Improving PBEM, again

Improving PBEM, again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815

Message

bOrIuM -> Improving PBEM, again (9/9/2008 3:52:14 AM)
Hey, I think that an included compressor/decrompressor for the turn files would be nice. Making them much more easier to manipulate and quicker to send. As using winrar you can compress a turn file from 10 times smaller of his original size. And would be nice to encrypt the data we send, but this is not very important.

borner -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/9/2008 4:21:42 AM)
most games I am in use a seperate yahoo or google website to post turns and this seems to work well

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/9/2008 12:33:10 PM)
I would actually like to shrink the files and integrate the email transport into the game a bit more. This is on my mind.

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/9/2008 2:16:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis I would actually like to shrink the files and integrate the email transport into the game a bit more. This is on my mind. A few things: 1. Yes, all my groups use 3rd party sites to manage the files 2. I always use the .zip format (7-zip is free) 3. IF you integrate the email then I strongly suggest Jimmer's suggestion of having a widget to tell you when it's your turn. If you could also build this in the game that would be great, so when I turn on my computer if it's my turn it will tell me it's my turn and what game it's my turn in.

bresh -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/9/2008 5:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis I would actually like to shrink the files and integrate the email transport into the game a bit more. This is on my mind. Just keep in mind with the functionallity that not everyone use email programs. Regards Bresh

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/9/2008 8:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis I would actually like to shrink the files and integrate the email transport into the game a bit more. This is on my mind. Just keep in mind with the functionallity that not everyone use email programs. Regards Bresh Another good reminder. I, for one, don't use an email program.

bOrIuM -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/10/2008 1:58:31 AM)
My point was to skip the step to zip files, the game could do it itself. And I dont have any email program either

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/10/2008 1:30:58 PM)
Interesting??? It sounds like most do not use an email program. Do most of you simply upload to a group site?

RayKinStL -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/10/2008 3:07:03 PM)
Marshall, Maybe I am wrong here, but I think when they are saying they don't have an email program, that means they don't use Outlook, Groupwise, or other similar programs. They have email, but they must access it via the web through sites such as yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc... I agree that an autozip (and UNZIP) would be nice. As it stands now Marshall, most people I think upload directly to a group, or site, like we are doing in our game.

Jimmer -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/10/2008 4:48:33 PM)
I think it would be OK to include an email client (something really simple), but its use should be optional. The ZIP process, though, should be automatic and you don't have to make it optional if the game handles it on both ends. HOWEVER, when you release the code for the zip stuff, you will have to warn people that everybody needs to upgrade at the same time.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/10/2008 7:47:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RayKinStL Marshall, Maybe I am wrong here, but I think when they are saying they don't have an email program, that means they don't use Outlook, Groupwise, or other similar programs. They have email, but they must access it via the web through sites such as yahoo, gmail, hotmail, etc... I agree that an autozip (and UNZIP) would be nice. As it stands now Marshall, most people I think upload directly to a group, or site, like we are doing in our game. Ray: I got that. I should have been more specific. I meant delivering turns method being email / non-email.

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/10/2008 8:06:21 PM)
Marshall, I am in 4 PBEM games, NON OF WHICH use the EiANW email method of getting files around. It's basically useless.

bOrIuM -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/10/2008 9:23:21 PM)
same for me, but only one use the group method, wich i find slower than email.

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/11/2008 12:20:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bOrIuM same for me, but only one use the group method, wich i find slower than email. I haven't found it to be slower but even if it is it's probably not by much AND having all the files in a centralized location is a real lifesaver considering how many problems there are with the game.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/11/2008 2:16:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Marshall, I am in 4 PBEM games, NON OF WHICH use the EiANW email method of getting files around. It's basically useless. This is good to know! I probably won't spend much time integrating the transport. I could use the time elsewhere... Thanks guys!

Dancing Bear -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/12/2008 2:02:45 AM)
One thing that might be easy to change, and might help with the PBEM game speed is to change the header in the out going email file. Rather than saying just who the next player is, maybe list the 7 (or some other number) nations in the order of their upcoming turns, i.e if te net turns are France, Austria, Prussia, then the email header could say "May Land Phase: France playing, Austria, Prussia,.... June Reinforcement phase" It may be surprising, but some of players forget where their turn comes up in the sequence of play. Reminding everyone where their turn is in the sequence of play might help those players who have not memorized the rule book know that they should be logging on more regularly at certain times, and when they can relax.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/12/2008 3:11:47 PM)
This really only helps if people are using email to transport the turns.

gazfun -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/21/2008 11:30:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Marshall, I am in 4 PBEM games, NON OF WHICH use the EiANW email method of getting files around. It's basically useless. No its not useless, it quiet handy if you are only in one game. But if your in more than one game, then your mail server get clogged up due to the number of file exchanges. Its a horses for courses issue actually

gazfun -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/21/2008 11:34:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis I would actually like to shrink the files and integrate the email transport into the game a bit more. This is on my mind. Yes I think the smaller would be better, but quiet a few of us are in more than one game, so have a central uploading and downloading area, where the larger files have to be zipped anyway. But improvement are always welcome

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/22/2008 1:34:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gazfun quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Marshall, I am in 4 PBEM games, NON OF WHICH use the EiANW email method of getting files around. It's basically useless. No its not useless, it quiet handy if you are only in one game. But if your in more than one game, then your mail server get clogged up due to the number of file exchanges. Its a horses for courses issue actually It's useless because it assumes everyone uses mail servers and, from my experience, most don't, they use mail web servers.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/22/2008 1:13:37 PM)
How many use yahoo/google groups?

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/22/2008 2:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis How many use yahoo/google groups? 2 = google 1 = yahoo 1 = TGHQ forum (for some odd reason, not sure why this group doesn't use google since it's so much better)

timewalker03 -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/22/2008 4:00:39 PM)
Neverman why they won't use google is a factor of control and feeling important.

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/22/2008 6:26:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timewalker03 Neverman why they won't use google is a factor of control and feeling important. I have been getting that impression lately, not just from the group or gazfun but from our new host also, it's quite strange.

eske -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/24/2008 11:13:05 AM)
The purpose of TGHQ is to create a group of wargamers willing to commit themselves to the games they enter in a wellbehaved maner and a positive atmosphere. Thus making it possible to actually complete a game like EiANW. It may be a little more encumberant in use than google/yahoo groups, but gazfun is doing quite well with the resources he got. The main advantages as a pleyer is, there are more games running, more than 7 players around making them easier to find, more players gathering experiences on how to keep this game going in spite of difficulties encountered. A better chance to find temps when a player is away, or replacements. It is possible to sign up for new games or vacancies etc. etc. All in all using this forum to upload gamesfiles is a small price for what you get, IMHO. /eske

NeverMan -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/24/2008 2:37:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eske The purpose of TGHQ is to create a group of wargamers willing to commit themselves to the games they enter in a wellbehaved maner and a positive atmosphere. Thus making it possible to actually complete a game like EiANW. It may be a little more encumberant in use than google/yahoo groups, but gazfun is doing quite well with the resources he got. The main advantages as a pleyer is, there are more games running, more than 7 players around making them easier to find, more players gathering experiences on how to keep this game going in spite of difficulties encountered. A better chance to find temps when a player is away, or replacements. It is possible to sign up for new games or vacancies etc. etc. All in all using this forum to upload gamesfiles is a small price for what you get, IMHO. /eske Doesn't sound any different than THIS forum, to be honest. The fact is that TGHQ can still do ALL those things with their FORUM and have the groups use a better tool like google, I guess I don't really see the conflict.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/24/2008 4:01:12 PM)
I'm not familiar with TGHQ and have never used it??? I may have to investigate for my curiosity.

bOrIuM -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/24/2008 8:09:06 PM)
Is it possible to activate/deactivate the auto-battle for PBEM games ? It is very frustrating when a single corp (or two corps) play a battle alone with a pre-selected tactic ? What if we WANT to play all battles ?

Marshall Ellis -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/25/2008 12:17:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bOrIuM Is it possible to activate/deactivate the auto-battle for PBEM games ? It is very frustrating when a single corp (or two corps) play a battle alone with a pre-selected tactic ? What if we WANT to play all battles ? Nope. Single corps defending should always give temp control to the computer. PBEM quick combat will ALWAYS give the defender temp control to the computer. Now, you should be able to enable / disable PBEM Quick Combat IF you have allowed game config changes to happen during the game. Does this make sense?

gwheelock -> RE: Improving PBEM, again (9/25/2008 7:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis quote: ORIGINAL: bOrIuM Is it possible to activate/deactivate the auto-battle for PBEM games ? It is very frustrating when a single corp (or two corps) play a battle alone with a pre-selected tactic ? What if we WANT to play all battles ? Nope. Single corps defending should always give temp control to the computer. PBEM quick combat will ALWAYS give the defender temp control to the computer. Now, you should be able to enable / disable PBEM Quick Combat IF you have allowed game config changes to happen during the game. Does this make sense? Actually; you need to be able to disable this even for "Single corps defending" at the defending player's option. The reason is that "Single corps defending" isn't always a "single" corp - it may very well be in a position to be REINFORCED by an entire stack & you are not allowing this.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.796875