IP Play or NOT to IP Play? That is the question!

[sniperfodder]

ORIGINAL: Executioner Five

I'm surprised no one else has felt the same way I do yet...

I'd like to see it, but NOT, repeat, NOT, at the cost of a delay in release. If it can be patched in later, great...if it's either delay the game's release or no IP play, I'd rather see no IP play. I can live with PBEM [:)]

I agree completly.
I woun't mind the ablitly to play both with in one game, ie PBEM during the week, but somehow have it auto sinc if we can link up on the weekend. Again, not at the cost of a delay.

Someone mentioned in game communication. I wouldn't waste time with it. People can use MSN messanger, or Xfire, or ICQ, whatever they want. There are lots of stand alone programs that work fine. Don't try and fit more into the game then is needed.

[yammahoper]

Yes on IP. I have no desire to email game or play with others in many time zones from around the world. I am part of a dedicated gaming group that has been together since the earky eighties, and will play the game togther on our gaming Saturdays or at our occassional LAN's.

For us, in between game time is also game time. Strategy, diplomacy, invasion plans, even chit choices are often decided between sessions (for us, we play every other Saturday, a compromise the spouses enjoy so THEY can have a Saturday of our respective times alos, lol). Certainly while LANing the game we would have no problem pausing and taking as long as we desired for diplomacy, battle resoultions, etc (we debate if we fight the battles with pen and paper or use the provided battle system...we shall wait and see). The nice thing about playing this game in a LAN setting; no need to write down all your forces positions when you pack up and quit for the day, only to reset the board at the next game session; rather, the computer saves the game file and all we have to do s fire it up.

For those who do not have a gaming group or freinds who play EiA, I can see whythey would prefer PBEM. For those of us who plan on playing regularly in a local setting, LAN capability is a must (though it could come out in the second version).

yamma

[Titi]

It's funny to see that some basic design decisions are still pending.

Personally i strongly favor TCP/IP over PBEM. Why? Cause spending three hours per week on CEiA, i will probably made three months game time with TCP/IP while doing a phase of a month with PBEM (with an average of a player sending an email per day).

I completely understand that the implement of TCP/IP will delay a little more the game cause some mechanisms need to be changed back (like naval interceptions) and as i already wait a long time, i will be able to wait a lot more [:D].

I don't see any problem with multiples time zone cause it's the second parameter to choose opponents when starting a game, after the language. So, i'm sorry to anounce right now that i won't play with australian players.[;)]

At least, i hope that CWiF will learn fron this.[&o]

[Khornish]

I'd love to have an IP play option.

I've several sons, with my elder two old enough to want to play me EiA.

It would be much preferable for us to set up our local network with 3 computers and play together, than to be forced to email each other or file swap.

[Titi]

ORIGINAL: Khornish

I'd love to have an IP play option.

I've several sons, with my elder two old enough to want to play me EiA.

It would be much preferable for us to set up our local network with 3 computers and play together, than to be forced to email each other or file swap.

Do you have some growth hormons to sell? Mine is only 4 years old. I want to initiate him to EiA quicker [:D]

[eg0master]

ORIGINAL: Khornish

I'd love to have an IP play option.

I've several sons, with my elder two old enough to want to play me EiA.

It would be much preferable for us to set up our local network with 3 computers and play together, than to be forced to email each other or file swap.

And hotseat is not an option?

[gazfun]

Ive been playing PC Strategy games for a very long time, 20years, weve had many multiplayer games, with LAN PBEM, and IP. Its the setting up time for getting people together that is the problem, the more people to get together the more difficult it becomes. If one or two cant make it it for some reason, then it slows the game etc, then people lose interest. No matter what way you play "THE" game there has to be a GM that will be there (gamemaster) to ensure that if people cant make it, that it will continue, and to ensure that it does continue, which means players will have to provide for when they cant turn up for a paticular event meeting. Its easier for 2 people to get together for an IP game and subsequently the more people the more difficult it is to maintain discipline for meeting. In PBEM games there always the same factor of absenteeism as in IP but the pressure for a paticular day meeting is off. Therefore the GM can ask for a deadline time for orders to be recieved, which if still not complied with by players, and a temporary arrangement can cover for the either replaceing the player or in this case in EiA that I have observed the AI can do that turn for the missing player.
PBEM have a stronger chance of being completed, even if by attrition other players get out because of what ever reason, (losing perhaps)the AI players can take over in this case. You have more chance with the hard core of players left to continue a PBEM game

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: Titi

Do you have some growth hormons to sell? Mine is only 4 years old. I want to initiate him to EiA quicker [:D]

It's called "Miracle Grow".

And people only thought it was useful for garden plants...

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: eg0master

[And hotseat is not an option?

No.

Try maintaining the interest of 2 teenagers at a single computer when each of them is told to get away from it for 2/3 of the time to play.

I'd like a game session to last a few hours, but not hotseat it. If we did so, the game would never end as my sons would get fed up with the the delays, and frankly so would I.

[Khornish]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

Its the setting up time for getting people together that is the problem, the more people to get together the more difficult it becomes. If one or two cant make it it for some reason, then it slows the game etc, then people lose interest.... Therefore the GM can ask for a deadline time for orders to be recieved, which if still not complied with by players, and a temporary arrangement can cover for the either replaceing the player or in this case in EiA that I have observed the AI can do that turn for the missing player.
PBEM have a stronger chance of being completed, even if by attrition other players get out because of what ever reason, (losing perhaps)the AI players can take over in this case. You have more chance with the hard core of players left to continue a PBEM game

With an IP game, you can just leave it on and complete turns at leisure at least I can, and can several of my friends who are scattered about the country.

An IP option can be supported with turn time limits where the players' actions can be handled by the AI if the timer runs out. Set to where the players can choose to choose to set a time limit or not and where they can choose to have the AI run a timed out turn or not then this gives the players more options for starting and finishing a game. More options tend to lead to better sales due to more customer demands being satisfied...otherwise we'd all be driving the same make, model, and color of automobile.

[Pippin]

I'd like a game session to last a few hours, but not hotseat it. If we did so, the game would never end as my sons would get fed up with the the delays, and frankly so would I.

That's the problem in hot-seat where FOG comes into play. Everyone has to leave the room, or turn away. And the user doing his moves has to protect his screen from those quick over the shoulder peeks. This, amoungst other issues.

[nukkxx5058]

Hi all,

One more "vote" for the YES !! TCP/IP is absolutely necessary for fun !

PBEM is too slow and it's very difficult to refocus on the game after one week has passed and everybody played. TCP/IP is dynamic, allow real time diplomacy etc ... The question is not about the duration of a full gamebecause obviously, nobody expect to finish a game in one session but to save and reload next time. The question is the lengh of one game turn, provided it's nut a simultaneous turn based game (simultaneous TB Games is the top !!!)

Some say they don't have time to play TCPIP. Very well ! but that's not a reason to deprive others of such a pleasure. WE HAVE TIME TO PLAY !

Well, I don't want to repeat all what has been said before ... but please, Go on with TCP/IP !!! (at least in a patch to come).

BTW, I really thing that a company like matrix, specialised on turn based games (and don't change please!) should for the future seriously consider simultaneous turn based games option for all games. That's the future of online gaming with TB games. In the mean time, standart turn base TCP/IP will be great. (we can always perform diplomcy actions while it's not our turn ...)

[jwilkerson]

For years myself and some fellow gamers - have dreamed of playing EIA ( the board game ) with 7 players ... but we've never been able to get more then 4-5 for a long weekend ( 4 days ) ... so we could only get into the 1807-8 period ... and still had the problems of "bouncing Spain" around between us etc.

PBEM would put this dream within reach ... the people I'd be likely to play with are in different time zones and work different schedules ... trying to play EIA online would not work for us.

Right now with WITP ... I play 5-15 turns of PBEM per day ( in 5 different campaign games ) and the pace is just fine ... averaging about 2x real life ...

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: sniperfodder
I woun't mind the ablitly to play both with in one game, ie PBEM during the week, but somehow have it auto sinc if we can link up on the weekend. Again, not at the cost of a delay.

This would be very helpful based on what kajmakchalan said earlier in this thread:

It's a slow, measured game where only 3-4 players are likely to be busy at all at any one time. The other players will be building up their armies or licking their wounds, and not engaged enough to justify IP play.

Players actively involved in conflict could play TCP/IP if available, while those powers who were recouping could sort-of "sit out", submitting their turns by email.

I can see how EiA is much more PBEM suitable than World in Flames is; I think that is how our gaming group would play for the most part. I can also see the advantage of synchronous play for a faster and more involved game when the players can all get together on the same schedule.

[jhdeerslayer]

PBEM is always my preference for time and flexibility versus IP. Being a family man, I just can't sit uninterrupted at a PC for hours some IP games take. IP has zero meaning to me in any game except maybe COD types but that time commitment online is relatively short.

[Reiryc]

Sign me on for preferring TCP/IP...

Also being a family man, I seek as much time as possible to be in front of the computer as opposed to with the family. [:)]

[pooroldflick]

I think it'd be advantageous to be able to play by IP, hotseat, and PBEM. The more options the better in my opinion.

Yet again if this delays the game then add it later. I have no idea how much time it adds to game designing to add stuff like this.

[ian77]

You will need to implement Hotseat, IP/LAN, and PBEM to meet different players circumstances, and individual players will want/need all three at different times as well!

Personally our group intend to try hot seating during our regular Sunday get togethers, three of us work together and will play as two or three humans versus computer controlled opponents via LAN, and I should like to have two or three PBEM seven handed games on the go[:D]

[AaronTPV]

In all honesty, in this day and age of computers there really isn't much reason not to have all of the options ian77 mentioned above (Hotseat, IP/LAN, and PBEM). I certainly don't mean to knock anyone who has been working hard on the coding of this game--I couldn't do it--but the gaming marketplace has come to expect these things as necessities, no amenities. Not only would I want all options, and I agree that having them would help create more sales (and perhaps keep a brisk pace with some word-of-mouth), but even MORE importantly it is important to remember that failure to include certain items might actually drive sales down from where they might have been. Ultimately this does everyone harm because it makes it harder for companies like Matrix to justify supporting games like this (and the consequence would be reduced support for us, fewer games for us, fewer sales for the manufacturers, etc.).

Anyway, as much as I would hate to see EiA delayed indefinitely--I don't want that--I want even more for it to succeed and for people to enjoy it. It would be truly rewarding to be able to come here at some point in the future and find six complete strangers with whom I could set up an internet game and play every week, just like with Strategy First/Paradox and the Europa-based games; a community of EiAers if you will. Now that sounds good to me!

Stepping off of soapbox,
Aaron

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: AaronTPV

In all honesty, in this day and age of computers there really isn't much reason not to have all of the options ian77 mentioned above (Hotseat, IP/LAN, and PBEM). I certainly don't mean to knock anyone who has been working hard on the coding of this game--I couldn't do it--but the gaming marketplace has come to expect these things as necessities, no amenities.

Bah. On a game design level it is important to distinguish. The concerns that you have for a pbem game are very different than those you have for a LAN game. In LAN you don't want to have most of the people sitting around all the time with nothing to do. Sure players can chat or plot or whatever, but the experience is clearly better if everyone has somehting to do most of the time. For pbem you want the EXACT opposite - each person needs to get as much done before they have to hand off so that the game can progress reasonably quickly.

And that's just one example - there are other things that should be designed differently for pbem vs LAN. Testing will bring out different issues in each mode. Design choices WILL influence whether the game is enjoyable in either mode, and it is always difficult to try to straddle the fence.

I really believe it's best to prioritize one mode or the other. The limitations to having it all were never purely technical - they are mostly design based.