, aka stop buying it's products. Sadly though, it's the only distributor of wargames and it also supports "small business" (if you could call it that, which you could in a sense).

They just happened to make some HUGE mistakes when designing this game... again, sadly they continue to make the same mistakes with THIS game; HOWEVER, I hear that WIF is fairing MUCH better (ie. learning from the mistakes that were made with this game, so at least someone, somewhere benefited from our misery).

[Grapeshot Bob]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I hear that WIF is fairing MUCH better (ie. learning from the mistakes that were made with this game, so at least someone, somewhere benefited from our misery).

I can vouch for the fact that WiF is going well. I'm helping beta test it.


GSB

[Marshall Ellis]

Where could I start here? I rarely reply to these threads since it acomplishes little but I'm compelled to do so in this case!

Could we have done things differently? Sure.
Would I do it differently today? Sure.
Do I mind constructive criticism? Nope.

Is it playable? Sure
It just wasn't the game that you wanted. This was NEVER to be pure "Empires in Arms". It was first "The Wars of Napoleon" then "Empires in Arms, The Napoleonic Wars". We never hid the EiH functions which were added from the start. I'm not saying this was what we should have done BUT it is what we did. We never tried to to hide this??? If I were to do it over then I would have done the pure EiA (Which I really want to add). We've slowly been able to make this more EiA than it was. The difference from 1.00 to 1.06 is that 1.06 is MUCH closer to standard EiA. We've still got time to do this as long as you guys don't get every EiA thread locked up

[Erik Rutins]

It's completely ludicrous to claim that we somehow don't allow or listen to criticism. That's purely a straw man. We've taken a lot of (justifiable) criticism on this release and have been working hard to improve the game and be responsive to that criticism. I think the game is unquestionably improved, but there are still bugs and there are certainly people who wanted it to be a different game as well.

As Marshall said, and I have said as well, we were very up front about the changes to "standard EIA" and most of those were done in response to the pre-release community. We have also been up front about our goal post-release of making "standard EIA" possible, but priority-wise fixes continue to be the main priority.

Regards,

- Erik

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This was NEVER to be pure "Empires in Arms".

Then it shouldn't have been named as such simply to take people's money, IMO.

I don't think you need to respond to this thread, it just stands, and continues to stand, as a "review" of the game and so long as it continues to get updated it will continue to be just that. Now, I understand that overall it's a negative review so there's a good chance Erik will come along and lock it up.