AE PBEM Multiplayer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Opponents Wanted



Message


Rugens -> AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/27/2009 10:33:19 PM)

I think this is the way it has shaped up. Let me know if I have goofed anything up.

DSwain - Allied (not Chinese)
Jonathan Pollard - Allied (non-US)
Roger Neilson II - Allied

EwingNJ - Japan
guctony - Japan
Carl Rugenstein - Slight preference for Japs





EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/27/2009 10:43:58 PM)

Yep




guctony -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:28:33 AM)

Yes I would like to be in it. I fell the same it is much more fun to share commands.

I would prefer anything japan

regards

Guctony




Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 5:23:24 AM)

Yes, I'd like to be on the Allied side as one or more non-US powers such as Dutch, Brits, Chinese, and/or Aussies. I would also not mind taking the Philippines. I would want to have one-day turns.




P.Hausser -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 9:50:54 AM)

I played 3 games in WITP as "Team's" we was 3 ppl pr team, and in last game 4 ppl pr team.

It is a great way of doing it, but I recommend setting up a system within the team of having daly xontact via Ie Ventrilo or other voice client.




Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 1:43:34 PM)

I think we have enough interested.  I will email everybody that responded and compile a list of the players and their emails.  If you see this before you get an email from me feel free to send me your email at:

Rugens at aol dot com (altered to prevent spam)

Since I've never participated in a PBEM WITP I would really welcome input.  Especially how many players and how to split up and the best actual mechanics to conduct the turns.  Any old PBEM vets please feel free to chime in even if not involved.

We have 6 individuals that have expressed interest if everybody sticks with it:

Carl Rugenstein - Slight preference for Japs
EwingNJ - no preference stated
guctony - Japan
DSwain - Allied (not Chinese)
Jonathan Pollard - Allied (non-US)
P.Hausser - no preference stated




EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 1:59:03 PM)

My primary preference is to get this off the ground so I am willing to play whichever side gives us three on three.  Ultimately there will be far more Allied forces but Japanese production management probably makes up for the workload difference.

I also recommend we delay the start till the first patch is out.

Carl, PM sent.




Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 2:21:56 PM)

I agree that we should wait for the first official patch to come out.




DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 2:33:51 PM)

Seems a good idea to wait for the patch. Thanks for organising this, Carl.




guctony -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 2:45:12 PM)

Well I suggest Pre-issue Run.

We could use the time before official patch for establishing relations, commitments etc. Lets play a trial game so we wouldnt lose time when the patch is out and also any shortcomers would leave the game before it get serious.

I personally prefer pratice before things get serious. We could try some tactics which in real play not worth the risk etc.

What do you say.......

regards




Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 2:54:53 PM)

We probably have a little while until the first patch but figured we may as well start nailing down the setup options & preferences.  As far as setting the sides up since we have 6 players that have expressed interest, is 3 vs 3 acceptable to everybody?   Swiped the following from another thread as a starting point for discussion.  I've no real preferences so if anyone wants to change any of the following just post a message to open the discussion. 

Scenario: Grand Campaign 001 (don't think I ever specified but figure everybody assumed this one <G>)

REALISM
FOW- on
ADV weather- on
Allied Damage Control-on
Player Def upgrades-off - DISCUSSION OPENED
historical 1st turn-on - DISCUSSION OPENED
dec 7 surprise-on
reliable usn torps-off
realistic r&d-on - DISCUSSION OPENED
no unit withdrawal-on - DISCUSSION OPENED
reinforcements-fixed - DISCUSSION OPENED

OPTIONS
Combat Reports-on
Auto sub ops-off
TF/Plane move radius-off
Set All facilities to expand at the start-off
auto upgrade ship/air-off
accept air/ground replacements-off




Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 2:58:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DSwain

Seems a good idea to wait for the patch. Thanks for organising this, Carl.


You are most welcome. Am glad to help so that we can all have a good time.

guctony asks an interesting question.




DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 2:59:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein

We probably have a little while until the first patch but figured we may as well start nailing down the setup options & preferences.  As far as setting the sides up since we have 6 players that have expressed interest, is 3 vs 3 acceptable to everybody?   Swiped the following from another thread as a starting point for discussion.  I've no real preferences so if anyone wants to change any of the following just post a message to open the discussion. 

Scenario: Grand Campaign 001 (don't think I ever specified but figure everybody assumed this one <G>)

REALISM
FOW- on
ADV weather- on
Allied Damage Control-on
Player Def upgrades-off
historical 1st turn-on
dec 7 surprise-on
reliable usn torps-off
realistic r&d-on
no unit withdrawal-on
reinforcements-fixed

OPTIONS
Combat Reports-on
Auto sub ops-off
TF/Plane move radius-off
Set All facilities to expand at the start-off
auto upgrade ship/air-off
accept air/ground replacements-off



That all seems good to me




guctony -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:00:42 PM)

quote:

REALISM
FOW- on
ADV weather- on
Allied Damage Control-on
Player Def upgrades-off "I prefer On"
historical 1st turn-on
dec 7 surprise-on
reliable usn torps-off
realistic r&d-on "I would prefer off"
no unit withdrawal-on
reinforcements-fixed "15 day could be nice"

OPTIONS
Combat Reports-on
Auto sub ops-off
TF/Plane move radius-off
Set All facilities to expand at the start-off
auto upgrade ship/air-off
accept air/ground replacements-off




Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:26:31 PM)

I think I would prefer no unit withdrawal to be off. I think most of the AARs use the off setting for this option.




EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:33:46 PM)

My two cents;

1. Historical first turn on is too limiting to the Japan team
2. No unit withdrawal - since I cannot remember what the toggle setting actually does I will say that by not requiring unit withdrawals you hand a huge advantage to the Allied team. So my vote is forced withdrawals.
3. Counterbalancing this I would favor realistic R&D for the Japan team.

Regardless of the above I will live with whatever the majority desires. 

I am game for a practice run, if nothing else it would allow each side to work out the kinks in internal communications and organization.  Hey, a wargame to prep for a wargame!




Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:48:36 PM)

What I was thinking on the options, after any discussion, unless there was a clear majority, to take the results of a vote.  Since I have no preference I would obstain leaving an odd number. 




Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:54:33 PM)

If anybody reads this thread, even though the game is presently full, if you would like to put your name in as an alternate in case someone has to leave the game, feel free to send me an email.




EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:54:57 PM)

Where is the fun in that? I say lets vote and if we get a 3-3 tie then form a committee of the whole to hammer out a compromise. Or we could separate into an upper house and a lower house; form a joint committee to hammer out a compromise bill between the two.

And while we are at I want an increase to my stipend, car allowance, raise in travel allowance, and a larger staff.




DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 3:59:26 PM)

Can we avoid voting? We'll have to vote on individual settings and that could get tedious! Though props to you Carl for being so fair.

Can we work from Carl's initial suggestion and just go with that? unless someone has a real 'red line' about something.




Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:01:48 PM)

I have done several team ones in WITP and would like to have a bash at this but if you are full you are full. I do have a serious suggestion about a way to speed up the turn process if you want my observations guys. especially important if you are in very different time zones.

Roger




EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:14:12 PM)

Based on Roger's history in these fora I would very much welcome his input. Sir, thank you for the offer.




DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:17:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwingNJ

Based on Roger's history in these fora I would very much welcome his input. Sir, thank you for the offer.



+1




Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:50:13 PM)

Hello Roger,

I will be glad to put you down as first alternate.  If my experience with PBEM holds true we are likely to have an opening.

Regarding the settings and voting, we can certainly handle it without that I should think.  My desire is for this not to be "my game" so to that end am just stepping back to see what discussion develops.




Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:50:31 PM)

Ok, its not rocket science but it makes a lot of sense to me. My suggestion relies upon using a web 2.0 storage area that is shared by the players in the game. There are many of these, free and simple to operate.

The biggest fun I had out of multiplayer was the communication, trading of ideas, advice and general good humour. The biggest downside was the slowness of the game. Now AE could be even slower as its far more complex - but at the same time the players can learn a lot ore from each other. The biggest time drag in the game turns is where the team method is to have an established cycle so the turn is passed from one to another like a baton in a relay race. Now as soon as someone is not available or doesn't do their bit fast then there is a delay... and it multiplies.

Now an ideal team is comprised of three people in very different parts of the world, so when two are asleep or at work one may well be available to do their orders. This can mean that a set of orders can be processed using downtime - a lot of multinationals work this way now where teams hand over the tasks to others as their working day finishes and another's begins. Their teams are composed of people across the globe deliberately.

Here is a schema that hopefully explains it if it needs further explanation. It assumes 3 players per side.

A,B,C are the Jap players X,Y,Z are the Allies.

Once turns begin the save files are dropped into the store on the web - and whoever of the A,B,C who is ready to do their bit downloads the turn to work on and most importantly, drops the rest of the team an email saying they have the turn. When they have completed their part they upload the turn again as a game in progress save and again email the others from A, B, C to say the turn has been sorted as far as they are concerned. This process repeats until all three have done the turn. The last of the trio completes their turn, does a game in progress save and also a turn end saveand uploads both of them to the store. A,B or C, whichever has done this emails all the team of 6 to tell them its done.

X, Y, Z are now aware there is a turn for them to respond to and now do the same process and a full day has been completed.

The purpose of the game in progress save for each side being uploaded to the storage area enables any of the allied/jap team depending on the save to download and check anything they wish to do after the turn has been sent off.

All this gets round the 'stuck turn' in someone's mailbox. It also means that if anyone suddenly can't do their turn, after an agreed time expired the rest of the team pick it up sort it out and send it on so that here is no inordinate delay. My experience is the greatest reason for drop out in the team game is frustration over the speed of progress - most people accept the idea that maybe someone else will do their moves if they don't get time. This also means that most players do trade a lot of plannign and ideas via email or another system - a wiki is the best!

It also allows anyone to do a part order, upload and then go back and complete the rest later provided they tell the rest of their team its not to be sent off to the enemy yet.

It requires slightly more ICT knowledge than your old maiden aunt has, but not much, and a little bit of discipline, but i think it could make the process very much smoother for all.

Anyway, just my idea but as two of the people concerned asked for my input you got it. Shout if you want further clarification or development.

Roger







DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:53:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

Ok, its not rocket science but it makes a lot of sense to me. My suggestion relies upon using a web 2.0 storage area that is shared by the players in the game. There are many of these, free and simple to operate.

The biggest fun I had out of multiplayer was the communication, trading of ideas, advice and general good humour. The biggest downside was the slowness of the game. Now AE could be even slower as its far more complex - but at the same time the players can learn a lot ore from each other. The biggest time drag in the game turns is where the team method is to have an established cycle so the turn is passed from one to another like a baton in a relay race. Now as soon as someone is not available or doesn't do their bit fast then there is a delay... and it multiplies.

Now an ideal team is comprised of three people in very different parts of the world, so when two are asleep or at work one may well be available to do their orders. This can mean that a set of orders can be processed using downtime - a lot of multinationals work this way now where teams hand over the tasks to others as their working day finishes and another's begins. Their teams are composed of people across the globe deliberately.

Here is a schema that hopefully explains it if it needs further explanation. It assumes 3 players per side.

A,B,C are the Jap players X,Y,Z are the Allies.

Once turns begin the save files are dropped into the store on the web - and whoever of the A,B,C who is ready to do their bit downloads the turn to work on and most importantly, drops the rest of the team an email saying they have the turn. When they have completed their part they upload the turn again as a game in progress save and again email the others from A, B, C to say the turn has been sorted as far as they are concerned. This process repeats until all three have done the turn. The last of the trio completes their turn, does a game in progress save and also a turn end saveand uploads both of them to the store. A,B or C, whichever has done this emails all the team of 6 to tell them its done.

X, Y, Z are now aware there is a turn for them to respond to and now do the same process and a full day has been completed.

The purpose of the game in progress save for each side being uploaded to the storage area enables any of the allied/jap team depending on the save to download and check anything they wish to do after the turn has been sent off.

All this gets round the 'stuck turn' in someone's mailbox. It also means that if anyone suddenly can't do their turn, after an agreed time expired the rest of the team pick it up sort it out and send it on so that here is no inordinate delay. My experience is the greatest reason for drop out in the team game is frustration over the speed of progress - most people accept the idea that maybe someone else will do their moves if they don't get time. This also means that most players do trade a lot of plannign and ideas via email or another system - a wiki is the best!

It also allows anyone to do a part order, upload and then go back and complete the rest later provided they tell the rest of their team its not to be sent off to the enemy yet.

It requires slightly more ICT knowledge than your old maiden aunt has, but not much, and a little bit of discipline, but i think it could make the process very much smoother for all.

Anyway, just my idea but as two of the people concerned asked for my input you got it. Shout if you want further clarification or development.

Roger






That's good - and thanks for taking the time to lay it out so succinctly





EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:57:11 PM)

[:)] Makes sense to me, far better than email-email-email. Plus it gets around a temporarily disabled member (and honey-do lists can be very disabling).

Thanks Roger, first rate advice.




Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 4:58:48 PM)

NO worries, happy to help in any way.

Would like to see anything that makes multiplayer easier as its the most fun way to play these beasts!

Roger




Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 5:01:02 PM)

Thank you very much Roger for taking the time.  It seems like a really good concept.

I would love to know more about how to set up a web 2.0 storage area.





Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 5:15:20 PM)

Ok am onto it.....

Roger




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.1875