Is This Game Playable Yet?

[Erik Rutins]

FYI, in this case TCP/IP would have added much more time to the development than PBEM. It's such a major time investment and we've found its usage to be fairly low in other releases, that I doubt it will be feasible to implement it. I'd much rather improve the PBEM system as much as we can at this point.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Thank you Erik for a great post! This is pretty much all I think we wanted to hear:
1. Matrix apologize without BUTs
2. Fix the game page so that it is more accurate for newcomers (this actually helps you more than us, since it doesn't help us at all)

Glad to hear it. I'm pretty sure I had said all that before regarding the bugs and issues, but I guess not in the right way.

I hadn't heard such specific feedback on the game/store page description before, so once I knew what was specifically the problem with the posted feature point, it was easy to fix. I hope it helps new customers and avoids further confusion.

Regards,

- Erik

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
EDIT: I guess what a lot of people here who think I complain/whine too much don't understand is that I was here back then and I was screaming my lungs out for EiA and TCP/IP, both of which got ignored.

Well, while I would prefer TCP/IP play over PBEM, I'm glad you lost the argument. For, then, we would have nothing EiA-ish for at least another year (and I might never accidentally run into it then ...).

However, you are mistaken (or, using selective memory) to say that you were ignored. Your choice was defeated, primarly because there were far more people on the other side. I've seen the poll. I forget the numbers, but your position was simply outvoted.

Were they wrong? Perhaps. There seems to have been a lot of the other side who have disappeared from the debate. Perhaps they simply gave up on the game. Or, it's possible they don't want to be reminded that this was their idea. I don't know.

But, what we have now is what we have. There's no point in asking for TCP/IP as the next project. It would kill the game to take that much of Marshall's time away from the game.

I don't care if you "whine" or whatever. I do it myself. But, my preference would be that we debate constructively instead of destructively. It does absolute no good to say "I told you so"; they cannot change the general path they are on. Let's get the current game cleaned up close to "completely", and THEN push forward on other major improvements.

By the way, I (probably like you) would like to see full, original EIA as a TCP/IP-enabled package. I would pay extra for a server service to house the data (which is the only way the game could be secured properly). Etc. So, my preference is to ignore the idea of an EIA SCENARIO (don't bother wasting resources on it), and go straight to full EIA IP play instead (say, version 2). However, before we can do that, Matrix must turn a profit on the game. And that means getting this game, as Mary Poppins would say "spit-spot!"

I "think" Erik and Matrix are right on target as to how to get there. I don't know all of their plans, of course, but they seem pretty good right now. Hasbro would have written off the whole project if it didn't make boodles of money in the first three months. Firaxis would have cut it off at the knees after 6. Matrix is the only company I've seen willing to stick with a good idea like this, no matter how much it hurts.

The seed is here. The game has great promise: I've now played 4 games in a row (as France) through the first year, and I've not been able to get into London until at least July every time. That is a HUGE improvement.

I think they are on the right path NOW, using what they have. They can't go back in time and change things. So, to get to IP play, they have two options:

1) Blow up the current game and start over. This would be financially disastrous for them, and they most likely wouldn't survive. So, that option is out.

2) Mold what they have now into and acorn that can grow into an oak tree.

(I may have created a false dichotomy here, but, simplified, this is pretty close.)

I think that second option is the only one that will work. They need our help to do it, though. I'm going to stand behind them until the project either succeeds or fails. For, there really is no other path to choose.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I hadn't heard such specific feedback on the game/store page description before, so once I knew what was specifically the problem with the posted feature point, it was easy to fix. I hope it helps new customers and avoids further confusion.

Now that you mention it ...

There's one entry on the store page that says "officially licensed adaptation of" ....

I don't know how you word it, but it would be good to make it more plain that this is an adaptation. Moving that other entry up certainly will help.

Now, understand that this isn't going to sell any copies. But, those who DO buy will more fully understand what they are getting. I realize the wording now is "boilerplate" stuff, but NeverMan HAS a valid argument (about it not being EIA). I don't know how you word it without cutting sales, but it's something to think about.

[borner]

yes, it does seem like a bait and switch in a way. However, for now, it is what it is. I think we can all agree on the general facts of what happened, what fell short, and where things are. So, what now?
 
Personally, I hope that bug removal gets 100% of whatever resources are being put into this project. Then, worry about AI and such. My vote would be to look for ways for phases to be combined to speed up PBEM play next. This will never be EiA as many of us know it. It can be a close cousin once things are fixed. I agree with the comments that TCP/IP play is not practical, and really would be used by a small portion of players. In all 4 of my games, there are players from more than one nation or time zone.
 
I need some asprin. This switch to a more positive entry has given me a headache!
 
 

[NeverMan]

Jimmer:

You're right, I was just outvoted, the ***** masses have a way of doing that.

It's sad for me to think TCP/IP is a waste of time, as I don't think it is. I do think that because of lack of IP play that this game will never really be polished and finished, IMO, it will always be "dated", and therefore feel like an 8-bit NES 2D game (or worse, C64 game) rather than the extraordinary strategy game that it is.

I do think secure non-server IP games are possible, what is wrong with host-set encryption (fips-197, etc)? Or other forms of encryption?

Anyways, it seems as though I am wasting my breath on IP play...........again!! (Wonder how the first time turned out, LOL!)

Matrix has to put time into the AI for two reasons:
1. There is a large market for AI
2. A lot of the bugs are PBEM games only

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: borner
I need some asprin. This switch to a more positive entry has given me a headache!

Bwuahahahaha!

R
O
F
L
O
L

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I do think secure non-server IP games are possible, what is wrong with host-set encryption (fips-197, etc)? Or other forms of encryption?

Oh, it's not the encryption I was thinking of. It's the ability to stop or start a turn over and over again. With a server, that couldn't happen, because the server would hold all of the tokens. You couldn't see the results of combat until you had declared them to the server. Only then would it (for example) reveal chits.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear, was it.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I do think secure non-server IP games are possible, what is wrong with host-set encryption (fips-197, etc)? Or other forms of encryption?

Oh, it's not the encryption I was thinking of. It's the ability to stop or start a turn over and over again. With a server, that couldn't happen, because the server would hold all of the tokens. You couldn't see the results of combat until you had declared them to the server. Only then would it (for example) reveal chits.

Sorry, that wasn't very clear, was it.

I see what you were saying now, although two things:

1. This "cheat" is totally doable at the moment in PBEM (so why should TCP/IP be any different).
2. I'm sure this could be worked around locally.

[DavidTheGreat]

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: David The Great

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

I don't understand this attitude expressed by so many people. Did *anyone* play the original EiA *exactly* as it was intended ? I bet most groups had house rules. What is so sacrasanct about the original EiA, it was in my opinion a game with many flaws, a great game, but not without issues.

Now I can understand people saying EiANW is not ideal in one way or another, but not that therefore EiA is the ideal we should be aspiring to.

[borner]

Many of us have been so busy trying to exterminate bugs, that it's hard to give this version a fair look. For one, I think this version can be fine, but I think Martix needs to make at least some mention that the game is "based on" Eia, not that it is Eia.
 
Get rid of the bugs, and I think this could be a quality product.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: David The Great

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

I don't understand this attitude expressed by so many people. Did *anyone* play the original EiA *exactly* as it was intended ? I bet most groups had house rules. What is so sacrasanct about the original EiA, it was in my opinion a game with many flaws, a great game, but not without issues.

Now I can understand people saying EiANW is not ideal in one way or another, but not that therefore EiA is the ideal we should be aspiring to.

BUT you could always play the original EiA if you wanted to, with EiANW that is not even an option.

[DavidTheGreat]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: David The Great

Thank you for you're answers, if the game would be playable as the original EiA i might seriously consider buying it.

I don't understand this attitude expressed by so many people. Did *anyone* play the original EiA *exactly* as it was intended ? I bet most groups had house rules. What is so sacrasanct about the original EiA, it was in my opinion a game with many flaws, a great game, but not without issues.

Now I can understand people saying EiANW is not ideal in one way or another, but not that therefore EiA is the ideal we should be aspiring to.

I played the original EiA several times, We also played it with house rules, some of wich were sometimes complicated, some of them never got further then 1 game, others were stayers.
The EiHarm game was well known to our player group, you could not mis it if you made a internet search on the net. We sometimes tried a few of its contetns, for example the extra leaders, but never played it as it was intended, as it was a bridge to far for most of our player group.
So the answer to you're question is yes, we played the original several times in our player group, i'm sorry for you that you did not have the same game experience.

[Jimmer]

We played "stock" EiA. For one month of the first game we played.

At that point, Spain lost a battle in Morocco's capital, and we realized the retreat rules were not properly written. If read loosely, they created the unrealistic scenario that Spain could retreat East, "towards" home (via Constantinope).

At this point, we created our first (of MANY) "house rules": A unit could retreat in a direction only if it was truly "towards" his nation. We defined this as that a depot placement location could possibly exist within the maximum range +3 of the army that was retreating. In other words, if it were theoretically possible with the current map situation to build a depot (in the Morocco situation) within 7 spaces east (3 movement and 3 range from depot, plus one more for the actual retreat movement), then the army could retreat that direction.

However, unlike many of the games I've heard about, we ONLY created house rules to cover situations where we thought the real rules fell short, either of realism (at an abstract level) or of playability. We always played with almost all of the optional rules, too. That's how we found out they seemed to have been "add-ons", because several of them had logic or playability problems in them.

So, did we ever play true EiA? No, not for more than January, 1805, in our first game. And, neither did anybody else, since the rules of "true EiA" were logically contradictory in several places. EVERYBODY played with at least some house rules, if only at to how to resolve rules contradictions or to determine "how should this rule be interpretted?".

NOTE: We played before the first errata were ever printed. Several of the errata items that came out resolved some of our issues with the rules. Since some of you guys are relative youngsters, you may be more familiar with the "rules + errata", which eventually because playable. If you played after about 1986 or so, and had access to The General, it is possible you played with just the rules as written, which could be called "pure EiA".

[NeverMan]

I played in the late 80s early 90s and had access to the errata. We played Empires in Arms and we also played EiA with house rules sometimes, even ones from EiH.

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

[borner]

I think every group had house rules. The discussion for who had which ones, and what is better I think could be a great thread of it's own. It is all for not until Marshall can get out the industrial size can of bug spray tough.   

[pzgndr]

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

Speaking of pointless and silly, what exactly is the point of rehashing the same old arguments EVERY SINGLE DAY?? OK, EiANW should have been made as EiA. Fine. That would have been nice. But it wasn't. So. Move on already.

Matrix and Marshall have acknowledged over and over again that things will be fixed. We cannot expect more at this point. Does anyone think by endlessly complaining that somehow a miracle will occur and the game will be instantaneously fixed?

Every day the same old BS from a few vocal whiners. Every damn day. Grow up already. Move on. [8|]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

Speaking of pointless and silly, what exactly is the point of rehashing the same old arguments EVERY SINGLE DAY?? OK, EiANW should have been made as EiA. Fine. That would have been nice. But it wasn't. So. Move on already.

Matrix and Marshall have acknowledged over and over again that things will be fixed. We cannot expect more at this point. Does anyone think by endlessly complaining that somehow a miracle will occur and the game will be instantaneously fixed?

Every day the same old BS from a few vocal whiners. Every damn day. Grow up already. Move on. [8|]

Wow, what a constructive and mature post. I see you don't practice what you preach, what a hypocrite!

[iamspamus]

Nice diversion, but you don't address his issue. What is the point of just repeating that it's not EiA? We get it. You're not happy with EiANW. Got it...next.

I am happy to have it on computer. I like the direction it's going. It still needs some work. Keep up the good work guys.

Jason

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

All this is pointless. The game should have been made as EiA WITH Options (even from EiH or whatever). It's a silly argument. How can one argue that a base game with tons of options is worse than some game that forces options on users? That's just silly.

Speaking of pointless and silly, what exactly is the point of rehashing the same old arguments EVERY SINGLE DAY?? OK, EiANW should have been made as EiA. Fine. That would have been nice. But it wasn't. So. Move on already.

Matrix and Marshall have acknowledged over and over again that things will be fixed. We cannot expect more at this point. Does anyone think by endlessly complaining that somehow a miracle will occur and the game will be instantaneously fixed?

Every day the same old BS from a few vocal whiners. Every damn day. Grow up already. Move on. [8|]

Wow, what a constructive and mature post. I see you don't practice what you preach, what a hypocrite!