February Update

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey everybody:

Sorry for the late update. Been VERY VERY busy lately but now that I've got a few hours of sleep ... here ya go...

Well, the graphics team is developing some great stuff for the finished look. Our EIA Combat is still under testing (A few combat matrix errors) but coming along.

I expect us to be in testing ... hopefully... in a month or so. Remember these are "programmer months" so it is subject to the standard "+ or -" 50%

After this step, we will do the coding for PBEM. Maybe you guys can tell me your best method of EIA PBEM i.e. "How you do it today?" I've seen a few great methods but am soliciting input as to how you think it should be done ???

Anyway, back to the keyboard (Other keyboard, that is LOL).

Thank you

[Le Tondu]

Welcome back Marshal. A rolling stone gathers no moss, eh?

Two methods that I am the most familiar with are Combat Mission and John Tiller's Napoleonic games. CM is the closest to what EiA will be. It worked rather nicely, yet TCP/IP play is my favored method of gaming.

[oleb]

Originally posted by Marshall Ellis
Well, the graphics team is developing some great stuff for the finished look. Our EIA Combat is still under testing (A few combat matrix errors) but coming along.

I dont believe you, unless you produce some screenshots...

I expect us to be in testing ... hopefully... in a month or so. Remember these are "programmer months" so it is subject to the standard "+ or -" 50%

Will there be a call for betatesters at this point?

After this step, we will do the coding for PBEM. Maybe you guys can tell me your best method of EIA PBEM i.e. "How you do it today?" I've seen a few great methods but am soliciting input as to how you think it should be done ???

I think limiting the number of times the game need player input is necessary, eg. waiting for every player to conduct every step of the Diplomatic phase can be quite tiresome, some corners should be cut. A bit of flexibility will be lost, but speed will be gained. Many actions should be able to conduct in one step, like making/breaking alliances, declaration of combined move, free state declaration
Another example is the reinforcement phases, maybe cutting it down to one. If possible it could appear simultaneously, in the sense that you dont see what other players do in their reinf phase, untill all have submitted moves.

[mogami]

Hi, Prehaps it might still use a "host" computer where players send their turns. (The host could also play the game since he would not see any of the effects of the input till all players had sent files.)

PBEM phase example

Prussia file added
Austria file added
Russia file added
Turkey file added
France file added
UK file Added
Spain file added

It would not matter what order turn files arrived (they would just be held by program untill their phase occured.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Prehaps it might still use a "host" computer where players send their turns. (The host could also play the game since he would not see any of the effects of the input till all players had sent files.)

PBEM phase example

Prussia file added
Austria file added
Russia file added
Turkey file added
France file added
UK file Added
Spain file added

It would not matter what order turn files arrived (they would just be held by program untill their phase occured.

Combat Mission is able to detect which player's computer is the faster computer and all of the game's calculations are done on it duriong TCP/IP play. As for PBEM play each computer does it's own, I believe. Maybe a "host" would have to do it all.

[mogami]

Hi, If you go without a host all players will need to send their files to the next player in line . By making one the host the players can do faster turn arounds. Since they can do it when ever they are ready (don't wait for other players)(and the host has to send new files out to every player after each turn.)

Otherwise the sequence has to be followed
player one makes turn sends to player 2 who makes turn who sends to player 3
With a host the faster players can do their turn and not have to wait on the slower ones (of course they will not get next turn
untill all players have sent in their files but I think this might actually be faster in that once the slow player submits turn it can be resolved rather then only proceeding at that point to the next player)

[Mynok]

EIA definitely cries out for a host-based PBEM solution.

I would love to see the resolution code pulled out into a hosting system that would run on a web server. The game would be able to submit turns to the website. When all turns for the phase/turn are received, the web site automatically resolves it and emails each player's results. Better yet, email a notice that the turn is ready, and have the game capable of retrieving the results directly from the web site automatically. The resolution code should be multi-platform, too, so people can run it on their ISP's linux servers (or their own colocated ones).

Matrix will sell a lot of games if they are willing to do this.

[ABP]

I hope you will put some "programming" thought into the following:
Please make the organisation and running of PBEM-games as simple as possible. Hopefully players will not need to manually generate the e-mail in whatever program they have on their computer. Some kind of automation would be nice.
It will be very important how games are set up with player information and e-mail addresses. It would be nice to have it in-game, but should also be easy to maintain, if players drop out etc. It could be solved by each player filling out a profile with all necesary information needed to play each kind of version: PBEM, TCP/IP.
The profile could contain information such as User name, IP address, E-mail address, country, time zone, desired game pace (PBEM).
Just thought: Is the some way the game could be made to remind gamers if they are late with a turn, provided that it is agreed upon by all players at the game start how the pace should be?
Will it be necesary to select a "game-master" to run the game, or will it be smart enough to run it self in multiplayer mode?
It may be needed to have some sort of "policing".

[Wynter]

After this step, we will do the coding for PBEM. Maybe you guys can tell me your best method of EIA PBEM i.e. "How you do it today?" I've seen a few great methods but am soliciting input as to how you think it should be done ???

I'll try to give a brief overview on how we are handling our EiA PBEM game.

We have a GM (me) who manages the game. I try to minimize the number of messages between myself and the players in order to keep a steady pace in the game.

We begin a gamemonth with each player sending their diplomatic actions for that month (DoW, create/break alliance, sue for peace...). When all players have sent their message, these messages are processed and I send a resultform back around. Normaly one message from a player is sufficient and I do not need to ask extra questions. I take it that, for Minor Country Control, every player will try, if possible, to gain control of a minor unless I'm explicitly told in the diplomatic message that a player will not try to gain control. The only time that I do need to ask extra questions is when handling Call to Allies.

After the diplomacy phase, we conduct the movement phase. In the movement phase we have integrated: reinforcements, naval and land movement. We created forms to be filled out by each player indicating the location and strength of their forces and the planned movement. Every player sends his form to me, and when all forms have arrived, I, again, process them and simultaniously move every players forces (this is a major change to the board game mechanics). When forces meet (expected or unexpected), a battle is fought. When a player anticipates a fight, he can already indicate his strategy on his form. When the battle is unexpected, I will have to contact the involved players informing them of the battle and asking them for strategic choices. I calculate forces, morale, dice roll modifiers and make all the dice rolls for the battle. When all movement has been completed, I send around the resultform and an update for the cyberboard map visual aid.

Each Economy Phase, I again need a message from every player and I respond by sending around the result when all economic forms have been received.

As you can see, when all goes well, it is possible to play one gamemonth every week because we minimized the communication between GM and players. I believe that my 'job' can easily be done by a computer program, as all I do is maintain mappositions, verify movements and cost and calculate combat results. I do not have to 'think', or make strategic decisions, which makes my job quite easy to code

Hope this helps you,
Jeroen.

[Hoche]

I have been in pbem game with simultaneous movement and that game was a disaster. I will never play in one again. I think pbem games work best when done in order. Yes it may be slower but players are happier and stick with the game longer. I think a simultaneius politcal phase is ok. If some one declares war then people would have to resubmit poliitcal orders. Things like minor country control could be made more simple. You could check a box to roll for all minors or not. Naval and land reinforcement could be combined into one order.

For battles and almost all sieges the computer could do it in one click of the mouse. Excpet when there are decisions to be made, for example; chit, fall into city or no, reinforce, commit guard, lower leader tactical ratings, etc.

Yea this takes a while but for purists like me the ability to have complete control over my nation is extremely important. I would resent losing a battle due to some auto-decision made by the comp to save time.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Hoche
..........Yea this takes a while but for purists like me the ability to have complete control over my nation is extremely important. I would resent losing a battle due to some auto-decision made by the comp to save time.

I really LOVE "we-go" (or simultaneous movement games) and I thought that I was the purist.

[Wynter]

Originally posted by Hoche
...Yes it may be slower but players are happier and stick with the game longer.

I really do not believe, given the tools we have at this time, it is possible to play EiA without simultaneous move.
Even if you have a group of dedicated players with a high availability, still you should take 2 days for each move: 14 days for one gamemonth. If you then split naval and land phase, this time is doubled. Include some diplomacy and a diplomatic phase, maybe a reinforcement phase, and you easily come to one month playtime for one month gametime. It would take at least ten years to finish a game of PBEM EiA... hopeless.
If you reduce the amount of communication for each gamemonth, the turns advance faster, and this keeps players happy.

Jeroen.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Wynter
.........It would take at least ten years to finish a game of PBEM EiA... hopeless..........

Jeroen.

I don't know why I say this, but I have a feeling that Marshal and the guys have something better than that in mind.

I say, "Don't give up the ship!"

Let's think positively here.

Lastly, I hope Marshal will let us know as soon as possible how it will work out.

[Wynter]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
I don't know why I say this, but I have a feeling that Marshal and the guys have something better than that in mind.

An automated platform will make the administration of the game easier, but still, in a PBEM enviroment, you have a lot of slow, non-real time communication between 'server' and 'players'. In a multiplayer enviroment, this is no issue, but it is a bottleneck in PBEM.

So, Marshal, any hints on how to solve this?

Jeroen.

[Wynter]

Marshal,

I've been thinking on how you could bring the PBEM EiA to us, the players.

What if you, Matrixgames, host an EiA server where players can log on to, go to one of the games they are playing, consult a message board ('players wanted'), read messages in their inbox, etc, etc.
Such a system would speed up the game and limit the number of mailtraffic between players, at best you get one message from the EiA-server informing you that you have new messages in your inbox.
To pay for the server support, you can include in every EiA box an access code to open an account on your server, so you'll have to buy the game to be able to play on the net .

Jeroen.

[ABP]

It may be wishful thinking, but I envisioned a system where submitted moves, combat etc. was handled inside the game and only "packages" was sent to host or next player. Official diplomacy could even be handled in game. The will of cause always be a lot of behind the scenes diplomacy, but that only adds colour. I think as much as posible "must be done" parts of the game should be done in the game. That will help keeping the sequences of the game in place and help speed up the game.

I find that most time in games are used discussing/fighting over how rules should be interpreted. This game will certainly eliminate that.

I think those who are concerned about game speed maybe should play with the TCP/IP mode of the game.

No matter how people want to play they should try to build a close network of players that play more than one game. That will help reducing the risk of players quitting if the are doing poorly i a game, because they will get a new chance in a later game.

To Marshall: Are you currently play-testing or only testing functionallity? If you are do you have a feel for what the pace of the game will be i human real time compared with game time?

[YohanTM2]

For Space empires IV a thrid party group supported by donations has a central server that works extremely well.

http://seiv.pbw.cc/graphic/index.jsp

This would be an awesome way to do it

[ZONER]

I agree with Hoche's comments. If you add simutaneous movement you change the game. The slow downs only occur when at war and with enforced peace this is not as often as people think. I believe that if at war it is the responibilty of a country to have a faster turn around time than normal to compansate for the additional delays. I have no problem with a country submitting its entire move while at peace but if you take away the decisions with chit choice and reinforcement option commit the guard and other options that are dynamic in the game turn you take away the strength, flexibility and enjoyment of the game system. Without these options you are no longer playing EIA but a game based only on its maps and counters with none of the substance that makes this game unique. If you are looking to market this game I would emphize working on an AI against 1 player. PBEM should be the secondary feature because it is still faced with the challange of keeping 7 players active through out the game no matter how efficiant the program. Most sucessful PBEM games have been 2 player type games fot good reason. Anyway just food for thought.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
I really LOVE "we-go" (or simultaneous movement games) and I thought that I was the purist.

I'm with you Le Tondu!

[denisonh]

Originally posted by ZONER

I agree with Hoche's comments. If you add simutaneous movement you change the game. The slow downs only occur when at war and with enforced peace this is not as often as people think. I believe that if at war it is the responibilty of a country to have a faster turn around time than normal to compansate for the additional delays. I have no problem with a country submitting its entire move while at peace but if you take away the decisions with chit choice and reinforcement option commit the guard and other options that are dynamic in the game turn you take away the strength, flexibility and enjoyment of the game system. Without these options you are no longer playing EIA but a game based only on its maps and counters with none of the substance that makes this game unique. If you are looking to market this game I would emphize working on an AI against 1 player. PBEM should be the secondary feature because it is still faced with the challange of keeping 7 players active through out the game no matter how efficiant the program. Most sucessful PBEM games have been 2 player type games fot good reason. Anyway just food for thought.

I may have agreed with you at one time, but that was before I started playing Uncommon Valor. I have played so much more PBEM than AI, and it has been FAR more enjoyable.

I think PBEM should be a PRIMARY consideration, as the game will enjoy much more longevity.

Most people who will purchase this product will never have an AI meet their expectations for an opponent in a computer AI. Can you provide a list of games where the AI is so good that it kept you engrossed for a better part of a YEAR?(for me, a list similar to French military victories since Napoleon) I bought UV in June and have 6 PBEM games going, and all the while debating whether or not to start a new one. I will be playing the game for a long time to come, particularly since the new patch Matrix is putting out will make the game **** near perfect.

Yea, I want PBEM, and I want an improved game than has an option for simultaneous moves (as an option, of course, for all you die hard "if it doesn't look EXACTLY like EiA we won't but it" crowd)

So count me in the "if it doesn't have PBEM I won't buy it crowd".