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: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF

 
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 >> RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/18/2005 12:58:44 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy
You need to get it down to very few emails/turn. When we play, we do 1 save/impulse, and about 2-3 for EOT, plus usually one for important DOWs (where setup/alignment is critical). The phasing player decides what the non-phasing player does unless there's something really critical going on. Decitions are subject to notes(on units) and general intructions. We also have some special rules, most notably that RTB can be changed once the non-phasing player resumes control (effectively, it happens at the start of the next impulse, so a chasnge in sequence of play).

In a real PBEM game, I suggest:
-change sequence of play, all RTB by non-phasing players happen at the start of next impulse/go. That actually changes the game rules/logic slightly (when returning units, it might be better known if a hex is safe or not). But the upside is huge, much less planning required, and complexity is much reduced.
-have AI make choices for the non-phasing player.(i.e taking over the job of the phasing player in our games)


I have also played a fair bit of WIF PBEM and I agree on Incy's experiences we have pretty much the same ones, especially the one about getting down the email's to a minimum, it is more important to get the game moving somewhat than play a perfect game, in PBEM you're units will not perform exactly as you want them to it is a tradeoff against speed that you will have to make, on the other hand your opponent will suffer the same penalties so it will probably even out.

So far I like waht I am seeing around the PBEM discussions, I think this is going to be a great game!




(in reply to Incy)
Post #: 31
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/18/2005 2:52:33 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am expanding on the idea of having Matrix Games (or some other third party) host a small program that facilitates PBEM.
Check out http://pcwargames.com and see their interface for Rise & Fall. It works quite well for a 6 player game... admittedly with a simpler turn sequence


_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 32
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/22/2005 3:00:45 AM   
petracelli

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 10/28/2003
From: Herts UK
Status: offline
Hi

I tihnk that the PBEM should reflect the way the game is played and not look to change the mechanics of it.

I played with four peoplpe i met via the wif list a play by email game where by we were writing down where the units had moved to and resolving the combats on line. This included people in both the US and Europe and although we only got to early 1940 think it broke donw beacuse of the mvoing of coutners and writing them down and one guy having to pull out.

The ability of the computer is that you can have more than one game going on at any one time and the propsect of playing two or three wif games is great.

As for cheating would to begin with be playing with people i know and would trust them not to cheat. When we played by email just used an on line dice simulator which sent the rolls to everyone and assume you could incoporate the same system.

regards

Phil

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 33
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/22/2005 10:01:48 AM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: petracelli
I think that the PBEM should reflect the way the game is played and not look to change the mechanics of it.

I played with four peoplpe i met via the wif list a play by email game where by we were writing down where the units had moved to and resolving the combats on line. This included people in both the US and Europe and although we only got to early 1940 think it broke donw beacuse of the mvoing of coutners and writing them down and one guy having to pull out.


How long did it take you to get to early -40's and how many interaction emails was required? Playing CWIF by email 39 and 40 goes quite quickly as usually there are quite onesided type of campaigns against opponents who dont use air (Poland, Denmark Netherlands, some attacks in China) . French campaign takes lonmger and when you get into russia things will really be slow unless you have some way to speed things up. Changed EOT sequence, and an AI-assistant for resolving non-phasing player stuff will make things a lot easier in my opinion.

(in reply to petracelli)
Post #: 34
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/31/2005 4:48:25 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
I have created this document based on the multiple threads about PBEM. If you would like a nice copy (with colors) that is in PDF format, send an email to: Steve@PatternDiscovery.us.
------------------------------------------------

Proposed Design for Play by Email (PBEM)
(as of July 30, 2005)

This is a first draft of the complete design for the PBEM system.

Background
As general background, MWIF controls what the player can do at any point in the game by proceeding through the sequence of play in the World in Flames’ Rules as Written 7 (RAW). During each phase/subphase the player is only able to make decisions, move units, build units, and so on, if those actions are appropriate for that phase/subphase. The player controls when a phase is complete by clicking on a “phase complete” button. Control is passed back and forth between the players by MWIF, and in some phases a player has nothing to do because MWIF is waiting on his opponent to move (or make some decision).

One of the concerns with PBEM is that it will take too long to play a game because of the numerous changes in control in the RAW sequence of play. If RAW is implemented faithfully for PBEM, there will be literally hundreds (or thousands) of emails needed to play a single game. To make the PBEM system more efficient, a revised sequence of play is needed that reduces the number of emails substantially.

Elements of PBEM
One of the big differences between playing MWIF live over the Internet and playing by email, is rolling the dice. During an Internet game MWIF can roll the dice and show the results to everyone immediately. In a PBEM game that is not possible; so a solution is needed to prevent the players from repeatedly rolling the dice until a favorable result is achieved. To do that, MWIF ships with eMWIF, a small program that runs separately from MWIF.

eMWIF exists for one purpose: to roll the dice and report the result to all the players in the game. eMWIF can be run on any host Internet server and Matrix Games runs a copy that is available to everyone. You can run eMWIF on some another system if you like. When you start a PBEM game, you ‘register’ it with eMWIF, identifying who is playing what countries. As you play the game there will be times when you need a random number (e.g., rolling for weather). At that point MWIF will send a query to eMWIF over the Internet, asking for a random number. eMWIF will validate that the player is in the game and that he is scheduled for asking for a random number for the specific event. By this I mean that eMWIF will know where in the sequence of play the players are and who should be doing what next. Once the request is validated, eMWIF will roll the dice and send the results to all players. This means that players cannot cheat since the dice are only rolled once. Note that the communications between MWIF and eMWIF are automated and require no action by the player.

At the start of a PBEM game each player will set up an ‘INI’ file that lists all the players in the game with their email addresses. It will also contain the Internet address of the eMWIF ‘dice roller’. Once the scenario, optional rules, and sides have been decided by the players, MWIF will register the game with the eMWIF dice roller.

During a PBEM game, each player will be running a copy of MWIF. Each copy will send emails to the other players in the game, as well as eMWIF. The emails will be generated by MWIF when the player clicks on “phase complete”. From the player’s point of view he could just as easily be playing over the Internet or playing solitaire. The process for completing a phase will be the same. However, the sequence of play will be different, as discussed in detail below.

Types of Email
The PBEM system operates with three types of email. The most common, Sequential, is when a player completes a phase and sends his decisions (e.g., moves) to the other player(s). This type of email transfers control to the other player. That is, the other player now becomes the phasing player and makes his decisions.

The second type of email, Simultaneous, occurs when multiple players are making decisions at the same time. For example, production is done simultaneously by all players. This second type does not transfer control directly from one player to another. Instead, MWIF waits until all the players have sent their emails denoting “phase complete”. Then, and only then, does it reveal the other players’ decisions/actions. What this means in practice is that a player may receive an email from an opponent (say, about production), but be unable to read its contents until he has sent off his own email that contains all his own production decisions. In a game with more than 2 players Simultaneous emails can cause delay because MWIF waits until everyone has sent in their emails.

The third type of email, Announcements, are generated by MWIF. These are generated when MWIF determines: who has the initiative at the start of a new turn, that the end of turn has occurred, and that the end of game has occurred.

Standing Orders
In order to eliminate emails, most decisions by the non-phasing player are handled using Standing Orders (SO). Each player selects a specific standing order from a list and sets its parameters. When a player completes a phase, he is prompted by MWIF to review his SOs to make sure they are up-to-date. MWIF uses those SOs to make decisions when the opponent is the phasing player.

SOs occur in many places and the choices from which to choose will be different for each place. At this point, the choices and their parameters have yet to be worked out. The portion of MWIF which executes SOs is referred to as the AI Assistant (AIA). The AIA makes decisions on behalf of the player, but is [indirectly] under the control of the player.

Nomenclature
The references to the rules in the sequence of play are to RAW 7. The emails are labeled by game segment:
S1 - S3 are for setting up units.
W1 - W3 are for declarations of war.
P1 is for passing.
A1 is for air actions.
N1 - N5 are for naval actions.
L1 is for land actions.
E1 - E8 are for end of turn/game.

PBEM Sequence of Play
What follows is a very detailed list of the sequence of play for PBEM and the emails that are generated by the players and MWIF. All emails are colored blue. Branching logic is colored red and refers to the numbers in the left hand margin. Emails to eMWIF are colored purple. Standing Orders are colored green. Be sure to read the notes at the end.

---------------------------------------------------- Start of Game
∙ Email communications to decide who is playing, scenario, optional rules, bidding for countries, and choosing countries (MWIF facilitates bidding if so desired). Game is registered with eMWIF.
---------------------------------------------------- Set Up
∙ Email S1 from Italy: 1 => 3.1
1 Setup (Rules 24.1)
2 Reinforcements (Rules 4.0)
2.1 Force pool changes (Rules 4.1)
2.1.1 Remove Air Units (Rules 4.1.3)
2.1.2 Replacement naval units (Rules 4.1.4) Option 67
2.2 Placing reinforcements (Rules 4.2)
3 Lending Resources (Rules 5.0)
3.1 Trade agreements (Rules 5.1)
∙ Email S2 from all Allies: 1 =>3.1
∙ Email S3 from Japan & Germany: 1=> 3.1
--------------------------------------------------- Action Stage
∙ Email W1 from side with the initiative: 5 => 7.4 (scenarios always state who starts with the initiative)
5 Action stage (Rules 7.0) - repeat 6 through 12 until end of turn
6 Weather, only when player with initiative is phasing player (Rules 8.0) - eMWIF
7.1 Declare War (Rules 9.0)
7.1.1 US entry check (Rules 9.4); roll is made immediately and USA player decides where to place a chit the next time he is the phasing player - eMWIF
7.1.2 Neutrality pacts (Rules 9.5) - Checked by MWIF
7.1.4 Control new minor countries (Rules 9.7) - SO
7.1.5 Aligning minor countries (Rules 9.8)
7.1.6 Japanese occupation of Indo-China (Rules 9.10)
7.2 Nazi-Soviet pact (Rules 19.5)
7.3 Soviet border rectification (Rules 19.6)
7.3.1 The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands (Rules 19.6.1)
7.3.2 The USSR claims Bessarabia (Rules 19.6.2)
7.4 The Ukraine (Rules 19.12) Option 62
∙ Email W2 from non-phasing player to set up reserves (e.g., attacked minors such as Poland) and respond to Soviet border claims: 7.1.3, 7.3 - in some cases SO are used instead.
7.1.3 Calling out the reserves (Rules 9.6)
7.3 Soviet border rectification (Rules 19.6)
7.3.1 The USSR claims the Finnish borderlands (Rules 19.6.1)
7.3.2 The USSR claims Bessarabia (Rules 19.6.2)
∙ Email W3 from phasing player: 7.5 => 11
7.5 Choose action (Rules 10.0)
--------------------------------------------- Movement and Combat
One of more of the following Action Phases occur depending on the action chosen by the phasing player. Note that parts of the Air Actions can occur during Naval and Land Actions.
--------------------------------------------- Pass Action
∙ Email P1 from phasing player: 8.1
8.1 Passing (Rules 11.1)
Go to 12
--------------------------------------------- Air Action
∙ Email A1 from phasing player: 9.1 => 9.15
9.1 Combat air patrol, CAP (Rules 14.2.1)
9.2 Port attacks (Rules 11.2) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.3 Naval air missions (Rules 11.3) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.4 Strategic bombardment (Rules 11.7) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.5 Carpet bombing (Rules 11.8) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.6 Ground Strike (Rules 11.9) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.7 Rail movement (Rules 11.10)
9.8 Air transport (Rules 11.12) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.9 Paradrop (Rules 11.15) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.10 Shore bombardment (Rules 11.16.2)
9.11 Ground support (Rules 11.16.4) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.12 Aircraft rebases (Rules 11.17)
9.13 Air resupply (Rules 11.18.1) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
9.14 HQ reorganization (Rules 11.18.2)
9.15 TRS resupply (Rules 11.18.3)
Go to 12
--------------------------------------------- Air Combat
The sequence X.1 => X.5 takes place when any of the actions listed in X.4 occur
X.1 Committing air units to combat
X.1.1 Non-phasing player flies CAP to hex or sea box (Rules 14.2.1) - SO
X.1.2 Phasing player flies air units to hex or sea box (Rules 14.1)
X.1.3 Non-phasing player flies air units to hex or sea box (Rules 14.1) - SO
X.1.4 Phasing player flies interceptors (Rules 14.2.1)
X.2 Air to air combat (Rules 14.3)
X.2.1 Phasing player arranges fighters and bombers (Rules 14.3.1)
X.2.2 Non-phasing player arranges fighters and bombers (Rules 14.3.1) - SO
X.2.3 Roll for non-phasing player’s attacks (Rules 14.3.2) - eMWIF
X.2.4 Choose planes lost, damaged, and/or cleared through (Rules 14.3.3) - SO
X.2.5 Roll for phasing player’s attacks (Rules 14.3.2) - eMWIF
X.2.6 Choose planes lost, damaged, and/or cleared through (Rules 14.3.3) - SO
X.2.7 Phasing player decides whether to continue (Rules 14.3.3)
X.2.8 Non-phasing player decides whether to continue (Rules 14.3.3) - SO
If both players decide to continue air to air combat, go to X.2.1. Otherwise
X.3 Anti-air (Rules 11.2, 11.5.9, 22.4.2) Option 3
X.3.1 Anti-air combat on attacker’’s planes - eMWIF
X.3.2 Anti-air combat on defender’’s planes (occurs in naval air attacks) - eMWIF
X.4 Air bombardment (port attack, naval air attack, ground strike, ground support, strategic bombing, or carpet bombing), paradrop, or air supply - eMWIF
X.5 Return to base
X.5.1 Phasing player returns planes to base (Rules 14.3.2)
X.5.2 Non-phasing player returns planes to base (Rules 14.3.2) - SO
--------------------------------------------- Naval Action
∙ Email N1 from phasing player: 10.1 => 10.4.1
10.1 Port attacks (Rules 11.2) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
10.1.1 Search - eMWIF
10.1.2 Surprise points - SO
10.2 Naval air missions (Rules 11.3) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
10.3 Naval movement (Rules 11.4)
10.3.1 Task forces (Rules 11.4.3)
10.3.2 Naval transport (Rules 11.4.5.)
10.3.3 Naval interception (Rules 11.4.6) - SO
10.4 Naval combat initiated by phasing player (Rules 11.5)
[∙ Email N5 from phasing player: 10.4.1], for multiple naval combat rounds and naval combats
10.4.1 Adding naval air units by phasing player (Rules 11.5.3)
∙ Email N2 from non-phasing player: 10.4.2 => 10.4.6
10.4.2 Non-phasing player adds naval air units (Rules 11.5.3)
10.4.3 Non-phasing player commit subs (Rules 11.5.4)
10.4.4 Non-phasing player search (Rules 11.5.5) - eMWIF
10.4.5 Non-phasing player chooses sea box, when permitted (Rules 11.5.5)
10.4.6 Non-phasing player uses surprise points, when permitted (Rules 11.5.6)
∙ Email N3 from phasing player: 10.4.7 => 10.4.13
10.4.7 Phasing player chooses sea box, when permitted (Rules 11.5.5)
10.4.8 Phasing player uses surprise points, when permitted (Rules 11.5.6)
10.4.9 Choose combat type (Rules 11.5.7) - SO
10.4.10 Naval surface combat (Rules 11.5.8) - eMWIF
10.4.11 Naval air combat (Rules 11.5.9) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
10.4.12 Submarine combat (Rules 11.5.10) - eMWIF
10.4.13 Phasing player takes and inflicts losses in naval combat, when permitted
∙ Email N4 from non-phasing player: 10.4.14 => 10.4.16
10.4.14 Non-phasing player takes and inflicts losses in naval combat, when permitted
10.4.15 Phasing player aborts naval combat (Rules 11.5.11) - SO
10.4.16 Non-phasing player aborts naval combat (Rules 11.5.11)
If both sides decide to continue naval combat in this sea area, go to 10.4.
Otherwise
If more sea areas were selected by the phasing player go to 10.4 (for the next sea area). Otherwise
10.5 Naval combat initiated by non-phasing player (Rules 11.6) - SO
Repeat same sequence as for 10.4
Go to 12
--------------------------------------------- Land Action
∙ Email L1 from phasing player: 111 => 11.10

11.1 Rail Movement (Rules 11.10)
11.2 Land Movement (Rules 11.11)
11.2.1 Overrun (Rules 11.11.6 )
11.2.2 Forced Air Rebase - SO
11.2.3 Forced Naval Rebase - SO
11.2.4 Overstacked Losses - SO
11.3 Air Transport (Rules 11.12)
11.4 Unload Land Units from Ships (Rules 11.13)
11.5 Invasion (Rules 11.14) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
11.6 Paradrop (Rules 11.15) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
11.7 Land Combat (Rules 11.16)
11.7.1 Land Combat Declaration (Rules 11.16.1)
11.7.2 Shore Bombardment D (Rules 11.16.2) Option 38 - SO
11.7.3 Shore Bombardment A (Rules 11.16.2)
11.7.4 Emergency HQ Supply (Rules 2.4.2) Option 6 - SO
11.7.5 HQ Support Defender (Rules 11.16.3) Option 13 - eMWIF - SO
11.7.6 HQ Support Attacker (Rules 11.16.3) Option 13 - eMWIF
11.7.7 Ground Support (Rules 11.16.4) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action - SO
11.7.8 Ignore Notional Unit - SO
11.7.9 Land Combat Resolution (Rules 11.16.5)
11.7.9.1 Choosing Tables - SO
11.7.9.2 Rolling the dice for combat results - eMWIF
11.7.9.3 Choosing Losses - SO
11.7.9.4 Path of Retreat
11.7.9.5 Advance after combat
11.7.9.6 Forced Air Rebase - SO
11.7.9.7 Forced Naval Rebase - SO
11.7.9.8 Overstacked Losses - SO
11.8 Air Rebase (Rules 11.17) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
11.9 Air Supply (Rules 11.18.1) see X.1 => X.5 in Air Action
11.10 Reorganization (Rules 11.18)
11.10.1 HQ Reorganization (Rules 11.18.2)
11.10.2 TRS Supply (Rules 11.18.3)
Go to 12
--------------------------------------------- Combined Action
This action choice is a combination of 9, 10, and 11 above.
Go to 12
--------------------------------------------- End of Turn Test 12 Last impulse test (Rules 12) - MWIF decides
If not end of turn, switch who is phasing and non-phasing and go to 5.
Otherwise
--------------------------------------------- End of Turn
End of Turn Stage (Rules 13)
13.1 Partisans (Rules 13.1) Option 46 - eMWIF
∙ Email E1 from MWIF to both players announcing End of Turn (and Partisans, if any)
∙ Email E2 from both sides: 9.1 (if partisans appeared)
∙ Email E3 from both sides: 9.2 => 9.3.3
13.2 Entry markers (Rules 13.2) - eMWIF
13.3 US entry (Rules 13.3) - part of the USA (only) email
13.3.1 Entry markers (Rules 13.3.1) - eMWIF
13.3.2 US entry options (Rules 13.3.2)
13.3.3 US entry actions (Rules 13.3.3)
∙ Email E4 from side that had the initiative this turn: 9.4
13.4 Return to base or stay at sea (Rules 13.4)
∙ Email E5 from side that did not have the initiative this turn: 9.4
13.4 Return to base or stay at sea (Rules 13.4)
∙ Email E6 from both sides: 9.5 => 14, 2 => 4
13.5 Final reorganization (Rules 13.5)
13.5.1 Use oil (Rules 13.5.1) Option 48
14 Production (Rules 13.6)
14.1 Breaking down units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
14.2 Building units (Rules 13.6.5) - eMWIF randomly selects units from force pool
14.3 Intelligence (Rules 22.1) Option 63
14.4 Factory Destruction (Rules 22.2) Option 30
14.5 Reforming units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
15 Peace (Rules 13.7) - MWIF decides
15.1 Conquest (Rules 13.7.1) - MWIF decides
15.2 Allied support (Rules 13.7.2) - MWIF decides
15.3 Mutual peace (Rules 13.7.3) - either side can offer mutual peace. If this happens then the other side needs to respond with an email either accepting or rejecting the offer.
15.4 Vichy declaration (Rules 13.7.4)
15.4.1 Creation (Rules 17.1)
15.4.2 Determine control (Rules 17.2)
15.4.3 Setup Vichy units (Rules 17.3)
16 Liberation (Rules 13.7.5)
17 Surrender (Rules 13.7.6)
18 Victory check (Rules 13.8) - MWIF decides
If End of Game, go to 19 below.
Otherwise
--------------------------------------------- Reinforcements & Initiative
2 Reinforcements (Rules 4.0)
2.1 Force pool changes (Rules 4.1)
2.1.1 Remove Air Units (Rules 4.1.3)
2.1.2 Replacement naval units (Rules 4.1.4) Option 67
2.2 Placing reinforcements (Rules 4.2)
3 Lending Resources (Rules 5.0)
3.1 Trade agreements (Rules 5.1)
4 Initiative (Rules 6.0) - both players provide standing orders for rerolls and deciding who has the initiative to start the next turn - SO
∙ Email E7 from MWIF to both players announcing who has initiative
Go to 5 above
--------------------------------------------- End of Game
19. End of game
∙ Email E8 from MWIF to both players announcing who won
------------------------------------------------

Notes
I. Air combat can occur in 3 places during a Naval action, 5 places during a Land action, and 9 places during an Air action. For each of these ‘places’ there can be several combats (e.g., several ground strikes). Clearly this has the potential for making PBEM take a long time. Therefore, I have removed from PBEM the options: #22 Bounce, #51 En-route aircraft interception, and #57 Limited aircraft interception. I have also required Standing Orders for all non-phasing player decisions during air combat so the air combat sequence can be completed without any emails. These decisions detract from keeping PBEM faithful to WIF, so I do them reluctantly. However, I believe they are essential to keep PBEM from taking excessively long to play (i.e., dozens of emails per impulse).

II. S1 - S3 are based on the Global War scenario. These may be different for the other scenarios.

III. W2 does not occur unless the phasing player declares war and the non-phasing player needs to set up units in response. Additionally, if there are Standing Orders for how to set up units for the small minor countries (e.g., Iran), then this email can also be skipped. If W2 is not needed, then the phasing player combines W1 and W3 into a single email.

IV. The Pass, Air, and Land actions are done with a single (one, 1, uno) email. Naval actions might take a lot of emails because there are several for each round of each combat. However, naval combat is much less frequent than land and air combat. In addition the build point cost of losing ships is high. Because of this expense the players should have more control in deciding the type of combat, how to use surprise points, losses, and return to base. Finally, control of sea areas is vital for maintaining supply to units, preparing for and defending against invasions, and for shipping resources to factories. Given all these crucial factors, the relatively high number of emails for naval combat seems warranted.

V. As the phasing player proceeds through his turn and request die rolls from eMWIF, MWIF builds the email that is later sent to the opponent. Each email will contain all the decisions (moves) that the phasing player made. The phasing player is still able to undo moves/decisions right up to the point where he either: (1) requests a die roll from eMWIF, or (2) takes an action that causes a SO to be activated. For example, when the phasing player tries to move surface naval units through a sea area that the other side could possibly search, then he is committed to that move as soon as he exits the sea area. This is because passing through a sea area entitles the non-phasing player to perform a search. The decision whether to search or not is made by the AIA on behalf of the non-phasing player. It does not matter whether the AIA, using the SO, decides to search or not. Simply because the SO was consulted by the AIA means that the move can no longer be undone.

VI. Overruns can result in air and naval units having to rebase. The non-phasing player can just let the AIA make these decisions. Alternatively, he can use a SO to give a rebase destination (hex or prioritized hex list) for each of his units prior to the phasing player’s move, just in case they get overrun. Likewise he can let the AIA decide which units to eliminate if overstacking is caused when units have nowhere else to retreat.

VII. In land combat, choosing tables and choosing losses is very important. Therefore, the standing orders for these decisions will include a variety of ways for the player to instruct the AIA how to make them.

VIII. In air combat, choosing tables and choosing losses is very important. Therefore, the standing orders for these decisions will include a variety of ways for the player to instruct the AIA how to make them.

IX. I am assuming that Hidden Task Forces (Optional rule #21) are not permitted.

X. One of the things that I do as a player, while waiting for my opponent to move, is think about what I am going to have my units do next. To facilitate this activity for PBEM players who want to study a game while waiting for slow opponents, I am designing a preplanned decisions capability into MWIF. [Opponents are always way too slow, while we are always properly careful. Any errors in judgment we make are because we were hurried by impatient opponents.] By preplanned decisions (PD) I mean the ability to move units around on the map, plan out your production, or any other aspect of the game. Any moves/decisions made as PD don’t actually happen until you ok them later. As an example, you are playing Germany in Barbarossa and have just inflicted devastating attacks on the USSR during your first impulse. While waiting for the USSR player to figure out his moves and send them back in an email, you can move the USSR units around on the map (“I think he will do this.”) and move your units around in response. Essentially you are planning out your moves. When the USSR email finally arrives, your game map will be restored so all the units are in their proper hexes and then updated with the USSR moves. At that point you can call up your PD and MWIF will display them to you one decision at a time, asking whether you still want it to happen. You can say yes or no. You will be informed by MWIF of any decisions that became invalid because of the opponents actions. There are a lot of details I need to work out for PD, but I think they would make PBEM more enjoyable and maybe even faster since players could make some obvious decisions in advance (e.g., what to build).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 35
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/31/2005 10:54:05 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

I. Air combat can occur in 3 places during a Naval action, 5 places during a Land action, and 9 places during an Air action. For each of these ‘places’ there can be several combats (e.g., several ground strikes). Clearly this has the potential for making PBEM take a long time. Therefore, I have removed from PBEM the options: #22 Bounce, #51 En-route aircraft interception, and #57 Limited aircraft interception. I have also required Standing Orders for all non-phasing player decisions during air combat so the air combat sequence can be completed without any emails. These decisions detract from keeping PBEM faithful to WIF, so I do them reluctantly. However, I believe they are essential to keep PBEM from taking excessively long to play (i.e., dozens of emails per impulse).

May I suggest that you code Bounce & En-route intercept into the PBEM game too, but that you STRONGLY advise the PBEM player from choosing that options, warning them that it will slow the game very much ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 36
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/31/2005 11:18:39 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

X. One of the things that I do as a player, while waiting for my opponent to move, is think about what I am going to have my units do next. To facilitate this activity for PBEM players who want to study a game while waiting for slow opponents, I am designing a preplanned decisions capability into MWIF. [Opponents are always way too slow, while we are always properly careful. Any errors in judgment we make are because we were hurried by impatient opponents.] By preplanned decisions (PD) I mean the ability to move units around on the map, plan out your production, or any other aspect of the game. Any moves/decisions made as PD don’t actually happen until you ok them later. As an example, you are playing Germany in Barbarossa and have just inflicted devastating attacks on the USSR during your first impulse. While waiting for the USSR player to figure out his moves and send them back in an email, you can move the USSR units around on the map (“I think he will do this.”) and move your units around in response. Essentially you are planning out your moves. When the USSR email finally arrives, your game map will be restored so all the units are in their proper hexes and then updated with the USSR moves. At that point you can call up your PD and MWIF will display them to you one decision at a time, asking whether you still want it to happen. You can say yes or no. You will be informed by MWIF of any decisions that became invalid because of the opponents actions. There are a lot of details I need to work out for PD, but I think they would make PBEM more enjoyable and maybe even faster since players could make some obvious decisions in advance (e.g., what to build).



That's the greatest idea since Standing Orders !!!!
I could advocate that this idea should be also kept for the TCP/IP games too, as the slow player syndrome can happen there too.

One last thing, about Standing Orders, there should be a dialog that appears just before you end up your current phase asking you whenever you're also finished with your standing orders too. It could also display a list (a table) showing the units with standing orders and a maybe even what their standing orders are.

Best Regards

Patrice

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 37
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/31/2005 11:27:17 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

I. Air combat can occur in 3 places during a Naval action, 5 places during a Land action, and 9 places during an Air action. For each of these ‘places’ there can be several combats (e.g., several ground strikes). Clearly this has the potential for making PBEM take a long time. Therefore, I have removed from PBEM the options: #22 Bounce, #51 En-route aircraft interception, and #57 Limited aircraft interception. I have also required Standing Orders for all non-phasing player decisions during air combat so the air combat sequence can be completed without any emails. These decisions detract from keeping PBEM faithful to WIF, so I do them reluctantly. However, I believe they are essential to keep PBEM from taking excessively long to play (i.e., dozens of emails per impulse).

May I suggest that you code Bounce & En-route intercept into the PBEM game too, but that you STRONGLY advise the PBEM player from choosing that options, warning them that it will slow the game very much ?

Well, I'll put them on a "maybe" list instead of a "definitely not" list.

The bounce routine has so many options that writing a SO for it would be complicated. The enroute interception option provides more ways to defend against bombing missions and therefore it also makes writing a SO more complex.

These optional rules would add more realism to PBEM, but at the expense a lot more work on the part of the players defining SOs. I just don't see most players using them. If they are only going to be used by a few grognards, then I would just as soon omit them from PBEM.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 38
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/31/2005 11:28:32 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
I also like the idea of planning orders while waiting for the other person's turn. Neat.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 39
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 7/31/2005 6:45:27 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
That's the greatest idea since Standing Orders !!!!
I could advocate that this idea should be also kept for the TCP/IP games too, as the slow player syndrome can happen there too.


I am glad you like it. Now I just have to code PD so the game interface handles them nicely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
One last thing, about Standing Orders, there should be a dialog that appears just before you end up your current phase asking you whenever you're also finished with your standing orders too. It could also display a list (a table) showing the units with standing orders and a maybe even what their standing orders are.

Patrice


From the 1st draft:
quote:

Standing Orders
In order to eliminate emails, most decisions by the non-phasing player are handled using Standing Orders (SO). Each player selects a specific standing order from a list and sets its parameters. When a player completes a phase, he is prompted by MWIF to review his SOs to make sure they are up-to-date. MWIF uses those SOs to make decisions when the opponent is the phasing player.


How to display the standing orders has to be defined. Hey, standing orders themselves have to be defined.

The former is part of the game interface. Indeed, I scheduled the PBEM design task early because I knew we would need it for the game interface design.

The latter is the next task for the PBEM design.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 40
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 8/1/2005 5:45:02 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Your suggested sequence clarifies a lot of issues for me, however I still see a need for Air Combat to be controlled by sequential emails in Combined Turns .


EXAMPLE 1:
If my CW fleet plus some Land Based Air can retake control of the English Channel during the Naval Movement phase THEN the German Panzer sitting in Portsmouth is out of supply so I'll ground strike him THEN if he flips I'll attack him with some Ground Support from Air units. But if I can't take control of the English Channel THEN I won't do the ground strike or the land attack. If I take control of the Channel but the subsequent Ground Strike fails THEN I won't do the land attack which creates three decision points for releasing the Air units tagged to provide Ground Support.

So my SO for these air units would need to cover alternative uses for these air units all through the turn... could get a bit complex to do in just one email


EXAMPLE 2:
Another valid tactic for a Combined Turn is to perform
* Port Attacks with Land based bombers followed by
* a bunch of unimportant Naval Actions followed by
* some strategic Bombardment followed by
* Carpet Bombing followed by
* Ground strikes.

This forces the enemy to commit their air reserves piecemeal so that when the Land Attack phase comes around there are no enemy air left to throw against my Land attacks. I appreciate that much of this will be covered by SO but I still see a need to have the Port Attacks /Naval Actions /Strategic Bombardment /Carpet Bombing completed before I am forced to declare my Ground strikes and Land Attacks.

So I see a Combined Action as much more complex than merely the sum of the parts of a Naval, Air and Land action. Have I missed something in your explanation?


Preplanned Decisions:
* Can we show our current PD to our allies to assist Team planning?
* Will the PD automatically impose unit movement/combat limits per Combined Turn restrictions?
* Will there be a PD helper where you can ask the AI for their suggestions as to what you should do in your turn - great learning tool!

< Message edited by Greyshaft -- 8/1/2005 5:46:42 AM >


_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 41
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 8/1/2005 6:20:21 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Your suggested sequence clarifies a lot of issues for me, however I still see a need for Air Combat to be controlled by sequential emails in Combined Turns .


EXAMPLE 1:
If my CW fleet plus some Land Based Air can retake control of the English Channel during the Naval Movement phase THEN the German Panzer sitting in Portsmouth is out of supply so I'll ground strike him THEN if he flips I'll attack him with some Ground Support from Air units. But if I can't take control of the English Channel THEN I won't do the ground strike or the land attack. If I take control of the Channel but the subsequent Ground Strike fails THEN I won't do the land attack which creates three decision points for releasing the Air units tagged to provide Ground Support.

So my SO for these air units would need to cover alternative uses for these air units all through the turn... could get a bit complex to do in just one email

EXAMPLE 2:
Another valid tactic for a Combined Turn is to perform
* Port Attacks with Land based bombers followed by
* a bunch of unimportant Naval Actions followed by
* some strategic Bombardment followed by
* Carpet Bombing followed by
* Ground strikes.

This forces the enemy to commit their air reserves piecemeal so that when the Land Attack phase comes around there are no enemy air left to throw against my Land attacks. I appreciate that much of this will be covered by SO but I still see a need to have the Port Attacks /Naval Actions /Strategic Bombardment /Carpet Bombing completed before I am forced to declare my Ground strikes and Land Attacks.

So I see a Combined Action as much more complex than merely the sum of the parts of a Naval, Air and Land action. Have I missed something in your explanation?

Preplanned Decisions:
* Can we show our current PD to our allies to assist Team planning?
* Will the PD automatically impose unit movement/combat limits per Combined Turn restrictions?
* Will there be a PD helper where you can ask the AI for their suggestions as to what you should do in your turn - great learning tool!

Example 1:
Standing Orders are only for the non-phasing player. This sequence of conditionals you pose seem to be for the phasing player. The phasing player always has direct control over his units. The only exception is 10.4.15 where I have the phasing player setting a SO for whether he is aborting a naval combat at the end of a round. There were several reasons I created this exception: (1) it fits in the back and forth exchange of email sequence, (2) having the phasing player suffer a little loss of control due to setting SOs seems reasonable, and (3) the phasing player will know a lot about the circumstances of the naval combat that just happened so he should be able to decide whether he wants to fight on or not.

Getting back to your sequence, the phasing player will know if he has control of the English channel before annoucing any ground strikes. He will know the result of the ground strikes before announcing any attacks. From the point of view of the phasing player, he is going through the sequence of play just as if the opponent were sitting opposite him and making the decisions as the non-phasing player. Instead of the opponent doing it directly, the AIA is doing it using SOs.


Example 2:
However, you raise an interesting issue that I had not thought out. That is, does the non-phasing player get to change his SOs between the Naval/Strategic/Land Action Phases of a combined? Just off the top of my head, I would say yes. This would mean that for a Combined Impulse:
the phasing player completes his Naval Action (this may involve several emails - N1 => N5),
the non-phasng player gets a chance to reset his SOs,
the phasing player completes his Strategic Action, (9.4 and 9.5 of email A1),
the non-phasing player gets a chance to reset his SOs,
the phasing player completes his Land Action (L1).

I am right. A combined turn is the sum of its parts. You are right. It also has to have those parts delivered in separate emails so the non-phasing player doesn't get horn-swaggled (cheated using dastardly means).

Preplanned Decisions:
Showing preplanned decision to Allies should be doable.
I would expect to make enforcement of the various Action limits (during PD) a toggle switch that the player could turn on or off whenever he wants.
The thought of integrating PD with the AIA causes my face to go into a grimace that lasts several minuutes.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 8/1/2005 6:21:49 AM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 42
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 8/2/2005 4:55:28 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
I have read the pdf file and I have to say that I quite like what you have done, this have great potential.

Just a few comments,
a) when coding please leave in hooks in the naval phase for the AIA to make some decisions based on standard orders. There might be some smaller naval battles that can be handled without the exchange of emails, or the ability to make the choices for your opponent. In my most recent PBEM game for example a french task force was trapped in the Baltic it had sunken a few CP on the french impulse but later the germans decided to come out to play with a NAV the battle could be done by one player as the choices to make were pretty obvoius.

For example mail N2 would not be needed:
- No french plane in intercept range
- No french subs
- search is handled by eMWIF anyhow
- both sides found so no choice of seabox, even if there had been a choice, he would want to battle against the convoys instead of the NAV. That choice could be made by AIA
- french ship did not get any suprise points to spend.

Mail N4 is also possible to be handled by AIA:
- Take losses AIA could easily choose the worst ships for losses.
- He cannot abort since the baltic is closed.

The same type of battle can happen in forexample an italian sub raid in the atlantic or a surface attack on some farflung convoy chain. the most important decision in those cases are usually if I want to abort combat or not.

For bigger naval battles I think your model works fine. more emails than I'm used to though.

Nicklas

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 43
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 8/2/2005 7:38:07 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
I have read the pdf file and I have to say that I quite like what you have done, this have great potential.

Just a few comments,
a) when coding please leave in hooks in the naval phase for the AIA to make some decisions based on standard orders. There might be some smaller naval battles that can be handled without the exchange of emails, or the ability to make the choices for your opponent. In my most recent PBEM game for example a french task force was trapped in the Baltic it had sunken a few CP on the french impulse but later the germans decided to come out to play with a NAV the battle could be done by one player as the choices to make were pretty obvoius.

For example mail N2 would not be needed:
- No french plane in intercept range
- No french subs
- search is handled by eMWIF anyhow
- both sides found so no choice of seabox, even if there had been a choice, he would want to battle against the convoys instead of the NAV. That choice could be made by AIA
- french ship did not get any suprise points to spend.

Mail N4 is also possible to be handled by AIA:
- Take losses AIA could easily choose the worst ships for losses.
- He cannot abort since the baltic is closed.

The same type of battle can happen in forexample an italian sub raid in the atlantic or a surface attack on some farflung convoy chain. the most important decision in those cases are usually if I want to abort combat or not.

For bigger naval battles I think your model works fine. more emails than I'm used to though.

Nicklas

Excellent points. But possibly hard to code. Oh, what the heck, I'm not doing anything anyway.

I have not given much thought to the AI Assistant (AIA). Once we get the game interface thread underway (sometime in the next couple of days), it will probably come up more often. With more instances of where we want the AIA to help out, I will have a better idea of how to design it.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 44
Combined Actions - 8/3/2005 12:33:54 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

IV. The Pass, Air, and Land actions are done with a single (one, 1, uno) email. Naval actions might take a lot of emails because there are several for each round of each combat.


I think I presumed from your post that the Air portion of a Combined impulse must be completed in a single (one, 1, uno) email which is (on second reading) not what you said. I now understand that your point is completely silent on Combined Actions which may have multiple air-related emails.

Sumdayz ah sits and thinks and sumdayz ah jus’ sits…

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 45
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/4/2005 6:57:34 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
The design for the standing orders is complete and therefore so is the design for PBEM!

I have two PDF files available for anyone who is interested: Final PBEM Design and Final Standing Orders Design. They should be read side by side, which is why I have them as separate documents. I am not going to post them to this forum because the first is 10 pages long and the second is 20.

Just send me an email [Steve@PatternDiscovery.us] and I will send you the PDF files. I do not save the email addresses of people who request the various PDF files I am creating for MWIF. That is intentional. I think of them as one time letter (email) drops, never to be used again and discard them immediately after sending out the documents. So, if you asked for and received the draft copies of these documents, you need to send me another email for the final versions.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 46
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/27/2005 3:40:48 AM   
vonpaul


Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
For cheating, have you considered a audit system. An audit file is attached(or even embedded) into the saved email that has all the actions taken by MWIF (up to 100 lines?), which your opponent if could review. Closing or reloading will not alter this audit log (write to it after each action). A full audit log could itself would be embedded into the game system files and available for export.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 47
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/27/2005 12:27:11 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vonpaul
For cheating, have you considered a audit system. An audit file is attached(or even embedded) into the saved email that has all the actions taken by MWIF (up to 100 lines?), which your opponent if could review. Closing or reloading will not alter this audit log (write to it after each action). A full audit log could itself would be embedded into the game system files and available for export.


I find your use of the term "audit file" confusing, probably because of all the other connotations for the word audit that are floating around in my head.

MWIF will maintain a "game record log" which records, at the atomic level, every change that occurs during a game that affects the game state. Moving land units around doesn't affect the game state until you commit to them. Moving a naval force through a sea area where the enemy has the option to attempt an interception does change the game state, whether the enemy attempts the interception or not. I am in the process of finalizing the definitions for all the type of entries that MWIF will write to the game record log. There are over 300 unique entry types already and I haven't done all the optional rules yet.

For PBEM games, it is the new entries to the game record log that will be sent in the email. A full copy of the current game state (i.e., a saved game) will probably be sent less often (perhaps once per turn). Both of these will be encrypted for security purposes and compressed for speed of transmission. Once I have finished defining all the entries, I will post a sample of them to the forum and make the full file available as a PDF to anyone who requests it. I hope to finish it up this month.



_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to vonpaul)
Post #: 48
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/28/2005 7:44:59 AM   
vonpaul


Posts: 178
Joined: 8/5/2004
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
with a game record log, you can alway reload the game. I was thinking more along the lines of a program log, recording irespective of which game is being played(thus beating reload)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 49
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/28/2005 12:42:30 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vonpaul
with a game record log, you can alway reload the game. I was thinking more along the lines of a program log, recording irespective of which game is being played(thus beating reload)


Au contraire.

Any action that should be irreversible causes a notification to be sent to the eMWIF program which resides on a 3rd party computer. eMWIF keeps track of the most recent entry # received for registered MWIF games. If you reload after, say, trying to run a naval task force by an occupied sea area (just to see if the opponent's Standing Orders are to intercept or not) then eMWIF's record of the last entry # will not match your reloaded game last entry # and your reload will be discovered.

By the way, I believe that if all the files reside on the player's computer, then restoring to last night's backup gets around any attempt by the game programmer to prevent cheating (via reloads) by writing stuff to the disk.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to vonpaul)
Post #: 50
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/28/2005 5:42:00 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline
I really like that you are building in a system to keep track of reloads so as to prevent cheating. but what happens if half-way through a turn in a PBEM your computer locks up or the power goes out and you have to restart your turn? Will this look like an attempt to beat the system?

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 51
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/28/2005 7:58:54 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
I really like that you are building in a system to keep track of reloads so as to prevent cheating. but what happens if half-way through a turn in a PBEM your computer locks up or the power goes out and you have to restart your turn? Will this look like an attempt to beat the system?


It shouldn't be a problem. There might be a 60 second interval where things could be properly sabotaged but if you are that unlucky, you don't want to be rolling dice anyway.

MWIF will maintain a file on disk of moves/decisions to which you have committed. I use the word committed here to mean that you can't undo them because they somehow involve the other player, either through use of your opponent's Standing Orders or because some random event took place (dice or drawing a chit). The file on disk is the game record log and when you finally complete all the moves/decisions for an email 'eturn', it is the new portion of the game record log that will be sent to your opponent as your emailed 'move'. It will include all the random numbers that have been provided by eMWIF as you played through your 'eturn'.

If the system should crash in the middle of play, you can restore the game state from a saved game + game record log. This is what your opponent is going to do when he receives your email/eturn. Indeed, it is what you will do everytime you receive your opponent's eturn. You will also be able to undo the game record log back to the point of a "committed move/decision". Those have been sent off to eMWIF and therefore are where trouble might occur. The circumstances under which things would get messed up are: (1) eMWIF has been notified of the committed move/decision, but (2) the storage of same in your copy of the game record log has been damaged and you can't restore the game to the same point that eMWIF has on record.

I'll worry about this some more when I get to writing the code. The sequence could be: write committed move/decision to log, close log file, notify eMWIF, recieve acknowledgement from eMWIF of receipt, open new temporary log file, show results to player, player continues eturn. The temporary log would be copied to the permanent log every time eMWIF is notified. There could be multiple copies of permanent logs maintained too, depending on my level of paranoia about crashing systems. By using a temporary log, any tragedy that occurs during play would only damage the temporary log, which by definition only contains entries that did not involve eMWIF. The copying and saving of these entries and files would be very fast and occur in less than a second.

I guess I also need to provide a capability for the players to jointly inform eMWIF of a desire to reset the game record log Entry #. eMWIF will not be maintaining a record of the game, just a little bit of dynamic information about who is playing what countries and where they are in the game (year, month, impulse, phase, subphase, etc.). So, eMWIF will be unable to restore a game. The players would have to agree to go back to a mutually saved point in the game (Entry #) and restart from there. eMWIF would need both players to inform it that they want to do that. This is similar to how a game ends. Both players need to agree to the end of game (unless there was an automatic victory achieved or an automatic end of game occurred) and exchange passwords so the encrypted game record log files can be decrypted for after action analysis and replay.

These questions force me to think things through more precisely and are of great benefit to me in writing the code. Up 'til now I had a hazy understanding of what I was going to do and was just waving my hands around in the air when 'discussing' this issue. Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Cheesehead)
Post #: 52
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 9/28/2005 8:37:36 PM   
Cheesehead

 

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline
Thanks Steve.

I can't say enough how important it is to keep integrity in this game. Some people might read your last post and think "why go through all the trouble" because 90% of WiFers wouldn't think of cheating. But all it takes is one bad experience where an opponent "pulls something" on you and you may never want to play the game again. That happened to me in a game I really enjoyed. I played it many times without a hint of any transgressions...and then I played a guy who I figured, after doing the math, altered the game to his favor and clobbered me. I didn't have any interest in playing that game anymore.

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 53
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 10/17/2005 4:49:55 PM   
paladin4me

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 6/24/2004
From: Winmalee NSW Australia
Status: offline
PRobably off topic, but I want to mention it somewhere. PBEM is a must have, minimising e-mails would also be good but if there are 6 players there could be problems - some moves by one player need to be co-ordinated with others of the same phasing side. This will impact on what interactions of the non-phasing players will have. What I would like to have is 'hotseat' capability - ie someone hosts a game and other log in via internet. Increasing fuel costs may necessitate this type of game playing in the future - the guys I currently play WiF with have to travel some distance to get to my place every Friday night. while the human interaction is an important part of playing WiF, the future may dictate that this is too costly for those that need to travel some distance. The hotseat scenario (with common and axis/allie chat capability) would be a boon. Just my 2 bobs worth (for those that don't understand this saying then you're too young ).

_____________________________

Grizzled WiF Verteran

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 54
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 10/17/2005 5:09:01 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
If you have a multiplayer PBEM I would like if there was an option to select what countries are played by which players.
Playing PBEM using Cyberboard we have discovered that game takes quite a bit of time for the French and CW player to coordinte their defence.
With four players I would like if you could have thoose for sides:
- USSR/China/ChiComs
- CW/France/US
- Germany/Italy
- Japan

This setup will reduce playtime as no detailed coordination is needed between allies. Strategic coordination is still needed ofcourse.

(in reply to paladin4me)
Post #: 55
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 10/17/2005 7:30:51 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
If you have a multiplayer PBEM I would like if there was an option to select what countries are played by which players.
Playing PBEM using Cyberboard we have discovered that game takes quite a bit of time for the French and CW player to coordinte their defence.
With four players I would like if you could have thoose for sides:
- USSR/China/ChiComs
- CW/France/US
- Germany/Italy
- Japan

This setup will reduce playtime as no detailed coordination is needed between allies. Strategic coordination is still needed ofcourse.



Done. There are two ways to start a MWIF game, bidding for countries or assigning countries to players. If you are not using the bidding system, simply assign major powers to whomsoever you want. Even if you are using the bidding system, the controlling major power (of, say, France) can transfer control of all his units to another player (say, CW).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 56
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 10/17/2005 7:37:54 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paladin4me
PRobably off topic, but I want to mention it somewhere. PBEM is a must have, minimising e-mails would also be good but if there are 6 players there could be problems - some moves by one player need to be co-ordinated with others of the same phasing side. This will impact on what interactions of the non-phasing players will have. What I would like to have is 'hotseat' capability - ie someone hosts a game and other log in via internet. Increasing fuel costs may necessitate this type of game playing in the future - the guys I currently play WiF with have to travel some distance to get to my place every Friday night. while the human interaction is an important part of playing WiF, the future may dictate that this is too costly for those that need to travel some distance. The hotseat scenario (with common and axis/allie chat capability) would be a boon. Just my 2 bobs worth (for those that don't understand this saying then you're too young ).


There are several modes of play for MWIF: Solitaire, Head to head, Internet, and PBEM. See post #28 in the thread When? in this forum for a draft opening/setup screen.

You might want to read the 5 posts under Directory for MWIF Forum too, for an overview of this forum.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paladin4me)
Post #: 57
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 1/10/2006 12:58:21 AM   
dhatchen

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline
While going over the PBEM and SO design documents that you sent me, I noticed one thing missing, the ASW pre-fire attack allowed before surface and submarine naval combats. This also includes some of the special capabilities of the late war SUBs.

Might I suggest the following insertions to the PBEM sequence of play.

1. ASW pre-fire attack

email N3 from phasing player
...
10.4.13 Phasing player chooses combat type, when permitted (Rules 11.5.7)
10.4.14 ASW Pre-fire attack (Rules 22.4.19) - eMWiF <--- new
10.4.15 Naval surface combat (Rules 11.5.8) - eMWiF <--- renumbered
continue

There would be no need of an SO for the non-Phasing player on this. The AIA would simply always attack if allowed by the rules and the circumstance.

2. Walther aborts

May voluntarily abort to a friendly port at the beginning of any round IMMEDIATELY after the Search dice are rolled.

email N2 from non-phasing player
...
10.4.6 Non-phasing player search (Rules 11.5.5) - eMWiF
10.4.7 MWiF determines who chooses combat type (Rules 11.5.7)
10.4.8 Walther SUB voluntary abort to port (Rules 22.4.19) <--- new
...
renumber rest and continue to
email N3 from phasing player
10.4.11 Walther SUB voluntary abort to port (Rules 22.4.19) <--- new
10.4.12 Phasing player chooses sea box, when permitted (Rules 11.5.5)
renumber
...

No SO would be required for these changes as the abort choice happens right after the search results are known but before anything else is. It would be important for the phasing player in N3 to see the die rolls but nothing else until the abort choice is made. Neither player has to wait nor is an extra email needed.

This is admittedly a lot of kludge for a late war rule that rarely sees action. Adding to the sequence of play in this manner plays the same whether there are Walthers in the sea area or not. MWiF only pauses for instruction if applicable.

The game log should have entries for this, but that is another post.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 58
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 1/10/2006 1:50:51 AM   
dhatchen

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline
I cannot remember where I saw discussion on the game log, but since the PBEM uses it to track player actions, I will put it in this thread.

Suggested additions to the game log possible actions

4.4.5 Naval Combat
...
Including units and combat type
(for Walther aborts)
Entry#, [NCWA], Transaction#, SUB Unit#, Old Location, New Location
...
Pre-fire attack
Entry#, [NCPT], Transaction#, MWIF, ASW Factors, # of Ships/Targets (naval combat anti-air table)
Entry#, [NCPR], Transaction#, MWIF, ASW Roll# (naval combat anti-air roll)
...

For the Pre-fire attack, the results are handled like AA fire. For every 10pts 'X' result, for any remaining 5 'D' result, and Sub attack factors minus remainder less than 5.

(in reply to dhatchen)
Post #: 59
RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF - 1/11/2006 2:36:11 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
You are right that these are missing from the PBEM and the Game Record Log designs. Neither design includes the Convoy in Flames modifications to the sequence of play. At the time I developed them, I was working on the assumption that neither Cruisers in Flames of Convoys in Flames would be part of MWIF product 1. I lost those arguments with David Heath. I did manage to keep Leaders in Flames out of Product 1. That was because each of the 113 or so unique attributes of the leaders is a rule exception. Implementing it requires going into all the rules and inserting specific overrides for certain leaders in certain situations. A rather massive undertaking on top of everything else.

Still, I would have liked to have excluded Cruisers and Convoys so my task list would be shorter. But that decision is history, not to be reenacted.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to dhatchen)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Play by Email (PBEM) for MWIF Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.750