What's wrong with cutting losses and starting a 2.0? ...I say leave it at 1.05 and move on to the next project. Take what's been learned and come up with something better. Matrix shouldn't give us what we want, though, they should give us what we need. EiA isn't going to port and their attempt at EiH isn't cutting the mustard either.
The name of the game is EMPIRES IN ARMS and it IS the OFFICIAL LICENSED VERSION, so why should it just be some game that is set during the Napoleonic Period.
If that's what it is then Matrix should have marketing it as such and not tried to fool everyone into thinking this was EMPIRES IN ARMS, which it's not!!
Oh my. What gives you guys any sense of authority to dictate how Matrix Games should run their business?? The only real right we all have as customers is to buy their product or not buy their product. Caveat emptor.
Since it IS the OFFICIAL LICENSED VERSION, the only person (i.e., THE ONLY PERSON) with any real sense of authority to comment about this official adaptation would be Harry Rowland. And what would he say? Let's go back to what he DID say in the stickie above:
I'm very impressed with the great job Marshall and his team have done in bringing Napoleonic warfare triumphantly back to life. Its a faithful recreation of the game with some very clever code to keep the e-mail interrupts to a minimum. Possible opposition reaction, although fun in a face to face boardgame, can be time consuming when playing by e-mail and the conquest conditions and naval interception solves this easily.
Overall its a lot of fun and I look forward to hearing your favourite strategies and tactics as you gloriously triumph over your hapless foes to bring forward the EU two hundred years under your stern but benevolent rule.
Good luck and good gaming!
Methinks, if it's all well and good with Harry Rowland then that should be the end of it. Unless and until HE speaks up and begins disagreeing with what Marshall Ellis and Matrix Games are doing, then the rest of us might as well play along to get along. [&o] Or perhaps you gents would like to bash Harry Rowland and tell him what he should be doing with his game? [8|]
Rather than offer lame suggestions to start over from scratch, game development should proceed as planned. Continue to fix the bugs, add more features and game options, add the other scenarios and classic EiA campaign, add the Editor, improve and enhance the AI, continue to streamline the pbem process, implement tcp/ip network play, etc. etc. etc. Once all that is eventually completed, whenever, most all players should be satisfied. How would a v2.0 be significantly different? It wouldn't, so no need to waste time on that non-starter idea.
I bought this game. I tried it. I have shelved it. I have hopes for the future.
Pasternakski is being perfectly reasonable here. If the current game is not right for you, take a break and try again later with each new patch. It's getting there. No need to make a fuss, not that it would make a whit of difference anyway except to embarass oneself. It's not like any of us paid into a worthless Maddoff Ponzi scheme with no product and no hope at all for the future. We do have the game in hand, many are playing it and enjoying it, and we all look forward to it getting better and better with each new patch. [8D]
