The Case for PBEM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Tigers on the Hunt



Message

z1812 -> The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:09:30 PM)

We all have ideas about new game features we would like to see implemented.

Peter has said that new features and future development would be dependent upon current sales.

So I was wondering what features would be a priority in terms of building sales.

It seems to me that PBEM would be, if not at the very top of that list, then very high on it.

While it is fun to play a wargame against the A.I. The real challenge and fun is in playing against a fellow wargamer.

There are many who love to play PBEM and may be reluctant to buy a game that does not support it.

For instance there are a lot of War-gamers who frequent The Blitz wargaming club. They play many games that are similiar, and are tactical in scale, like TotH. The Squad Battles series and Steel Panthers come to mind.

I PBEM quite a few games such as FLASHPOINT RED STORM, SQUAD BATTLES, THE CAMPAIGN SERIES, AND COMBAT MISSION.

I have told my friends about TotH but most say that they would rather buy a game with PBEM.

In my view PBEM would be a very valuable addition to increase sales.

I wonder what other players think are most the important features for this game in regards to sales?



lecrop -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:13:19 PM)

Agree 100%



idjester -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:24:32 PM)

I agree that multiplayer would be a great addition but PBEM just isn't it.

That reason is because of the way the system is setup to have both players acting during several of the phases, mostly this boils down
to the movement phase. Whenever you move into range and los you have to give your opponent a chance to defensive fire. You CAN NOT just move all your units and than send the log file over to your opponent and have him decide if he is going to defensive fire afterwards because your units would become broken, or pinned. Plus when he defensive fires he will leave residual fire power in hexes which might alter what hexes you will enter once he does defensive fire. During certain games you can get up and walk away when your opponent is moving or firing but in Tigers on the Hunt that isn't possible during several important phases.

A real time connect would work best and I think a high prority to add to an already great game.



kylania -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:26:02 PM)

A intuitive and usable UI with available hotkeys is more important than any possible feature or expansion he could add.

Unfortunately the game sequence of play doesn't really lend itself to PBEM very well. For example, during movement you can be fired at during any hex you move into and as you move you'll open up new LOS possibly revealing new units you didn't see 1 hex back.

Online play is a must, but Play By Email is going to be difficult given how the game is played.



z1812 -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:31:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: idjester

I agree that multiplayer would be a great addition but PBEM just isn't it.

That reason is because of the way the system is setup to have both players acting during several of the phases, mostly this boils down
to the movement phase. Whenever you move into range and los you have to give your opponent a chance to defensive fire. You CAN NOT just move all your units and than send the log file over to your opponent and have him decide if he is going to defensive fire afterwards because your units would become broken, or pinned. Plus when he defensive fires he will leave residual fire power in hexes which might alter what hexes you will enter once he does defensive fire. During certain games you can get up and walk away when your opponent is moving or firing but in Tigers on the Hunt that isn't possible during several important phases.

A real time connect would work best and I think a high prority to add to an already great game.


Aha! That's right. I forgot about all of the phases. As you say a real time connect would be best. I would hope it to be peer to peer rather than slitherine's multiplayer. I don't like depending upon companies specialized software for PBEM or multiplayer.



MikeMarchant_ssl -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:32:03 PM)

I agree that some sort of multiplayer option would be very welcome.

No AI is as capable as a decent human player, and no AI can create the same excitement as a game against a human player.

However, I don't see PBEM working with this game, for the reasons already stated; it would be so tedious sending turns back and forth that no-one would want to play it that way. So, either the game needs to be rewritten to reduce the amount of interaction, or we need a multiplayer system that isn't PBEM.

I'm in favour of the latter.


Best Wishes

Mike



idjester -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:34:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kylania

A intuitive and usable UI with available hotkeys is more important than any possible feature or expansion he could add.

Unfortunately the game sequence of play doesn't really lend itself to PBEM very well. For example, during movement you can be fired at during any hex you move into and as you move you'll open up new LOS possibly revealing new units you didn't see 1 hex back.

Online play is a must, but Play By Email is going to be difficult given how the game is played.


Great minds think alike..!!!



lecrop -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/3/2016 3:45:03 PM)

There are ways to circumvent the difficulties of the system to play by PBEM, honour system, or some kind of Standing Orders Form, like the MWiF prototype. There are players playing ASL by PBEM (for example with VASL).

Some thoughts here on pages 4&5 --> http://www.advancedsquadleader.net/images/4/40/V6N3.pdf

Of course, I know that is easier to implement the online game (tcp/ip or server), but I love PBEM [8|]



juntoalmar -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 12:45:47 AM)

For me, PBEM is the single most interesting feature. Some of us can find 20min a day, or a couple of hours every 3 days to play a wargame. Being online at the same time than your opponent can be difficult.

I know this game's dynamics are difficult for PBEM. But at the moment, when you play against the AI, it decides when to fire to a moving unit, right? So, just letting the AI decide for such things would make PBEM possible without much extra work (the AI is there, after all).

If it could implement PBEM I would buy it immediately.



Ratzki -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 12:55:50 AM)

If a "covered arc" was able to be defined for all units then defensive fire could be auto-resolved as the enemy moved into the covered arc(s) of the defenders. This could be the last thing that is set before the turn was emailed to your oponent. The "rally" phase would have to be split into an attacker rally and defender rally, one at the beginning of a player's turn and one at the end of the other player's turn. This way the defensive player would rally his men and then assign covered arcs as the last thing he does. Turn is emailed and the attacking player rallys and starts his turn.



dynaman216 -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 1:51:23 AM)

Something similar to ASL's normal PBEM procedure could be used. A player plots out all of his moves in advance (or as many as he wants for this particular email exchange) and checks a box that will stop an opponent's playing back of the file. Options could include.

1 - Go through entire playback no matter what.
2 - Stop if a unit is destroyed during the phase.
3 - Stop if a unit is broken during the phase.
4 - Stop if a unit is broken/pinned during the phase.

The only phase were an opponent's action can cause a problem is the movement phase so a number of phases can be done without stopping for an email exchange.



Gerry4321 -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 4:52:13 AM)

Played VASL PBEM for years, including campaigns. A blast. Nothing imo beats the anticipation of waiting for the log file. Has he destroyed your last Sherman or did it survive and you will have a shot in defensive fire, how did that critical melee end, etc. Brilliant. Good times.

Other rules could be
5. Stop if a new tank is revealed,
etc.



quote:

ORIGINAL: dynaman216

Something similar to ASL's normal PBEM procedure could be used. A player plots out all of his moves in advance (or as many as he wants for this particular email exchange) and checks a box that will stop an opponent's playing back of the file. Options could include.

1 - Go through entire playback no matter what.
2 - Stop if a unit is destroyed during the phase.
3 - Stop if a unit is broken during the phase.
4 - Stop if a unit is broken/pinned during the phase.

The only phase were an opponent's action can cause a problem is the movement phase so a number of phases can be done without stopping for an email exchange.




Richie61 -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 5:14:03 AM)

I too would like to see PBEM or a server based MP, but I said this during the beta testing too. I would rather keep the phases as they are IMO. That being said I have used the servers here for the last 5 years
and never had any issues. [:)]

I love Squad Battles, but I don't want to see OP fire in TotH like the Tiller/ HPS games. [&:]



jascou -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 5:19:49 AM)

I remember playing Steel Panthers 2 via e-mail with a buddy of mine, and we had a blast. Of course, in that game the A.I. handled all defensive fire, but it worked out quite well. Not sure how difficult this would be to implement in ToTH.

In the meantime, I've been wondering how smoothly this game would run in a Teamviewer remote session (or similar type of software), in hotseat. I haven't used Teamviewer for a few years, and never tried using it to play games, but it might be worth investigating.



Brazouck -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 9:27:14 AM)

I play ASL with VASSAL in PbeM, here is how movement phase works :

1) I start a log, and do movement for, say, half of my units.
2) I send the mail
3) The defender execute the log, when he wants to fire, he stop my log, start a log on his own, resolve the fire, then stop log and send me it
4) I open his log, see the effect of fire, and continue moving. Some units that I move in step 1, I must move again, because my opponent has interrupted my log before they were moved.

That would be possible to implement that in TOTH.

But pleaaase, fix UI first, hotkeys, overlays for movement costs, zoom ...



z1812 -> RE: The Case for PBEM (3/4/2016 12:50:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Richie61

I too would like to see PBEM or a server based MP, but I said this during the beta testing too. I would rather keep the phases as they are IMO. That being said I have used the servers here for the last 5 yearsand never had any issues. [:)]



The problem with company based servers is that if the company goes out of business then you can't play your games.

Flashpoint Red Storm, for instance, gives you a choice between Slitherine's PBEM++ and regular PBEM. Choice is good.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125