playable yet? Part II

[obsidiandrag]

Sorry but this has just been bugging me through out reading this thread... 
 
How do you find out what the people want?
 
How do you find out how they want it?
 
You release the game, you offer a forum where they can communicate and discuss which way the game should go and how it should or should not be played and look for ideas of improvement.  By offering the game to the public they have opened a can of worms but in my opinion in the long run WILL make for a better product.  I understand how people can take things personnal when someone does not agree with their point of view but they do not need to bash eachother publicly about it.
 
I find the game playable and enjoyable, yes there are still bugs and I am finding new ones but rather then gripe about it I am trying to help make the game even better.  By voicing my opinion with the masses to agree or contradict so Matrix can get a better feel of which direction to go with the game.  Some things I have agreed with and some I have not. 
 
To make the AI more challanging I set them to Hard and add more victory points to my bid against the computer.  See how long it takes you to rule the world as Turkey...  I long for the TCP/IP as my schedule does not support the PBEM but would a TCP/IP as I can set aside a day for it, but that one day will not make people happy if I only can complete one phase...
 
Thanks for the space to vent

[mr.godo]

As far as Game Speed in a Multiplayer Game goes, much of the variability of the speed of a game is due to player discipline levels.

Within the confines of the game, yes. But I'm referring to game design. What if they made the game so that you had to send an email and get confirmation from everyone every time you move a corps? Then you would be limited to how fast you can go by how disciplined your game mates are. Wait! We don't need verification! Just sent out the email, once per each corps moved. That's an improvement. A further improvement would be to send the email after you move all your corps. A further improvement would be to bypass your turn if you don't have any corps. Or can't do anything in a particular phase.

Why does the economic phase have to be done in a particular order? Do you know what your neighbours build? It isn't done sequentially in the ftf game. The reason it's done here is they don't know how to change the structure of the turn to handle multiple inputs.
Why do you have to click on the button for every player phase? If you have the files queued up, why not just load them all and then provide a means of reviewing what happened? I suspect inability to do this.

These are not aspects of EiA. These are just bad design choices. This is what makes the game less playable.

[NeverMan]

This game is not playable because it's simply too easy to cheat in this game.

If you want this game for AI, fine, but if you are interested in playing with other people then forget it unless you know and trust the people you are playing with. Cheating is so easy it's insane. You don't even have to write any kind of hack or rename files or anything. Just simply close out the program or reload the turn before. Amazing.

[NeverMan]

Since Matrix has conveniently closed another thread warning players of this game I'm going to post here again.

The game continues to have MAJOR bugs. Now maybe these bugs have been around or maybe they are new, who knows, it's so hard to tell, but it really bogs down what otherwise should be a fun game.

[Marshall Ellis]

Appreciate the comments Neverman! I apologize for frustrating you ALOT. I will do my best to make it playable for you!
 
 
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Appreciate the comments Neverman! I apologize for frustrating you ALOT. I will do my best to make it playable for you!

Now you're talking, LOL. That's right listen to my commands!! LOL. [;)]

[Tater]

I just upload the latest patch.

I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!!!

Look, please don't keep telling me that you are improving the game when such a simple thing as that hasn't been fixed...don't tell me the AI is improved when it is still doing something so egregiously stupid. I feel more like I am being patronized than anything else.

I immediately exited the game and I guess I will wait for the next patch with the hope that maybe, just maybe something has actually been fixed that will make this at least a modestly challenging game.

[Thresh]

I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!!

There are worse setups...

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!!

There are worse setups...

What? No garrisons?

[ndrose]

There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: ndrose

There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary.

I agree. It's arguable that all the navy in one port can be a good thing but NOT with 1 garrison, unless you are trying to let loose the British navy on the Spanish (or others).

[Thresh]

Depends on the politics at the time...and your opponents.

Sometimes a 1i garrison is a nice enticement, but there are a lot of factors totake into account when placing the fleets.

For what the games diplomacy is, a 1i garrison is enough in mostcases.

I know playing as France I setup with a 1i Garrison in Toulon, and most of the French Navy there, but I also have a Corps nearby I can move to the area should the need arise.

At the same time, the British for whatever reason blockade the restof my fleets in Amsterdam, try landing their Corps there.  But the AI has yet to realize that after the British Naval comes my Land, and the COrpsI move into thearea is enough to take care of the British Corps, and the blockade force in Toulon is weak enough that more oftne than not I'llwin the naval combat.

Its something I've been looking at pretty closely lately...

Todd

[ndrose]

Yes, the AI "blockading" with an undersized fleet is a problem. If you put the whole French fleet in the Med., GB blockades with a 10-ship light fleet. It almost seems cruel to kill it.

The AI also hasn't figured out that if you don't have a garrison, you can't fire the port guns; even if the whole British fleet is blockading an undefended port, they never make a port raid. I think there probably just isn't any code as yet for making that decision under any circumstances.

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

I opened a new game as GB. When the set-up step open up, I looked for one thing...was the whole French navy grouped in one port with a 1factor garrison...and it was!!

There are worse setups...

Not really...almost any other set-up would be better.

Look, you can try to rationalize it if it makes you feel better. But the fact is ALL of the AI set-ups are terrible. These set-ups are either hardwired in or they are randomly generated based on some seriously flawed criteria. Either way, the initial set-up is an absolutely crucial point in the game. A great set-up won't win a game but a poor-to-stupid set-up can wound an MP for years...maybe even the whole game.

I can not take Matrix's claim that they really are all about fixing this game/AI serious as long as something so crucial is not fixed. IOW, the fact that this remains a serious flaw overshadows anything they have said/done to date.

Just one guy's opinion...

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: ndrose

There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary.

I agree. It's arguable that all the navy in one port can be a good thing but NOT with 1 garrison, unless you are trying to let loose the British navy on the Spanish (or others).

Having the French Navy in one port is almost as good (for the Brits) as having it wiped off the board...in my opinion. Leaves the Brits plenty of fleets/ships to go adventuring about.

My preferred distribution is to have fleets spread along the channel as well as in the Med. Force the Brit to either disperse & cover or play a goalie strategy. Either way the Brit becomes very vulnerable and isn't free to go scalp minors OR threaten potential French allies.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Tater

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: ndrose

There are different schools of thought about what to do with the French navy. All the eggs in one basket is a plausible choice, but the AI just hasn't figured out the "watch that basket" corollary.

I agree. It's arguable that all the navy in one port can be a good thing but NOT with 1 garrison, unless you are trying to let loose the British navy on the Spanish (or others).

Having the French Navy in one port is almost as good (for the Brits) as having it wiped off the board...in my opinion. Leaves the Brits plenty of fleets/ships to go adventuring about.

My preferred distribution is to have fleets spread along the channel as well as in the Med. Force the Brit to either disperse & cover or play a goalie strategy. Either way the Brit becomes very vulnerable and isn't free to go scalp minors OR threaten potential French allies.

This is my preferred setup also. I try to occupy as many Brit fleets as possible, but I was trying to be diplomatic.

[Thresh]

My preferred distribution is to have fleets spread along the channel as well as in the Med. Force the Brit to either disperse & cover or play a goalie strategy. Either way the Brit becomes very vulnerable and isn't free to go scalp minors OR threaten potential French allies.

And that setup can be punished as well by competent players.  I've won against it as Britain, and beaten it as France.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter Tater,no matter how wrong it is. 

Todd

[Tater]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

And that setup can be punished as well by competent players.  I've won against it as Britain, and beaten it as France.

No set-up wins or loses the game. After about a year or two, assuming the initial set-up wasn't totally boneheaded (EX: see almost any AI-MP set-up) the value/detriment of the initial set-up is mostly gone. So assuming your opponent(s) didn't just give up after 1-2 years you haven't "beaten" any initial set-up.

Also, any initial set-up is only as good as the player using it and as the circumstances dictate...the set-up I describe isn't much good if either the Russian or Spanish decide to help the Brits...but then what French naval set-up would work in such a case.

Regardless, if something as simple as a decent set-up (i.e., set-up that actually challenges a human player) can't be managed for the AI then this game really never has a chance of being fixed from a solitaire play standpoint.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter Tater,no matter how wrong it is. 

If I am wrong...you haven't proved it. [:D]

[mr.godo]

To steer this back into the realm of playability, there are a lot of actions required by the user in order to facilitate a turn. For example, you need to receive six files before it is your turn again. You have to download them, store them in the commin folder, and hit the process button six times. Every phase.

That's a lot of work for a whole hell of a lot of nothing. The only information that is useful is when your turn pops up and you get the FRANCE AT WAR WITH ENGLAND, FRANCE AT WAR WITH PRUSSIA, PRUSSIA AND AUSTRIA ARE ALLIES... messages each turn.

Actually, the file load count increases a bit when there are secret battles. A secret battle being any battle that you're not involved in. (Shhhh! THEY'RE SECRET!). Why all battles are secret, I have not received a sufficient explanation. I've tried to get players to broadcast results, but no one seems interested.

MARSHALL! WHY ARE BATTLES KEPT SECRET? The only thing you find out is who wins and who loses. We need to rewrite history.

AUSTERLITZ: 1805: France won.

What more would you want?

I believe the grognards are bettle able to ignore battles they're not involved in, although I'm not sure why. When my allies get into a fight, I like to know what it was that beat the crap out of them.

So, two points on playability:
the atrocious and mundane task oriented turn structure where you have to receive a file from every player, even though this is a sequential turn based game (why can't a single game file be passed from player to player????)
total void of information regarding battles when you dont' have to pick a chit (even if you have forces involved).

[itmc09]

I agree on that. A small report on battles should be available for everybody to look at including:

-participating forces
-chits picked
-round foughts/losses/final outcome.

Maybe the easiest way would be to make the final battle screen available for all players to see when they click on the battle location.

In the boardgame knowing composition of forces involved, losses and chit picking "habits" was an important factor. Understanding what is happening around you also makes the game more interesting and enjoyable.