Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF

Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

MButtazoni -> Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (7/20/2004 9:24:46 PM)
there is a fundamental design issue that needs to be considered for World in Flames to be played via PBEM. which design philosophy for PBEM WIF are you most willing to accept: (Assume there is NO middle ground for now. Every design needs a starting point and waffling in a blend of philosophies will go nowhere fast.) A) I want complete control of my units during an opponents impulse. I want to see what he does and react as i see fit during an impulse. I understand this could lead to numerous email transactions to complete an impulse. B) I want the ability to set defensive postures and priorities for my Forces so that when the opponent is executing his impulse it will need no interaction from me. The game will attempt to obey my defensive postures and use my forces as best as it can. Obviously: A) Pro: 100% exact implementation of board game / Con: epoch-spanning game durations. B) Pro: Faster games / Con: only 98% implementation of board game. so if you HAD to choose would it be A or B?

MButtazoni -> RE: Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (7/20/2004 9:25:00 PM)
B

wfzimmerman -> RE: Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (7/20/2004 9:53:55 PM)
B -- don't slow things down too much.

gbed -> RE: Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (7/20/2004 11:01:25 PM)
I'm sorry, but I choose C. WIF does not lend itself well to a PBEM game. There is WAY too much interactivity between opposing sides for this to be a desirable way to play this wonderful game IMHO.

pzgndr -> RE: Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (7/21/2004 12:00:37 AM)
B. Epoch-spanning game durations for PBEM are a no-go.

terje439 -> RE: Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (7/21/2004 12:13:06 AM)
To be honest I probably never will play it by PBEM, but if I should, I would go for option A, but why not implement that the players agree upon what rules to use/not use before start of the game? When I play Cwif I wanna play Cwif, not Cwif light....

MButtazoni -> RE: Fundamental Question for PBEM play of WiF (7/21/2004 12:17:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 To be honest I probably never will play it by PBEM, but if I should, I would go for option A, but why not implement that the players agree upon what rules to use/not use before start of the game? When I play Cwif I wanna play Cwif, not Cwif light.... because in one situation the game takes 1 year to develop, in the other it takes 20 years to develop. I'll let you determine which is which. "Software Develpoment" is at the diametric opposite end of the spectrum of "Have your cake and eat it, too"

Greyshaft -> The Middle Ground (7/21/2004 2:35:00 AM)
I'm not happy with A or B. Let me repost my earlier analysis which I think got lost in the Crash of '04 One of the biggest challenges for the CWiF design team will be the PBEM sequence of play. If you go to www.a-d-g.com and download the WiF:FE rule set then you will see that the standard sequence of play allows over 100 successive interactions between the Axis and Allies players within a single impulse. Multiply this by (say) half a dozen impulses for each of the 36 turns within a campaign game and you have a couple of thousand emails passing between the Axis and Allied teams in order to finish a game. Of course, if you are playing a team game then it will be necessary for the teams to communicate amongst themselves before they send their move to the other side. However even if the teams could commit to always agreeing on their combined response and returning their move to the opposing side within 24 hours of receiving an update, it still gives the distinct possibility of CwiF being the first real-time strategy game i.e. it takes as long to play as the original war took to fight… six years, give or take a week or so. Clearly there will need to be a severe rationalisation within the CwiF PBEM turn sequence and the following proposal is meant as a starting point for discussion of that topic. In order to prepare a Draft Sequence of Play it is necessary to assume certain points. That is not to say that those points should be implemented without further discussion (Heaven Forbid!), but rather that in order to address the topic in manageable chunks it is preferable that they should be the subject of their own Thread. (I am certain that my suggestion re: auto Naval intercept and Combat will generate many kilowatt hours of electronic discussion.) * The CW and the Ge players will send out the combined move for their own team. All other players will send their own move to the CW and Ge players for consolidation and calculation. * Naval interception and combat will be handled by the CPU although players will retain the choice of whether to intercept for each sea area. This specification can be changed at any time. (eg Until further notice the CW will intercept any and all Axis units moving through the North Sea) * Air Combat (includes decisions re: Clearing Through and choice of Aborts and Kills) will be handled by the CPU. * Combat results are not visible to the player who created the combat in order to avoid the temptation to reload the file and redo the moves. In a similar way, a player never knows if their Impulse triggered an End-of-Turn event. The Game starts… SETUP * Allied players determine their default Naval intercepts for each sea area * Allied Players email their setups to CW player. CW consolidates files. <… alternatively email the game file back and forth between players to do a standard Setup sequence> * Cw mails Game file to all Axis players * Axis do Setup First Impulse starts… ATTACKER (Axis) AIR/NAVAL PHASE * Axis declare any DOW * Axis choose Actions (Air, Naval, Ground, Combined) * Axis fly all Port Attack, Naval Air, Strategic Bombardment, Carpet Bombing and Ground Strike missions. < …this includes determining Order of planes for Air-to-Air combat.> * Axis sail all Naval missions. < …each mission will be preprogrammed with destination, path, which sea box to move into in case of combat, choice of combat type if intercepted etc> * Axis provisionally allocate air units to support any Naval Combats <…these units will only be committed if a combat occurs. > * Axis Players email their moves to Ge player. Ge consolidates files. <CPU calculates Naval combats but results are not visible to Axis players> * Ge mails Game file to all Allied players DEFENDER (Allied) AIR/NAVAL PHASE <Allies see Axis Naval moves> * Allies fly all Port Attack, Naval Air, Strategic Bombardment, Carpet Bombing and Ground Strike defensive intercepts. <…this includes determining Order of planes for Air-to-Air combat.> * Allies provisionally allocate air units to support any Naval Combats <… these units will only be committed if a successful search occurs.> * Allies can nominate discretionary Naval combats. * Allies place CAP against anticipated Axis Air Transport and Axis Ground Support and nominate other Air units available for Defensive intercept * Allies nominate Air units to provide defensive Ground support …Air units are placed on standby but actual hexes are not nominated. <CPU calculates results of Axis Port Attack, Naval Air, Strategic Bombardment, Carpet Bombing and Ground Strike missions but results are not visible to Allied players> <CPU calculates results of Naval combats but results are not visible to Allied players> * Allied Players email their moves to CW player. CW consolidates files. * Cw mails Game file to all Axis players ATTACKER (Axis) GROUND PHASE <Axis see results of previous phase Air Combats> <Axis see results of previous phase Naval Combats> * Axis Air RTB for missions from Attacker Air/Naval phase * Axis Rail move * Axis Land move * Axis Air Transport <Air Combats may occur but results will not be visible to Axis player> * Axis Ground support * Allied Ground support allocated by CPU <…air Combats may occur but results will not be visible to Axis players> * Axis Land Combat <Results will not be visible to Axis players> * Axis Players email their moves to Ge player. Ge consolidates files. * Ge mails Game file to all Allied players DEFENDER (Allied) GROUND PHASE <Allies see results of Air/Naval/Ground combats from previous phases> * Allies retreat/remove units as required by Combat results * Allies Air RTB from all previous phases. * Allies place CAP against anticipated Axis Air Supply and nominate other Air units available for Defensive intercept * Allies place Provisional CAP for next turn <…this will be implemented only if Turn Ends and other side gains initiative for next turn> * Allies commit for rerolling if Turn Ends and other side gains initiative for next turn. * Allied Players email their moves to CW player. CW consolidates files. * Cw mails Game file to all Axis players ATTACKER (Axis) REORG PHASE <Axis see results of previous phase Ground Combats> * Axis advance after combat * Axis Air Rebase * Axis re-org * Axis Air supply <Air Combats may occur but results will not be visible to Axis players> * Axis place CAP against next impulse (or next Turn) Port Attack, Naval Air, Strategic Bombardment, Carpet Bombing and Ground Strike missions. * Axis commit for rerolling if Turn Ends and other side gains initiative for next turn. <CPU determines if Turn ends but does not advise Axis.> * Axis Players email their moves to Ge player. Ge consolidates files. * Ge mails Game file to all Allied players <We now go onto the second impulse with the Allies as the Attacker and the Axis as the Defender> ATTACKER (Allied) AIR/NAVAL PHASE DEFENDER (Axis) AIR/NAVAL PHASE ATTACKER (Allied) GROUND PHASE DEFENDER (Axis) GROUND PHASE ATTACKER (Allied) REORG PHASE <…and then onto the third impulse with the Axis as the Attacker and the Allies as the Defender etc. etc.> At some point the Turn ends and we go into a whole bunch of other Production and End-of-Turn stuff, but the important thing is that we have shrunk the 100 or so interactions down to five. I still have a whole bunch of unresolved problems with this idea. Here are some of them… * How to spend Surprise points in Naval combat * How to choose the destination for Naval Aborts * How does the Defender get to choose whether to use a notional defender and/or defensive shore bombardment against an enemy amphibious invasion * How to deal with the immense frustration of having no tactical control over my air and naval combats. But hopefully I can now finish a PBEM game within a single lifetime.

MButtazoni -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/21/2004 5:48:10 PM)
well that's one way to kill a survey. i was trying to gain concensus on the need for a change if WiF will ever be PBEM'd successfully. but hitting the hardliner WiF players straight between the eyes with a new sequence of play is another method, i guess.

Titan -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/21/2004 8:19:11 PM)
b

Greyshaft -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/22/2004 1:02:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MButtazoni well that's one way to kill a survey. i was trying to gain concensus on the need for a change if WiF will ever be PBEM'd successfully. but hitting the hardliner WiF players straight between the eyes with a new sequence of play is another method, i guess. I think your survey was fatally flawed to begin with. You posted only two alternatives and I wouldn't have voted for either of them. Does that mean that I don't get a vote? GBed already chose "C" and I am echoing his choice with a bit ...well... a lot... more detail so there's already about 25-30% of your respondants who are uncomfortable with your selection of alternatives. I think it would have been quite misleading to use the results of the survey as evidence of any sort of consensus. Posting your personal preference as the first reply was also straight out of the List of "Things to Avoid when doing a Survey". [:-] Survey takers are certainly entitled to a vote but IMHO its best added at the end in order to avoid influencing people who read the survey question and then immediately see a particular preference. Anyway, its a good topic to discuss and I applaud your initiative in restarting it. [&o] Having already loaded Chris's beta of CWiF and worked my way through the interactions required for a PBEM I know that I would never play a game using a strict sequence of play, but maybe both systems can be implemeted in the Matrix version. How about reposting your survey with a broader set of alternatives including: * I want to initiate the combats ie I pick which air units intercept his bomber streams, but I am happy to have the AI determine combat choices ie which units are selected for kills and aborts. This would cut the epoch-spanning games requiring 100+ emails per turn down to (say) six to eight emails. * Include both systems... impulse by impulse as per strict implementation of boardgame as well as a consolidated system to speed up turns * Would never play PBEM so don't care

macgregor -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/22/2004 5:57:02 AM)
These all seem like valid points. I suppose I'd have to opt for A. While there will undoubtedly be thousands and thousands of e-mails, I still want the control. For those looking to streamline things, the option should be there to delegate certain decisions to the CPU(even if it results in less than 98% implementation). The computer should make my decisions faster by highlighting available units, totalling odds, etc..Add to that the fact I don't have to leave my house or handle thousands of tiny pieces and a huge map, it should be quite an improvement over the boardgame. While I'm aware games have been completed in less than a week, my friends and I would generally take 6 months or more. I don't see that changing.

Hexed Gamer -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/22/2004 6:43:59 AM)
I have to go with this as well. "I'm sorry, but I choose C. WIF does not lend itself well to a PBEM game. There is WAY too much interactivity between opposing sides for this to be a desirable way to play this wonderful game IMHO." I know I am not the majority, but if this game ever even sees the light of day, I plan to play it solo or hot seat. So I don't really give a damn if you make it capable of playing PBEM at all. I have no intention of ever starting a game my son will have to finish when I am dead and gone.

SeaMonkey -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/22/2004 8:24:51 PM)
Realistically speaking, there is only one answer for an efficient PBEM experience and that is of course "B". I'm not familiar with the intracacies of WiF, but I believe you could allocate a percentage of your units' combat abilities to automatically respond to your opponents activities. Example: Let's use an air wing, by right clicking on that unit a menu drops down with specific actions, followed by a double digit entry blank for % allocation. For the air wing actions are defined by CAP__%, Intercept__%, Escort__%, Surface Attack__%, Interdiction__%, Recon__%, Reserve__% etc. The owning player just sets the percent, to add up to 100 for actions to be initiated in the opposing players turn. For a game of this scale KISS principles will facilitate the gaming experience...ie. we can finish it before death.

macgregor -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/23/2004 10:25:04 AM)
Does 'World at War' feature pbem? Matrix seems to be getting closer to WiF with this game. I think they'll continue to improve the strategic level,global WW2 game over time. Some people may not have the patience for WiF. So there should be something like WiF,but more streamlined. For me , I like to be able to make decisions in the middle of a battle (stay,leave,support,assault,blitzkrieg) but this could make the game move painstakingly slow for some. Sea Monkey's idea could work for WiF as an option. Though I still like the old way too.

MButtazoni -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/24/2004 1:53:15 AM)
quote: Does 'World at War' feature pbem? anywhere from 2 - 5 player PBEM for GGWAW. in fact 2 countries could be AI and 3 could be player controlled in a PBEM. ie: Germany: player 1 Japan: AI controlled Soviet Union: player 2 Western Allies: player 2 China: AI controlled

Greyshaft -> AI personalities (7/26/2004 1:15:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MButtazoni anywhere from 2 - 5 player PBEM for GGWAW. in fact 2 countries could be AI and 3 could be player controlled in a PBEM. ie: Germany: player 1 Japan: AI controlled Soviet Union: player 2 Western Allies: player 2 China: AI controlled I'd hope that CWiF does the same thing. It would be great if you could tune the AI also eg. I am playing as Germany with Japan being handled by the AI. I set the Japanese AI to "Pacifist" at the start of the War and then dial it up to "Aggro" when I invade Russia in 1941.

Panzer76 -> RE: AI personalities (7/27/2004 2:35:33 PM)
B

meyerg -> RE: The Middle Ground (7/31/2004 5:01:25 PM)
Well said Greyshaft!!

meyerg -> RE: The Middle Ground (8/12/2004 4:34:26 AM)
We can have A and B. The game can consolidate many things for faster PBEM games, but still have everyone (all the other players) waiting in anticipation as I choose whether or not I will implement my DX result on my front fighter or front bomber if we are doing LAN play.

Murat -> Overall scheme (8/24/2004 10:00:52 AM)
From a play standpoint, I would lean towards B -v- A. Speed of play is critical. People may spend a few days or even weeks playing, but YEARS? No way, only Evercrack gets that commitment. I tried to play this game once and it took so long just to get started that it fell apart mid Turn 1. I like Greyshaft's proposal, but I think the devs really were asking if we want faster play or perfect reconstruction of the board game. Most people seem willing to sacrifice perfect accuracy for faster game play.

Froonp -> RE: Overall scheme (8/24/2004 11:07:38 AM)
Hello, The boardgame is very long to finish (I speak about the 1939 - 1945 campaign) It should take 100 hours to finish, but our group generaly mak it in 150 hours. My opinion about the boardgame is that it can be as long as it wants, if I enjoy it. And it is the case, I enjoy WiFFing, and the more official optionnal extension I can throw in the game is thrown. On the other hand the computer game CWiF of Chris Marinacci was much much much more quicker to finish, and it was a straight adaptation of the boardgame. I did a complete 1939 - 1946 campaign that lasted for a couple of weeks. That said, I'm playing WiF since 13 years, it helps having a better grasp at the rules and quicken the play on a computer that handles all the administrative tasks and the rules. My point was : WiF is a game with a steep learning curve, but with enormous rewards in enjoyment playing it, and it is long to play, it is normal, we like it this way. I would hate to play a WiF Lite on my computer, but would appreciate a WiF Lite option anyway. Cheers !

Froonp -> RE: The Middle Ground (8/24/2004 11:24:40 AM)
Hello, Generaly, Greyshaft has done IMO a good job at shrinking the interactions between the players, but there are a few things that you must be careful with. Generaly, the idea I like the best is to regroup a lot of the Air Phases at the same moment. quote: * Allies nominate Air units to provide defensive Ground support …Air units are placed on standby but actual hexes are not nominated. This kind of thing is ok, as long as the side nominating his air units to defensive ground support has the ability to say : I'll throw those planes at hex A if attacked, but would throw nothing at the adjacent hex if attacked. This player must also give an estimation of the Air to Air Combat ratio he wants to achieve for fighters being thrown into the battle. quote: DEFENDER (Allied) GROUND PHASE <Allies see results of Air/Naval/Ground combats from previous phases> * Allies retreat/remove units as required by Combat results In the normal game units are retreated by the attacking player, so it would be the Axis player who retreats the Allied units. The process of "cleaning" the sequence of play to make it more suited to PBEM cannot IMO have the result of changing key elements of the game, and this is one. So let's be careful when modifying the Sequence of Play, and be sure that we know perfectly the original one so that the original game rules are not changed. I'm saying this because it would be too bad if this newsgroup introduced errors in MWiF. Cheers !

peskpesk -> RE: The Middle Ground (8/24/2004 5:45:11 PM)
Guys, of course there is away to make WIF manageable with PBEM. The many interactions make it very hard to do a normal PBEM solution but there is another way. For the non phasing player is most interactions about commit airplanes, try to intercept fleets, start naval combat or carry out HQ defensive support, etc. All of this is very limited and perfect for a AI to handle. Think about it! The phasing player would need a minimum of email going back and forth with this solution. How would it work? Lets sat you have three AIs Land, Sea and Air. All these can be set to different options for each nation. For the AIR AI the options could be • Numbers of planes to commit -Conserve air fleet (Use few planes, save for later impulses) -Normal -Spend air fleet(Save few planes, for later impulses) •Equality (What odds are you ready to fly at) -9 to +9 •CV usage -Offensively -Defensively •Protect priority order -Capital -Fleet -Airbase -Army -Factories -Sea area -Allied countries -Specific hexes •Airbase -Return to starting hex -Forward airbase -Rear airbase •Naval target priority -Transports -CVs -Battleships -Subs

Froonp -> RE: The Middle Ground (8/24/2004 8:06:12 PM)
Yes Pesk Pesk, I think that your points are all good, and it would be good to be able to tune the AI so that you can input your own level of priority for each of those points. It would be great to come up with similar points for Land AI and Naval AI. Cheers !

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.066406