Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: lavisj

even though it would probably not increase their sales even if they manage to suceed.

I feel your pain and agree with the exception of above. I DO feel that if Matrix/Marshall can somehow manage (I do question though if it's even possible at this point) to get this game back on track that there will be more sales in the future simply by word of mouth. There are many people like me who are playing this game with people from here even though I'd like to play with my old group, who of course refuses to buy the game (due to bugs and a large part due to it only having PBEM capability).

for me the worry is the feeling of denail I get from Matrix. They talk of changes to the naval system ans such without getting the game as is working. Marshall was going to take a position in a game we are playing as Turkey but his schedule apparently would not allow it. Too bad, as this game has had multiple issues, and he could have seen these first hand.
 

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.

In the spirit of not hijacking threads, it's not just bugs that make this game not playable, it's the design restrictions that creep in. For example. allied depots and depot limits. These cannot be implemented because of restrictions with the code.
These aren't rules that were adopted midway through the development process, they are part of the original game. And frankly, I don't understand how it could be coded to not allow allied depots or depot limits.

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

In the spirit of not hijacking threads, it's not just bugs that make this game not playable, it's the design restrictions that creep in. For example. allied depots and depot limits. These cannot be implemented because of restrictions with the code.
These aren't rules that were adopted midway through the development process, they are part of the original game. And frankly, I don't understand how it could be coded to not allow allied depots or depot limits.

I agree that there were serious design flaws for this game from the start and I think both Matrix and Marshall will agree with you also, sadly since they are not planning on releasing the source code nor are they planning on redesigning this thing from scratch I guess we will have to live with those major design flaws.

With all the design flaws that exist though, I still think this game could be fun if two things happened:

1) FIX THE BUGS!!!!!
2) The editor allows for a lot of flexibility WITHOUT introducing new bugs!!

At this stage I simply want the bugs fixed, at least that way I can plan without having to adapt to "surprises" (aka bugs) that pop up.

I agree Neverman. At least get the game as is working. Fix the bugs. PLEASE!!!!!!!!

Is the latest update any good?
 
 
GSB

still has issues with the russian fleets, transport fleet especially. battle files from multiple games cause trouble. Seems like many of the same issues.
 

One thing I see with the games I am in, is the high drop out rate from Prussia and turkey. Let's admit it, they are, for most, the two worst nations to play (personally, if France comes through with some cash, Turkey can be quite fun). In a face to face group, players stay around out of loyality, or just to hang out a day with the group if nothing else. PBEM, it seems once things go south, many times those players are done and gone. Not much that can be done about it, but never the less a problem

ORIGINAL: borner

still has issues with the russian fleets, transport fleet especially. battle files from multiple games cause trouble. Seems like many of the same issues.

I need to understand this because the battle files should not be a problem at all in 1.06???
Can you elaborate or get me a save of this???

ORIGINAL: borner

One thing I see with the games I am in, is the high drop out rate from Prussia and turkey. Let's admit it, they are, for most, the two worst nations to play (personally, if France comes through with some cash, Turkey can be quite fun). In a face to face group, players stay around out of loyality, or just to hang out a day with the group if nothing else. PBEM, it seems once things go south, many times those players are done and gone. Not much that can be done about it, but never the less a problem

The Uncontrolled Major Powers Rules in the original game would fit the bill.

Although I don't think Marshall can get it in before v5.32

[8|]

yes, It would help a great deal....

what is it with the Baltic in this game... the Rus transport fleet is messed up in one game, and in another, a Swd corps that was bought to have room for an incoming cav, suddenly is unavailable to place as needed. [:@]

Hi Borner
I know the Marshall is going to ask for a save file and specifics when he gets back. Can you open a new thread, explaining which version you are using and detailing the problems so he can fix them for the rest of us.

ORIGINAL: borner

what is it with the Baltic in this game... the Rus transport fleet is messed up in one game, and in another, a Swd corps that was bought to have room for an incoming cav, suddenly is unavailable to place as needed. [:@]

Hi JaveJoe
You can probably implement the UMP rules as a house rule, outside of the Matrix game structure, and just subtract the VP bid manually, although this would be a good game feature to incorporate into the game.
The drop out rate for players you have clearly been crushed is almost understandable. My feelings on this, is that these players are looking at months to years of playing before they recover, and this is simply too long a period of misery. A faster PBEM game would mean faster recovery in real time, and less players giving up.

ORIGINAL: JavaJoe

ORIGINAL: borner

One thing I see with the games I am in, is the high drop out rate from Prussia and turkey. Let's admit it, they are, for most, the two worst nations to play (personally, if France comes through with some cash, Turkey can be quite fun). In a face to face group, players stay around out of loyality, or just to hang out a day with the group if nothing else. PBEM, it seems once things go south, many times those players are done and gone. Not much that can be done about it, but never the less a problem

The Uncontrolled Major Powers Rules in the original game would fit the bill.

Although I don't think Marshall can get it in before v5.32

[8|]

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

Hi JaveJoe
You can probably implement the UMP rules as a house rule, outside of the Matrix game structure, and just subtract the VP bid manually, although this would be a good game feature to incorporate into the game.
The drop out rate for players you have clearly been crushed is almost understandable. My feelings on this, is that these players are looking at months to years of playing before they recover, and this is simply too long a period of misery. A faster PBEM game would mean faster recovery in real time, and less players giving up.

ORIGINAL: JavaJoe

The Uncontrolled Major Powers Rules in the original game would fit the bill.

Although I don't think Marshall can get it in before v5.32

[8|]

Does the system allow the same email address to control multiple nations?

which gets back into the debat of allowing some phases to be done at the same time by all players. Conisdering how much has changed from the origional EiA, I do not see why some people have an issue with this, given the gains to the overall system that could/would be achieved.

ORIGINAL: borner

which gets back into the debat of allowing some phases to be done at the same time by all players. Conisdering how much has changed from the origional EiA, I do not see why some people have an issue with this, given the gains to the overall system that could/would be achieved.

Hi Borner
I don't think any one will debate that this would not improve the PBEM game. And we seem to have a workable solution for dip and eco that the Marshall says is possible without too much work that gets around the I go/you go bottleneck (i.e. at start of diplomacy all players programs believe that they are meant to go first, but as their completed files are sent out, the game modifies their outgoing files so that other players see them in a different sequence. Only one player has to be the last to allow resolution of the diplomacy phase prior to rienforcement. For eco, the preferred solution is to put all eco functions in every third diploamcy phase (i.e. Dec eco functions are completed in the January diplomacy phase), so that a seperate eco phase is completely eliminated. Barring that, the eco phase will be treated like the dip phase described above).
What we are missing is time from the Marshall to complete the changes.
Until then, we have a PBEM game that is much slower than it needs to be.

good points

ORIGINAL: borner

One thing I see with the games I am in, is the high drop out rate from Prussia and turkey. Let's admit it, they are, for most, the two worst nations to play (personally, if France comes through with some cash, Turkey can be quite fun). In a face to face group, players stay around out of loyality, or just to hang out a day with the group if nothing else. PBEM, it seems once things go south, many times those players are done and gone. Not much that can be done about it, but never the less a problem

Been a while since I've been here. Sorry, new job and all. I like Prussia even more than Austria. Turkey is fun, but you definitely need the cash from France and GB too if you can get it...