playable yet? Part II

[pzgndr]

I am glad you are happy with the current state of the game

No, I am not "happy." I have never said I am perfectly happy with the way things are, how they've been, or how this whole thing has turned out. Do not even try to put words into my mouth. I agree with the identifications of bugs, missing features, etc. etc. Along with everyone, I desire and expect to see all of these things eventually resolved. I just don't see any point whining and complaining and continuing to bash Matrix, month after month. What's done is done. Move on.

The main issue here is Matrix was happy to market the game as ready, and take my money. If you think this thread is so far out of line, stop posting here.

Oh quit already. The main issue here on this stupid "playable yet?" thread is that YOU and others paid for a toy that doesn't quite work right yet, work as you expected, or whatever. As if any other Matrix product or any PC game is perfect right out of the box on initial release. Right! Rather than suck it up as a personal mistake or commit yourself to helping resolve all of the known issues, you want a pity party. What the heck do you really want?? Sympathy? It's in the dictionary between sh!t and syphilis. With all the folks losing jobs, being ripped off by multi-billion dollar ponzi schemes, and our federal "budget" going off into who knows where, it's pathetic to hear from grown men whining about such a trivial thing. Geez, if you don't like it already just turn your EiANW CD-ROM into a frisbee, trash it all and go commit seppuku or hara-kiri or something. How about YOU stop posting here?

However, can we please get a clear update on exactly where things are, and what the main focus at this point is? I truley hope that it is on bug correction and not "enhancements" at this point. I think a clear update would do wonders for many of us.

Are you physically incapable of checking out Mantis? Let's see. What might be in the works for the v1.06 update soon to be released? We already know! [&o]

Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars - 1.06.00
=============================================
- 0000493: [Game Bug] GB unable to reach (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000480: [Rules Deviation] Not allowed to take militia losses in sieges (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000483: [Game Bug] Corps moved back to battle site and Leaders on board after being removed. (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000490: [Game Bug] Corps CAN forage and assault under particular circumstances (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000481: [Game Bug] Anti Guerrilla Operations do not count Free State Corps (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000491: [Game Bug] Defender can choose outflank with only one corps (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000461: [Game Bug] Nelson reappearing after capture (marshall) - closed.
- 0000459: [Game Bug] Loaned units creates battle in spite of enforced peace between corps owner and opponent. (marshall) - closed.
- 0000476: [Game Bug] the black hole of Kutais (marshall) - closed.
- 0000452: [Game Bug] Trade Totals not adding up correctly (marshall) - closed.
- 0000450: [UI Bug] medium AI setting displaying VP bonus incorrectly (marshall) - closed.
- 0000475: [Game Bug] Russia conquered Denmark - the Danish fleet is still there (marshall) - closed.
- 0000477: [Game Bug] minor corps can't build depot (marshall) - closed.
- 0000474: [Game Bug] Paris Garrison can be overstacked but troops are relocated (marshall) - closed.
- 0000446: [Game Bug] Turkish Smyrna Corps shows strength of 0 (marshall) - closed.
- 0000258: [UI Enhancement] Slight mod to "you have factors coming" message in the econ phase. (marshall) - closed.
- 0000410: [Game Bug] Loaned Units' maintenance in Economic Month (March, June, Sept, Dec) Pained for by Receiving Nation (marshall) - closed.
- 0000439: [Game Bug] Spelling Mistake on the names of the cities Ciudad Rodrigo and Ciudad Real in Spain (marshall) - closed.
- 0000326: [Game Bug] Corps landing via amphibious assault does not capture depot (marshall) - closed.
- 0000443: [Game Enhancement] Naval Production (marshall) - closed.
- 0000140: [AI Enhancement] AI Turkey is overspending on supply (marshall) - closed.
- 0000414: [Rules Deviation] Ottoman Not receiving Trade Income (marshall) - closed.
- 0000139: [UI Bug] Log showing incorrect info (marshall) - closed.
- 0000109: [Game Bug] minor game log error (marshall) - closed.
- 0000223: [PBEM Bug] Skipping Spanish Diplomacy in a PBEM game also skips resolution of the diplomatic phase (marshall) - closed.
- 0000067: [Game Enhancement] PBEM anti-cheating measures (marshall) - closed.
- 0000276: [Game Bug] Guard Commitment problem with Multiple Guard nationalities present. (marshall) - closed.
- 0000455: [Game Bug] Poland not created correctly (marshall) - closed.
- 0000456: [Rules Deviation] Egypt & possibly other Ottoman states can't be conquered or ceded (marshall) - closed.
- 0000076: [Rules Deviation] Naval pursuit rule is missing (marshall) - closed.
- 0000075: [Rules Deviation] Naval evasion rule is missing (marshall) - closed.
- 0000460: [Game Bug] corps in city auto forages when it shouldn't (marshall) - closed.
- 0000113: [AI Enhancement] AI should not DoW in an economic month (marshall) - closed.
- 0000172: [AI Enhancement] AI Siege decisions (too small attacking force) (marshall) - closed.
- 0000144: [UI Enhancement] Inspecting a stack of enemy naval units (marshall) - closed.
- 0000237: [Rules Deviation] Spain Losing 2 PP per Phase when Madrid is occupied (marshall) - closed.
- 0000121: [Rules Deviation] Russia recieves normal income, even though St. Petersburg is enemy occupied (marshall) - closed.
- 0000148: [AI Enhancement] AI doesn't run economics for its minors (marshall) - closed.
- 0000457: [Game Bug] Swedish navy doubled (marshall) - closed.
- 0000137: [UI Enhancement] Make units auto forage as default rather than supply (marshall) - closed.
- 0000462: [Game Bug] Lend units breaks sieges and prevents forage rolls (marshall) - closed.
- 0000036: [UI Enhancement] Skip non-required naval phases (marshall) - closed.
- 0000014: [UI Enhancement] Need to add xfer messages for garrison transfers telling the player where they went. (marshall) - closed.
- 0000134: [Game Bug] part of Anapa garrison camps in mountains (marshall) - closed.
- 0000038: [AI Bug] Austria ineffectively DoW Lausitz (marshall) - closed.
- 0000084: [UI Bug] Alliance bug with text (marshall) - closed.
- 0000085: [AI Enhancement] AI knowing corps factor count (marshall) - closed.
- 0000086: [AI Enhancement] AI Russian attack on Sweden (marshall) - closed.
- 0000299: [Game Bug] GB Corps teleport back to London from France (marshall) - closed.
- 0000400: [AI Bug] Russian AI "cannot find path?" (marshall) - closed.
- 0000119: [Game Bug] Corps garrisoning city in enemy province is forced to fight a field combat by arriving enemy corps (marshall) - closed.
- 0000406: [Game Bug] Turkey Naval skipping Blockade ?? (marshall) - closed.
- 0000407: [AI Bug] AI Bonus VP not quite right.. (marshall) - closed.
- 0000390: [Game Enhancement] PP Cost for DoWs should be reduced to 3pp (marshall) - closed.
- 0000378: [Game Bug] DOW rules violation - Forced War Declarations 6.6.3 (marshall) - closed.
- 0000409: [AI Enhancement] AI is staling out in long term wars and produces little aggression / action. (marshall) - closed.
- 0000403: [AI Enhancement] AI needs to manage freestates with no corps better. (marshall) - closed.
- 0000309: [Game Bug] free state not recieving trade $ (marshall) - closed.
- 0000405: [Rules Deviation] Depots have intrinsic Tactical Rating (marshall) - closed.
- 0000035: [AI Enhancement] France AI too timid, setup awry (marshall) - closed.
- 0000413: [AI Enhancement] Guard Commitment / Tactical Options (marshall) - closed.
- 0000399: [Game Bug] minor corps in certain situations withdraws but surrenders (marshall) - closed.
- 0000419: [Game Bug] France Conquers its own Minor (marshall) - closed.
- 0000424: [Game Bug] Transfer of Ottoman factors between Corps (marshall) - closed.
- 0000417: [Game Bug] Control of loaned corps not returned (marshall) - closed.
- 0000415: [Game Bug] Minor Country conquered by an Ally (marshall) - closed.
- 0000422: [Game Bug] Editor not saving scenarios properly (marshall) - closed.
- 0000384: [Game Bug] Toulon Port in undergunned (marshall) - closed.
- 0000089: [Game Enhancement] Scenario Editor Request (marshall) - closed.
- 0000316: [UI Bug] Talk to AI Allies button (delatbabel) - closed.

There, that wasn't too difficult. What about v1.07? Marshall already has some things started:

Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars - 1.07.00
=============================================
- 0000097: [UI Bug] France at war with Saxony after Confederation of the Rhine formed (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000149: [PBEM Enhancement] Would like a host editor to adjust PPs etc for PBEM game (marshall) - resolved.
- 0000473: [PBEM Bug] 'Skip once' phase checkboxes not being cleared (marshall) - closed.
- 0000468: [Rules Deviation] Defender not getting PPs for sieges (marshall) - closed.
- 0000478: [Game Bug] Guard committment on both sides fails to break enemy, both sides should break (marshall) - closed.
- 0000465: [Game Bug] Guerillas removed as peace condition (marshall) - closed.
- 0000467: [Game Bug] unused movement credited towards forage during siege (marshall) - closed.
- 0000256: [Game Bug] Turkey cannot declare war on Georgia (in winter) (marshall) - closed.

It's pretty clear to a casual observer that the main focus at this point continues to be on bug corrections and rules deviations, and not just enhancements. Pretty much in accordance with the remedial action plan and priorities previously discussed repeatedly by Erik Rutins and Marshall Ellis over the past year. Considering where we have been and where we are, for good or ill - right or wrong, the path forward appears reasonable. While I may not be "happy" with the current state of the game, I am more or less satisfied that Matrix is doing the right thing here and I will continue to be patient. Too bad a few others refuse to take a more reasonable approach to the situation and choose to rake the muck whenever they can.

[Dancing Bear]

Pzgndr, for the sake of time, I am going to agree with you that anyone who has posted to this thread is a chimp with a credit card, who should be happy punching keys on a coloured box, while ignoring the ever increasing sound of flushing as the economy goes down the toilet.

Now as to the facts, I take a different interpretation.

1) How many people play the PBEM vs the AI?

We don’t know much about the ratio of PBEM’s to solo players, but if you recall the poll Matrix did a while back in July ‘08, asking what Matrix should improve first: most wanted PBEM speed increases; closely followed by AI improvements; and trailed by an editor. The editor is in 1.06 so no longer a factor. So, let’s say about half the people wanted AI improvements, and half wanted a faster PBEM game (I suspect that in the second year since game release, that almost all the AI players have moved on).

2) Can a list of past fixes tell us what we can expect the Marshall to be diligently been working on in the future?

Yes, I agree, it can. And the problem is we don’t like what we see.

The list of fixes you provided is typical, in that it reveals the Marshall has spent a good chunk of this time on bugs, which everyone agrees is the priority. Almost all the remaining items are AI improvements, followed by Rule deviations (which many would consider bugs). None address PBEM game speed that at least half of consumers wanted.

This game has been out now for about 16 months, so the Marshall has had about 2,600 hours of programming time to fix the problems. In that time, the Marshall has probably spent 1,300 hours on bugs, 900 on AI improvements (from Dec 07 to Dec 08 and ongoing), 300 on the editor (Dec 08 to now), and maybe 100 on PBEM streamlining (the Marshall whipped out skipping in almost no time at all).


So, what I take away from the above is we can expect more AI improvements and debugging in the future. And no speed improvements, even though PBEM’s, who make up about half the people that brought the game, and 90% of the people that post to this forum, have been crying for a faster game since at least July. Isn’t time, after 16 months of post-release development, isn’t time the Marshall got serious about improving the PBEM game speed?

Why PBEM speed? Well for us players: 1) because we want it, and 2) it will reduce the demands the game makes on PBEM to meet the “24 hour” rules that many groups have implemented to make the game playable, which would get a lot of players to relax and be a lot more forgiving.

For Matrix: 1) The PBEM’s won’t be so mad and won’t demand their money back so much, 2) They might start pulling back those players that quit in disgust, 3) They might be able to persuade some new players to join, 4) because the game will be faster, we’ll find bugs faster as well, the Marshall can fix them faster as well, and the game will be “playable” sooner, and 5) the Marshall might get a well deserved break.

[pzgndr]

And no speed improvements

What about phase skipping already implemented? What about simultaneous phases being discussed? What about tcp/ip implementation being considered? At some point, these things should be resolved and multiplayer games should go about as fast as the players can handle it.

This begs a question beyond this thread, as is already being debated on other threads. What exactly needs to be done to maximize playing speed? Some compromises to the original rules are necessary, but which compromises are acceptable? Marshall has been engaged in these debates and has been receptive of suggestions. It is more than a bit unfair to suggest that "no speed improvements" can be expected. [:-]

Riddle me this. Compared with VASSAL PBEM software or other PBEM systems, is EIANW right now better or worse? I'm not talking about the occassional glitches, but for 7 players exchanging game files back and forth just what is the golden speed standard to meet or beat? If EiANW is already doing as well or better, then that's a pretty good achievement right there. Sometimes methinks players are trying to hold EiANW to a much higher standard, perhaps unrealistically so?

I suspect that in the second year since game release, that almost all the AI players have moved on

I disagree; the AI players are still waiting for a decent AI and have simply put the game on hold for the time being. I can only speak for myself right here, but my motivation for getting the game back in Dec 07 when it was released remains steadfastly unchanged. I have COG:EE but much prefer the boardgame flavor of EiANW. I have waited years already for the game to be released and have waited patiently while these post-release issues have been worked on, and I will continue waiting patiently until they are eventually resolved. As I wholeheartedly support all efforts to improve the PBEM game, I would expect PBEMers to also support AI development for two reasons. Those groups of less than 7 players also want a decent AI to fill in for other MPs. Also, your pool of potential new PBEM players will grow from those who get into the game playing the AI and decide they want more. [8D]

[Dancing Bear]

Hi Pzgndr
I meant that based on the analysis of past activities that "no speed improvements" can be expected. I very much want speed improvements that have been discussed elsewhere, but recognise that these are going to require a significant time commitment on part of the Marshal. I'm just asking that there be some balance between AI improvements that have dominated for the last year+, and PBEM game speed. And if it can't be done now, can Matrix tell when they will get to it.
Skipping helps, but it is nowhere near enough, and it can't be claimed that the Marshall has spent anywhere near as much time on PBEM speed as AI improvement.

I'm all for AI players getting a better AI, but after having a year plus of AI improvements, I think it is time for a PBEM speed improvement. Say it takes 200 hours for the Marshall to implement sim dip/eco, the PBEM players would be happy in about a month or two, and then the Marshall would be free to play with the AI to his heart's content.

[borner]

My main thought is that while the AI needs work, and speeding up PBEM play would both be very nice, those take time away from removing bugs. Additional projects such as testing a new naval combat system and such, are very much an unaffordable diversion of resources at this point. Once the bugs are removed, then look at getting PBEM faster as the next major project, then and only then look at AI and other things.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: borner

My main thought is that while the AI needs work, and speeding up PBEM play would both be very nice, those take time away from removing bugs. Additional projects such as testing a new naval combat system and such, are very much an unaffordable diversion of resources at this point. Once the bugs are removed, then look at getting PBEM faster as the next major project, then and only then look at AI and other things.

I agree, this is my main complaint: Why is the AI, PBEM, editor, enhancements being worked on when there are still SEVERAL GAME CHANGING MAJOR BUGS in this game? ALL time and resources should be devoted to that ATM.

[Obsolete]

While we are at it... do you think matrix-games can finally fix up that poor-of-an-excuse AI that Firaxis uses in its Civ IV series? 

[Dancing Bear]

I'm not disagreeing. Fixing bugs should be first, but since the reality is that other things are being done at the same time, then I'd like to see PBEM speed enhancements go ahead of the AI (for a change) and the editor.

[pzgndr]

I'm all for AI players getting a better AI, but after having a year plus of AI improvements, I think it is time for a PBEM speed improvement. Say it takes 200 hours for the Marshall to implement sim dip/eco, the PBEM players would be happy in about a month or two, and then the Marshall would be free to play with the AI to his heart's content.

Regarding AI, this year plus of AI improvements has mainly been AI bug fixes and some modest adjustments to what was already there upon release. I'm not sure we should characterize those as significant AI enhancements yet? My point is I doubt the time Marshall is spending on AI detracts that much from the other efforts. I don't know. Clearly the bug fixes and PBEM issues need resolution first so players can play a "proper" game and complete it. Later, the AI will need some serious improvements to implement various and challenging strategies and tactics spanning the entire grand campaign. I just don't think the modest AI improvements so far are the long awaited enhancements we're still waiting for.

Regarding the PBEM improvements, again I'm seeing continuing debate about what exactly needs to be implemented to best satisfy everyone. Marshall appears to be working with everyone on suggestions? Certainly some have their own opinions, but there needs to be a concensus before Marshall spends any time changing the game, with or without options. I agree this needs resolution and something implemented sooner rather than later.

So, howzabout the PBEM speed standard? I recall from Trax's AAR:

We started our game about the first of February 2008 and finished mid January 2009. There was
about 5 game months of do-overs with the early problems in the game. Progress has been steady for quite
a while now. This adds up to about 1700 turns in 350 days an average of 5 player turns
per day. We did have several weeks of no play so the average of 5 turns is misleading. On a good
evening we often could get through two phases of a game month.

Offhand, considering this was an actual completed game played prior to the latest PBEM improvements, is 5 turns/day and maybe 2 phases/evening as good as what a group can do using VASSAL, or better, or worse?? Just curious. [;)]

[Dancing Bear]

Pzgndr, I would suggest that there is a cencensus that sim dip/eco is the way to go with speed improvement. Other ideas were considered, but the amount of programming required per return in speed is too small to justify at this stage.

As to stats on game speed. The one remaining group I am in gets one turn done per week, which is the best speed I have seen for a game I have been in. Projecting out, this means 2.5 years to complete a full game, but more realistically about two years before we have a clear winner. That's a long time to be logging on every day, when it may or may not be your turn.

However, it is important to remember that overall game length is not the key issue with speed. The key issue is how much time is spent sitting at the computer waiting for it to be your turn, vs sitting at the computer actually playing the game. Speed is not just for speed's sake, but to increase the amount of time a player actually plays the game over waiting. In this respect sim dip/eco, is an enormous leap forward in increasing the entertainment value per log in event. I'm not sure if I can overstate the importance of this distinction.

[borner]

Well said D-Bear

[GShock]

The best system i have seen so far is the one in use with Massive Assault Network 2 (a game i strongly suggest Ellis to check out and all of you dl demo and see by yourselves).
Java client available soon, like RSS feed, u get notified on the spot when ur turn is up.

[pzgndr]

this means 2.5 years to complete a full game

Dancing Bear, you are dancing around the issue. [;)] Trax and his playgroup already completed a full game. Actual data therefore suggests that PBEM is much more of a playgroup issue than a game issue. If his group can do it, why cannot yours?? Again, I would ask you plainly, how does EiANW compare with VASSAL for PBEM capability? If comparable, then you really cannot complain about EiANW not being "faster-than-PBEM."

The key issue is how much time is spent sitting at the computer waiting for it to be your turn, vs sitting at the computer actually playing the game.

This gets back to you and a few others really wanting tcp/ip network play capability and not PBEM capability. This was surveyed prior to release and the forum concensus was to support PBEM first. Marshall has some tcp/ip code in the game, it needs to be updated, it's on the ToDo list on Mantis, and eventually this should be implemented. Even if/when we get network play, players will still have to sit around waiting for their turn, just like playing the board game, because that is the inherent nature of this turn-based game. EiANW cannot fix this.

I would suggest that there is a cencensus that sim dip/eco is the way to go with speed improvement.

I tend to agree but there are still some concerns about sim dip and whether all players want that as a default or if there should be an option? Once Marshall decides what to do it shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Perhaps for v1.07? Sim dip/eco should produce some modest speed improvements, as could some central server capability to speed up file transfers, but this will not fix the more significant playgroup issues. That's up to you!!

[Dancing Bear]

Pzgndr, remember to be careful about interpreting data from those that are left playing. They are a small core of elite players, and not representative of the much wider audience. The business case in develping improvements for this group for this group is somewhat limited, even if they were willing to pay for such improvements.

It is the slightly less dedicted, but much, much larger group of potential players (and former players), that a strong business case can be made for speed improvements. There's got to be a hundred or a thousand times more revenue in marketing to this group.

The core group likely knows many of them personally, can do much of the marketing for Matrix.

When speed improvements like sim dip/eco can be made while keeping the core group happy (I don't think we need ICP), and appeal to the much larger, slightly less dedicted group, it should be done.

[NeverMan]

1. I'd like to know who else was in Trax's group/game. I didn't read his post but was it a 7 player game? Do any of them have a life (aka wife and kids and jobs and 2nd jobs, etc..)

2. Regardless of (1) Trax and his group are NOT the typical group AND EVEN IF THEY WERE it still took them ~1 year to complete the game. What if they had PBEM speed improvements? Their group probably could have been done in 6-9 months.

3. The "it's good enough see.." argument is lame. If you can get speedup why would you argue against it?? This makes no sense. Speedup is speedup is speedup is speedup and it's a good thing.

4. Bugs still need to be fixed first so this is all academic.

[pzgndr]

Their group probably could have been done in 6-9 months.

Can a typical playgroup of 7 players with lives really complete a PBEM game using VASSAL in 6-9 months? Any AARs for actual games that meet that standard?? Let's be realistic and hold EiANW to a reasonable standard, not some wishful daydreaming. Just how fast could 7 players randomly scattered around the planet with real-life time schedules and time zone differences actually exchange game files and complete an entire grand campaign game??

The "it's good enough see.." argument is lame. If you can get speedup why would you argue against it?? This makes no sense.

Did I miss something? Nobody is arguing against speed improvements. [8|]

[NeverMan]

Well, according to Trax's OP here: tm.asp?m=2012277&mpage=1&key=?

It seems as though that was a 4 player group so you can stop using that as an example now, thanks.

EDIT: Fixed my typo, I deeply apologize to the internet typing god that is Pzngdr.

[pzgndr]

It seems as though that was a 4 player group so you can't stop using that as an example now, thanks.

Say again? I must say your erratic and incoherent postings provide endless entertainment. I should stop using Trax as an actual completed game example, or I can't stop using that example?? WTF. Too funny. LOL. [:D]

OK. YOU provide an actual completed game example using VASSAL PBEM as a benchmark for your typical playgroup. I assume youse guys have used VASSAL or some other PBEM software and have actually played EiA and know what you are talking about, or maybe not. So, provide an example as a reference and we can debate from there. How long should a grand campaign game take to finish?

Then, explain why EiANW cannot meet or beat your game speed "standard." Notwithstanding PBEM bugs, and not getting into how the game plays relative to classic EiA, just figuring on file transfer rates, just how much slower is EiANW really and why? Since you guys avoid answering this thought problem, perhaps it is because you do not have a convincing argument to present? I would suggest playgroup issues are significant, and if your playgroup is dysfunctional then it's not the game's problem. Obviously Trax and his playgroup managed to complete an entire playable game, for a game that is allegedly "not playable yet." [:'(]

[Thresh]

One group, seven players, three face to face games, meeting on average three times a month.
Shortest session, 2 hours plus change, last turn to see who would win.
Longest Session, 28 hours over two days.
Average Session, I could figure this out, maybe 10 or so hours.
Shortest game, 34 sessions, 10 months.
Longest games, 39 sessions, 14 months.

We were a pretty solid game group.

Fastest PbEM game I was ever in averaged about two weeks a turn, and lasted anout four game years.  Went through about 12 players though before it died...

Todd

I've been in PbEM games where there was a 24 hour turn around for your turn, depending on what was going on the months either went by pretty quickly  or dragged, just like in face to face.

Todd

[Dancing Bear]

Pzgndr, I've read Neverman's posts and they are rarely erratic nor incoherent. Others certainly are.

I'm guessing that if you want to blame the dysfunctional consumer, then, you have never worked, or work in a position far away from the consumer, maybe in the government. With an attitude like that you might be in middle management at GM.

It does not matter what standard you want to set, or whether the game is ten or a hundred times faster than vassal. What matters is what the consumer thinks is reasonable. Period.