progress

[MarshallEllis]

The engine could certainly do it (Simul move was original design spec) BUT not EiA! I was almost executed by my first testers when they saw it and you guys would do the same! LOL!

[Dancing Bear]

I can imagine.

[ParJ]

at least be possible to [...] change the peace, control settings and garrison and fleet orders.

Normally useless as a TCP/IP game should ask dinamically those things like in the FtF game.

Asking this "dynamically" would of course be better, but I also imagine that this would also change the game in a way that would make it different from a PBEM or mutiple players on one computer (haven't tried that mode, maybe it's already included?). I wouldn't mind this difference since that's something I like with the boardgame (leaving a corps that can fit in a city and allow it to retreat into the city, stopping at least one opponent corps from advancing through, as an example). And this would require more of a change to the game than allowing you to manipulate the orders using the same interfaces as exist in the game right now.

It would be nice if Marshall could share how he envisions a TCP/IP game? If it's just an integrated PBEM file processor that will allow you to view opponent moves on-line I think that would be a waste of time and the PBEM that exists in the game today will work fine. A TCP/IP game need to flow quicker and the only way that can happen is if you can prepare your actions in advance. Even in a game against the AI moving corps and dropping off garrisons takes time, especially sinc you don't have an indicator that shows the strenght of garrisons on the icon (include that on ships as well, as it would reduce the clicking time). Separating and finding corps with unit counters all the same size is also time consuming.

The game has improved a lot over the last two years (it is that long since it was released, right?) and with some AI work shoudl be even better in another year. But I do think the AI needs some "grand strategy" to be included. Before a DOW, the value need to be estimated. What effect will this have now on the PP scale? What effect will it have if/when you lose it? What can be expected in money, manpower or units built? Any other actions must also be measured in your army strength and Victory Points gained.

Regards,

Oto

[Skanvak]

I came to think that designing the game for PBEM from start (option I supported at the time) was a mistake. The game is Face to Face and should have been devellopped for this use to be close to the original boargame then a simplified game should have done for the PBEM (as we are doing now).

I guess allowing TCP/IP is the occasion to make the game in TCP/IP (and LAN), hotseat or single player exactly like the original game and reserve the structure we are actually using for PBEM.

I do think that the original UMP rule is better than an AI or we should have dedicated people to code the AI because I think it is a big task for Marshall alone.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I came to think that designing the game for PBEM from start (option I supported at the time) was a mistake.o code the AI because I think it is a big task for Marshall alone.

Without PBEM this project may never have taken off.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I came to think that designing the game for PBEM from start (option I supported at the time) was a mistake.o code the AI because I think it is a big task for Marshall alone.

Without PBEM this project may never have taken off.

If you mean because of "demand" then I disagree. If you mean because Matrix misjudged the audience of this game, then I agree completely.

[Skanvak]

Without PBEM this project may never have taken off.

I have evidence of the contrary that I did not know at the time. Thought inclusion of PBEM was a mandatory feature it should have come after faithful adaptation of the boardgame (game engine) as it need streamlining that make the experience quite different.

I back neverman statement.

[wworld7]

You are free to disagree, but without PBEM this game would lack the financial support it needed to be created. And then you would have no game.

Maybe that would make some of you happy, but for others we're in it for the long haul.

[Skanvak]

Who say without? I said develop TCP/IP first then develop PBEM. I never say without.

Beside I perfectly know that we all asked for PBEM but now I realize that was not the good way to go (I have look at other games that goes the other way round and that works better, the PBEM being a downgrade of the original system (as in EiANW) you choose between the two and let player choose which kind of game they like).

[wworld7]

I replied to Neverman not you. Sorry you were confused.

[MarshallEllis]

Wrong thread for PBEM debate.

BUT...

For the record: We knew up front PBEM would be huge and mandatory. We did not know that the blend of EiH / EiA would create the uproar that it did ... foul on us. We've been patching our way closer to std EiA since (If you don't believe me then play a 1.00 game then 1.06 game LOL). I think we will get there!

[easterner]

I like the HARM changes and glad they were included.
Prefer they stay and eventually a vanilla EiA be an option.

The big loss is the snazzy EiA speccials that were lost:
Ship stack moves
Honors of War/Spanish Deguello rules/ Turk to the Sword rules on GARR
The inability to place Insurrection Corps myself as player.
British Training
Kingdom of Italy, Bavaria, Westphalia
Bernadotte
Depot Limit
Naval Pursuit
+1 Move for minor Inf of France
And probably a few I don't remember!

[Dancing Bear]

Top on my list is trival combat, which has earned its own thread in the past.

However, get the PBEM runing fast and I will be happy. sim dip/eco and a few more tweaks, and I think it will be there.

[Skanvak]

I like the HARM changes and glad they were included.
Prefer they stay and eventually a vanilla EiA be an option.

Yes, I think we can have both and that would be better.

[MarshallEllis]

I agree that both are not mutually exclusive!

[NeverMan]

I would love to see the old naval units. I have yet to really use Light Ships to do anything in any of my games and I don't use the transport much either (not as much as I would if it were Heavy) due to it's limited movement.

[MarshallEllis]

I actually find that I only use the transports after I have achieved a conquer somewhere remote then use the transport for regional conquers. This is mostly in the Med.

[easterner]

My transports and light ships are extremely active. They have been known to move from Baltic to Med in transports case and make Island invasions in the LS case. The LS have another extremely important function in the system, but I'll leave NM in the dark.

[Mardonius]

In truth, the whole concept of transport fleets and the building and maintenance thereof stinks. Only ones that were ever built were for Mssr Buonaparte's invasion fleet and this never took to see. Moreover, their limited movement is ahistorical. Should be equilent to other fleets, albeit with a penalty for combined fleets moving together.

[NeverMan]

I also send my light fleets on anti-piracy/piracy missions. It's all they are really good for, IMO.