RE: PBEM skipping

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: PBEM skipping

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> RE: PBEM skipping

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/26/2008 2:24:01 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

[/quote]

I haven't tackled the aux player issue yet. I would like to implement the skipping features with the editor then perhaps look at the aux player settings.

[/quote]

Hi Marshall
It occurred to me that with the new file name system, it may not be necessary to implement the aux player thing anymore. It looks like if Player A was going away on vacation, then it would be easy enough for Player A to simply email his save files to Player B, who should be able to load Player A's file and play the turn, returning the file to Player A, when that player gets back from vacation, etc.
If the above is correct, you might drop the aux player settings down/off the to do list. I think that after the phase skipping that is proposed for 1.05, the next best ways to speed up the PBEM game are a) some way to skip the land phase via an autofirage option (mostly for periods of peace, often winter), and b) the simultaneous diplomacy-econo phases. This would be moderate leap forward in game speed.
And I think that it about as far as you could take it without the major programming changes discussed previously. Anyone else have any ideas?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 31

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/26/2008 1:48:35 PM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

I guess the one thing that I might have missed, was to no longer exchange battle files for garrison/seige battles.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 32

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/27/2008 12:36:12 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear

I haven't tackled the aux player issue yet. I would like to implement the skipping features with the editor then perhaps look at the aux player settings.

Hi Marshall
It occurred to me that with the new file name system, it may not be necessary to implement the aux player thing anymore. It looks like if Player A was going away on vacation, then it would be easy enough for Player A to simply email his save files to Player B, who should be able to load Player A's file and play the turn, returning the file to Player A, when that player gets back from vacation, etc.
If the above is correct, you might drop the aux player settings down/off the to do list. I think that after the phase skipping that is proposed for 1.05, the next best ways to speed up the PBEM game are a) some way to skip the land phase via an autofirage option (mostly for periods of peace, often winter), and b) the simultaneous diplomacy-econo phases. This would be moderate leap forward in game speed.
And I think that it about as far as you could take it without the major programming changes discussed previously. Anyone else have any ideas?

This is a VERY good point! I really appreciate the think-through on this one Dancing Bear!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 33

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 1:06:42 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Maybe, once the skipping thing is introduced, Matrix can introduce a forum for hints for speeding up PBEM, something on the same level as the "opponents wanted" and "tech support".

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 34

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 12:50:43 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

That is not a bad idea either.
I'm still wondering about the simul-run diplomacy/eco phases and IF they will help because I am in several games now and STILL the main delay is us humans. EVEN if we could all execute diplomacy at the same time BUT there was one on vacation, traveling, etc. then diplomacy resolution would have to wait!

NOW, on the other hand, if that player were to set his diplomacy phase to skip then you're talking some real time savings.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 35

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 5:30:26 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

That is not a bad idea either.
I'm still wondering about the simul-run diplomacy/eco phases and IF they will help because I am in several games now and STILL the main delay is us humans. EVEN if we could all execute diplomacy at the same time BUT there was one�on vacation, traveling, etc. then diplomacy resolution would have to wait!

NOW, on the other hand, if that player were to set his diplomacy phase to skip then you're talking some real time savings.�

The simultaneous phase issue partially corrects for the human-induced delay. Instead of pausing 7 times per phase, once for each human (and however long each one takes), the game would pause once, for the length of the human who takes the longest amount of time to do the phase.

For example, let's say we have 7 players who do their diplo phase in 11, 2, 20, 8, 3, 24, and 7 hours, respectively. In the game today, that would take 75 total hours, or a little over 3 days.

With a simultaneous diplo phase, it would take 24 hours, or 1 day.

The biggest value, I think, that the simultaneity offers is that the house rule of "24 hours to take a turn" would now be actually meaningful. As it sits, it can conceivably take a whole week to do one phase, even if the host religiously skips the turn for anybody who goes over 24 hours. With simultaneous turns, 24 hours is 24 hours. Period, end of discussion.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 36

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 5:34:01 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

Setting the value to skip only applies if it is executed. So, in my example above, let's say the guys taking 20, 3, and 7 hours all skip the phase. Without simultaneous turns, it would take 45 hours to get through the phase. With it, it would take 24 (still the longest time).

So, I think there's value in both skipping phases code and in simultaneous phase code. Perhaps not ENOUGH value, but that's a decision I can't help with unless I know how much effort is expected to do the simultaneous thing.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 37

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 5:41:39 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

By the way, the diplomacy phase is almost already set up for simultaneous execution, if my guess is correct. You already have to wait until the end (of the phase, probably on Spain's turn) to execute the various diplomacy orders, since they can interact with each other. So, diplomacy simultaneity is probably easier to set up than economics. Economics requires either that GB goes first (to establish trade partners allowed) or that the trade partners fields are "locked" prior to the econ phase. Neither of those is presently occurring, as near as I can tell, so that would be a prerequisite. I can't think of any prerequisites for the diplomacy phase.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 38

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 7:31:39 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

That is not a bad idea either.
I'm still wondering about the simul-run diplomacy/eco phases and IF they will help because I am in several games now and STILL the main delay is us humans. EVEN if we could all execute diplomacy at the same time BUT there was one�on vacation, traveling, etc. then diplomacy resolution would have to wait!

NOW, on the other hand, if that player were to set his diplomacy phase to skip then you're talking some real time savings.�

Once again you are wrong. Simul would save tons of time.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 39

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 8:01:38 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Sorry, Neverman, I must strongly disagree with your guess (AND it would ONLY be a guess) at this point. I cannot tell you that you are wrong simply because it's not there yet BUT I've played too many PBEM games, all of which suffer pace problems due to people being out of town, sick, etc. and simul execution would not have saved a minute in ANY of my games over the past years.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 40

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/29/2008 10:14:18 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Sorry, Neverman, I must strongly disagree with your guess (AND it would ONLY be a guess)�at this point. I cannot tell you that you are wrong simply because it's not there yet BUT I've played too many PBEM games, all of which suffer pace problems due to people being out of town, sick, etc. and simul execution would not have saved a minute in ANY of my games over the past years.

I can tell you from 1 game: CleverDevils2. This game would be sped up by simul phases since most players do their turns in less than a few hours and we have a 24 hour max turnaround. How do you see this has not being faster??

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 41

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 12:17:48 AM

eske

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

There is one stone in the shoe regarding skipping diplomacy phase that would be possible to solve by true simultanious diplomacy - if done correct.

That is the advantage it is to know, if another MP before you in diplo-phase has skipped. You would then be able to DoW knowing no conflicting DoW is coming from the skipping nation. Examples: France skips - Austria can DoW Bavaria knowing France doesn't do the same. Russia skips - GB can DoW Denmark. Etc...

If - with simultanious diplo - noone knows who has skipped till all "missing" turns is in - noone has that advantage. In the above example Austria shouldn't know France is skipping till all "none skippers" has entered their turn and diplomacy is resolved.

I'm aware host may be forced to demand turns from nations, who is skipping. Either that is how it has to be, or host has the option to find out who is, once he has entered his own turn. (... or something).

Now, Marshall, I have absolutely no idea what obstacles, changing this very fundamental part of the game, may present. But from a players viewpoint it is more or less this simple: All players enter their turns, but nothing is reveiled or resolved till all turns are in. In effect the turns are simultanious. What is the purpose of forcing players to wait for each other in a special sequence ?

And even if the size of the time gain from a statistical point of view can be argued, it is certain it won't be negative or zero.

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 42

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 12:37:50 AM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

There is one stone in the shoe regarding skipping diplomacy phase that would be possible to solve by true simultanious diplomacy - if done correct.

That is the advantage it is to know, if another MP before you in diplo-phase has skipped. You would then be able to DoW knowing no conflicting DoW is coming from the skipping nation. Examples: France skips - Austria can DoW Bavaria knowing France doesn't do the same. Russia skips - GB can DoW Denmark. Etc...

If - with simultanious diplo - noone knows who has skipped till all "missing" turns is in - noone has that advantage. In the above example Austria shouldn't know France is skipping till all "none skippers" has entered their turn and diplomacy is resolved.

I'm aware host may be forced to demand turns from nations, who is skipping. Either that is how it has to be, or host has the option to find out who is, once he has entered his own turn. (... or something).

Now, Marshall, I have absolutely no idea what obstacles,�changing this very fundamental part of the game, may present. But from a players viewpoint it is more or less this simple: All players enter their turns, but nothing is�reveiled or resolved till all turns are in. In effect the turns are simultanious. What is the purpose of forcing players to wait for each other in a special sequence ?

And even if the size of the time gain from a statistical point of view can be argued, it is certain it won't be negative or zero.

/eske

Are DOWs declared right away in the log? I thought they were saved until the end of the Dip Phase.

Regardless Simul play is a MUST if this game is to increase in play speed.

With a 24 hour turnaround, 7 players each taking the max turnaround time: 1 week for Dip Phase. Simul? 1 Day.

1/7th the time.

OK, now let's say that each player takes 3 hours to get their turn in (most unlikely, but for the sake of argument): 21 hours for Dip Phase. Simul? 3 hours.

1/7th the time.

No matter how you cut it it's 1/7th the time. I don't understand how Marshall can deny this simple math. Even if the players are all the way around the world 1/3rd is still a good speedup.

With or without simul sometimes people take vacations, etc BUT it's not like that is happening every phase of the game. The games I am in go months without anyone taking "time off" so I can't see how that can be used as an argument.

The only real arguments that are valid from Marshall are these:

1. It can't be done due to lack of code robustness.
2. It's very hard to do due to lack of code robustness.
3. I won't do it.

That's about it.

< Message edited by NeverMan -- 10/30/2008 12:38:34 AM >

(in reply to eske)

Post #: 43

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 3:38:30 AM

Thresh

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline

Spoken like someone who's never played a game where the turns were simultaneous Neverman....

Todd

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 44

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 4:19:07 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

There is one stone in the shoe regarding skipping diplomacy phase that would be possible to solve by true simultanious diplomacy - if done correct.

That is the advantage it is to know, if another MP before you in diplo-phase has skipped. You would then be able to DoW knowing no conflicting DoW is coming from the skipping nation. Examples: France skips - Austria can DoW Bavaria knowing France doesn't do the same. Russia skips - GB can DoW Denmark. Etc...

If - with simultanious diplo - noone knows who has skipped till all "missing" turns is in - noone has that advantage. In the above example Austria shouldn't know France is skipping till all "none skippers" has entered their turn and diplomacy is resolved.

I'm aware host may be forced to demand turns from nations, who is skipping. Either that is how it has to be, or host has the option to find out who is, once he has entered his own turn. (... or something).

Now, Marshall, I have absolutely no idea what obstacles,�changing this very fundamental part of the game, may present. But from a players viewpoint it is more or less this simple: All players enter their turns, but nothing is�reveiled or resolved till all turns are in. In effect the turns are simultanious. What is the purpose of forcing players to wait for each other in a special sequence ?

And even if the size of the time gain from a statistical point of view can be argued, it is certain it won't be negative or zero.

/eske

EXCELLENT point!

Now, the problem is that if the player has to put up a skipped entry in the phase, then there's no point in having the skipping at all; everything just reverts back to the way it was before, except the player spends 10 seconds instead of a minute or two doing diplo. In the end, it makes no difference (without simultaneous diplo).

So, Marshall, I think this changes my opinion: Simultaneous diplomacy is essential if phase skipping of diplomacy is allowed.

NOTE: This gotcha does not apply to reinforcement or naval phases, I think. In those cases, whether one skips the phase or simply does no movement, it doesn't matter to those who follow; they don't gain any pertinent information by knowing that the phase was skipped.

ALTERNATE: If skipping diplo were allowed, but also simple declarations of war COULD be included (with the "skipped" phase), then this objection no longer presents an obstacle. But, that's asking a lot in one tiny dialog box. So, I don't think this alternative is a very good idea. But, I added it for completeness.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to eske)

Post #: 45

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 4:28:53 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Are DOWs declared right away in the log? I thought they were saved until the end of the Dip Phase.

It doesn't matter; you missed his main point.

The problem is that each player (now) gets seven PBM files for the phase. The later-phasing players do not currently get to see the results until the last player has taken his phase.

BUT, if diplo-skipping is implemented, then there will NOT be seven PBM files any more; the people who skipped the phase do not provide one any more. Thus, the person going after them knows without question that the earlier party did not declare war on any nation (at a minimum, but this is the biggest issue).

For example, Austria goes before France. It is January, 1805. France (for some reason) skips his diplo phase. Now, since Austria now knows that France did not submit a turn file, he knows France did not declare war on any major power or minor country. Thus, it is perfectly safe (this turn) to declare war on Bavaria, Modena, and Romagna, since France cannot have declared support.

However, typing this out brings up a different point, Marshall (thanks, Neverman!):

IF you fully honor all previously set entries in the diplomatic control tables (i.e. the values that were there at the end of the previous month), then France could indeed declare war on Austria (by way of a check box in the "minors to support" section). Except, this does not work in the very first month (because nobody could have set the values by this time).

So, in the end, without simultaneous phasing, you can still implement this, provided you do not allow phase skipping in the very first diplomacy phase (as if someone would want to!)

Clear as mud?

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 46

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 4:31:13 AM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Spoken like someone who's never played a game where the turns were simultaneous Neverman....

Todd

It's worse if you have ever written code to handle simultaneous turns. Fortunately, this game is already segmented by nature, so some of the groundwork should already be in place (in fact, it seems to be partially done for diplomacy already, as Neverman and others have pointed out.)

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Thresh)

Post #: 47

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 9:40:04 AM

eske

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
...
For example, Austria goes before France. It is January, 1805. France (for some reason) skips his diplo phase. Now, since Austria now knows that France did not submit a turn file, he knows France did not declare war on any major power or minor country. Thus, it is perfectly safe (this turn) to declare war on Bavaria, Modena, and Romagna, since France cannot have declared support.
...

To be precise support is declared by checking a box on the 'Diplomatic relations' screen. Can be done in advance. A skipped diplo phase doesn't reviel that setting. So its not a safe DoW.
But suppose there is an enforced peace between France and Austria. Bavaria is neutral. Double DoWs is automatically withdrawn, 1 PP wasted. If France skips in this situation Austria can safely DoW Bavaria.
Another scenario: Bavaria is Ally to Austria. Austria wants to support it (not letting France get it without fighting back, getting a full bavarian corps ...). France skips. Now Austria knows he wont get into a war with France this month and may opt to use this month to DoW minors, not likely to be France controlled thus not running into a french support.

Most likely result is France never skips diplo - even if he does nothing in them.

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 48

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 12:54:14 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer
...
For example, Austria goes before France. It is January, 1805. France (for some reason) skips his diplo phase. Now, since Austria now knows that France did not submit a turn file, he knows France did not declare war on any major power or minor country. Thus, it is perfectly safe (this turn) to declare war on Bavaria, Modena, and Romagna, since France cannot have declared support.
...

To be precise support is declared by checking a box on the 'Diplomatic relations' screen. Can be done in advance. A skipped diplo phase doesn't reviel that setting. So its not a safe DoW.
But suppose there is an enforced peace between France and Austria. Bavaria is neutral. Double DoWs is automatically withdrawn, 1 PP wasted. If France skips in this situation Austria can safely DoW Bavaria.
Another scenario: Bavaria is Ally to Austria. Austria wants to support it (not letting France get it without fighting back, getting a full bavarian corps ...). France skips. Now Austria knows he wont get into a war with France this month and may opt to use this month to DoW minors, not likely to be France controlled thus not running into a french support.

Most likely result is France never skips diplo - even if he does nothing in them.

/eske

This is the best point about DOWs. Support would still be checked so they are not safe DOWs.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to eske)

Post #: 49

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 2:21:06 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Are DOWs declared right away in the log? I thought they were saved until the end of the Dip Phase.

It doesn't matter; you missed his main point.

The problem is that each player (now) gets seven PBM files for the phase. The later-phasing players do not currently get to see the results until the last player has taken his phase.

BUT, if diplo-skipping is implemented, then there will NOT be seven PBM files any more; the people who skipped the phase do not provide one any more. Thus, the person going after them knows without question that the earlier party did not declare war on any nation (at a minimum, but this is the biggest issue).

For example, Austria goes before France. It is January, 1805. France (for some reason) skips his diplo phase. Now, since Austria now knows that France did not submit a turn file, he knows France did not declare war on any major power or minor country. Thus, it is perfectly safe (this turn) to declare war on Bavaria, Modena, and Romagna, since France cannot have declared support.

However, typing this out brings up a different point, Marshall (thanks, Neverman!):

IF you fully honor all previously set entries in the diplomatic control tables (i.e. the values that were there at the end of the previous month), then France could indeed declare war on Austria (by way of a check box in the "minors to support" section). Except, this does not work in the very first month (because nobody could have set the values by this time).

So, in the end, without simultaneous phasing, you can still implement this, provided you do not allow phase skipping in the very first diplomacy phase (as if someone would want to!)

Clear as mud?

No it's not, why does skipping phases have to be public knowledge before the phase? Yes, there will only be so many "files" (none of this would be a problem in IP play of course) but I'm sure there is a possible workaround to avoid this. Matrix should bundle the source code with this game.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 50

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 2:28:44 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

There will be NO public knowledge of the skipping.

Someone could calculate who did not submit a file BUT with the support boxes checkd then that could protect someone from abusing this unless I am missing something???

Using your example, Jimmer, Austria does not know if France has chosen to support Bavaria against Austria.

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 51

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 2:48:02 PM

eske

Posts: 258
Joined: 1/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

There will be NO public knowledge of the skipping.

Someone could calculate who did not submit a file BUT with the support boxes checkd then that could protect someone from abusing this unless I am missing something???

Using your example, Jimmer, Austria does not know if France has chosen to support Bavaria against Austria.

Sorry Marshall, but it is not that clear cut.

Talking diplomacyphase:
A player would know who, of the nations doing diplomacy before hinself, did skip the phase. Simply by knowing which files he downloaded and which he did not. I don't see how that can be avoided.

That player would know before doing his own diplomacy, that the skipping nation didn't declare any wars, didn't alter state of any minors, didn't influence any minors, didn't make or break any alliances ... (can't think of more).

He wouldn't know, if there had been no skip. So he does get an advantage because another player skipped diplomacy phase ahead of him!

The support minor checkbox doesn't counter that, sorry.

But a lot of the time this knowledge is probably not very important, so don't remove the possibilty bacause of this. My point is only, that this 'stone in the shoe' will go away with true simultaneus diplomacy.

/eske

_____________________________

Alea iacta est

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 52

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 5:29:31 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

ekse,

This is assuming that the player knows everyone has turned their file in. I'm not sure how this is going to work so I guess it's possible if it's done the wrong way.

(in reply to eske)

Post #: 53

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 9:18:06 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske
...

This is the best point about DOWs. Support would still be checked so they are not safe DOWs.

I agree completely. Good points, Eske.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 54

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 9:23:13 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
No it's not, why does skipping phases have to be public knowledge before the phase? Yes, there will only be so many "files" (none of this would be a problem in IP play of course) but I'm sure there is a possible workaround to avoid this. ...

You are merging the idea of skipping with simultaneous phases. If separate, skipping would reveal things simply because player X, who skipped the phase, is now known to have not done anything. Remember that each player has to load an average of 6 files every phase (not counting combat files). If there are only five files up before Spain comes to his turn, then he knows someone was skipped, and can tell who by looking at the other five files.

I agree that if simultaneous phasing and skipping are both implemented, then it works that way. But, my post was specifically about having them separate.

I also agree that there's a good chance a workaround can be implemented, in case one can be done but not the other.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 55

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 9:32:19 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

There will be NO public knowledge of the skipping.

Someone could calculate who did not submit a file BUT with the support boxes checkd then that could protect someone from abusing this unless I am missing something???

Using your example, Jimmer, Austria does not know if France has chosen to support Bavaria against Austria.

Go with Eske's example. It's much better.

Yes, skipped phase files MUST be public knowledge (to those later in the order). See my reply to Neverman. It boils down to just knowing what your position is in the order. If you are supposed to be fourth, and your turn comes up after only 1 file, you know that two people were skipped (and most likely can determine which two easily -- they didn't produce phase files).

Now, the game COULD produce fake files to cloud this. But, that won't help either, because all of the fake files would come from the wrong player (since the player who is skipping the phase, by definition, is not producing the file).

Even if the host produced the files, the problem would still exist, because one could always just look and see who uploaded the files.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 56

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 9:36:28 PM

Jimmer

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske
But a lot of the time this knowledge is probably not very important, so don't remove the possibilty bacause of this. My point is only, that this 'stone in the shoe' will go away with true simultaneus diplomacy.

/eske

Agreed. It would be best to implement them together, if possible.

BUT, that doesn't mean reinforcement and naval can have skipping turned on.

Remember, though: Reinforcement must have GB and France go at the end, and separate from the simultaneous others.

_____________________________

At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?

(in reply to eske)

Post #: 57

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 9:50:11 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
No it's not, why does skipping phases have to be public knowledge before the phase? Yes, there will only be so many "files" (none of this would be a problem in IP play of course) but I'm sure there is a possible workaround to avoid this. ...

You are merging the idea of skipping with simultaneous phases. If separate, skipping would reveal things simply because player X, who skipped the phase, is now known to have not done anything. Remember that each player has to load an average of 6 files every phase (not counting combat files). If there are only five files up before Spain comes to his turn, then he knows someone was skipped, and can tell who by looking at the other five files.

I agree that if simultaneous phasing and skipping are both implemented, then it works that way. But, my post was specifically about having them separate.

I also agree that there's a good chance a workaround can be implemented, in case one can be done but not the other.

Yes, I was putting skipping and simul together.

(in reply to Jimmer)

Post #: 58

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/30/2008 10:55:04 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Simul diplomacy is a can of worms and I don't think I can push it into 1.05 right now so should I withdraw skip in 1.05?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 59

RE: PBEM skipping - 10/31/2008 2:49:44 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Simul diplomacy is a can of worms and I don't think I can push it into 1.05 right now so should I withdraw skip in 1.05?

Hi Marshall
please keep the skip in 1.05. Yes, you can tell when someone has skipped if you last in the order, but this does not have to be a problem. If a player is worried that an opponent will DOW on them or an ally because of a skipped turn, then that player does not have to use the feature.

I envision three scenarios were skipping would work well. The first is is for those pointless phases, like the Prussian naval turn or reinforcement turns when there are no reinforcements and a player is at peace.

The second would be when you are going to be away for a few days, and rather than slow up the game, a player decides to skip a turn.

The third is when everyone agrees that nothing is going to happen for a few months (i.e. some winters or periods of enforced peace), so to move the game along, all the players agree to skip a few phases until, lets say the next economic turn, then if nothing happens we all agree to skip a few more phases. The house agreement should go along with long periods of skipping.

The alternative is everyone plays every turn, whether at war and at peace, and the game drags out, and likely dies.

Please keep the skip feature in and let the players choose when to use it.

Keep thinking about the simul phases (my opinion is that the trades for increased game speed maybe worth it), but don't let this thinking delay the release of the skipping feature.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 60