playable yet? Part II

[borner]

I always enjoyed Whack-a-mole. Especially if you did well and all the tickets came out to go buy cheap cra____  errrrr... cheap crud from the giftshop   

[borner]

The point was, and is, a debate on how playable the game is at this point. I bought this game the first week it was out with high hopes, that were soon dashed. I have played in a couple of games with Neverman, and although they failed for various reasons, he stuck with the games he started, which is far more than I can say for many other players I have run into. That said, at the time this thread, and a couple of ones before this, started, I did not think this was playable.  I am happy to say that I am in a couple now, that now seem to be, and my position is changing. While early, April 05 or earlier, we have yet to run into the game-changing bugs that were so very common in earlier versions. It also helps that especially in one of them, we are going through a 7 player phase in 2-3 days, and yesterday acually made it through the eco phase in one day!  Morale of the story, if you have players that are committed to checking if they are up at least once per day, you can ofter get through 2-3 player phases in a day, which while not blazing, is still not that bad all things considered.
 
(I still am a big advocate that some phases need to be done alltogether (Dip/Eco, maybe reinf), and this would only serve to greatly increase speed and thus enjoyment of the game - but that is being discussed in another thread.)

[NeverMan]

The game still has no naval evasion (that I am aware of) and has no combined movement. These are two major issues with the game. Punztdr can go on and on and say "matrix says they are fixing this" but with a lot of these problems they haven't said a thing about fixing them.

Until recently I actually thought that "loaning" corps could act like combined movement until I read (I can't believe no one caught this earlier, myself included obviously) that if you loan a corps to a country then that country loses/gains PP in a battle even if that country doesn't have corps present. I have no idea why this was implemented this way but it really throws balance off in the game.

I see many things that need to be fixed that are not included in the "Mantis" list, as Putzdger suggests.

[ndrose]

I think the game is playable, and a lot of fun. There are things that could be improved (I like the idea of simultaneous phases for eco and diplomacy), but one thing I think we should recognize is that we all want two things--a faster game, and a more accurate reflection of EiA--and these two things are in tension with one another. EiA had innumerable steps within the phases; it's no easy task to try to get as much of that as possible into a game that can still be played at a reasonable speed by exchange of files.

[pzgndr]

one thing I think we should recognize is that we all want two things--a faster game, and a more accurate reflection of EiA--and these two things are in tension with one another.

Bingo. But not only are they in tension, a perfectly accurate recreation of the board game and all of its interactive ftf phases is simply impossible. Compromises are necessary, for better or worse, and that's a fact of life.

as Putzdger suggests

Oh look. NeverMan is trying to be cute. A sphincter says what? [8|]

I think the game is playable, and a lot of fun.

I agree. And most other players who are playing the game seem to agree also. Even the ones who insist it is not playable are basing their opinions on the fact that they are playing the game. So I guess it is playable. QED [:)]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

I think the game is playable, and a lot of fun. There are things that could be improved (I like the idea of simultaneous phases for eco and diplomacy), but one thing I think we should recognize is that we all want two things--a faster game, and a more accurate reflection of EiA--and these two things are in tension with one another. EiA had innumerable steps within the phases; it's no easy task to try to get as much of that as possible into a game that can still be played at a reasonable speed by exchange of files.

Yes, a faster game and a classic EiA would do wonders for this game.

I disagree with your reasonable speed remark, real-time play (IP via UDP or TCP) would do the trick.

[borner]

IF everyone can be on at the some time

[ndrose]

ORIGINAL: borner

IF everyone can be on at the some time

Yeah, that would certainly be impossible for me. I'm usually near my computer, and can respond by pbem pretty quickly; but life is sufficiently chaotic that I couldn't promise to be there at a specified time, or to stay there for any length of time.

I can see that it would be a nice feature for those who could make use of it, though.

[Mardonius]

I'm with Nathan. Something to do with four kids and two and a half jobs.

[pzgndr]

I'm suppose there may be a couple of larger play groups of 6-7 players willing to glue themselves to their computers for hours at a time on a regular basis for a long haul game.  More likely may be 2-4 players plus AI playing shorter scenarios in reasonable periods of time.  IP is desireable but it's not critical right now for most.  Getting those other scenarios completed and improving the AI so players actually have something to play via IP is more important first. 

[pzgndr]

I just have to repost this from Trax's AAR above:

Our four player group has compleated EiANW with a French victory in December of 1812.
Finish order with percentage; France 101, Spain 89, G.B. 88, Turkey 83, Russia 60, Austria 51, Prussia 38.
Ai Spain and Turkey did nothing to deserve their fininshing positions!

In our game France won two unconditional peace treaties from both Austria and Prussia. GB won a
conditional peace from the Turks. Russia was invaded twice by France but was never defeated.
Our game had human players for France, GB, Austria and Russia. After about 1806 we found it preferable to let
the Austrian player also control Prussia.
We started our game about the first of February 2008 and finished mid January 2009. There was
about 5 game months of do-overs with the early problems in the game. Progress has been steady for quite
a while now. This adds up to about 1700 turns in 350 days an average of 5 player turns
per day. We did have several weeks of no play so the average of 5 turns is misleading. On a good
evening we often could get through two phases of a game month.
Our group is going to shuffle countries and start again.

Playable yet? ROTFLMAO [:D]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Playable yet? ROTFLMAO [:D]

No, it's not, at least not in the spirit of the word playable.

[mr.godo]

Whining and complaining will not change anything or help accelerate the ongoing development towards final completion. Please help out, or just go away.

We are helping. They need to stop the current development and start with an EiA 2.0 that has a practical gameturn and more player involvement than just moving your pieces and waiting for everyone else to move their pieces.

This is not a community effort. I did not sign up for a community effort. I paid money for a game I thought I could enjoy with distant friends, not an aberration of the game or something cobbled together. Glorify this game all you want, but the fact is that this game will never be playable because of the amount of time it requires for you to wait around. Wow! You can 4 player it in less than a year? Impressive, but not practical.

If you want to get rid of the realistic feedback, I have a price. Buy my key. Until then, I'll play the game solo and cringe at the thought that I could be waiting three days while other people are busy ignoring their emails.

[pzgndr]

the fact is that this game will never be playable

What fact? There is plain evidence to the contrary. On one hand we have folks like Trax provide an AAR of an actual completed game, blemishes and all, which establishes as fact that the game is playable. Period. On the other hand, we continue to get spurious assertions that the game is still not playable and perhaps will never be playable. That is a personal opinion. This "discussion" is clearly not about playability any more, if it ever was; it is about something else entirely.

Whether you like it or not, it IS an exercise in development and does require a certain degree of community effort. If that's not to one's personal liking, one should not buy these niche wargames. But some folks buy them anyway expecting them to be what they are not and then complaining about it. That's just stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does.
- Forrest Gump

[ereiser]

Is the game playable?  At this point, it's all up to your expectations.

This is a GRAND strategy campaign game. The game that it is based upon was meant to be played by 7 people FtF.  25 years ago, we seemed to manage that on a fairly regular basis, but then we all grew up (marriage, kids, jobs, illness, etc., etc.).  Even FtF (playing 2x/month), it could take over a year to play a game.  Why invest that much time in a single game?  Because with 7 human players, it is, by far, on of the best games I've ever played!  The combinations of diplomacy and military play over an extended campaign period are outstanding.

That said, this computer game is a means of continuing that game tradition while dealing with the complexities of life.  A game is going to take a long time, but is playable because you only need to devote a short period of time each day to playing it.  It takes patience and encourages a long view of strategy (yes, the opposite of our instant gratification society!).  In that regard, it is very playable (though yes, we do need a few more bugs worked out). 

The corollary being, if you're not willing to devote the extended time to play, then it is not playable.

For the solo player against the AI, it is not a very good game (I consider that mainly to be training in how to operate the game system).  The AI improvments that have been made help a little, but like most any computer game, it's just a matter of figuring out the AI's weaknesses are and exploiting them.  It can be fun, but not as rewarding.

As for IP play, you're back to the same problems that FtF games had, getting a number of people with widely varying schedules and commitments, together at the same time.

Regards,
Eric

[borner]

I agree, the idea behind PBEM is thatrveryone does not have to be around at once.... so it's the same old debate from several threads. Go back to base EIA, not EiH, and give up a little by having dip/reinf/eco phases done at teh same time, and shave off DAYS per game month by doing so. I consider myself an EiA purist, and would never argue to do these at the same time face to face, but to me it's a good trade off

[mr.godo]

quote:

Whether you like it or not, it IS an exercise in development and does require a certain degree of community effort. If that's not to one's personal liking, one should not buy these niche wargames. But some folks buy them anyway expecting them to be what they are not and then complaining about it. That's just stupid.



Stupid is as stupid does.
- Forrest Gump

You can't help yourself in demeaning people, can you panzer grenadier?

Nowhere do I see Matrix claiming to be a community based effort. They have a staff who game, they listen to their customers, but they do not rely on their customers to help with game development actively.

This is the licensed version of EiA. Why shouldn't there be some expectation to it resembling the boardgame?

I find the interface to be about as complex as colonization from the early 1990's. I disagree with the notion that this is a complex game. The strategies and tactics may be complex, but the mechanics of the game are not.

[pzgndr]

Well mr.godo, considering the snarky and demeaning comments made about the game, Marshall Ellis, and Matrix Games, a few rebuttals should be fair.  This game will never be playable?  Never, ever??  Uh-huh. 

[Tarleton]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
On the other hand, we continue to get spurious assertions that the game is still not playable and perhaps will never be playable. That is a personal opinion. This "discussion" is clearly not about playability any more, if it ever was; it is about something else entirely.

This whole thread seems pretty useless to me. I am playing it. I am enjoying it. Unplayable? Who thinks so? 5 balding 50 year old men in their Mom's basement?

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Well mr.godo, considering the snarky and demeaning comments made about the game, Marshall Ellis, and Matrix Games, a few rebuttals should be fair.  This game will never be playable?  Never, ever??  Uh-huh. 

Why do you have such a problem with people giving an honest opinion about a game they have spent good money on?? Doesn't that alone give them the right to voice their opinion? I guess you only want to hear opinions you agree with. Wow, what a great society that makes!

Dude, since Matrix really doesn't care what people post (obvious since you continue to insult people who give their honest opinion ABOUT A GAME!!!) go ahead insulting.

I guess you can consider "playable" literally, like you have done. I guess my expectations just aren't as low as yours (which is to be expected considering the quality of your posts). I have finished AI games since the first release, does that qualify as playable simply because I finished a game?

As far as Tarleton, I'm not 50 and I don't live with my mom.... although I am starting to lose my hair. [:(]