PMEM or not?

[donkuchi19]

People need to understand that the customer isn't always right. Sometimes the customer is an idiot. I was at a restaurant today and a customer started complaining that he was allergic to something that was in the food that he ordered. It was right in the description of the item on the menu. He didn't specify this when he ordered it and then had the nerve to complain about it. (I saw the whole transaction) The waitress isn't a psychic and had no way of knowing. My point is, if it has what you want, buy it. If it doesn't don't slam it, just don't buy it. Vote with your dollars (or whatever other currency you have) and be civil about it. You also don't have to beat a dead horse. They said they were looking into it, give them a chance. They can't change everything in one day because one person wants a new feature.

[Pippin]

I have nothing again single-player games with AI but unfortunatly I never find a challanging AI! do you?

I certainly have. Many people have stopped playing chess & checkers on computers because the AI is just too damn tuff these days. Humans ask for challenges, but can't stand it when they have no hope of even winning.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

I really would like to know why you´re so mad all the time. Drink a beer and chill a bit

you are also very agresive some time, but me I'm a customer and Customer are King


I'm also fed up of all those game that's look great but finaly didn't stay alive more than a month!

Sure, but the king´s gotta watch it´s poeple too [:'(]

*matrix offical mode of*
------------------------
Also I´m somtimes "agressive" because I get life threads and what not by gamers that I only want to please. Simply because of the fact that these very gamers do not read game announcement correctly or take themselves WAY too important in the sense of that their prefered play mode is WORD. You know I don´t write nasty emails too Porsche simply because of the fact I don´t like the gear on their new car project.

What goes around comes around!

------------------------
*matrix offical mode on*

[Marc von Martial]

do it and I will join the majority

We allready did it, IIRC a year ago, it was almost split, with a PBEM not in the lead. Which does not mean we dont care about PBEM as you might possibly have noted senor 2gaulle [;)]

Read the threads and you will note that the developer is looking into PBEM, okay.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: donkuchi

People need to understand that the customer isn't always right. Sometimes the customer is an idiot. I was at a restaurant today and a customer started complaining that he was allergic to something that was in the food that he ordered. It was right in the description of the item on the menu. He didn't specify this when he ordered it and then had the nerve to complain about it. (I saw the whole transaction) The waitress isn't a psychic and had no way of knowing. My point is, if it has what you want, buy it. If it doesn't don't slam it, just don't buy it. Vote with your dollars (or whatever other currency you have) and be civil about it. You also don't have to beat a dead horse. They said they were looking into it, give them a chance. They can't change everything in one day because one person wants a new feature.

BRAVO,

An experience I had last week in Rome. An italian customer refused to pay for a meal (at the table next too me) cause he ordered "Spaghetti a la Carbonara" the jerk (an italian, who should know his stuff btw) complained about the fact that the meal had "parmesan cheese" on it [8|] !!!! He complaint about "parmesan" on "Spaghetti a la Carbonara", that´s almost like complaining about round wheels on a car !

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

Wodin when I have something to said/write I always do in public and so I didn't send any email.

Somewhere I'm Shocking by your attack

Never mentioned you!

So why do you think I directed it at you?

It never crossed my mind. The post was directed at the person who sent the developer emails. So if it wasn't you then why are you saying I'm attacking you?

[2gaulle]

this world is realy crasy , it's a new world were we could only said that all is perfect.

sory Matrix, sory Mister Marc Schwanebeck if I was not in the line of the Party.

[2gaulle]

I certainly have. Many people have stopped playing chess & checkers on computers because the AI is just too damn tuff these days. Humans ask for challenges, but can't stand it when they have no hope of even winning.

chess and wargame are very different regarding AI.
With Chess, the terrain and the unit are limited and are all the time the same.
the AI in chess is done on a studing of all the old game, something absolutly impossible with wargame.

[2gaulle]

Never mentioned you!

So why do you think I directed it at you?

unfortunatly your post was in reply to me!

look like his majesty Marc Schwanebeck have made the same attack
(You know I don´t write nasty emails too Porsche simply because of the fact I don´t like the gear on their new car project.)

[2gaulle]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: donkuchi

People need to understand that the customer isn't always right. Sometimes the customer is an idiot. I was at a restaurant today and a customer started complaining that he was allergic to something that was in the food that he ordered. It was right in the description of the item on the menu. He didn't specify this when he ordered it and then had the nerve to complain about it. (I saw the whole transaction) The waitress isn't a psychic and had no way of knowing. My point is, if it has what you want, buy it. If it doesn't don't slam it, just don't buy it. Vote with your dollars (or whatever other currency you have) and be civil about it. You also don't have to beat a dead horse. They said they were looking into it, give them a chance. They can't change everything in one day because one person wants a new feature.

BRAVO,

An experience I had last week in Rome. An italian customer refused to pay for a meal (at the table next too me) cause he ordered "Spaghetti a la Carbonara" the jerk (an italian, who should know his stuff btw) complained about the fact that the meal had "parmesan cheese" on it [8|] !!!! He complaint about "parmesan" on "Spaghetti a la Carbonara", that´s almost like complaining about round wheels on a car !

!

Look like you have a great respect for your customer!

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: donkuchi

People need to understand that the customer isn't always right. Sometimes the customer is an idiot. I was at a restaurant today and a customer started complaining that he was allergic to something that was in the food that he ordered. It was right in the description of the item on the menu. He didn't specify this when he ordered it and then had the nerve to complain about it. (I saw the whole transaction) The waitress isn't a psychic and had no way of knowing. My point is, if it has what you want, buy it. If it doesn't don't slam it, just don't buy it. Vote with your dollars (or whatever other currency you have) and be civil about it. You also don't have to beat a dead horse. They said they were looking into it, give them a chance. They can't change everything in one day because one person wants a new feature.

BRAVO,

An experience I had last week in Rome. An italian customer refused to pay for a meal (at the table next too me) cause he ordered "Spaghetti a la Carbonara" the jerk (an italian, who should know his stuff btw) complained about the fact that the meal had "parmesan cheese" on it [8|] !!!! He complaint about "parmesan" on "Spaghetti a la Carbonara", that´s almost like complaining about round wheels on a car !

!

Look like you have a great respect for your customer!

I have a great respect for my customers. A very great respect. But I´m a customer too. And I know that I´m not allways right.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

Never mentioned you!

So why do you think I directed it at you?

unfortunatly your post was in reply to me!

look like his majesty Marc Schwanebeck have made the same attack
(You know I don´t write nasty emails too Porsche simply because of the fact I don´t like the gear on their new car project.)

Don´t take a "reply to" too personaly it depends on where the respectice poster hits the "quote" or "reply" button [;)]

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

this world is realy crasy , it's a new world were we could only said that all is perfect.

sory Matrix, sory Mister Marc Schwanebeck if I was not in the line of the Party.

Nobody is asking you to say "everything is perfect", but what we ask to not harp on allways the same matter when it has been stated a dozen of times that we WILL look into PBEM. Okay? I mean honestly, what do you want more? You bitched about the lack of PBEM and the developer comes and says, hey we look into it? Isn´t that a great customer response or what?

[Pippin]

With Chess, the terrain and the unit are limited and are all the time the same.
the AI in chess is done on a studing of all the old game, something absolutly impossible with wargame.

I do not quite believe so.

The terrain in chess is quite often changing. For example, the bishop represents the archer unit. They have quite great a nice range and are great for bearing down open diagonals. On the other hand, knights are quick and can leap through tuff spots. Nice to have in enclosed areas.

It does not take a genius long to figure out that you want to keep changing the terrain to prohibit movement on your opponent, or force him into a worse position. Early in game it is advantageous to trade down an opponent’s freemoving units, such as knights. Late in the game you want to trade down his large range bearing units. Two rooks or two bishops working in tandem with each other can be utterly deadly on open diagonal or ranks & files. Thus, what ever pawns and other units one has left it is wise to push them out and clutter or obstruct those opposing units as much as possible without risk to your protected king.

We could go on all night here, but I assure you in any chess game, the terrain is definitely changing, every turn. No chessmaster will leave the field static for long, even the most defensive openings (Sicilian Gambit, French Defence, etc) require the terrain of the field to change somewhat.

And yes, units do change too. You ever see what happens to pawn when it reaches the other side of the board?

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

With Chess, the terrain and the unit are limited and are all the time the same.
the AI in chess is done on a studing of all the old game, something absolutly impossible with wargame.

I do not quite believe so.

The terrain in chess is quite often changing. For example, the bishop represents the archer unit. They have quite great a nice range and are great for bearing down open diagonals. On the other hand, knights are quick and can leap through tuff spots. Nice to have in enclosed areas.

It does not take a genius long to figure out that you want to keep changing the terrain to prohibit movement on your opponent, or force him into a worse position. Early in game it is advantageous to trade down an opponent’s freemoving units, such as knights. Late in the game you want to trade down his large range bearing units. Two rooks or two bishops working in tandem with each other can be utterly deadly on open diagonal or ranks & files. Thus, what ever pawns and other units one has left it is wise to push them out and clutter or obstruct those opposing units as much as possible without risk to your protected king.

We could go on all night here, but I assure you in any chess game, the terrain is definitely changing, every turn. No chessmaster will leave the field static for long, even the most defensive openings (Sicilian Gambit, French Defence, etc) require the terrain of the field to change somewhat.

And yes, units do change too. You ever see what happens to pawn when it reaches the other side of the board?

That´s why it´s called "Game of the Kings". Easy to learn, extremely hard to master.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle
do you want we change the way to play according to your design?
doesn't it sound more logical to have a design according to the play of your customer???

Don't know if your game is good or not, so far it't look great but unfortunatly your attitude is not close to your customer.

As I mentioned in other posts, we are planning to add PBEM support after release. It seems from the feedback I'm getting that people would not mind a version of PBEM that did not support tactical combat. Anyone reading this with strong opinions either way please feel free to post them.

I've been trying to outline a design of PBEM that would include both the strategic and tactical levels, as I believe that the union of the two levels is Crown of Glory's most distinguishing feature. It's hard for me to imagine the Napoleonic era without the battles.

The difficulty in keeping tactical combat is that a battle at the tactical level takes nearly as many turns back and forth as playing an entire strategic game -- which, as you pointed out earlier, PBEM players rarely finish anyway. I can imagine that a game with ten times as many turns as a standard PBEM game would almost never be finished. There may be ways around this by allowing the player to give sets of orders with contingencies that are enacted over multiple turns, or by turning over a portion of the turns to the AI.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

When I saw that battles took so many turns I inmediately understood they were not feasible in multiplayer, I had been planing myself to produce a wargame with both levels, strategic and tactic, and having pondered it I think the tactical level should be either real time or a very short, turn based, wego system, so that Austerlitz could be fought in less than 10 turns. I understand that CoG would be played as multiplayer in the strategic level. So yes, my vote goes for a PBEM with no tactical level. BTW would it be multiplayer PBEM? that would be more important than try to force the tactical level in

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

Never mentioned you!

So why do you think I directed it at you?

unfortunatly your post was in reply to me!

look like his majesty Marc Schwanebeck have made the same attack
(You know I don´t write nasty emails too Porsche simply because of the fact I don´t like the gear on their new car project.)

I apologise. I never think about the reply button etc I just go ahead and poat. Again sorry it wasn't directed at you.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

.........................

Anyone reading this with strong opinions either way please feel free to post them.

.................................

I think that has already been going on.

How about us with weak opinions? Well, here are my opinions:

PBEM without tactical combat would suit me fine.

A good AI in a single player game (with tactical battles) would be my second choice (very close to first choice).

And third would be on-line gaming. Tried a lot of this with EU2. Can't tell you how many times I have played the years 1492 - 1575. But I can tell you I have never played 1492 - 1800. Since CoG is not as long a game perhaps it would be more likely to be finished before problems arose.

I realize having so many players in a PBEM game is tough which is why my first and second choices are a toss-up. Now if the AI can be substituted for a few of the countries in PBEM then it may work well (I think this is how it is in WaW).

[2gaulle]

As I mentioned in other posts, we are planning to add PBEM support after release.

sorry again but it's not acceptable.
you write, buy it and we will add (perhaps!) an important compoment some time later.

I begin to undertand the problem. As EIA as been delayed due to the TMR error, for commercial/marketing reason CoG must be release shortly.

It seems from the feedback I'm getting that people would not mind a version of PBEM that did not support tactical combat. Anyone reading this with strong opinions either way please feel free to post them.

I've been trying to outline a design of PBEM that would include both the strategic and tactical levels, as I believe that the union of the two levels is Crown of Glory's most distinguishing feature. It's hard for me to imagine the Napoleonic era without the battles.

Tactical battle is a different point. The only wargame I have played by lan was 1813. the tactical part of the game was interesting but I never played it. I don't think many will be able to play the tactical part as allready the stategic part is 252 turns!

now the problem could be different for short scenario. In this case the goal to be to create a battle situation, in this case the Tactical become the most important. with 20 minutes by turn and all the detail showing in the game description there is certainly something interesting for PBEM.

On a AI point of view, it's certainly more difficult to create a decent tactical AI than a strategic AI. That mean Tactical battle will certainly be an advantage for human in a single player game.