RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer

RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (Full Version)

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

Message

P.Hausser -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 5:25:20 PM)
In the Team games i played we was meating on Voice every day at 18 GMT, we did the round together and it took +/- 2 hrs pr round. Im not able to join you here however, But I will be more then happy to share my Team game experience with you if you're looking for any advise or anything.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 5:31:18 PM)
Email me at didactylos at bigfoot dot com so i have your email Carl, will respond with what you need to know. Roger

EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 6:15:42 PM)
Hausser out, Roger in?

P.Hausser -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 6:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EwingNJ Hausser out, Roger in? Ye i can't join, im in progress of opening a 1v1 you see

EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 6:37:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser quote: ORIGINAL: EwingNJ Hausser out, Roger in? Ye i can't join, im in progress of opening a 1v1 you see Good luck. May your CVs be invulnerable and your amphibious assaults always well prepped.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 7:13:45 PM)
Ok folks, for anyone who is interested, I have a simple walk through of setting up a shared web store for a system as I suggested. Its a shared google document here: Web storage for PBEM No sign on or anything, just click the link. Roger

DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 7:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: P.Hausser quote: ORIGINAL: EwingNJ Hausser out, Roger in? Ye i can't join, im in progress of opening a 1v1 you see Vaya con dios! I hope that's spelt correctly......

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 7:57:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein 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. Instead of using a web storage area would it be possible to use the Matrix forums by opening a thread dedicated to save files to attach saves to forum posts ? Maybe there's a limit to how many files you can upload, but I think I've seen save files attached to forum posts so maybe that could be the way to go. If attaching files to forum posts is not allowed on the Matrix forum, maybe another forum could be found to set up such a thread? I know that when I played a multiplayer Paradox game, it was possible to upload and get save files directly from the Paradox forum, but there was a limit per user of "active" files that could be uploaded and remaining on the forum at once, and you would need to delete old files once you reached the limit. I do not forsee the limit to be a problem.

DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard quote: ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein 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. Instead of using a web storage area would it be possible to use the Matrix forums by opening a thread dedicated to save files to attach saves to forum posts ? Maybe there's a limit to how many files you can upload, but I think I've seen save files attached to forum posts so maybe that could be the way to go. If attaching files to forum posts is not allowed on the Matrix forum, maybe another forum could be found to set up such a thread? I know that when I played a multiplayer Paradox game, it was possible to upload and get save files directly from the Paradox forum, but there was a limit of "active" files that could be uploaded at once, and you would need to delete old files once you reached the limit. I do not forsee the limit to be a problem. Is there any reason you're not keen on the web storage area idea Jonathan? Or do you just want to try something different, see what works best etc? From how Roger has explained it, it seems like a sound idea and he's used it for other WITP multiplayer games too.

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DSwain Is there any reason you're not keen on the web storage area idea Jonathan? Or do you just want to try something different, see what works best etc? From how Roger has explained it, it seems like a sound idea and he's used it for other WITP multiplayer games too. Using a forum for file sharing would have the added advantage of being able to write commentary with the file and have an ongoing discussion of strategy etc. I suppose a textual discussion could also go on via web storage by uploading text files, but it would seem to be less of a hassle to be able to type your comments and be able to read them directly in a forum thread. I did do a test of the Matrix forums to upload a save file to a forum thread, but the file size was limited to 200KB so it looks like if we were to use the forum idea we'd need to find a different forum that allows larger files to be attached.

Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:23:46 PM)
One thought that comes to mind with Johnathan's suggestion is that I believe only the person that places a post in a thread can update that post. quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard quote: ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein 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. Instead of using a web storage area would it be possible to use the Matrix forums by opening a thread dedicated to save files to attach saves to forum posts ? Maybe there's a limit to how many files you can upload, but I think I've seen save files attached to forum posts so maybe that could be the way to go. If attaching files to forum posts is not allowed on the Matrix forum, maybe another forum could be found to set up such a thread? I know that when I played a multiplayer Paradox game, it was possible to upload and get save files directly from the Paradox forum, but there was a limit per user of "active" files that could be uploaded and remaining on the forum at once, and you would need to delete old files once you reached the limit. I do not forsee the limit to be a problem.

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:27:06 PM)
But if someone else wanted to post an update, he'd simply do it in a new post and write somthing to the effect that "here's my updated version of the file."

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:34:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard quote: ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein 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. Instead of using a web storage area would it be possible to use the Matrix forums by opening a thread dedicated to save files to attach saves to forum posts ? Maybe there's a limit to how many files you can upload, but I think I've seen save files attached to forum posts so maybe that could be the way to go. If attaching files to forum posts is not allowed on the Matrix forum, maybe another forum could be found to set up such a thread? I know that when I played a multiplayer Paradox game, it was possible to upload and get save files directly from the Paradox forum, but there was a limit per user of "active" files that could be uploaded and remaining on the forum at once, and you would need to delete old files once you reached the limit. I do not forsee the limit to be a problem. Matrix Forums are not set up for this. The only file types they allow uploads are graphic files for maps on AARs etc. Roger

DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:35:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard quote: ORIGINAL: DSwain Is there any reason you're not keen on the web storage area idea Jonathan? Or do you just want to try something different, see what works best etc? From how Roger has explained it, it seems like a sound idea and he's used it for other WITP multiplayer games too. Using a forum for file sharing would have the added advantage of being able to write commentary with the file and have an ongoing discussion of strategy etc. I suppose a textual discussion could also go on via web storage by uploading text files, but it would seem to be less of a hassle to be able to type your comments and be able to read them directly in a forum thread. I did do a test of the Matrix forums to upload a save file to a forum thread, but the file size was limited to 200KB so it looks like if we were to use the forum idea we'd need to find a different forum that allows larger files to be attached. Ok, I see your point mate. And it's a good idea to be able to have some sort of forum to discuss strategy, I agree. One way to do that might be to do it via Google docs or some such? That would have the added bonus that only the members of that team would be able to read the material. It's an extra thing to set up and that's a bit of an ache, but I think it would be worth it and it isn't that much of a hassle, imo. Nice work on trying out your idea, anyway.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:37:14 PM)
Merely offering ideas, not grinding axes at all. 1. You need a 'postbox' for the files - what i have suggested does that. 2. You need a discussion area for the Allied Team, you need a separate discussion area for the Jap team - the best way of doing this is to establish a wiki (easy enough to do this with a Google Doc for each team - its a wiki by any other name. The stuff you want to keep looking at is the wiki, the files merely sit in the postbox. Forums are a different thing and designed for different purposes. Roger

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:41:00 PM)
I took a look at the AE tech support forum and that forum does allow the attachment of save files up to 5000KB. Maybe Matrix would not mind if we used that forum for file sharing, it would take up only two threads, one Allied and one Jap. Because the files are password-protected by side there should not be a problem of the other side trying to get your file to cheat. If you don't trust the other team you can limit your discussion to matters that the other side cannot take advantage of. Or maybe Matrix can be talked into setting up a separate subforum for multiplayer game file sharing purposes.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:41:04 PM)
Yes Matt, Google Docs are simple and free..... and no hassle to set up and no hassle to learn how to use if you use a word processor that's it. They also allow nice insert of maps.... great for discussion of strategy especially given the Maps no available via Marc elsewhere on the forum. Roger

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:42:57 PM)
Its entirely up to the people playing the game, I'm merely an observer, but I think you are trying to fit things into the Matrix Forum and I don't know why.... it wasn't designed for this, and there are simple alternative tools that do exactly what you want. Honestly, I do this stuff all the time. Roger

DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:46:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard I took a look at the AE tech support forum and that forum does allow the attachment of save files up to 5000KB. Maybe Matrix would not mind if we used that forum for file sharing, it would take up only two threads, one Allied and one Jap. Because the files are password-protected by side there should not be a problem of the other side trying to get your file to cheat. If you don't trust the other team you can limit your discussion to matters that the other side cannot take advantage of. Or maybe Matrix can be talked into setting up a separate subforum for multiplayer game file sharing purposes. It's good to explore other avenues and ideas, so great to think around problems like this. I'm just not sure what's really to be achieved by asking Matrix to set something up for us bespoke when it seems that Roger's idea fits the bill. Have you tried Roger's approach and found it not to work, J? Obviously, I'm up for whatever the team as a whole wants to do - I think this is one thing where we do need agreement!

DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:50:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II Its entirely up to the people playing the game, I'm merely an observer, but I think you are trying to fit things into the Matrix Forum and I don't know why.... it wasn't designed for this, and there are simple alternative tools that do exactly what you want. Honestly, I do this stuff all the time. Roger I think Hausser is out R - that would seem to leave a space, so hopefully not an observer any longer!

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:50:45 PM)
I've never used Google Docs for holding discussions so if in your judgment it's just as good or better than using a forum thread for the purpose of holding discussions, I'm all for it.

Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:51:13 PM)
You guys are way beyond my knowledge level so I will look to you fellows to devise a method. On the players, I've heard from everybody so I think we are set now with P.Hausser out and Roger Neilson II in. It looks like we have 2 Japanese and 2 Allied with 2 expressing no preference. If the two undecided will let me know which prefers which (first come first serve) I'll update the thread accordingly and get the email address list out to everyone.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:53:49 PM)
I am happy to participate, but otoh have been throwing ideas in purely as an outsider so would not want to get involved if anyone thinks I have some sort of agenda to this. If the others think I can help then i'm happy to take part, my preference would be allied. If you would prefer to do this without me that's fine, I'm still around if you want any advice/help setting things up. Roger

Rugens -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 8:58:17 PM)
Not being a tech kind of guy I personally appreciate everybody throwing out ideas and as has been done and then deciding on the best approach to try out. If better ideas come along we can always try something else out. We are already way ahead of where we would have been if we had just started out with a given approach. Thanks to everyone. Welcome Roger. Allied it is. I'll get the email addresses shortly though I've got to go back to work for a little while first. Thanks again everyone.

DSwain -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 9:01:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein Not being a tech kind of guy I personally appreciate everybody throwing out ideas and as has been done and then deciding on the best approach to try out. If better ideas come along we can always try something else out. We are already way ahead of where we would have been if we had just started out with a given approach. Thanks to everyone. Welcome Roger. Allied it is. I'll get the email addresses shortly though I've got to go back to work for a little while first. Thanks again everyone. Nicely put, Carl. Questions and discussions are always a 'good thing'. It's also one of the benefits of having experienced players on board like Roger and Jonathan (and others); it means that different approaches can be analysed and compared.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 9:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein Not being a tech kind of guy I personally appreciate everybody throwing out ideas and as has been done and then deciding on the best approach to try out. If better ideas come along we can always try something else out. We are already way ahead of where we would have been if we had just started out with a given approach. Thanks to everyone. Welcome Roger. Allied it is. I'll get the email addresses shortly though I've got to go back to work for a little while first. Thanks again everyone. Email sent to your matrix email Carl

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 9:27:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EwingNJ My two cents; 1. Historical first turn on is too limiting to the Japan team Maybe the fairest thing to do is allow the Japanese team to decide whether or not they want historical first turn on? If historical first turn is off and surprise is on, then it may be worthwhile to consider a house rule that limits the number of Jap port attacks on the first turn, at least in the same area, because due to time zone differences it would have been difficult for the Japs to achieve surprise against for example both Pearl Harbor and Manila. However it would have been easier for them to achieve surprise in a simultaneous strike against Manila and Singapore. I would be in favor of allowing the Japanese to choose unlimited port attacks if they were willing to play with surprise off. In that case the easternmost port attack could have special surprise house rules such as a CAP restriction.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/28/2009 9:40:41 PM)
I'd say its entirely up to the Jap team how they want to start, but the common house rule in WITP was only one Port attack if it was a non historical opening. So they can hit Pearl or Singers or Manila or Pago Pago or wherever but only one of them. This was precsiely because of the time zones. Roger

Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/29/2009 1:25:23 AM)
Now that each player has been assigned to a team, I guess the next step would be for Roger to set up Google Docs, at least for the Allies (the Jap team may want it too), so that we can discuss the division of what each player commands, etc.

EwingNJ -> RE: AE PBEM Multiplayer (8/29/2009 3:09:06 AM)
Holy sons of Nippon Batman! I take time off for something trivial like work and I find myself drafted into the Emporer's armed forces. Ah well, who needs things like Coke, cold beer, USO shows, plentiful chow, an overabundence of supplies? From now on our motto shall be - We who have done so much for so long with so little can now do anything with absolutely nothing. Carl, guctony, I will see if I can scare us up an e-room. You allied scum (gee, after 20 years in the Army that hurts to say that) give us a little bit of time to get organized. Go pursue the pleasures or your decadent western culture.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.40625