Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

As I mentioned in other posts, we are planning to add PBEM support after release.

sorry again but it's not acceptable.
you write, buy it and we will add (perhaps!) an important compoment some time later.

I'm sorry but its NOT your game. Your not the lead programme or in anyway involved in the development of this game.
So saying its NOT ACCEPTEABLE like an irate boss or even worse teacher is really rather silly.

Just don't buy it. When people moan about certian things on TV I think well turn it off or tuen over. Same thing applies to you.

DONT BOTHER BUYING THE GAME IF IT DOESN@T MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS. BUY SOMETHING ELSE INSTEAD.

Your starting to get on peoples nerves. Are you normally this pompous? Your name says it all.

Your starting to get on peoples nerves.

are you matrix?

Are you normally this pompous?

you look like to be a moral teacher!

PC Game are the only industry were it's possible to found customer hapy to buy unfinished product.

Hi Guys

Please step back, I think everyone will find this game very enjoyable on a long over due subject. We see a lot of you want the PBEM feature and you already know we listen to our customers. If time allows and the feature is possible we will do our best add it.

David

If time allows

your answerd look like more honest.

So it's now clear they will be not PBEM because you have decide to release the game shortly.

I finally realize a use for the block list!!!!!!!![:D]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

If time allows

your answerd look like more honest.

So it's now clear they will be not PBEM because you have decide to release the game shortly.

If you would read through the threads and answers by the developers and publisher you would notice that it has been stated that PBEM will most probably be added in an upgrade after release.

This is my last mention of this. Why bother repeating and repeating.

Hi 2gaule

I am always honest if nothing else. PBEM was never part of the design and we do not try to force our developers to make changes. This is a very friendly place for our developers. In any case Eric Babe and team are going to look at ways to add PBEM into the design. Every game does not work with PBEM or Internet play and each designer must make this choice. This has nothing to do with us releaseing the game early as it does with the fact we never planned on PBEM with this design.

So if there is no PBEM in this game and it is a major issue for you then wait for Empires in Arms which has no Internet Play but does have PBEM. Not every game can be made for everyone.

David

I am always honest if nothing else. PBEM was never part of the design and we do not try to force our developers to make changes. This is a very friendly place for our developers.

that perhaps all the problem.
In boargame industry most of the time there is a designer a developper and a publisher.
Between the initial game design and the final product many change are made by the developper.
Most of the time the developper is also part of the publisher.
Unfortunatly in PC game, designer and developper are the same person and the publisher appear at the last stand of the project.

I believe 2gaulle will definitely like EIA. So many pbem turns that he will be lucky to ever finish one game of it in his life-time.

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
strategic level. So yes, my vote goes for a PBEM with no tactical level. BTW would it be multiplayer PBEM? that would be more important than try to force the tactical level in

I think we're leaning in this direction. If other parts of testing go well enough, we will try to get PBEM at the strategic level in by the release date.


Eric

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

PC Game are the only industry were it's possible to found customer hapy to buy unfinished product.

BUT its only unfinished in YOUR eyes NOT the developers.

Funny thing is I play all my games PBEM. Thats the way I like to play. BUT I don't go banging on to every game developer who doesn't include it.

Please listen to people. The game will have a PBEM in the furture through an upgrade most likely due to popular demand. HOWEVER I believe it was never intended this way. SO the game isn't unfinished at all. The develope ris finishing his game the way he wanted it. Then he had requests to inlcude a PBEM feature. So he took it on board, decided to keep to his original design and then add a PBEM feature to keep his customers HAPPY.

Ther are two Napoleonic games being released, one fo which caters for you so buy that one. Another is also in devlopment whcih also might cater for you so you will have a choose of two.

BUT its only unfinished in YOUR eyes NOT the developers.

after reading the description I had think this game could have many potential.

EiA is interesting but unfortunatly I have played this game since 20 years. on the other part CoG have many new concept.

That all the reason why I was so interested by this title.

Through this tread it have been clear than there is very few possibility to play (and finish) this kind of game by Lan, specialy in multiplayer.

That mean without PBEM this game will be only playable again the AI

I will be very happy to continue this discution 2 month after the release of CoG if there is no PBEM. At this moment we will see who was wrong.

For now I think this enough

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle

I will be very happy to continue this discution 2 month after the release of CoG if there is no PBEM. At this moment we will see who was wrong.

For now I think this enough

There is no right or wrong just a game design by a game developer.

There is no right or wrong just a game design by a game developer.

and a game design could be good or wrong!

ORIGINAL: David Heath

Hi 2gaule

I am always honest if nothing else. PBEM was never part of the design and we do not try to force our developers to make changes. This is a very friendly place for our developers. In any case Eric Babe and team are going to look at ways to add PBEM into the design. Every game does not work with PBEM or Internet play and each designer must make this choice. This has nothing to do with us releaseing the game early as it does with the fact we never planned on PBEM with this design.

So if there is no PBEM in this game and it is a major issue for you then wait for Empires in Arms which has no Internet Play but does have PBEM. Not every game can be made for everyone.

David

[8D][8D][8D]

I am actually pretty indifferent to PBEM, in part because my PBEM card is already pretty full, and the addition of EiA will overfill it.

I have started playing the beta version of CoG, and think it is sufficiently interesting as a single-player game that I will probably not play it PBEM even if the feature is added.

I would actually prefer, if there is to be a significant upgrade of the system in the future, that the game incorporate the more viable minors as player-nations, a la HoI or R:TW. That way, when I have figured out the optimal strategies for the major powers I can still get a challenge in the game by playing a minor power (and not conquering the world, necessarily, but say, re-establishing the Kingdom of Poland using a combination of military, diplomatic, and economic maneuvers).

Just because a lot of games have one specific feature and a lot of gamers like that feature does not mean that there is not a market, and a good market, for a game that foregoes that feature. Most players like diffrent games to play under different circumstances. This is just the kind of game it is fun playing while waiting for your opponents to email those WitP turns back!

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
I believe that the union of the two levels is Crown of Glory's most distinguishing feature. It's hard for me to imagine the Napoleonic era without the battles.

That's the point [;)]

A pbem mode cannot include the tact fight...hey we live about 90 years, we have not time to end a game then [:D]
So, do we really need another pbem Risk-mode game ? I think not.
The best choice is a lan/internet real time multyplay ( Paraadox game style ) with choice to stop and SAVE ( i.e. freeze ) the situation and then restart in the next game session. For example, this will be the multyplayer mode in Supreme Ruler 2010.

Imperial Glory demo survived on my Hard disk only 1 and half hour, then it was erased totally ( my windows trashcan told me that that kind of rubbish is to "rubbishis" for it...).
My hope is now totally for Crown of Glory, have a good work guys.

A pbem mode cannot include the tact fight...hey we live about 90 years, we have not time to end a game then [:D]
So, do we really need another pbem Risk-mode game ? I think not.
The best choice is a lan/internet real time multyplay ( Paraadox

Thanks for the encouragement Darksky.

I finished writing basic PBEM code yesterday and the initial PBEM test games I'm running in-house seem to be working alright. PBEM is just strategic level -- battles are resolved in QC by the AI. I think there may be enough with the treaty and trade and development areas of play to keep the strategic game interesting in a PBEM game.

Typically when we play a LAN game with more than two humans we have a sort of gentleman's agreement that each player can only choose to fight one detailed battle per evening -- for a long evening's m-play game with three players this usually works out to about half the time spent at the strategic level, half the time at the tactical level.


Eric

Browsing through forums, as I end up doing daily, I just had to note this bit of irony. Apologies for the brief semi-hijack of the thread.

In this forum, we have a few customers, particularly one very enthusiastic one, posting vigorously to get PBEM added to a TCP/IP play game. In the GGWaW forum, we have a few customers posting vigorously to get TCP/IP added to a PBEM game. In each case, the game is ideally designed to support the multi-player mode that already exists, rather than the one being requested. Perhaps I'm the only one that finds this a bit surreal or ironic.

My $.02 - be careful what you wish for. [;)]

Ok, back to your regular chat and thanks to Eric for his quick response and keeping us all up to date. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

In this forum, we have a few customers, particularly one very enthusiastic one, posting vigorously to get PBEM added to a TCP/IP play game. In the GGWaW forum, we have a few customers posting vigorously to get TCP/IP added to a PBEM game. In each case, the game is ideally designed to support the multi-player mode that already exists, rather than the one being requested. Perhaps I'm the only one that finds this a bit surreal or ironic.

I apreciate a lot of this kind of reflexion.

Ironic also to see how it was difficult to implement PBEM feature.

ask myself if all this psychodrama was necessary?

By the way it will be interresting to see how many people will play with lan and how many with PBEM. For me that the only good question.