BAD: St. Petersburg problem (and other nasty deviations)

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

pzgndr:

tm.asp?m=1842053

Marshall:

This is a deviation. It may sound simple but I have no way of indicating two different capitals for the same MP.

seaforth7:

Marshall,
Are you saying this isn't going to get fixed? If so that a substantial deviation from the original game. Makes Russia invulnerable from all but France, major balance change. I guess that's also why he didn't loose any political points for it's occupation, another deviation. Why would the manual not state this?

Mashall:
I understand. This may not be great news but I'm not going to hide anything from you guys. If I can figure out a workaround then I will.



Call me crazy, but that's how I interpreted these statements. BTW, I'm not sure what "workaround" means to you but to me it means "rather than fixing the problem directly, we will make it so it appears as though it's been fixed".

Please don't think that I operate this way! I will not make it so that it appears to be fixed without fixing it??? My workaround statement means that I must look at a way to implement a rule into the engine that was not in the original design.

Maybe I should say a little less???

Honestly, I'm sure it's not you. I think that this project just has this feel all around. Maybe the word "workaround" was the wrong term.

I don't care if a good improvement ceases all current games.

[pzgndr]

Sounds to me like Marshall is very committed to resolving these issues one way or another.  Sounds good to me.  

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Sounds to me like Marshall is very committed to resolving these issues one way or another.  Sounds good to me.  

This is correct. I will constantly be working to make this thing perfect!

[baboune]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

This is correct. I will constantly be working to make this thing perfect!

hehe... Perfect? [&o]

[JavaJoe]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Sounds to me like Marshall is very committed to resolving these issues one way or another. Sounds good to me.

This is correct. I will constantly be working to make this thing perfect!

Now I know you're insane.

[Marshall Ellis]

In software, just because you know you cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean that you should not try! It's like trying to get to infinity. You know you never will BUT you might get close
 
 
 

[StCyr]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis
In software, just because you know you cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean that you should not try! It's like trying to get to infinity. You know you never will BUT you might get close

oh well, I just recall your first statement about the gamemap - that you refuse to make any changes to it (change the design towards the original) and by that this should not be open to discussion... you got so much input during all these years from so many people addicted to this game, ignoring so much of it... and now you speak about a try to achieve perfection.
And what kind of perfection you may think about ? Having no problems to offer this game to the public -ie with silly sucide corps going to die for sure in a last counterattack in a hopless battle for the lost capital (with 1:20 ratio), no naval evasion etc etc - I really fear you still don´t fully understand what this game is about. ADG EIA is a wondeful balanced game, and to excuse your design being imbalanced by your own coding seems somewhat weak.


Dear Marshall - IF you are really looking for perfection, you should protest whenever one of your fans shows up like this:

The game is not a 100% faithful implementation of the board game and it never will be. For better or worse Matrix have decided that.

or

I guess we should all be happy with whatever we get.

(By now, Matrix EiA single play is useless, and a multiplayer game takes much longer than a well moderated pbem original EiA and also misses several essentials.)

[pzgndr]

Always with the negative waves StCry, always with the negative waves. [8|]

I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know. Woof, woof, woof! [8D]

Too funny. IT'S JUST A GAME!!! Get a life man. [;)]

[StCyr]

Always with the negative waves StCry, always with the negative waves.

no no no no [:-], thats not true- not always. I recall my last post some time ago- I really tried to give a helpfull neutral answer to Marshall concering a supply question. I also suggested to recall about Alternate Dominant Powers, if there is the intention for a realistic diplomatic AI- oh, and long long time ago I was the first to point out what damage would be done to the game if Tactical Maximum Rating would be skiped as intended. So "always negative" isn´t true.
(Btw I promised to order 2 copies of Matrix EiA if the TMR would be included, and I really did order (and pay for) 2 copies... too sad, only one arieved, but thats another problem...)

Well... I feel negative about this game by now- in general a PC should be able to speed up the game, but right now the opposite is true. There are still so many basic essentials running bad- and Marshall speaks about perfection, where to go next, other gamers ask the "AI" to cheat, to be happy with whatever we get etc
Thats not "too funny", thats depressing - just as the life I got, thanks [;)]

[pzgndr]

There are still so many basic essentials running bad

I can't disagree with you there. But I remain optimistic and patient that all the items on the bug list will eventually get worked off and the game will shine. That should be the goal. Move forward into the future, yes? Make it happen. Git 'er done. Nothing to it but to do it. Sunshine and rainbows ahead. [:)]

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: StCyr
you got so much input during all these years from so many people addicted to this game, ignoring so much of it...

This is my biggest criticism. So much good advice (that they asked for) down the drain and NOT used. They basically did whatever they wanted to (or whatever that EiH guy convinced them was good, damn crackpot!) instead of listening to the people who are going to actually play and buy the game. Too bad really.

[Ashtar]

Marshall:
The two capital scenario may force me to make DB structural changes that will OBSOLETE ALL current games! That OK?

Thanks for your reply Marshall!

Just one question: is it really difficult to have an automatic converter, that is a simple code which reads in input the sav files done with the old DB structure and outputs the sav files good for the new DB structure?

I imagine the problem of OBSOLETE games is that you will have to add a few new fields (like second Russian capitals or evasion orders for fleets in the sav fields) in the sav files so that the new code will not be able to read old sav anymore, but I do not see any particular reason for old the sav files not being easily convertible to the new format:
read them in input, and write them in output adding the new fields values (eventually initialized in some arbitrary way)
where needed...

Am I missing something?

[gwheelock]

Another possibility would be to wrap those sections of code in conditional blocks
Either :
 
IF Exists(newdbfieldname) THEN
&nbsp; <code for processing new field>
ENDIF
&nbsp;
If an automatic converter is too messy; create a MANUAL one that is run
on a game to update the files & anyone planning to upgrade runs this
(once) before running the updated code.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
or
&nbsp;
IF Exists(newdbfieldname) THEN
&nbsp; <code branch for integrating new field with game >
ELSE
&nbsp; <existing code that only handles old field formats >
ENDIF

[pzgndr]

This is my biggest criticism. So much good advice (that they asked for) down the drain and NOT used.

Up to now, sure. That's not to say Marshall is not listening now and, as he has indicated, he is willing to resolve issues. I keep looking at the bug tracker list and it seems fairly complete regarding rules deviations and other feature enhancements that everyone keeps asking for. So I wouldn't keep saying it's all down the drain, just not implemented yet.

What else needs to be on the bug list? If anyone has good advice for fixing/improving the game that is not already being tracked for eventual resolution, then add an item for consideration. Yesterday is done and over with. Look ahead, yes? [:)]

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Marshall:
The two capital scenario may force me to make DB structural changes that will OBSOLETE ALL current games! That OK?

Thanks for your reply Marshall!

Just one question: is it really difficult to have an automatic converter, that is a simple code which reads in input the sav files done with the old DB structure and outputs the sav files good for the new DB structure?

I imagine the problem of OBSOLETE games is that you will have to add a few new fields (like second Russian capitals or evasion orders for fleets in the sav fields) in the sav files so that the new code will not be able to read old sav anymore, but I do not see any particular reason for old the sav files not being easily convertible to the new format:
read them in input, and write them in output adding the new fields values (eventually initialized in some arbitrary way)
where needed...

Am I missing something?

I guess I should qualify by saying not too difficult but time consuming. Anything could be done given enough time. What I am saying is that if I went down this road AND had to maintain game compatibility then it would push the new release out even further.

[Ashtar]

Marshall:
I guess I should qualify by saying not too difficult but time consuming. Anything could be done given enough time. What I am saying is that if I went down this road AND had to maintain game compatibility then it would push the new release out even further.

Personally, I am not worried about quickness, I just would like to have a good EIA and not to throw away my existing pbem games I have been patiently running for months now. So I say yes to the game converter...

I guess 1.03 will soon be out with AI improvement, pp gain/loss for loaned corps and fleets and a series of potentially crashing bugs solved.

My (very personal) suggestion is to follow with a 1.04 containing: naval evasion, St. Petesburg problem solved, 1/2 pp per fleet in combat, naval pursuit, supply chain rules correctly fixed, blockade box combat fixed, the kingdom of Italy added (it has the greatest impact on gameplay of the missing political combinations), a
sav file converter for compatibility and an editor for pp, gold, manpower and victory points (usable by the host only - this could be used to correct a lot of minor
problems which could appear during game).
Ah, when you will touch the database, I could also be sweet to see the single defending corps being able to ask for reinforcement from nearby friendly stacks
and to guard commit (either by a better AI or by adding new fields to the orders list) [:D][:D]

In my opinion this will finally make EIA a great game - no crashes, working rules and playable AI, if you can manage it.

[baboune]

1.04 must contain some UI fixes like zoom in/out.

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: baboune

1.04 must contain some UI fixes like zoom in/out.

No, UI improvements should be lowest on the list. After bug fixes and gameplay enhancement. Lets get the game working properly first.

[baboune]

I disagree.  This is a great game enhancement. 
Being able to see units is important.

I am not even suggesting to adapt to higher screen resolution.

[adrianthomson]

ORIGINAL: Ashtar

Being still in a cooperative mood, I summarize in the following simple way to solve the major problems. I understand you are focused on AI now, and that a commercial product needs an AI to sell, but please try to understand that EIA fans just want a working pbem. I strongly doubt that an AI will ever be a serious challange for an experienced player.

I whole heartedly disagree. I don't give a damn about PBEM players. I want a stand alone game which is what was advertised.

Adrian