Revolutionary Thoughts

[Mardonius]

Gents:

There is always room for differing opinions. I don't think it wise for anyone to try and restrict discussions to a particular vein or veins. And please don't construe that I am suggesting that Marshall et alias should stop their current efforts and take my new suggested tack. But in any operational process there will be lag time/lead time/hit a brick wall time. So in order to optimize the product, some of these opportunities should be engaged to broaden the appeal of the product.

If I may, let me point out some hard facts to us all: At latest count there were 842 redirects to purchase EiA NW. At $70 a purchase and a 90% purchase per redirect rate (probably high), this equates to about $53k US. Assuming that 50% of the money actually goes to Matrix and can cover salary, publication, expenses etc, that means that over the past four or five years there is about $26,500 to go into covering development costs. And so our beloved EiANW is not sustainable at this current customer base.

So something needs to be done lest this product die on the vine of reaching for the perfect AI and/or EiA makeover.
Something revolutionary perhaps. My ideas were an attempt to make this product have a broader appeal. Maybe they, by themselves, are too feeble in this regard. But something has to be done.

Semper Fidelis,
Mardonius

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

There is enough EIA (Engaged in Argument) between the AI and PBEM camps....

Frankly there is more than enough, and it has become downright juvenile. Marshall and Matrix appear to be "on track" and committed to providing a quality game that should eventually satisfy most everyone - PBEM, TCP/IP, AI/solitaire, EiA purists, EiH variants, options, etc., etc., etc. Let these guys work.

I refuse to waste any more time arguing with the few who seem to insist that their pet rock feature gets priority over someone else's feature. Marshall and Matrix are doing OK and I'll be patient while the bug tracker list is slowly and surely worked off. If it takes another year, so be it. [:)]

At this rate, I'll be putting my unborn children through college when this game is finally "satisfying" (aka: actually Empires in Arms). That's not a knock on Marshall. He's a one man show. A game of this magnitude really needs a development team, so it's more a knock on Matrix if anything.

I just think there are still MANY MANY MANY bugs to fix (that alone should take a year or two). Then top that with the AI people, PBEM people, IP people, Options people and Editor people and you are looking at a lifelong project.

A major problem is that the current design (from Marshall's posts) seems too hard coded to get back to the original EiA, so I'm discouraged that we will ever actually get a PC EiA game ever, from anyone.

MARDONIUS: No one is trying to "restrict" anything, I'm not sure what you are talking about. All we want is a way to play Empires in Arms, you know, the game this game is named after. Why is that so bad? You can have all your pretty bows and ribbons and bells and whistles too. I really don't care. If this game has 100000000000000 options, that's great. I won't use them, but that's great. I just would love to play EiA.

[MarshallEllis]

Neverman:
 
I must defend Matrix since they are all my friends and I love those guys! Even from a buisness perspective they have brought this game EiANW (Blessed buy the EiA creators) to the PC which no one else dared try. I'm not claiming that she's perfect but many are having fun. You will not see a development team that comes close to Microsoft, etc. BUT it will grow. This was a monster to do and Matrix Games stood (And still stand) behind me all the way through all of the issues that we had. I am forever thankful to them. 
 
This engine will be a very expandable, configurable, flexible engine that will be alive for the next 5-7 years with a roadmap of plans for scenarios, different games, options, IP, etc. Now that's a general statement of flexibility. You can get granular enough to say that simulataneous reinforcement execution is not possible in this engine design but I can also say that we can add EiA classic scenarios with the classic map, 1792 scenarios, etc.
 
The design of EiANW makes it difficult to ramp EiANW back to EiA but it is very possible to develop a EiA classic scenario with the same engine. We are seriously considering this because of people such as youself.
 
If you think you will be sending kids to college before this becomes reality then you better look at adoption of an older child and starting your 529s quickly LOL!
 
I do respect your opinion and you are being heard. Please keep your thoughts coming since they do help shape our future efforts.
 

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Gents:

There is always room for differing opinions. I don't think it wise for anyone to try and restrict discussions to a particular vein or veins. And please don't construe that I am suggesting that Marshall et alias should stop their current efforts and take my new suggested tack. But in any operational process there will be lag time/lead time/hit a brick wall time. So in order to optimize the product, some of these opportunities should be engaged to broaden the appeal of the product.

If I may, let me point out some hard facts to us all: At latest count there were 842 redirects to purchase EiA NW. At $70 a purchase and a 90% purchase per redirect rate (probably high), this equates to about $53k US. Assuming that 50% of the money actually goes to Matrix and can cover salary, publication, expenses etc, that means that over the past four or five years there is about $26,500 to go into covering development costs. And so our beloved EiANW is not sustainable at this current customer base.

So something needs to be done lest this product die on the vine of reaching for the perfect AI and/or EiA makeover.
Something revolutionary perhaps. My ideas were an attempt to make this product have a broader appeal. Maybe they, by themselves, are too feeble in this regard. But something has to be done.

Semper Fidelis,
Mardonius

Sorry Mardonius.
Personally I do not agree, i would not buy the game if it was not trying to be EIA.
Most of my friends are still waiting to buy it, since they dont think its enough EIA yet.
So if you start making devarations, i doubt those ever come and buy.
There are other war games you know, who satisfy other wishes.

Regards
Bresh

[Mardonius]

Neverman:

To clarify, My comment on restrictions not being wise was based on AresMares comment:

"Once the EIA PURISTS are satisfied, and once the AI CAMP are satisfied, then perhaps the additional OPTIONS camp will be able to make requests....."

I, for one, don't intend to remain silent when I can see ways of improving the product.

Semper Fi,
Mardonius

[Mardonius]

Bresh:

I appreciate your sentiments. That noted, no where in my comments did I ever suggest that EiA be abandoned. Or did I not convey my thoughts cogently? I thought went to the effort to CAPITALIZE my suggetions that options be OPTIONAL. You and your EiA purist friends would have nothing to worry about if my suggestions were pursued.

best
Mardonius

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Neverman:

To clarify, My comment on restrictions not being wise was based on AresMares comment:

"Once the EIA PURISTS are satisfied, and once the AI CAMP are satisfied, then perhaps the additional OPTIONS camp will be able to make requests....."

I, for one, don't intend to remain silent when I can see ways of improving the product.

Semper Fi,
Mardonius

I wouldn't want anyone to remain silent, but please keep in mind that your "improving" might not be the same as mine.

[MarshallEllis]

I've not met a silent EiAer yet LOL (Me included)!
 
 

[eske]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I've not met a silent EiAer yet LOL (Me included)!

I am !

/eske

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Bresh:

I appreciate your sentiments. That noted, no where in my comments did I ever suggest that EiA be abandoned. Or did I not convey my thoughts cogently? I thought went to the effort to CAPITALIZE my suggetions that options be OPTIONAL. You and your EiA purist friends would have nothing to worry about if my suggestions were pursued.

best
Mardonius

Mardonius, you wrote you want the game out to a broader spectrum of pc-gamers by adding new non eia-features.

Your so called improvements sound like downgrades to me.
People will look at the game description etc, and if they look for EIA, and read your so called improvements they might pass on. I know i might.
And just play something else.
Also those pc-gamers you look for, might not be looking for a EIA-type game.

I dont think there is a large market for a EIA-devirated new game.
First you might dissapoint the EIA-gamers,
and second the block of new commers might want to change the game even more..

[Mardonius]

Bresh:

As I ruminate over your comments, I can't but help to think one of three things is happening here:

(1) I failed to make my point to you that the options that I am advocating are optional and would not in any way detract from persons who want to play fundamentalistly pure Empires in Arms, as in the board game, with no house rules; or

(2) You are somehow not clearly communicating a reasonable difference in opinion and I am indeed overlooking some draw back to options being done when other improvements are, temporarily, at a standstill; or

(3) You are being argumentative for the sake of the last word or similar cussedness.

Please help me understand if I am somehow missing some subtlety or am just not seeing your plain-as-day logic.
Differing opinions are allowed.

best,
Mardonius

[iamspamus]

You've been trying to hash it out with Mardonius for a while now. These optional rules are NOT non-Eia. I also have played since...hmmm, jeez about 1989 or so (a recent hiatus that the PC game has now filled) and we ALWAYS played with some optionals. ALWAYS. Every game that I played or saw played (all across LA, Georgia and South Carolina, via snail mail and via the internet) has played with some optionals or additional rules.

So, Marshall, keep up with fixing the bugs. Work on AI and the interface. Scenarios and other campaigns are great. But, as time permits, please, think about some options, that people can choose to use or not to use at their discretion.

Rock on Mardonius!!!

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Bresh:

As I ruminate over your comments, I can't but help to think one of three things is happening here:

(1) I failed to make my point to you that the options that I am advocating are optional and would not in any way detract from persons who want to play fundamentalistly pure Empires in Arms, as in the board game, with no house rules; or

(2) You are somehow not clearly communicating a reasonable difference in opinion and I am indeed overlooking some draw back to options being done when other improvements are, temporarily, at a standstill; or

(3) You are being argumentative for the sake of the last word or similar cussedness.

Please help me understand if I am somehow missing some subtlety or am just not seeing your plain-as-day logic.
Differing opinions are allowed.

best,
Mardonius

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

You've been trying to hash it out with Mardonius for a while now. These optional rules are NOT non-Eia. I also have played since...hmmm, jeez about 1989 or so (a recent hiatus that the PC game has now filled) and we ALWAYS played with some optionals. ALWAYS. Every game that I played or saw played (all across LA, Georgia and South Carolina, via snail mail and via the internet) has played with some optionals or additional rules.

So, Marshall, keep up with fixing the bugs. Work on AI and the interface. Scenarios and other campaigns are great. But, as time permits, please, think about some options, that people can choose to use or not to use at their discretion.

Rock on Mardonius!!!

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Bresh:

As I ruminate over your comments, I can't but help to think one of three things is happening here:

(1) I failed to make my point to you that the options that I am advocating are optional and would not in any way detract from persons who want to play fundamentalistly pure Empires in Arms, as in the board game, with no house rules; or

(2) You are somehow not clearly communicating a reasonable difference in opinion and I am indeed overlooking some draw back to options being done when other improvements are, temporarily, at a standstill; or

(3) You are being argumentative for the sake of the last word or similar cussedness.

Please help me understand if I am somehow missing some subtlety or am just not seeing your plain-as-day logic.
Differing opinions are allowed.

best,
Mardonius

Options from the non standard rulebook, has to be lower priority than any from the EIA rulebook.
I do have a right to have my own opinion and like i write Personally and when i dislike it I can raise my voice.
I dont like the option to change morale for minors(beside Hanover/Portugal as of the rule, or Ottoman Empire). This never happend in the real world.

Beeing able to change corps sizes, number of depots, number of Fleets and improve fortifications.
These are not options i never liked. We are still miles from the standard EIA.
Beside you 2 i havent meet anyone using them..

I have nothing against Mardonius, but I can say I dont agree on his wishes, when I feel alot of the game is still missing.
If you been following other threads, i been saying the same thing in other idea threats. Witch in general was the message
fix EIA rules first, before adding new options.

Regards
Bresh

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: bresh

I dont like the option to change morale for minors(beside Hanover/Portugal as of the rule, or Ottoman Empire). This never happend in the real world.

It *did* happen in the real world (with Hanover and Portugal) why shouldn't it be able to other minors nations ? Or are you saying that only the exact things that happened in reality should be allowed to happen in the game ? I would say why should it be restricted to only Hanover and Portugal ? Granted the rule might need to be reworked but as a principle I think it is good.

ORIGINAL: bresh

If you been following other threads, i been saying the same thing in other idea threats. Witch in general was the message
fix EIA rules first, before adding new options.

Yes we heard you, there's no need to go on about it. In principle most of us agree with you. But Mardonius is trying to start a debate on possible features for the future. He's *not* suggesting that these things should take priority over everything else, he's just putting forward some ideas.

[DCWhitworth]

I think the notion to change corps size etc is interesting but such things would probably only work if they had increased maintenance associated with them. e.g. It takes time and money to increase your corps sizes, but when you do they cost more to maintain.

Actually to under pin this concept I think the economic system would need to be revised and increased in complexity. I really like some of the concepts in Europa Universalis board game such as economic stability.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

ORIGINAL: bresh

I dont like the option to change morale for minors(beside Hanover/Portugal as of the rule, or Ottoman Empire). This never happend in the real world.

It *did* happen in the real world (with Hanover and Portugal) why shouldn't it be able to other minors nations ? Or are you saying that only the exact things that happened in reality should be allowed to happen in the game ? I would say why should it be restricted to only Hanover and Portugal ? Granted the rule might need to be reworked but as a principle I think it is good.

ORIGINAL: bresh

If you been following other threads, i been saying the same thing in other idea threats. Witch in general was the message
fix EIA rules first, before adding new options.

Yes we heard you, there's no need to go on about it. In principle most of us agree with you. But Mardonius is trying to start a debate on possible features for the future. He's *not* suggesting that these things should take priority over everything else, he's just putting forward some ideas.

As i wrote "Beside" Hanover/Portugal.
Im not 100% against added options at one time, but EIANW still has alot needed to be done before.
It did not happen with other minors, of whom plenty had joined France, but none improved by doing so. They where not willing to addopt different organization of their armies.


Regards
Bresh

[Erik Rutins]

I don't think there's any harm in discussing options, as long as you all keep in mind that our top priorities remain:

1. Bugs
2. Things that hinder vs. AI play
3. Things that hinder PBEM play

After that, there are things like the game itself, for example the scenario editor, making any "deviations" we can either optional or creating a EIA Classic scenario that avoids them. Obviously, some of these things happen in parallel but discussing something doesn't mean that it's suddenly become the top priority.

Regards,

- Erik

[MarshallEllis]

I totally agree with Erik. Keep option ideas coming but understand that it doesn't not change my focus BUT I do take notes of good ideas and there is always room for a good idea
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Mardonius]

Great Points Erik

I am, first and foremost, a businessman. OK... maybe that is somewhat inaccurate as I am also a Marine so I think about killing bad people probably more frequently than making a profit, but perhaps that is just another kind of balance sheet.

What I am trying to do in this thread is to press for the continued evolution of this game. I am already a true believer. And I'd love to see it mature into an economically viable product.

Clearly working out Bugs should be a priority. There is, I would offer, at times a risk of diminishing marginal returns. I posit that if the bug is minor and perhaps two or ten relatively easy optional/scenario editor changes might be made in the same time and effort, then at times -- particularly when waiting for the collection of data from potentially conflicting other changes or when engaged in other operational pauses, then the pursuit of the options might be the wisest choice.

I am, honestly, a bit skeptical, that you will ever get a truly satisfactory AI. Certainly one that can help instruct the fundamentals of the game... but to create a mob of sneaky SOBs... well, that would be a work of art that akin to gang of Michelangelo’s Davids with switchblades. I guess it depends on how one defines satisfactory.

Something you and Marshall (thank you) might want to consider for the PBEM enhancement is an option (witness OPTION) that allows for things like simultaneous Reinforcement phasing... or perhaps simultaneous except for France who can then make their reinforcements... Automatically skipping Prussian/Austrian Naval etc and perhaps certain other phases by a player's checked choice block. Anything that saves time would be welcome. Fundamentalist EiA Naysayers note: these suggestions are suggested options.

I believe that I and others have suggested similar vein ideas before and have been breshed aside as not being faithful to the true EiA recipe. This criticism is correct; such changes would not be exactly in line with the EiA game of old. But it would speed things up. Already games will take multiple years. Such a game length reduces the appeal of the game to a very rarefied audience. And this means less of a return on your investment. For gamers, it means fewer opponents and, one day perhaps, having to live with program glitches that never will go away as Tex/Marshall has ridden into the sunset onto other projects. I would look at what games out there --board or PC -- that have been hugely successful and adopt a measure of their recipe to glean a larger market share.

So, I am kicking the ball of new ideas/OPTIONS down the court again. Glad to play whack-a-mullah with the next EiA fundamentalist who suggests that going back to pure EiA with no deviations possible is the best course of action for the viable future of this already splendid game.



Semper Fidelis,

Mardonius

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I don't think there's any harm in discussing options, as long as you all keep in mind that our top priorities remain:

1. Bugs
2. Things that hinder vs. AI play
3. Things that hinder PBEM play

After that, there are things like the game itself, for example the scenario editor, making any "deviations" we can either optional or creating a EIA Classic scenario that avoids them. Obviously, some of these things happen in parallel but discussing something doesn't mean that it's suddenly become the top priority.

Regards,

- Erik

The only problem I see here is that the AI play is never going to be good, so at what point do you guys stop working on the AI and start working on making the PBEM (or heaven forbid, internet play) better?