Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


#3, like the no combined movement, is probably a fundamental compromise necessary for the PC game adaptation.

THis is wrong. It MIGHT have been a necessary compromise for the PBEM PC version but is absolutely not a necessary compromise for a PC adaptation. Combined movement would work VERY WELL if IP play was implemented.

Withdrawn.

Hey come on guys relax, have a beer on me

I haven't played the tabletop version of the game.
 
I think that the game could be an excellent game with lots of variables and a nice combination of treachery and alliance (particularly PBEM).
 
Unfortunately the game isn't quite ready for full evaluation in this regard because there are some fairly significant bugs that still need to be ironed out. The AI isn't quite challenging yet, either.
 
The developers are hard at work on fixes though. Check these forums for progress before you buy the game.
 
My 2 cents,
 
 
GSB

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

THis is wrong. It MIGHT have been a necessary compromise for the PBEM PC version but is absolutely not a necessary compromise for a PC adaptation. Combined movement would work VERY WELL if IP play was implemented.

Wrong? You are entitled to your opinion about how the game coulda/woulda/shoulda been programmed, but that is all quite irrelevant now. There are nonetheless fundamental compromises in this computer game version that players need to recognize and deal with. Whether you like it or not.

What is the practical effect of loaned corps versus combined movement? The objective is to allow A+B+C to combine movements and combat D+E, or whatever. The loaned corps feature allows players to agree upon loaned corps and leaders during the diplomacy phase and have one player execute the necessary moves and combats. At the end of the turn, the effect is the same. Granted, there are still some loaned unit issues that should be ironed out to make this smoother, and supply issues from allied depots should be reconsidered. But the practical effect of this difference should be negligible. If that's how it is programmed to get it to work and reprogramming the game engine is not possible now, then so be it. Deal with it. Ranting and bashing won't change anything.

Well, I guess they can take their toys and go home.... LOLOL.

They, ADG? I guess this might make some sense to you, but I suspect you are the only one laughing. At yourself. [8|]

Yes, your point that combined movement was a "necessary compromise for the PC adaptation" was wrong. You can misdirect all day but you said that and it's wrong since this could have been done had in the PC version.

Also, the loaned corps feature is currently riddled with bugs and is severely jacking one of my games up at the moment. I don't think it's fair to put a year into a game just to have the game fall apart at the first sign of normal combat/war.

I still think that Matrix should give refunds to whoever wants it, that's my cause here. I'm sure you will say something like "Matrix isn't going to give refunds so just give up" but I'm not going to so get used to me posting like this and 1) stop reading and responding to my posts or 2) keep wasting your time, it's up to you.

Withdrawn.

Pzgndr, just stop taking the bait.

That's why they made a green button . . . to simplify your life.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I still think that Matrix should give refunds to whoever wants it, that's my cause here. I'm sure you will say something like "Matrix isn't going to give refunds so just give up" but I'm not going to so get used to me posting like this

It is not for me to say. Matrix policy is clear and you are wasting your time. What is also clear is your obnoxious attitude and self-admitted bashing of this game ad nauseum. [:-]

Matrix should ban you since you cannot and will not abide by the rules. A few dollars for a game is not worth this amount of continuous ranting and bashing. It is distracting from civil forum discussions. Matrix, hello?

What "rules"?? Where in the TOS does it say anything about not criticizing Matrix or the developers, PARTICULARLY when they deserve it?

Pzgndr, just stop taking the bait.

Roger, Jimmer. Engaging the block button.

Back on topic before we were rudely interrupted, you and others have identified some of the more obvious differences and those that are in fact fundamental compromises and their effects on the game could be discussed in more detail. That would make for a civil forum discussion, and something that could eventually be added to the manual to help new players.

Just read one of the reviews to find out about the game!

Passed Inspection: Faithful recreation of Australian Design Group’s classic boardgame.

Faithful: true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original

By posting the link to the review, Matrix is agreeing with it. From earlier posts above, to claim that ADG's stamp of approval is synonymous to a faithful recreation, I would beg to differ. Why did ADG approve it? They can do whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't make this a good game nor an accurate representation of the original.
In terms of a computer game, I'd rate it poor for the interface alone. The concept is gui design: focus on 'design'. This is more a mish mash of screens that you use to process the game turn. How do you add troops? There's a special process you have to figure out. Simply click on a province of your target country and then select the build icon and start building! How do you know when you need to add corps? Again, special process. Either go to each corps and write down their strengths, or go to the force summary page and memorize it then jump back to the builds page. Builds for a minor? Just find them on the map! You need to place troops for a minor? Find them. Which one? I don't know. Click on minors until you find the right one!
I'm sure there are people who enjoy figuring out quirky ways of playing a game, but the interface could have been done differently and made things easy. That's one reason for having a computer game in the first place: to make it easy to follow the rules and keep track of your troops.

This just goes to show that the reviewer did not do his job properly.

Faithful: true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original

There is a difference between a faithful adaptation and a perfect recreation of an original. Matrix advertised this game as the "official licensed adaptation of the classic Empires in Arms™ board game," and that was sufficient enough.

By posting the link to the review, Matrix is agreeing with it.

This is not true.

Why did ADG approve it?

Only ADG can answer this, and frankly it's nobody else's business. I would suggest that it is part of the evolution of the game, from its original ADG release to its Avalon Hill release, to its official errata and game variants published in The General. All different. So which one was "right" and why would ADG "approve" such changes? And of course there are numerous house rules, unofficial variants and the whole EiH variant. Regardless, except for the fundamental compromises I mentioned previously, the other EiANW differences to the board game should be mostly resolveable through updates and the editor.

This just goes to show that the reviewer did not do his job properly.

The counter-argument is that customers did not do their homework either and willingly purchased a product that clearly didn't meet their expectations, and then proceeded to complain about their own poor judgement. Life is a two-way street. You go pointing fingers and forget there are three other fingers pointing back to you. Caveat emptor.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

This just goes to show that the reviewer did not do his job properly.

The counter-argument is that customers did not do their homework either and willingly purchased a product that clearly didn't meet their expectations, and then proceeded to complain about their own poor judgement. Life is a two-way street. You go pointing fingers and forget there are three other fingers pointing back to you. Caveat emptor.

Not really... I did not buy the game, so no fingers are pointing at me.
But more simply, you're argument is a fallacy as you are attacking me instead of the actual argument that states that the reviewer obviously did not do his job well as his conclusion is obviously wrong.
And as to the caveat emptor, it does not cover false and misleading advertising..... but you know that already don't you? If not, I have a bridge to sell you.

ORIGINAL: lavisj
But more simply, your argument is a fallacy as you are attacking me instead of the actual argument that states that the reviewer obviously did not do his job well as his conclusion is obviously wrong.

lavisj, that is just what he does.. he never deals with the actual debate because he is wrong most of the time and has little facts/logic to back himself up, intsead he will just continue to personally insult you... it's like talking to a 12 year old.

Lavis,

How do you know the reviewers conclusion is wrong?  Are your standards the same as his?  Are your expectations of what the game is (and not what it should be) the same, or different?  You haven't played the computer game, you haven't bought the game, yet a second person opinion of a third party review you take as gospel? 

In your well informed opinion, based on not playing the computer game at all,  the reviewer is wrong why?  Because his standards aren't Mr. Godo's when doing the review?  Or Nevermans? Or Mine?

Isn't that like me saying "I haven't seen the new Star Trek, but an online review I read by a guy named SpockLives saw it and hated it, so it must be a bad movie, so I am not going to see it.  Screw you JJ Abrams for ruining my dream!"

Please...

If anything too many people had too high an expectation of  what this game was going to be when released, including myself.  And too many people, including myself, are still trying to overcome those expectations when we play (or when we don't play but come here to criticize).  And too many people are still clamoring for things which cannot (ans shouldnot IMO) be addressed yet until other critical issues are taken care of.

Given the time and resources devoted to the game, I suprised its come as far as it has since it release.  Then again, its not likemore developers and moremoney could have turned out a better product, lord knows theehave been plenty of examples in the past of this...

Todd








[/align]

Thresh,

This game was only in development for like 6 years. I've seen better games developed in 6 months...

I just wanted to point out a counter example.

I expected a working product. If it was bad, then fine, my fault for buying it, but a working one. This beta version of a game is like trying to drive a truck with 2 of 8 bad sparkplugs, with a bad tranmission, in the rain with no windshield wipers. Does it run, sure, but you are going to have a hard time getting anywhere.
 

Neverman,

And how much time, energy, and resources did Microsoft spend on
Windows 2000?

If the worlds dominant computer software company can put out a product like that, which after nine years in production, four major updates and fixes, yet is still prone to bugs and virus's requiring almost monthly updates, then I'm willing to give Marshall and Matrix a little more rope.

Todd

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Neverman,

And how much time, energy, and resources did Microsoft spend on
Windows 2000?

If the worlds dominant computer software company can put out a product like that, which after nine years in production, four major updates and fixes, yet is still prone to bugs and virus's requiring almost monthly updates, then I'm willing to give Marshall and Matrix a little more rope.

Todd

Are you honestly comparing an Operating System to a game!? Seriously, that's not a good comparison, really.

BUT I understand your point as you made it before too, I'm just saying that I've seen independent developers put out good comparible software in a LOT LESS time.