quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks. [:)]

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

Then just take the default setups at the start and review/revise them country by country when you believe it is important to do so.[:)]

Some players will want to examine all the minor countries and see what each one has in the way of units. For example, as a new player it would be very important to find out what each of the European minor countries has in the way of units.
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

Go ahead burn me down… [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks. [:)]

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

Then just take the default setups at the start and review/revise them country by country when you believe it is important to do so.[:)]

Some players will want to examine all the minor countries and see what each one has in the way of units. For example, as a new player it would be very important to find out what each of the European minor countries has in the way of units.
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.

I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down… [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down… [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

I like this better already, thanks. [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BallyJ


After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority"

I think this is a good idea. Standing orders are really something the players should have the ability to negotiate before the game starts.After all what some find as facinating decissions others see as minor details. The important thing is that players are happy with the system.
As an aside I have never seen a game develope where we the future players have had so much input. This is a great site.[:)]
regards John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

On the players manual on PBEM I have one request. I'm having difficulties with the use of both blue and purple in these pages (being a little colourblind they look the same to me...). Is it possible to change the purple or the blue in another colour (Green?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

A question regarding PBEM (and perhaps also internetplay) and stacking limits...
If for example both the US and the CW player are moving land units in the movement phase and are both moving stacks into the same hex, causing overstacking at the end of the phase, units have to be destroyed, according to the rules... Is there a warning given to the players by the program, and if not, is there a warning that the players should communicate to prevent this in the manual? If I'm a player of the game, I wouldn't like a game to say that I have to destroy units, because my ally made a mistake (hey, I don't ever make mistakes in WiF [sm=00000016.gif] , so you have to destroy you're units...)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

A question regarding PBEM (and perhaps also internetplay) and stacking limits...
If for example both the US and the CW player are moving land units in the movement phase and are both moving stacks into the same hex, causing overstacking at the end of the phase, units have to be destroyed, according to the rules... Is there a warning given to the players by the program, and if not, is there a warning that the players should communicate to prevent this in the manual? If I'm a player of the game, I wouldn't like a game to say that I have to destroy units, because my ally made a mistake (hey, I don't ever make mistakes in WiF [sm=00000016.gif] , so you have to destroy you're units...)...

PBEM is for 2 players only so this isn't an issue there.

For NetPlay, the "Master Server" processes player moves/decisions one at a time and only does so if the sending computer had its version of the game up-to-date at the time of submission. If you arrive second and haven't 'seen' the other player's move, then you have to resubmit your move/decision.

As for overstacking, it is only permitted under certain circumstances and the player is forewarned of possible consequences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

A question regarding PBEM (and perhaps also internetplay) and stacking limits...
If for example both the US and the CW player are moving land units in the movement phase and are both moving stacks into the same hex, causing overstacking at the end of the phase, units have to be destroyed, according to the rules... Is there a warning given to the players by the program, and if not, is there a warning that the players should communicate to prevent this in the manual? If I'm a player of the game, I wouldn't like a game to say that I have to destroy units, because my ally made a mistake (hey, I don't ever make mistakes in WiF [sm=00000016.gif] , so you have to destroy you're units...)...

PBEM is for 2 players only so this isn't an issue there.

For NetPlay, the "Master Server" processes player moves/decisions one at a time and only does so if the sending computer had its version of the game up-to-date at the time of submission. If you arrive second and haven't 'seen' the other player's move, then you have to resubmit your move/decision.

As for overstacking, it is only permitted under certain circumstances and the player is forewarned of possible consequences.

So this means that the first player to submit his landmoves is the one who gets the hex... I've seen a game where both the US and the CW player had a large discussion about who was allowed to enter a victory hex (Rome, I believe it was) first, since both really needed it... Needless to say that I (as the USSR player) was very upset with the total lack of coöperation between both the US and the CW player at that time. Well, that was a lesson for us: never have the two brothers on the same team again.
Thanks for the answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

is there going to be a quick way for a player to designate say, planes intercepting a ground strike or naval air interception....so instead of having to send a file every time the player could shoot a quick email saying which planes are intercepting and the moving player could make those moves? Same with multiple rounds of air combat and naval combat? Otherwise this could become a long and tedious process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

Two things I noticed from initial read through:

Seems to be a lot of time spent on putting in standing orders for Minor country setups. Frankly in our cyberboard games this is something that we DONT have standing orders for and usually have the defending player send a file. Interesting that you are going the opposite direction in this.

Secondly you make the comment that you won't let the active player control the non-phasing players units at all and that reactions will be controlled by standing orders. This seems to make things overly complicated, and that standing orders would have to be extremely complicated...Just thing of all the different permutations (Sp?) of a multiple air combat rounds or naval combat. Giving the ability for the non-phasing player to just be able to say: oh first rond I got an AA, ok I abort your second bomber or vice versa, instead of sending a file, or setting up a SO For every possible combination seems to be much easier.
Unless I'm missing something. Reading walls of text is not my forte.

Or you could just have me test the thing..:D

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

Two things I noticed from initial read through:

Seems to be a lot of time spent on putting in standing orders for Minor country setups. Frankly in our cyberboard games this is something that we DONT have standing orders for and usually have the defending player send a file. Interesting that you are going the opposite direction in this.

Secondly you make the comment that you won't let the active player control the non-phasing players units at all and that reactions will be controlled by standing orders. This seems to make things overly complicated, and that standing orders would have to be extremely complicated...Just thing of all the different permutations (Sp?) of a multiple air combat rounds or naval combat. Giving the ability for the non-phasing player to just be able to say: oh first rond I got an AA, ok I abort your second bomber or vice versa, instead of sending a file, or setting up a SO For every possible combination seems to be much easier.
Unless I'm missing something. Reading walls of text is not my forte.

Or you could just have me test the thing..:D

Part of the PBEM setup is going to be the ability to prioritize using a variety of options -- maybe you want to protect your best Tactical LNDs, or maybe you prefer to keep your best Strategic LNDs in the game. After that, the AIA makes choices on behalf of the non-phasing player. You can set up the standing orders to be as simple or as complex as you want. In most cases, you'll only need to do this once in a while. Your standing orders can probably be kept "as is" from impulse to impulse and from turn to turn.