February Update

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

A thought

Post by Le Tondu »

With all this talk about PBEM and simultaneous movement, etc...

I had a thought.

I remembered way back when combat mission was PBEM only and how hard it was to switch to TCP/IP play. I mean when you are used to a certain system it is really a comfortable place to be ---and it is not so comfortable when you try to change things.

The switch from PBEM to TCP/IP play (with CM) for me was uncomfortable until about ten minutes into my first TCP/IP game. It was like night and day. No longer did I have to wait a real long time! I could get an entire game finished in one day. Sometimes even more.

Now, I write all this not knowing for sure if EiA will be TCP/IP possible, but if it is, then you guys are in for a treat.

This will especially be true during multiplayer games. To this I imagine everybody would tune into the host player's TCP address and voila you're off to the races!

All it would take is a couple of hours on a weekend day and you probably get a whole lot more done that doing it PBEM for a week.

This is offered just as something to think about. Change is sometimes hard to do, but maybe it is just what the doctor ordered to get us past this PBEM question.
:)
Vive l'Empereur!
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2083
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

I like TCP/IP games, but the problem is finishing them.

If you have simultaneous movement whre players are concurrently planning, it executes, and then they plan again, it will work well.

Even still, gettin 5-7 players together consistently for a couple hours a week is tough.

Used to play SSI's Imperialism multiplayer, where you had 4-5 players playing in a TCP/IP format, and it was good. But the problem of getting all the players times to coincide was a pain.

I loved the game and TCP/IP format, but you could not complete games due to getting players together.

If you have a PBEM format, the game will plod along, but it is steady and less dependent on getting folks together. You may even be able to keep a pace that would rival TCP/IP over time.

That's my take.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Wynter
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 7:46 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: A thought

Post by Wynter »

Originally posted by Le Tondu
All it would take is a couple of hours on a weekend day and you probably get a whole lot more done that doing it PBEM for a week.


True, but remember that there are players all around the world, so getting them together at the same time is extremely difficult. Therefore I would vote for sim-movement.

Jeroen.
User avatar
jnier
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 10:00 am

Re: Re: A thought

Post by jnier »

Originally posted by Wynter
True, but remember that there are players all around the world, so getting them together at the same time is extremely difficult. Therefore I would vote for sim-movement.

Jeroen.
I think PBEM with simultaneous movement would make for a more feasible multiplayer experience than the alternatives. Jeroen is our very able GM in a PBEM game using cyberboard with simultaneous movement, and we are coming close to completing a turn per week (although it's still early). Imagine how quickly things would go if the GM's duties could be automated?

TCP/IP is great for 2 or 3 players, but not for 7.

And without simultanous movement all hopes of ever completing game are out the window...forget about it. I hope the Matrix folks are aware of this reality.
von Curow
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Plymouth (Massachusetts)
Contact:

Post by von Curow »

I am posting the following for MartinMB who could not be with us in person at this time. Please flame him, not me. :)
This is Martinmb responding not Kevin. The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. Kevin has been nice enough to post this for me as I am experiencing some techno difficulties at this time.

Wynter: If you think that it would take one month of real time to do a game month you are sadly mistaken. I also am running an EiA PBEM game. All of us have completed, prior to my computer going funny in the head, three full turns in just 4 1/2 weeks. As the GA of the group I have been able to successfully and accurately maintain a correct count of every player’s military forces and placements. Before we started I sent everyone a tutorial as to what was required in each phase of the game. I also believe that if you are going to expend about 300+ hours of your life, (There is 168 hours in a week, you do the math), that you must as a mature adult give full credit to your players having a brain in their head. During this game there has been about 2 or 3 issues brought forth that I did not cover or anticipate. The game was halted for about 2 days, each time, before a final agreed decision was reached. Everyone in the game does expect some delays. You cannot avoid this when you have 7 leaders of state sitting at one table. It is up to the GA to make the final decision, which is not to say that the GA is to micro-manage the game as a dictator with a “control” problem.

The way we play our PBEM game is thus. Diplomacy is conducted at all times and by all players, it is only subject as to how fast you can type and as to how quickly your ISP sends the e-mail. (Try and stop a wargamer from planning and communicating the destruction of his game enemies! <G>) Every economic phase each player sends the GA a copy of his last 4 months worth of expenditures as well as his builds for this phase, the GA sends a copy of his economic stuff to a specific player at the same time. (This keeps thing honest)

Moves are conducted with the knowledge that if you send it, it stays the way it was sent. (Just like in chess once your finger is off the piece the move is done!) As the GA I check every move as they are received, they are sent to every other at the same time. If an error has occurred in a player’s move I notify every player to hold their move as someone has made a whoops. I then contact that player with ALL of the options open to him and with what was done incorrectly. The GA then sends out the corrected move and the game resumes. Land moves are done separately from Naval moves. It is also during each player’s current move that any and all of his reinforcements are placed on the map or in his corps. This also includes the adding or removal any leaders in his “force pool”.

Political phase, this was a little tricky but I have come up with a way to insure fairness for all. The political phase is conducted in two parts. Part one has your countries 1) declarations of war. 2) Alliance and Combined movement announcements. The GA then sends out to everyone the results of the 1st half of the Political phase along with a move that places all minor countries that have been dow’d, and that have forces, in the capital of that minor nation. The major country that gained control of that minor then has the option to re-deploy those forces during his Naval phase. Navies always start in the capitol city or strongest defended port. Also included in this e-mail is the order in which every nation will move his Naval forces. The GB player sends his placement of when he wishes to move in the Naval phase to everyone as soon as the results have been posted. If GB sends no e-mail then he goes first. The French announce when he will move in the Land phase during his Naval phase. If the 2nd half of the political phase is required it will contain 1) Call to allies. And the balance of any missed steps.

As for land battles it is quite simple. For example Austria starts a fight with a Prussian corp. Austria would move his corps into the area and then ask the Prussian to send his “battle chit” selection to the GA, Austria would do the same but in a private e-mail. Once the GA has received both chit selections the GA would then do the battle and send out the results. I am doing it this way for the first year of the game so that the new players to the game can see what is required in doing a battle. Once the new players are comfortable with doing a battle on their own I will allow any player to conduct the battles for themselves. However, both sides will still have to send their respective battle chit selections to the GA to insure honesty. Simple is it not.

As for the debate as to if Matrixgames should concentrate on having this game built for the PBEM or the Play alone option. I believe that most of us will want to play the game against the AI alone first and then have our friends join in a 7-player game. This may not be true for all of us but it is for me. I personally believe that Matrixgames should put their primary efforts into making the AI as strong as possible. For if the AI is not done right what would be the point in buying the game in the first place. I do however like the idea that the AI in this game being able to act as the “rules judge” in a 7-player game.

I have done my best to recreate the flavour of this great game in the PBEM world. I am the first to state that it is not the EXACT same as playing this game Face-To-Face. I am totally against having this game played without the British and French having the choice of when they wish to move during the Land and Naval phases. This game is not set-up to be played in an “all move at once” manner. If you want to play a game that does allow this to occur then I suggest that you play a game called “Pax Britainnica” and leave “Empires in Arms” alone.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

This article was written by Martinmb and not by the person who has posted it. Any and all comments or suggestions about this should Only be directed towards Martinmb. Thank You.
The closer you are to Caesar, the greater the fear.
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2083
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

This is Martinmb responding not Kevin. The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. Kevin has been nice enough to post this for me as I am experiencing some techno difficulties at this time.

Wynter: If you think that it would take one month of real time to do a game month you are sadly mistaken. I also am running an EiA PBEM game. All of us have completed, prior to my computer going funny in the head, three full turns in just 4 1/2 weeks. As the GA of the group I have been able to successfully and accurately maintain a correct count of every player’s military forces and placements. Before we started I sent everyone a tutorial as to what was required in each phase of the game. I also believe that if you are going to expend about 300+ hours of your life, (There is 168 hours in a week, you do the math), that you must as a mature adult give full credit to your players having a brain in their head. During this game there has been about 2 or 3 issues brought forth that I did not cover or anticipate. The game was halted for about 2 days, each time, before a final agreed decision was reached. Everyone in the game does expect some delays. You cannot avoid this when you have 7 leaders of state sitting at one table. It is up to the GA to make the final decision, which is not to say that the GA is to micro-manage the game as a dictator with a “control” problem.

The way we play our PBEM game is thus. Diplomacy is conducted at all times and by all players, it is only subject as to how fast you can type and as to how quickly your ISP sends the e-mail. (Try and stop a wargamer from planning and communicating the destruction of his game enemies! <G> ) Every economic phase each player sends the GA a copy of his last 4 months worth of expenditures as well as his builds for this phase, the GA sends a copy of his economic stuff to a specific player at the same time. (This keeps thing honest)

Moves are conducted with the knowledge that if you send it, it stays the way it was sent. (Just like in chess once your finger is off the piece the move is done!) As the GA I check every move as they are received, they are sent to every other at the same time. If an error has occurred in a player’s move I notify every player to hold their move as someone has made a whoops. I then contact that player with ALL of the options open to him and with what was done incorrectly. The GA then sends out the corrected move and the game resumes. Land moves are done separately from Naval moves. It is also during each player’s current move that any and all of his reinforcements are placed on the map or in his corps. This also includes the adding or removal any leaders in his “force pool”.

Political phase, this was a little tricky but I have come up with a way to insure fairness for all. The political phase is conducted in two parts. Part one has your countries 1) declarations of war. 2) Alliance and Combined movement announcements. The GA then sends out to everyone the results of the 1st half of the Political phase along with a move that places all minor countries that have been dow’d, and that have forces, in the capital of that minor nation. The major country that gained control of that minor then has the option to re-deploy those forces during his Naval phase. Navies always start in the capitol city or strongest defended port. Also included in this e-mail is the order in which every nation will move his Naval forces. The GB player sends his placement of when he wishes to move in the Naval phase to everyone as soon as the results have been posted. If GB sends no e-mail then he goes first. The French announce when he will move in the Land phase during his Naval phase. If the 2nd half of the political phase is required it will contain 1) Call to allies. And the balance of any missed steps.

As for land battles it is quite simple. For example Austria starts a fight with a Prussian corp. Austria would move his corps into the area and then ask the Prussian to send his “battle chit” selection to the GA, Austria would do the same but in a private e-mail. Once the GA has received both chit selections the GA would then do the battle and send out the results. I am doing it this way for the first year of the game so that the new players to the game can see what is required in doing a battle. Once the new players are comfortable with doing a battle on their own I will allow any player to conduct the battles for themselves. However, both sides will still have to send their respective battle chit selections to the GA to insure honesty. Simple is it not.

As for the debate as to if Matrixgames should concentrate on having this game built for the PBEM or the Play alone option. I believe that most of us will want to play the game against the AI alone first and then have our friends join in a 7-player game. This may not be true for all of us but it is for me. I personally believe that Matrixgames should put their primary efforts into making the AI as strong as possible. For if the AI is not done right what would be the point in buying the game in the first place. I do however like the idea that the AI in this game being able to act as the “rules judge” in a 7-player game.

I have done my best to recreate the flavour of this great game in the PBEM world. I am the first to state that it is not the EXACT same as playing this game Face-To-Face. I am totally against having this game played without the British and French having the choice of when they wish to move during the Land and Naval phases. This game is not set-up to be played in an “all move at once” manner. If you want to play a game that does allow this to occur then I suggest that you play a game called “Pax Britainnica” and leave “Empires in Arms” alone.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

This article was written by Martinmb and not by the person who has posted it. Any and all comments or suggestions about this should Only be directed towards Martinmb. Thank You.


Simple enough for you to explain, but difficult for me to follow, and venture even more difficult to implement the programming to make that process happen in a reasonably easy PBEM model.

EiA is a board game designed to be played as a board game with players face to face. You have found a way to play it PBEM by making some adjustments and making a great deal of effort to achieve it.

My thought on this matter is make this a computer game designed to be played on the computer by one or more players. Take advantage of the benefits of the new "meduim" and the availability of a CPU to manage tasks and restructure the game to make it better.

Not all change is bad, and you cannot tel me that EiA is perfect and could not possibly benefit from from some updates and changes?

And I am called a dinosaur for refusing to buy a cell phone....
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
EricLarsen
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation

Playing Modes

Post by EricLarsen »

Originally posted by ZONER
If you are looking to market this game I would emphize working on an AI against 1 player. PBEM should be the secondary feature because it is still faced with the challange of keeping 7 players active through out the game no matter how efficiant the program. Most sucessful PBEM games have been 2 player type games fot good reason.

ZONER,
I agree with you, the game must have a really good AI as the most common mode of play will be solitaire. I probably would try some PBEM game of EiA after getting used to the game again, but I think it is a tough go to get 7 players together to play the game over a very long span of time. I have played the game face-to-face several times but we never got a game finished, usually a time or two and that was that. Probably will see the same in PBEM as the game drags and players lose interest.

I also wouldn't want to see the game chopped to pieces for PBEM playability. Schwerpunkt did that with their Barbarossa game and the PBEM system totally wiped out the air function to cut down on communication turnarounds. That in essence ruined the game system. I only play it solitaire when I play it so I have the complete turn and air system to play with. Considering that combat can last a few rounds in EiA I would hate to see it dumbed down for PBEM playability. Part of the essence of combat is the multi-round combats and the decisions one needs to make between each round. Dumbing that down would ruin the game and I'd just opt for solitaire play against the AI to ensure that multi-round combat.

I'd say a host computer is necessary for this game so that players would send their turn/phase moves to the host and the host would process the moves once all players had sent in their info. Ofcourse the info needs to go in so that the person hosting the host computer could play as well without seeing everyone's moves before he puts his in. Then that host could send out processed turn/phase packets to each player. A lot of tedium to be sure but it could result in a very fun game. TCP/IP would be a good alternative for those who can actually find the same time to play together.

But either way the PBEM goes I still say give us a really good AI as that is the player we will play most. I'm not about to pay extra to play the game PBEM or TCP/IP.
Eric Larsen
EricLarsen
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation

Dinosaurs

Post by EricLarsen »

Originally posted by denisonh
And I am called a dinosaur for refusing to buy a cell phone....

denisonh,
That makes two of us dinosaurs, much less in the same county!

Eric Larsen
User avatar
ABP
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 2:08 am
Location: Denmark

Players vs AI

Post by ABP »

Although I do not doubt that Matrix have capable programmers, I have never seen an AI that really could match human confrontation. There are simply to many levels of interaction between people for the computer to be able to match this behaviour. I is fine by me if Matrix makes a good AI for this game, but I think the best way to play will be against human players.

I agree that it can be a challenge to complete a game like this.
However I think Matrix may be able to help in this matter.
If it was possible Matrix could make some sort of ladder- or tracking-system either on the web-site or in the game where info was stored. It could be: number of games played, average game length, number of games as which countries, number of victories. Even style of gamer if that is possible to extract from the game, like warmonger, Metternick, Backstabber etc (or as a voting system post game where all players grade each other for that game).
This information could then be screened by the people setting up new games.
Thereby they could have a better chance of finding players they could compete against time and time again.
It should of cause be a system that people voloteer to enter.
The idea should be not to force, but increase that players likelyhood of getting invited to games.
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2083
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Re: Dinosaurs

Post by denisonh »

Originally posted by EricLarsen
Originally posted by denisonh
And I am called a dinosaur for refusing to buy a cell phone....

denisonh,
That makes two of us dinosaurs, much less in the same county!

Eric Larsen


By my reckoning we're the only ones in the Monterey Bay area without them.....
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
EricLarsen
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation

Re: Dinosaurs

Post by EricLarsen »

Originally posted by denisonh
By my reckoning we're the only ones in the Monterey Bay area without them.....

denisonh,
Geez maybe we're like terrorists trying to crash the cell phone market. I really hate it when I go to the Northridge Mall and always get badgered by those cell-phone boobs in the kiosks. I just can't understand people and wanting to speak on cell phones while they're driving. Their driving stinks in the first place and then they make it even worse by not paying attention to the road. Not me, my car is my great American getaway (well it's a Jap Nissan) and the last thing I want when I'm driving is to be bothered by some idiot on the phone.
Eric Larsen
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”