PBEM? Why Not?

Prepare yourself for a wargaming tour-de-force! Conquest of the Aegean is the next generation of the award-winning and revolutionary Airborne Assault series and it takes brigade to corps-level warfare to a whole new level. Realism and accuracy are the watchwords as this pausable continuous time design allows you to command at any echelon, with smart AI subordinates and an incredibly challenging AI.

Moderator: Arjuna

User avatar
z1812
Posts: 1575
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:45 pm

PBEM? Why Not?

Post by z1812 »

Hi All,

HTTR is a very, very good game but sadly it is missing PBEM. I was hoping to see that COTA would include PBEM.

PBEM would enlarge your amount of sales. There are a lot of wargamers who do not have the time for online play and who tire quickly of the A.I. They want the challenge and feel of playing a Human. Is it a geat difficulty to program? Just Curious.

Regards John

PaulWRoberts
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2001 8:00 am

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by PaulWRoberts »

The game is played in real-time. PBEM requires static turns.
hank
Posts: 629
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:50 am
Location: west tn

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by hank »

I'm also curious about this question. Continuous action has some similarities to WEGO. In WEGO the action is basically continuous but the clock stops the action at specified intervals. I can stop HttR any time I want and save that game in the situation that exist when I saved it. I can then restart the game from the point I saved it.

I'm just wondering what makes a "continuous action" war game incapable of being modified for pbem play?

This will not make or break my decision to buy CotA. I'm a buyer when it comes out one way or the other.

... ok, i'm waiting for my whippin'
... please be gentle and don't hurt me too bad

hank
User avatar
JeF
Posts: 1162
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by JeF »

hank,

You're basically right. the experts will soon come and explain their poit of view, but if I'm no mistaken, the main technical difficulty comes from the replay and generating all random values. Currently, random values and other computed parameters are generated on the fly. With PBEM, you should ensure a way to generate them once per turn, on one side, secretly and securely. And make sure that initialized with these value, bith sides will see the exact same replay. This is not as easy as one may think if you did not think about it in advance. And this is the case here.

Moreover, Panther Games do not like the idea to break with the current Pausable Continuous Time approach. Because they think it is the best possible. I think some undercover beta-tester is trying to make it changed. [;)] Time will tell.
ORIGINAL: z1812
PBEM would enlarge your amount of sales.

Well, did PBEM enlarged the number of sales of Rise of Nation ? [;)] Sorry, couldn't resist.

Wargamers are quite conservative (PBEM is a "must-have" feature) and lack time (most have families). I'm one of them. I did not do any multiplayer games on Airborne Assault because of time and, mostly, my pay-per-second dial-up connection. PBEM would be fine (except if exchanged files are over 1 MB of course... [:)] ).

On the other hand, a lot of people play a game like Combat Mission in IP mode. Granted, there is more people playing by email but anyway...

My 2 cents,

JeF.
Rendez-vous at Loenen before 18:00.
Don't loose your wallet !
Conquest Of The Aegean Web Development Team
The Drop Zone
Banquet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: England

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by Banquet »

I'm not overly bothered if we can PBEM CotA personally.. however I'd have thought we're closer to PBEM because of the 'run to' command. As we can set CoTa to run for, say, an hour and then pause.. that would be a good option for PBEM. Maybe in the next title it'll be implemented.
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by Fred98 »

This game is continuos time-pausable.

If you used a “run to” command to play PBEM, there will be times where you have no control and ultimately people would hate that.

Continuos time-pausable is a great system and turn based PBEM is a great system but they are not compatible.

I will buy COTA and will play a few on-line games.

When you play on-line, the game previously rated a “10”, is suddenly is rated a “100”. If you haven’t played online – you haven’t played.

User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by Arjuna »

Technically it can be done. The question is do we want to?

Yes the Run Until command could be used to impose a sort of user defineable turn. To support proper PBEM we would need to make a lot of changes. We would need a different Setup to specify that you are playing PBEM and record passwords etc. Then we would need to rewrite the Game Startup code so that it recognised that the game was being played in PBEM mode and made quite a number of internal changes to accomodate it. We would also need to modify the interface so that you could Save and Load a PBEM game, specify the agreed time interval, lock out the other player from reviewing their opposite numbers forces etc.

All of this would require a large investment of time and money to develop and test. Quite frakly I am yet to be convinced that this is justified vis a vis the return we get from adding other features. I for one would rather see team play where a group of players can play over LAN or internet.

I tell you what if someone offers us $100,000 cash or submits a petition with 10,000 verified pledges from gamers who will buy the next title with PBEM in it, then we'll do it. [;)]
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
User avatar
z1812
Posts: 1575
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:45 pm

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by z1812 »

Hi Dave,

I suppose if your sales are doing well without PBEM then your motivation to include it would be minimal. It would be interesting to know how including it might affect sales. Same goes for a demo I suppose.

There are plenty of other games to suit my PBEM requirements. I will most probably buy COTA to play solo against the A.I.


Regards John
hank
Posts: 629
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:50 am
Location: west tn

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by hank »

I agree w/z

I was just curious from a game programming viewpoint. I am already committed to buying CotA mainly because I think its the best strategy/tactical wargame to play against the AI. I have yet to find a game that is more fun for me to play against the computer than HttR and I'm sure CotA will be better.

... plus I've learned something new ... I've never used the Run To feature. But I will now.

... however Arjuna, you cracked the door open. I would pledge to buy a pbem version of CotA. :)

thanks
Banquet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 9:04 pm
Location: England

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by Banquet »

ORIGINAL: hank

... plus I've learned something new ... I've never used the Run To feature. But I will now.

Run to is a new feature for CotA.. it's not in HttR
User avatar
BAL
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: West of the Missouri

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by BAL »

There are plenty of other games to suit my PBEM requirements. I will most probably buy COTA to play solo against the A.I.

I go along with what z1812 says. Lack of PBEM will not affect my decision to purchase CotA. There's a whole slew of fine games suited to PBEM play out there.
I'll try being nicer if you try being less stupid. - anon
Ron
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 2:46 am

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by Ron »

I don't know but think some form of pbem would go a long way towards generating more interest and players in the game. I never have the blocks of time necessary to sit down and play a tcp game. In fact, I only started one but never finished it, so while I love the system the AI is my only opponent and that gets old quickly. Just my thoughts.


Ron

"Joss" Osborne
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:46 am

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by "Joss" Osborne »

I'm an old wargamer who is very much used to PBEM, and for many years would be one of those guys who "insisted" PBEM be included with any game I would buy for all of the reasons stated above (time, family, ease of finding opponents, etc.). What's changed all of that for me is a recent spate of Call of Duty gaming with my twelve year old. We joined a clan, played strictly online, etc etc.

Now, before anyone tars and feathers me [:)] I realize we are talking about completely different games here. But my point is this: if you rearrange and schedule your gaming time you should be able to play online. When I started playing CoD I thought the same thing: "when am I going to play this thing with a clan no less."

What I found myself doing is scheduling practices and game time to fit my "life schedule". Not the easiest thing to do, granted, but it became very do able. In fact, what I found by scheduling the play was it did not suck up a lot of my "life time".

At the recommendation of hank, (whom I'm playing in a PBEM game of BiN currently) I bought HTTR. I have to say this is the best wargame I've played since SPWAW (and all of the earlier versiosn of Steel Panthers). I must admit it took some doing getting used to the interface, and the game play as it is completely foreign to me (as it must be to a lot of wargamers). Once I got the hang of it, it's the best model of play IMHO.

All of this said, I will buy CotA whether it has PBEM or not. As an IT manager by trade I understand the complexities of changing the code for this game to include PBEM play. Trying to make this game a "one size fits all" could actually destoy it. Also, as an member of the old Gamers Net staff I can tell you this: you'd be surprised how few people actually buy a game and play PBEM or online. Most people buy and play solitaire. I can't remember the exact percentage that Dave H told me at the time but I believe it was along the lines of 20% ever play against a human. Granted that was 4 years ago, and things have changed quite a bit, but unless a Panthers/Matrix can be convinced the market is there I wouldn't invest the time or $$$ to do a PBEM conversion. I'd rather spend any monies available marketing this great wargaming model! [:)]

What is needed for this type of play is a good opponent finder/scheduler.......




Regards,

Joe "Joss" Osborne
karto
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:28 pm

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by karto »

ORIGINAL: "Joss" Osborne
[...]
What is needed for this type of play is a good opponent finder/scheduler.......
Is there a gamebrowser (something like gamespy, ASE or valkyrienet) in the game? Or plans for it?
If MP is as simple as going to the ingame lobby and finding an opponent, it can quickly grow the MP community. It does give more unfinished games in my experience, but that is a minor issue compared to how much easier it gets - and how many more people discover the goodness that is human opponents.
hank
Posts: 629
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:50 am
Location: west tn

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by hank »

The only games I played online much was Mechwarrior (a lot) and Steelbeasts. Mechwarrior was the easiest to find battle to join. Steelbeasts required you to go to a chat room and get IP addresses. I like easy. Mechwarrior to me was simple simple.

If joining battle on-line is easy, I'll play when CotA comes out.

hank
User avatar
sterckxe
Posts: 1897
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 8:09 am
Location: Flanders
Contact:

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by sterckxe »

ORIGINAL: JeF
Moreover, Panther Games do not like the idea to break with the current Pausable Continuous Time approach. Because they think it is the best possible. I think some undercover beta-tester is trying to make it changed. [;)] Time will tell.

That beta-tester would be me - I'm hardly undercover though [;)]

- - -

I've posted this some days ago on the war-historical forum on UseNet :

PBEM - In the current engine when you load a previously saved game
the side you play is fixed as the one you've originally chosen. But
what if the engine could switch sides during game-load ?

The pbem setup might look something like this :

- game is played without orders delay
- player A gives his orders and lets the game run for half an hour,
the player B forces are handled by the AI at this point. After that
half hour the game is saved and mailed to the opponent.
- player B loads the game - maybe auto-swich sides here - reviews the
situation, and can give orders for the next 30 minutes while the AI
controls the other side.

This way there's an automatic order delay - 30 minutes in which you
can't issue orders yourself but must rely on your subordinates i.e. the
AI

I've used 30 minutes as an example, but if you really want to go wild
you can let the players determine it amongst themselves how long a
"turn" lasts.

- - -

Apart from the practical (read : time & money) objections Arjuna gave some posts further down in this thread it's only fair to say that even within the beta-team I'm in a minority of 1 on this, so don't hold your breath waiting for pbem.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx



"Joss" Osborne
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:46 am

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by "Joss" Osborne »

sterckxe just gave me an idea...

This game could be played as a coop PBEM game(or even a multiplayer coop game).... here's how:

1. decide who will lead which force group etc.
2. decide length of each turn (15-30 minutes etc.)
3. setup game with no order delay.
4. player 1 sets up initial orders saves file
5. player 1 then emails saved game file to player 2, player 2 gives intial orders then emails to player 3, etc.
5. last player to setup runs game for previously agreed to time limit
6. last player then emails saved game file to player 1.
7. Player 1 reviews orders, makes changes then runs for agreed upon time limit.
8. Saves game then sends to player 2.
9. Player 2 reviews orders, makes changes then runs for agreed upon time limit.
10. continue sending file to players in order until game is finished.



What do you guys think?





Regards,

Joe "Joss" Osborne
karto
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:28 pm

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by karto »

Why no orders delay?

Oh - and I think that coop-pbem sounds great.
"Joss" Osborne
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 8:46 am

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by "Joss" Osborne »

ORIGINAL: karto

Why no orders delay?

Oh - and I think that coop-pbem sounds great.


My thought on the orders delay is that with each commander running say 15 minutes off the clock and then sending the game turn it would simulate a delay in receiving orders to all of the other units anyway.

Any other thoughts on the idea?

Anyone up for a trial battle? An HTTR batle of course, maybe something small to work out the bugs.



Regards,

Joe "Joss" Osborne
Agema
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:40 pm

RE: PBEM? Why Not?

Post by Agema »

"Joss" Osborne:

You're dead right. Counter-Strike: Source is pretty much the only thing I play online currently, and when needs be you can squirrel away quite a few dedicated hours with preparation despite job and other pressures.

You're also right about the amount of online play. View most games such as Half-Life, Starcraft, Quake3 and so on and you find the number of online players is lucky to get to 10% of the total game sales for even the most online-popular. That's why after the brief flirtation a few years back with more dedicatedly multiplayer stuff like UT2004 and Quake3 developers generally went back to stronger single player experiences.
Post Reply

Return to “Conquest of the Aegean”