What about 1.04

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

David:

Q: When?
A: When I get my head above the water.

When the bug list is done with major issues then I'll retouch with the editor. Much of the code is already there.

Life jacket, Pshaw. I am pulling you onto dry ground!

[Dancing Bear]

So Marshall it looks like simultaneous reinforcement will not work without vast amounts of coding, but what about diplomacy and eco phase, and the ability to a player to opt to let the game to skip a naval phase during the reinforcement phase? I’m not sure from your post if they are still too difficult.
 
The is also another reason simultaneous reinforcement might not work, is that if reinforcement was simultaneous, it would be possible for lets say if the Russian and Prussian players both decided to put 20 infantry into Warsaw, this would exceed the cities capacity and would not be allowed. However, the game would not be able to resolve this and an error would occur.
 
You could limit reinforcements into cities to only home nation or controlled minors. Would this help with the coding problems you describe above? If so, I can live without the ability to reinforce troops into foreign territories for the sake of speed. The PBEM game is so slow it takes a die hard fan to carry on.
 

[Mardonius]

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Why do people enjoy playing EIANW against an incapable computer program -- th AI - when human players are FAR superior...

Like he said, because it's faster. I want to play for 3 hours and be done. Against the AI, I can do that. Against humans, it's three hours between phase steps, at best.

[datacollectioncenter]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius

These would certainly be easier. I cannot see why diplomacy couldn't be this way. As for the eco phase, I must ask for opinions from a typical Russian and Turkish player as to if for example:
Should Russia see the unit LEVY of Turkey in December which would happen before Russia's eco phase and what eco decisions might this affect?

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
I am investigating PBEM streamlining and it will be rather large. The engine's turn resolution is totally sequential which means loading France's reinforcement before Russia's is illegal and will not work. It will also negate the auto catchup feature I installed in 1.02. I have also discovered that setting any phase where a unit may be created (garrison) to simulataneous execution will cause huge problems since units have unique ids. These ids will not be duplicated in the current sequential execution method since only one nation could create a a unit at a time. In simulataneous execution there could be duplicated ids for separate units. So what does this mean?

The phases do not need to be simultaneous. What needs to happen is that each player's choices for the phase must be COLLECTED asynchronously. Then, the choices for each player can be APPLIED sequentially (just as now). Finally, they are DISPLAYED to each player at the same time.

In fact, you are going to HAVE to implement it this way in order to fix the major security hole I reported last night.

[datacollectioncenter]

Jimmer:
 
Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.
 
BTW: I fixed the security issue you noted last night by only displaying the current player's estimated pp total. No others are visible.
 
 

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock
They are not completely guaranteed unique, no; but the possible number is quite large. Guids are what windows itself runs off of (just take a look in the registry & you'll find TONS of them)

(If you generate 1 billion GUIDs every second for the next 100 years, the probability of creating just one duplicate would be about 50%. If EIANW gets to the point where
this is a problem; you can just buy M$ itself & change things [:D])

Creating ID blocks would probably be easier; however. I suspect that you wouldn't
acatually have to "convert" older games. Just start id blocks HIGHER
than the highest possible existing unit & then assign NEW units in those blocks
as they are created. Existing units continue to use their old (low number) values
as long as they exist. As long as you don't use algorithms (other than unit CREATION
ones) that EXPECT units to be in certain number ranges; you should be ok.

The other thing you could do, Marshall, is to create your own "GUID" internally to the game. Yes, you would have to translate that into real GUIDs once you get to the system level, but that may only be needed on rare occasions, and you can use a translation matrix to do it. Microsoft does THIS, too (try following a product's GUID through the registry some time, and you'll see what I mean -- there are dozens of them for every application, all doing roughly the same thing, and more doing other jobs).

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
The is also another reason simultaneous reinforcement might not work, is that if reinforcement was simultaneous, it would be possible for lets say if the Russian and Prussian players both decided to put 20 infantry into Warsaw, this would exceed the cities capacity and would not be allowed. However, the game would not be able to resolve this and an error would occur.

That can happen only with TRUE simultaneous reinforcement. But, all that is really needed is simultaneous listing of orders for each player. Then, the turns get applied.

In the scenario you outline, the second player's troops would have to be treated as if repatriated (and, probably a window should come up stating it). Worst case (for other scenarios), an error could be flagged and the game would request a correction before continuing. I would guess this kind of transaction sequencing issue would come up only rarely, though, so it shouldn't slow the game down much.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.

BTW: I fixed the security issue you noted last night by only displaying the current player's estimated pp total. No others are visible.

There were two parts to it. The Nation Status Display (the place where alliances, wars, etc, are displayed) was partially updated as well.

If you correct both, that should do it.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.

BTW: I fixed the security issue you noted last night by only displaying the current player's estimated pp total. No others are visible.

Just allow (instead of REQUIRE) a player the option of loading any
preceeding turn files that they might
have before processing their turn. This way; if France wants to wait to see what a
particular player did before doing his reinforcements; he can - but someone
who doesn't care what others have done can "jump the queue" & do their turn
ahead of time.

[Mardonius]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Marshall:

Thanks for the clarification. What about simultaneous diplomacy and economic phases? Would these work with the coding?

Thank you,
Mardonius

These would certainly be easier. I cannot see why diplomacy couldn't be this way. As for the eco phase, I must ask for opinions from a typical Russian and Turkish player as to if for example:
Should Russia see the unit LEVY of Turkey in December which would happen before Russia's eco phase and what eco decisions might this affect?

Hello Marshall:

I have never played Russia, but have played Turkey once or perhaps ten times. I have never had the levy step be visable to other players as my feudal corps are usually stood down in the winter and, unless in a active campaign, in the economic phase to save supply and maintenance costs. So, from a Turkish perspective, I would not hold up any contemporaneous economic movement due to any Levy function. At the greatest limitation, this combined economic phase should be an option.

We should strive to speed up the game. I'd love to hear what the Kaisers and the Czars have to say...

best
Mardonius

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

Yes BUT ... garrisons would be created in a French turn file BEFORE collected by other players. This is the problem that I must contend with.

These issues only happen while trying to make reinforcement simultaneous. Econ and Diplo shouldn't be a problem.

However, there are OTHER problems that could crop up in diplo or econ. Or, maybe just diplo:

Powers who declare war may be being treated as being at war for numerical calculations, even though they are not yet at war.
Instability/Fiasco calculations may cause the loss of a minor that someone else might want to declare war upon.
Etc.

However, all of these are ALREADY issues (like, the security issue from last night). They need to be solved if only for that reason alone. Once the decision was made to make the diplo phase "act like" it was simultaneous, it needed to be fully treated that way, in all respects, at least to the outside world.

BUT, internally, the computer can store up all of the steps people went through, and then apply them in the right order. While there are issues that might come up, I can't think of any at this time.

Think of it like a draw poker game. If you deal five cards to each player, they form a poker hand. Each person gets to draw some cards to replace those in his hand. A champion poker player will base his decision of how to play partly upon how many cards the previous players drew. However, one could design a poker game where all of the players drew their cards at once, say, if we wanted to play by email. They still would receive the cards in the order the cards were on the top of the deck. But, none of the actions would occur until all of the players had turned in their orders. Then, everybody would see all of the changes at once.

Now, this poker game loses a bit of the skill of draw poker. However, playability would be enhanced, because all X players could draw at the same time.

The same principle applies to EiA. Only there are far more interactions. Some interactions could impact other decisions. But, theoretically, players shouldn't be able to see that information now anyhow.

Now, back to reinforcement: A similar mindset COULD be applied. But, first, one must determine all of the possible interactions that could invalidate a player's choices. For example, having two forces in the same area. But, in regards to the whole game as a unit, these instances are quite rare. They can be handled by exception processing TO THE TURN ORDER:

Let's say you use my idea of reinforcement: Five powers go simultaneously, and then GB, and finally France. Before the reinforcement phase starts, determine all of the possible locations on the map where there could be a conflict. ALL of them.

Then, for each one, force those two players to be done sequentially, but leave the remainder of the players simultaneous.

It is never possible to need an order change between two warring powers. This is because all areas and cities have to be solely occupied by one power or the other (rural areas are separate from cities, for this purpose).

Allies, however, can trip each other up. They can be in the same territory. They can also be alone in a friend's country, where troops could appear. But, allies cannot change status to enemy during reinforcement.

So, all that needs to happen is have all spaces on the map checked for two forces (allied) and then special-case them: They go sequentially, as related to each other.

Using this method of thinking, basically, all powers are still going sequentially. However, the actual steps are not taken until all non-sequential nations have finished turning in their orders.

[AresMars]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Why do people enjoy playing EIANW against an incapable computer program -- the AI - when human players are FAR superior...

Like he said, because it's faster. I want to play for 3 hours and be done. Against the AI, I can do that. Against humans, it's three hours between phase steps, at best.

Jimmer, since I have already been labeled an EIA purist, you need to understand that I already accepted to spend time playing the PBEM game - IMHO, I prefer the challenge of human opponents....

People who played EIA (the game) also made that time investment and understood it was required.

You have to admit that we (you and I) are talking about complete different subjects - play versus AI game is faster - but the quality of the game and its enjoyment level is very different. On this do we agree?

If it was possible to play a PBEM game in three hours, I am positive many people would never play against the AI ever again or very rarely at least. [[&o] for a miracle - God, you listening?]

EIANW is kind of attempt of porting EIA to a computer game and to play over the Internet - I just did not buy it for a SOLO experience....this is where my comment comes from....

When I want a fast game, I also play the AI, but it is a wargame then...just a wargame....

[datacollectioncenter]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: AresMars
Why do people enjoy playing EIANW against an incapable computer program -- the AI - when human players are FAR superior...

Like he said, because it's faster. I want to play for 3 hours and be done. Against the AI, I can do that. Against humans, it's three hours between phase steps, at best.

Jimmer, since I have already been labeled an EIA purist, you need to understand that I already accepted to spend time playing the PBEM game - IMHO, I prefer the challenge of human opponents....

People who played EIA (the game) also made that time investment and understood it was required.

You have to admit that we (you and I) are talking about complete different subjects - play versus AI game is faster - but the quality of the game and its enjoyment level is very different. On this do we agree?

If it was possible to play a PBEM game in three hours, I am positive many people would never play against the AI ever again or very rarely at least. [[&o] for a miracle - God, you listening?]

EIANW is kind of attempt of porting EIA to a computer game and to play over the Internet - I just did not buy it for a SOLO experience....this is where my comment comes from....

When I want a fast game, I also play the AI, but it is a wargame then...just a wargame....

AresMars:

Don't be scared or offended but we sound similar in our EiANW exploits.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: AresMars

Jimmer, since I have already been labeled an EIA purist, you need to understand that I already accepted to spend time playing the PBEM game - IMHO, I prefer the challenge of human opponents....

People who played EIA (the game) also made that time investment and understood it was required.

You have to admit that we (you and I) are talking about complete different subjects - play versus AI game is faster - but the quality of the game and its enjoyment level is very different. On this do we agree?

If it was possible to play a PBEM game in three hours, I am positive many people would never play against the AI ever again or very rarely at least. [[&o] for a miracle - God, you listening?]

EIANW is kind of attempt of porting EIA to a computer game and to play over the Internet - I just did not buy it for a SOLO experience....this is where my comment comes from....

When I want a fast game, I also play the AI, but it is a wargame then...just a wargame....

Good points.

On that point the quality and enjoyment, well, I don't think I want to state publicly whether I get any thrills out of beating a hapless AI into a pulp over and over again. Such a statement could be taken as, well, a psychological failing. Perhaps. Or, perhaps it would be taken as an admission that winning against humans is just too tough, so perhaps I get "victories" out of more hapless opponents. But, I will say this: I play Civ IV on the warlord level (two steps above amoeba, I think), but still enjoy it.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
Don't be scared or offended but we sound similar in our EiANW exploits.

Psychologically, it's good to know we ... I mean YOU ... are not alone.

[;)] [:)] [:D] [X(]

[AresMars]

Marshall,
 
Why would I be scared or offended?
 
The chance of playing EIA with my friends again was an oppty I could not pass up and those very friends all bought the game for that same reason.
 
At first, we where shocked at how EiANW was not like EIA....it was a disappointment.
 
With time, our shock changed to resignation and we started a PBEM game.....there have been challenges but for the fun of playing together again, I (at least) feel that I am getting my money's worth....
 
Just the diplomacy alone brings back memories of the hours and hours spent in my basement playing Empire in Arms....20 something years passed very fast....
 
Your efforts are appreciated Marshall (as are the efforts of others that are helping you) - we shake our heads at times, but that is the nature of life and running a business.
 
Thank YOU!
 
AresMars

[datacollectioncenter]

AresMars:
 
Your kind words are appreciated. I shake my head a bit too and that's not at you guys but at myself when an obvious oversite is brought to my attention. I don't take mistakes lightly and I do take it personally since it is my code and it came from my brain BUT at least the blame game is easier that way . You guys are so very helpful and patient that you have made my job much easier and I thank you for that!
 
 

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

Actually if you are looking for an assist; yes I would be interrested. I am VERY familer
with the old Turbo-Pascal (over 8 years) as well as a year of Delphi (tho it was
Delphi-3 ... its been awhile - been doing VB/FoxPro/SQL lately)

Guy

Guy,

If you're looking to help out you could assist me with a PBEM streamlining project that I'm working on outside of the EiANW game. It should be reasonably simple enough to implement provided you're familiar with web services/SOAP/WSDL etc or can grab a library that does it (I'm looking at writing the SOAP server but you would need to do the SOAP client as I'm not a Windows programmer).

PM me if you're interested.