Matrix Games Forums

jnier:
 
Interesting idea! How bout this in addition to the improved AI (NO, not in 1.03 but maybe later)? How does everybody feel about the UMP rules?
 
 
 

Marshall, anything and everything you can do to make the game complete and appealing for everyone -- pbem'ers, solitaire gamers, EiA'ers, EiH'ers, -- is the way to go.  Options for UMP or AI or combinations would be good.  Editor options to allow EiA or EiH OOBs, or whatever, would be good.  Provide all players an opportunity to play the game as they choose to play. [&o]
 
Despite a few selfish voices harping on "their way or the highway," most players seem to support all features and are willing to be patient for it all to happen.  Well, some not so patient as others I suppose.  Too bad for them.  You and Matrix have a decent plan forward.  Keep at it and make it happen.  Looking forward to v1.03 and your AI improvements. [8D]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Marshall, anything and everything you can do to make the game complete and appealing for everyone -- pbem'ers, solitaire gamers, EiA'ers, EiH'ers, -- is the way to go.  Options for UMP or AI or combinations would be good.  Editor options to allow EiA or EiH OOBs, or whatever, would be good.  Provide all players an opportunity to play the game as they choose to play. [&o]

Despite a few selfish voices harping on "their way or the highway," most players seem to support all features and are willing to be patient for it all to happen.  Well, some not so patient as others I suppose.  Too bad for them.  You and Matrix have a decent plan forward.  Keep at it and make it happen.  Looking forward to v1.03 and your AI improvements. [8D]

Appreciate the support. It is sometimes difficult to determine what really is being asked for by the masses or being screamed for by the few.
Tough job...

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Marshall, anything and everything you can do to make the game complete and appealing for everyone -- pbem'ers, solitaire gamers, EiA'ers, EiH'ers, -- is the way to go.  Options for UMP or AI or combinations would be good.  Editor options to allow EiA or EiH OOBs, or whatever, would be good.  Provide all players an opportunity to play the game as they choose to play. [&o]

Despite a few selfish voices harping on "their way or the highway," most players seem to support all features and are willing to be patient for it all to happen.  Well, some not so patient as others I suppose.  Too bad for them.  You and Matrix have a decent plan forward.  Keep at it and make it happen.  Looking forward to v1.03 and your AI improvements. [8D]

Appreciate the support. It is sometimes difficult to determine what really is being asked for by the masses or being screamed for by the few.
Tough job...

Marshall, this idea should have been the cornerstone of the design process from DAY ONE: ROBUSTNESS. For some reason, it wasn't. I don't know why.

Instead of making all that EiH crap options (which is exactly what they are) you guys hard coded that crap into the game. Why not make them options?????? Why not just make BASE EiA (which really probablyl would have been easier for you guys), then have a lot of extra options and then add an editor/modder??

This really would have made the most sense, IMO. Then you really wouldn't have to worry about who was screaming for what.

Instead of making all that EiH crap options (which is exactly what they are) you guys hard coded that crap into the game. Why not make them options??????

It may not be a hardcoded issue so much as an OOB issue? Given an editor to create default EiA units, particularly fleets without light fleets and transports, most of the EiH stuff is rendered moot -- piracy/anti-piracy, transports, proportional naval losses, etc. There should be a game option to enable/disable influencing minor countries in the diplomacy phase. But, what else specifically? Marshall should have a list of differences and suggestions for how to implement on/off options.

Just take the EiA rulebook and go through it rule by rule. The base EiA rulebook is what most people want; it's the game we all know and have played. Once you have that (and the optionals that are in there), then you can start tacking on options that are not in the rulebook, maybe starting with the "official" optionals from the general (Advanced naval rules, Turkish options, Swedish major power maybe) and then moving on to the more fan-made stuff like EiH.
 
 

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Instead of making all that EiH crap options (which is exactly what they are) you guys hard coded that crap into the game. Why not make them options??????

It may not be a hardcoded issue so much as an OOB issue? Given an editor to create default EiA units, particularly fleets without light fleets and transports, most of the EiH stuff is rendered moot -- piracy/anti-piracy, transports, proportional naval losses, etc. There should be a game option to enable/disable influencing minor countries in the diplomacy phase. But, what else specifically? Marshall should have a list of differences and suggestions for how to implement on/off options.

It would be quite easy to mod out the minor diplomacy stuff. Simply set the numbers to change the stance of a minor to some really high value

Hey guys:
 
The EiH stuff is in there because it was a part of the main design scope of our engine which was PRE EiA licensing. Michael Treasure actually helped n this respect. We decided to keep this in the game for the first release. Call it what it is but that's the story.

Fine. Now, how to get rid of it all?

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog

Fine. Now, how to get rid of it all?

I second this.

It seems that these EiH rules are very unbalanced and create lots of major problems with the game.  I would be in favor of removing them.

+1 to getting rid of the EiH rules but this should probably be handled via a scenario editor.

Interesting idea! How bout this in addition to the improved AI (NO, not in 1.03 but maybe later)? How does everybody feel about the UMP rules?

marshall, I think that the UMP rules have serious problems (see here: http://eia.xnetz.com/rules/eiarules-with-errata.html section 14.3) and to be honest I would prefer a decent AI. However for some players the UMP rules might be useful. I'm not sure how easy they would be to implement, and in any case I think they would need adjusting from scenario to scenario (e.g. in the 1805 scenario Austria and Prussia are natural allies, but somewhat earlier or later than this, that was NOT the case).

My main gripe with the UMP rules is that they can be used for a bit of gamesmanship. In one EiA 1792 FTF game we just finished, we had Prussia and Turkey as UMPs. Turkey was used quite fairly by the Spanish player to pretty much save his own life -- keep Britain fighting in the Levant when he (me that is) was threatening an attack on the Spanish territories in North Africa and Italy. However Prussia was raped by Russia -- forces taken control of and forced marched to death, so that Russia could subsequently declare war and capture the Polish provinces. So they sometimes have their uses but also have serious issues.

I would not be in favour of adding the UMP rules at the moment but if someone wants to put it into the bug tracker as an issue then I'm sure it will be looked at by the Matrix team (which I'm not a part of, just the bug tracker admin and volunteer software tester).

Marshall,

The UMP rules will help PBEM tremendously!!!

They will not help solo play. The AI will still be controlling the UMPs.

Joe

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
However Prussia was raped by Russia -- forces taken control of and forced marched to death, so that Russia could subsequently declare war and capture the Polish provinces. So they sometimes have their uses but also have serious issues.

You should re-consider who you play with if you are playing with grown man who act this way. Seriously.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
However Prussia was raped by Russia -- forces taken control of and forced marched to death, so that Russia could subsequently declare war and capture the Polish provinces. So they sometimes have their uses but also have serious issues.

You should re-consider who you play with if you are playing with grown man who act this way. Seriously.

Yeah, sounds like abusing. So houserule no abusing allowed.
I would have dropped out if anyone did that, or find a replacement for Russia...

Regards
Bresh

I like the idea of a human actually gaining control of an AI player through some type of UMP rule. Maybe as an option?
 
 

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I like the idea of a human actually gaining control of an AI player through some type of UMP rule. Maybe as an option?

Why not? Options, options and more options...........the keyword there being options. If you make it a non-option, then someone is bound to complain. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that making a simple BASE game and having lots of options is a good idea.