1.03.13 BETA summary

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

We should have our final candidate in the next few days since it looks like we are ready for primetime. I wanted to take a few minutes and outline a few things to look for:

1. Awaiting battle file from "X" messages in pbem games should be taken care of now. Now you guys will not have to send games to me for fixing and returning!

2. AI smarter! It still needs some work BUT you should see the AI using money smarter, moving smarter, making alliances better and DOW decisions better. We still need to improve this and will continue our efforts.

3. Crash fixes. There are 4 crash fixes in this BETA as well.

4. Can add / subtract money and pps in the PBEM admin menu.

[NeverMan]

I personally don't think it's a good idea to have a built-in cheat method for the game host, but that's just me.

I mean the only reason this was asked for and needed is because the game wasn't working properly as it was. It should be up to the developer to correct this, not give a method of manipulation to the host, JMO.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I personally don't think it's a good idea to have a built-in cheat method for the game host, but that's just me.

I mean the only reason this was asked for and needed is because the game wasn't working properly as it was. It should be up to the developer to correct this, not give a method of manipulation to the host, JMO.

As long as it leaves a very visible trail in the game log for all players to see it can only be a help as it allows the host to correct things where the players agree without the risk of unnoticed cheating.

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

I personally don't think it's a good idea to have a built-in cheat method for the game host, but that's just me.

I mean the only reason this was asked for and needed is because the game wasn't working properly as it was. It should be up to the developer to correct this, not give a method of manipulation to the host, JMO.

You don't like it then don't give the host GA capabilities. You have that option. The host can already play your turn with the AI, replace you or skip you. This was designed to give the host a little more flexibility if something goes wrong. This is also not an excuse to NOT fix something???

[NeverMan]

Oh, I didn't see anywhere that this was going to be an option for each individual player, if that is the case then I think it will be fine. Also, I think I agree with Jan that there should be a paper trail of any and all changes/manipulations by the host.

I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Oh, I didn't see anywhere that this was going to be an option for each individual player, if that is the case then I think it will be fine. Also, I think I agree with Jan that there should be a paper trail of any and all changes/manipulations by the host.

I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

Neverman i think its mostly for the ongoing games who already encountered bugs, so that they could if they wanted fix pp $ to resolve bug old bugs who may be fixed for new games, instead of having to start over.

Like maybe your group wants to use the St. Petersburg captial enemy occupied cutting Russian income etc as it was in EIA ?

I welcome the editor, as long as all editing is shown in the gamelog, and maybe just limited to pps and $ for now, then host wont see other classified info...

Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

All manipulations are logged and known to all.
 
 

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

I hear ya but if I implemented everything correctly then I'm sure the world would have ended on the next day LOL!

[gazfun]

4. Can add / subtract money and pps in the PBEM admin menu

Sorry, but I disagree from the point of view with this proposed feature, that it will create the same situation that occurred with the old paper game.
People will winge and wine and argue about 1PP or 5 or so money points.
Even with bugs that are in the game, gamers can work around it, as if it is a rule in the game.
Its about playing the game, for what you can do or not do, not "If I winge enough for long enough Ill get my way anyway, to convince the GM to see it my way in the end"

This will leave it open to making decisions about small issues that I have seen of late in my view, and does not contribute to playability, and reducing it to a fewer nitch players only.
This will not in my view contribute to community based game.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

I hear ya but if I implemented everything correctly then I'm sure the world would have ended on the next day LOL!

That was a good one, I actually did LOL. hehe

Seriously though, I can see the usefulness of it to current games that have gone awry; however, for future games (when the vast majority of the game is implemented the way you want it to be) I can't see this feature doing anything good.

[Adraeth]

Glad to know that the AI is going to be "pimped" [;)]

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I still think this wouldn't be needed if the things were implemented correctly.

I hear ya but if I implemented everything correctly then I'm sure the world would have ended on the next day LOL!

That was a good one, I actually did LOL. hehe

Seriously though, I can see the usefulness of it to current games that have gone awry; however, for future games (when the vast majority of the game is implemented the way you want it to be) I can't see this feature doing anything good.

I cannot argue with that. Good points indeed.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: gazfun
Sorry, but I disagree from the point of view with this proposed feature, that it will create the same situation that occurred with the old paper game.
People will winge and wine and argue about 1PP or 5 or so money points.
Even with bugs that are in the game, gamers can work around it, as if it is a rule in the game.
Its about playing the game, for what you can do or not do, not "If I winge enough for long enough Ill get my way anyway, to convince the GM to see it my way in the end"

This will leave it open to making decisions about small issues that I have seen of late in my view, and does not contribute to playability, and reducing it to a fewer nitch players only.
This will not in my view contribute to community based game.

These are the things it would allow corrections for:

1) Docks the declaring power 2 PP for a multi-district minor DoW, but only gives 1 back when he conquers it?
2) Grants the navy heading out of a blockaded port wind guage, thus allowing victory in an battle he should not be able to win?
3) Forces a corps invading a port to forage when there is a depot available for invasion supply?
4) Prevents the corps in #3 from besieging the city, because it has already foraged (even though it did not use movement points)
5) Economic manipulation was tallied for a nation whose national capital was occupied, forcing him even further into instability (and, eventually, fiasco, since he couldn't turn it off until he had won his capital back). This DID give him a few troops, but since it took away most of his money, they weren't very useful.
6) etc.

All of the above (and more) occurred in ONE pbem game within the first two game years. The game editor is to be used to correct for bugs in the game, rules violations (by the computer), etc. It is absolutely essential until the game is perfect (in other words, forever).

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: gazfun
Sorry, but I disagree from the point of view with this proposed feature, that it will create the same situation that occurred with the old paper game.
People will winge and wine and argue about 1PP or 5 or so money points.
Even with bugs that are in the game, gamers can work around it, as if it is a rule in the game.
Its about playing the game, for what you can do or not do, not "If I winge enough for long enough Ill get my way anyway, to convince the GM to see it my way in the end"

This will leave it open to making decisions about small issues that I have seen of late in my view, and does not contribute to playability, and reducing it to a fewer nitch players only.
This will not in my view contribute to community based game.

These are the things it would allow corrections for:

1) Docks the declaring power 2 PP for a multi-district minor DoW, but only gives 1 back when he conquers it?
2) Grants the navy heading out of a blockaded port wind guage, thus allowing victory in an battle he should not be able to win?
3) Forces a corps invading a port to forage when there is a depot available for invasion supply?
4) Prevents the corps in #3 from besieging the city, because it has already foraged (even though it did not use movement points)
5) Economic manipulation was tallied for a nation whose national capital was occupied, forcing him even further into instability (and, eventually, fiasco, since he couldn't turn it off until he had won his capital back). This DID give him a few troops, but since it took away most of his money, they weren't very useful.
6) etc.

All of the above (and more) occurred in ONE pbem game within the first two game years. The game editor is to be used to correct for bugs in the game, rules violations (by the computer), etc. It is absolutely essential until the game is perfect (in other words, forever).

1. Should be fixed within the game.
2. Should be fixed within the game.
3. Should be fixed within the game.
4. Should be fixed within the game.
5. Should be fixed within the game.
6. All future and current problems should be fixed within the game.

We are sitting on patch 1.02k and the game is really not "release" ready still, after 6 months. I just think that rather than spending time to make it so that the admin can correct for all the programs shortcomings, why not just fix the shortcomings?

The admin/host shouldn't have to constantly be checking and correcting the programs problems. I believe that should be the developer/distributor's job.

All the checking and correcting is going to add more time to the game, put off new players, etc. If you are going to do all this checking why not just use Cyberboard or Vassal?

[eske]

How about using this kind of in-game-adjustments for letting the host execute effects of house-rules.
It is not possible to make all houserules a pregame option.
 
So this can - with some effort of the host of course - change the PP's gained or lost during the game wether in battles, naval battles, DoW's or whatever. It can change unit cost, forced repatriations etc. ...
 
I can also imagine it used for giving players advantages (also called handicaps) for making more interesting games or for "fixing" a nation to make it more enjoying to play - and there is a lot of other uses I can't imagine.
 
All in all a very flexibel solution to an otherwise endless line of special requests.
 
 - maybe a way to add VP's and aquired MP's comes next...
 
/eske

[gazfun]

Im inlined to agree with Neverman, the game, will be run by Committee, these errors should be fixed in game, human error will make some guy pay the price.
 
THe committee options in the game will run to, and you will be frightened to do anything in fear of, "gee what will the others think if I did this" type of scenario.
If run by committee the the French player will always be out voted, this is no way to run a wargame
 
 

[gwheelock]

Since any "house rules" would have to be voted on before the game
starts (pre-bid); "France" would not be out-voted because anyone
could end up BEING France. (Would you vote to completely handicap
the position YOU might end up playing?)

After that; the only adjustments would be for programming problems
that clearly violated the written rules of the game.

No need to worry about the game being "run by Committee"
(probably of "Public Safety" [:'(] )

[Michael T]

In the boardgame players can make adjustments any way they like (normally by popular vote), why not in the PC version as well. I think its a good feature to have.

[gazfun]

ORIGINAL: krak

In the boardgame players can make adjustments any way they like (normally by popular vote), why not in the PC version as well. I think its a good feature to have.

Not while the game is currently playing, it wont work.
as GWEELOCK say has to be voted in at start, and thats it, not while a game is going.

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: krak

In the boardgame players can make adjustments any way they like (normally by popular vote), why not in the PC version as well. I think its a good feature to have.

I'm not saying that that is a bad idea; I'm just saying that these house rules
have to be set before the game starts (& not changed mid-game) so that
everyone knows what the effects will be & can adjust their country bids
accordingly.