PBEM

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

PBEM

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] >> World in Flames >> PBEM

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

PBEM - 2/17/2015 2:21:20 PM

edhart1963

Posts: 4
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: offline

Just throwing this out there. Seems to me a game this big with so many possible players would have benefited with a PBEM component. It still may I think. Benefits: 1. Allows multiplayer without having to synchronize so many schedules, you could just say all moves in by Friday (or pick your day). 2. Would keep players happy with either solitaire OR PBEM while Netplay code is debugged. 3. Alleviates, somewhat, the pressure of getting an AI out there fast.

Granted this would not help new players acclimate like an AI would. But I find myself having a difficult time trying to get a standardized schedule to play head to head or on Netplay. By the way I understand the priorities involved at the moment. Thoughts?

Post #: 1

RE: PBEM - 2/17/2015 5:22:07 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

There is an awful lot of player interaction during the game. In a large air-to-air combat, there can be a lot of decisions to be made by each player. After every round, both players have to decide to continue to fight or not and during the combat the player who needs to decide on which plane gets what loss or needs to be cleared through can differ too.

Same thing happens during naval combat too. And even during movement phases, there can be decisions on the spot to be made by the non-phasing player...

Personally, I believe that PBEM is going to be something which, if you really want to give each player the opportunity to decide for himself, is not going to go smoothly. There are some, who believe that so called "standing orders" can lift some of these things, but to be honest as of this moment I'm not convinced that will do the trick.

Now, if it would become possible to switch between PBEM and Netplay, that might make things a little better. I don't know if that is going to be possible, however...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to edhart1963)

Post #: 2

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 3:50:21 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Empire in Arms which is another ADG game whose popular board game version was converted to the computer has PBEM as an option. However, it is never used as far as I know since EiA also requires a lot of player interactions during almost every phase. Very similar to WiF. So unless Steve and team comes up with some clever way to address these issues using PBEM in WiF that actually works well, I see PBEM being the same unused feature that the one in EiA is.

You can easily test this for yourself. Start a solitaire game and pick a country/side that you want to play. Every time a different country/side has to decide anything (and I mean ANYTHING at all), save the game, exit it, and then email the save to yourself. See how many times you have to do this and decide how long you or anyone that would want to play this way would be willing to do this. Plus the game could last longer than some people could live

given the delays that RL imposes on people.

So I agree with Centuur about this being something that should way down on the list of things to do. If ever done.

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 3

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 4:19:08 AM

Hairog

Posts: 1645
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline

In real combat you cannot decide what unit takes the losses usually. How about this is all done by random dice roll by the phasing player so the turn can go on?

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 4

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 6:00:02 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

There are some places where that sort of random pick could be used so that player interaction is not needed, but there are many more where the non-phasing player needs to decide to intercept with his planes or ships or to initiate searches at sea, or fly ground supporting aircraft with or without escorts to a hex under attack - versus in all cases not doing so, thus saving those units for use later in the turn.

Besides, the normal game functions allow a skillful player to engineer attacks guaranteed (or with a very high probability) to keep his most powerful units on the board. Such players will not like (to say the least) a one in 9 die roll killing their 12-5 SS Armored corps. Even if you had an AI deciding which units are best to lose, a lot of combats also disorganize some of the units due to combat or advance after combat and there's a lot of planning and ad hoc reaction and requirement for decision making just in that.

As it has often been observed: "WiF is all about decisions."

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Hairog)

Post #: 5

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 6:55:52 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Orm and I have a couple of "manual" PBEM games going (see the AAR section) and these are working far better than either of us expected. Yes, they are taking time, but that is as much a function of the game itself, and the demands of real life, as it is the mechanics of saving and sending e-mails. We have guessed at each others decisions a few times (Where they are not seen as crucial) and we will no doubt get better over time at providing advanced orders and "standing orders" to each other to improve game speed.

There are areas of compromise required here e.g. the US Entry position, but that is not a game killer at the moment (one or both of us may feel differently about this at some point in the future)!

I suspect that when we get into later years and battles become much bigger, with more decisions to be made, we will need to set aside time to ensure we are both at our computers and can play out turns. But this requirement is no different from if netplay is working - i.e. both players will need to be around at the same time.

To me the biggest concern are the dice throws. This is a massive issue for playing PBEM as currently possible. I am only able to play Orm in this way because I know him to be of the highest integrity and I trust him completely - and I hope that is mutual. However, I have played too many games of CTGW (my only other PBEM experience) where players are only too happy to play while they are winning, but then suddenly disappear without word when things go wrong. Those are the kind of players I am sure who will not be able to help themselves of taking advantage of the ability to change the dice throws that they do not like....

But at least, after almost 20-years I am back playing WIF once more so all is (almost) good!!

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/18/2015 8:16:49 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 6

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 1:24:56 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

A lot of good comments. Unless you are staying at the level of the Avalon Hill classics, games would need to be designed somewhat explicitly for PBEM. World in Flames is not, and if you want it to be such a game, you will probably need to play Third Reich via email instead. To make it truly smoothly playable purely via email, you have to have a simpler game, and give up detail, and decision making.

And I'm not sure adding detail to an I-Go-You-Go structure so it can be played purely remotely is that great of an idea either. Technology should be harnessed by game design to improve the game experience. Harnessing game design to make it work with technology (designing the game to minimize pause points) doesn't make any sense. Basic games perfectly suited to email back and forth already exist by the scores and the wheel does not need to be re-created.

That said, World in Flames does need a hybrid of some sort in that players need to be able to make decisions (production and land movement would be the main two, a few others) while the other player is not online simultaneously. That is where software design should lead it, not backwards to a pure PBEM that would never be truly used, as noted above.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 7

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 1:53:40 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Empire in Arms which is another ADG game whose popular board game version was converted to the computer has PBEM as an option. However, it is never used as far as I know since EiA also requires a lot of player interactions during almost every phase. Very similar to WiF.

Au contraire. See General's HQ which continues to support EiA PBEM games.

Yes, EiA also has a lot of player interactions, but also provides a lot of pre-action reactions that a player can set for diplomatic functions to reduce file exchanges. There are trivial battles that are resolved automatically but larger field battles require that players exchange battle files to resolve the battle, or alternatively they can fight a miniatures battle and enter results. There are some other streamlining features in the game to accomodate PBEM, as well as some issues that require the game host to occassionally edit to fix things. For the most part it works and there are still PBEM games ongoing.

The point is there are some similar things that could be considered down the road for WiF to accomodate PBEM games. Sure, it wouldn't be exactly like the FTF boardgame experience, but as long as players are willing to accept some compromises to help automate interactions then that should be fine. Later, after this game as designed is finally complete, perhaps an additional PBEM feature could be considered?

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 8

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 3:12:37 PM

Centuur

Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

There is a PBEM feature to be made for the game. It will probably be one of the last things to build, however. Just as for the AI, some work already has been done for it.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 9

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 3:44:39 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Empire in Arms which is another ADG game whose popular board game version was converted to the computer has PBEM as an option. However, it is never used as far as I know since EiA also requires a lot of player interactions during almost every phase. Very similar to WiF.

Au contraire. See General's HQ which continues to support EiA PBEM games.

...... or alternatively they can fight a miniatures battle and enter results.

warspite1

So does this mean that the EiA PBEM system allows players to input their results i.e. they are not "calculated" by the computer and thus open to players cheating?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 10

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 4:56:58 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
There is a PBEM feature to be made for the game. It will probably be one of the last things to build, however. Just as for the AI, some work already has been done for it.

Good to hear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
So does this mean that the EiA PBEM system allows players to input their results i.e. they are not "calculated" by the computer and thus open to players cheating?

No, players are not allowed to independently input their results without mutual agreement. Players can agree on third party combat resolution using miniatures or another tactical Napoleonic game to get results and then create an editable battle file to load back into the game in lieu of using the standard combat system. Both players would have to agree on the single battle file, and if one messes with it prior to loading then the other player would know about it.

I'm not sure how extensively this has been used in actual pbem games? And while it may be manageable for a handful of important Napoleonic battles, I can't imagine something comparable in WiF being worthwhile even if it was provided as an option. I mean, WWII "battles" in WiF span multiple hexes and impulses, so resolving each individual combat would be tedious and trying to aggregate several battles into one would be prohibitively complicated. Probably not worth it?

(in reply to Centuur)

Post #: 11

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 5:05:56 PM

brian brian

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

That would be totally worth it. But that would be an entirely new game.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 12

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 5:27:09 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
There is a PBEM feature to be made for the game. It will probably be one of the last things to build, however. Just as for the AI, some work already has been done for it.

Good to hear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
So does this mean that the EiA PBEM system allows players to input their results i.e. they are not "calculated" by the computer and thus open to players cheating?

No, players are not allowed to independently input their results without mutual agreement. Players can agree on third party combat resolution using miniatures or another tactical Napoleonic game to get results and then create an editable battle file to load back into the game in lieu of using the standard combat system. Both players would have to agree on the single battle file, and if one messes with it prior to loading then the other player would know about it.

I'm not sure how extensively this has been used in actual pbem games? And while it may be manageable for a handful of important Napoleonic battles, I can't imagine something comparable in WiF being worthwhile even if it was provided as an option. I mean, WWII "battles" in WiF span multiple hexes and impulses, so resolving each individual combat would be tedious and trying to aggregate several battles into one would be prohibitively complicated. Probably not worth it?

Maybe we could hook up Panzer/Allied Corp to WiF and use those as the inputs for the battle results.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 13

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 5:29:47 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
There is a PBEM feature to be made for the game. It will probably be one of the last things to build, however. Just as for the AI, some work already has been done for it.

Good to hear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
So does this mean that the EiA PBEM system allows players to input their results i.e. they are not "calculated" by the computer and thus open to players cheating?

No, players are not allowed to independently input their results without mutual agreement. Players can agree on third party combat resolution using miniatures or another tactical Napoleonic game to get results and then create an editable battle file to load back into the game in lieu of using the standard combat system. Both players would have to agree on the single battle file, and if one messes with it prior to loading then the other player would know about it.

I'm not sure how extensively this has been used in actual pbem games? And while it may be manageable for a handful of important Napoleonic battles, I can't imagine something comparable in WiF being worthwhile even if it was provided as an option. I mean, WWII "battles" in WiF span multiple hexes and impulses, so resolving each individual combat would be tedious and trying to aggregate several battles into one would be prohibitively complicated. Probably not worth it?

warspite1

But the point is, how does the player NOT inputting the result into the program, know that his opponent has not cheated? You mention the word editable. That is the issue I have, not how the result is got to.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 14

RE: PBEM - 2/18/2015 5:32:31 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Empire in Arms which is another ADG game whose popular board game version was converted to the computer has PBEM as an option. However, it is never used as far as I know since EiA also requires a lot of player interactions during almost every phase. Very similar to WiF.

Au contraire. See General's HQ which continues to support EiA PBEM games.

Yes, EiA also has a lot of player interactions, but also provides a lot of pre-action reactions that a player can set for diplomatic functions to reduce file exchanges. There are trivial battles that are resolved automatically but larger field battles require that players exchange battle files to resolve the battle, or alternatively they can fight a miniatures battle and enter results. There are some other streamlining features in the game to accomodate PBEM, as well as some issues that require the game host to occassionally edit to fix things. For the most part it works and there are still PBEM games ongoing.

The point is there are some similar things that could be considered down the road for WiF to accomodate PBEM games. Sure, it wouldn't be exactly like the FTF boardgame experience, but as long as players are willing to accept some compromises to help automate interactions then that should be fine. Later, after this game as designed is finally complete, perhaps an additional PBEM feature could be considered?

I'm sorry but only one game posted and no response in over a month is not something I would consider hugely popular

But I will revise my comment from 'never' to 'almost never'

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 15

RE: PBEM - 2/19/2015 7:15:13 PM

alexvand

Posts: 380
Joined: 11/29/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Empire in Arms which is another ADG game whose popular board game version was converted to the computer has PBEM as an option. However, it is never used as far as I know since EiA also requires a lot of player interactions during almost every phase. Very similar to WiF. So unless Steve and team comes up with some clever way to address these issues using PBEM in WiF that actually works well, I see PBEM being the same unused feature that the one in EiA is.

You can easily test this for yourself. Start a solitaire game and pick a country/side that you want to play. Every time a different country/side has to decide anything (and I mean ANYTHING at all), save the game, exit it, and then email the save to yourself. See how many times you have to do this and decide how long you or anyone that would want to play this way would be willing to do this. Plus the game could last longer than some people could live given the delays that RL imposes on people.

So I agree with Centuur about this being something that should way down on the list of things to do. If ever done.

Actually I've played a couple of EiA games PBEM using Matrix's game. The PBEM worked reasonably well. But the level of interaction in WiF between the two players is far higher than in EiA. One EiA combat might involve a chit pick at the beginning of the first round, then a decision each of the next two rounds about committing the Guard and that would be it. WiF has way more interaction.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 16