Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: PBEM Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: PBEM - 5/26/2009 4:30:59 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
I have been going over the PBEM design and have found a way to remove 4 Standing Orders. This required adding another two emails within each impulse, but I believe the trade-off is worth it.

What I have done is remove teh non-phasing player's Standing Orders for how to respond to land attacks. In their place I have put a repsonse email where the non-phasing player decides about Notional Units, Defensive Shore Bombardment, Emergency HQ Supply, HQ Support, and Winterized Units.

I need to go through this all again more closely, but the general thrust is that the non-phasing player will make these decisions after the phasing side announces all their land attacks. The phasing side will not get to see all those decisions by the non-phasing side immediately, but rather that information will be presented at the normal points in the sequence of play. The distortion from the normal sequence of play is that the non-phasing isde will not know some of the phasing side's decisions (that they would know in a non-PBEM game). For example, the phasing side's shore bombardment factors are known in an over-the-board game before the non-phasing side decides whether to commit their HQs or not.

My original design made entering standing orders for defense against land attacks too comlpex and vulnerable to screw-ups by the non-phasing side. Given the importance of defending well against land attacks, I added the two emails (though with reluctance).

You might wonder why there are two new emails. That's because where the phasing side use to send one, they now have to send two: before and after the non-phasing side's email for defending against land attacks.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 31
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 1:25:03 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
I am continuing to refine the sequence of play for PBEM. This layout is for the Players Manual, which I want to finish in the next 3 weeks.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 32
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 1:28:09 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
2nd of 2 in the series.

There are still things I want to modify about the end of turn phases, so they aren't included in these screens.

Well, actually, I am buffing and polishing what is shown in these two screen shots too. At the end of naval combat there remains the task of getting any aborted units back to port.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 33
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 4:34:36 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 3773
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: online
thing that you need another e-mail ... the defender needs to know how much off. ground support the attacker is using before he choices how much to use hem self ....... it can not be handled with the SO 19

phasing
l3
11.7.6 _> 11.7.8

non phasing
l3a
11.7.8a defencive ground support

phasing
l4
11.7.9 ->

< Message edited by michaelbaldur -- 5/28/2009 4:42:24 AM >


_____________________________

Peyton manning is a God and the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 34
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 5:51:47 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

thing that you need another e-mail ... the defender needs to know how much off. ground support the attacker is using before he choices how much to use hem self ....... it can not be handled with the SO 19

phasing
l3
11.7.6 _> 11.7.8

non phasing
l3a
11.7.8a defencive ground support

phasing
l4
11.7.9 ->

Oooo someone is actually reading this stuff!

SO19 will contain conditional elements. I haven't worked out the specifcs, but it will be along the lines of: if the odds are within the range X to Y, send 'these' units for ground support. The tricky bit is enabling the player to set the accompanying fighter escorts correctly.

I really don't want to add another two emails (which is what would be required).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 35
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 5:53:38 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1676
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
well I can't see the forms right now as I am using dial-up tonight (hunkered down in my Secure Location), but I could add a few thoughts that could be added to the PBEM player's guide....

CAP is indeed fairly rare. Since your FTR is disorganized after a CAP mission, it isn't used that often. In fact experienced players will see when an enemy CAP mission is a good possibility and the gracious ones will remember to offer their opponent the opportunity to fly it when it clearly might be worthwhile. It's most common use is as a cheap re-base mission later in a turn, but when unlimited face-down rebasing is part of a game, this silly use of a CAP mission is not needed. Worrying oneself over Standing Orders for CAP won't be all that important during a game.

For deciding on how much Defensive Ground Support to add to a ground combat, I would strongly suggest using Fractional Odds in a PBEM game. Flying endless Fighter-Bomber missions with one point of ground support, just to move the land combat odds up or down one column takes up a great deal of unneccessary time (and emails); using the Fractional Odds optional rule can greatly simplify land combat decisions, for both sides.

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 36
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 6:32:30 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
I want to make a rough cut at the number of emails for an impulse:

For Global War, the emails are:
1st Impulse
S1 by Axis,
S2 by Allies,
S3 + W1 by Axis; these are combined because B1 is skipped in the first turn and B2 is specified in the setup instructions.
W2 by Allies; to set up Poland.
W3 + A1 + L1 by Axis; most major powers are neutral so there are neither naval interceptions nor combats.
L2 by Allies; there is a good chance that this email can be skipped, unless the Chinese have something to do.
L3 by Axis
---
L2 & L3 repeat for each land combat.
---
R1 by Axis; (this is missing from my list and covers all of PBEM section 12).


2nd Impulse
W1 + W3 by Allies,
N5 by Allies,
N2 by Axis,
N2 by Allies,
N4 by Axis,
---
N5, N2, N3, N4 repeat for all naval combats and for each naval combat round.
---
A1 + L1 by Allies,
L2 by Axis,
L3 by Allies,
---
L2 & L3 repeat for each land combat.
---
R1 by Allies,

I estimate about 14 emails for the first impulse, though perhaps only 10 if all the German attacks on Poland can be conducted as a simgle email.
For the 2nd impulse, I would guess maybe 12 emails, since I do not expect a lot of naval combats.

In summary, I believe there are 3 required emails in an impulse + 4 per naval combat and + 2 per land combat.

The emails from the non-phasing player should be very fast to do and capable of being turned around in a hour or less. For the phasing side, there are a lot more decisions (duh!).


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 37
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 7:21:49 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3137
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Playing PBEM using CWiF where the phasing player is expected to take reasonable actions for the nonphasing player, unless specifically told not to do so, I have found that only 1 to 3 emails per impulse have been needed from S/O39 to M/A40 and then gradually increasing in number as the fighting gets more widespread and involved. By the time Russia and Germany are at war it increases to perhaps 6 emails per impulse and after the US gets into the war a furhter increase is usual.

By J/A43 typically some 350 emails have been sent.  Of course this method of playing leaves a lot of decision making to the phasing player for the nonphasing one. This is the area where the MWiF standing orders should be able to work a lot better for the nonphasing player than the past CWiF play.  Hopefully the total number of Emails can be reduced compared to my CWiF experiences.

Lars






(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 38
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 8:25:03 AM   
Greywolf

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/15/2000
Status: offline
About ground support for the defender, I think that preset value wont be enough because there is another thing you need to know about the attacker ground support than his amount : his escort.

The decision is thus more complicated as your bomber escort will be flying as 'interceptor'  against the opponent bomber escort but will cost air mission, while your interceptor wont. And that is not really the same thing than Intercepting and Bombing.

Let say my opponent is sending Ground Support, I have a weak FTR that can intercept but wont as he is useless, I have Ground Support avaliable but without other escort. I need to know the value of the ennemy escort(and potential interceptor) to see if I need to escort my own GS even adding a feeble escort to soak up losses if there is heavy FTR. I also need to set a rule that I will abort the round after the weak FTR is killed.

Let say I have many FTR that can intercept but my LND are weak and small in rating. I can be enticed to send it if my opponent have a lot of FTR protecting his Ground Support because he simply could soak up losses for my FTR. That is a Ground Support mission that I wont fly if I already have the upper hand in FTR or there is no escort...

Also you need to set a rule about the abort as the Ground Strike is different as it is interception and escort, you could want to abort : when your bombers are clear through, when your opponent bomber are gone, when you have no more escort, only when there is no more bomber from any side, never. You have to set your aims at : having you GS go through, having his GS stopped, killing your opponent planes, saving your planes. Quite a lot of decision to make ( and a +1 for the Netplay over PBEM :p ).

_____________________________

Lt. Col. Ivan 'Greywolf' Kerensky

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 39
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 9:06:01 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

About ground support for the defender, I think that preset value wont be enough because there is another thing you need to know about the attacker ground support than his amount : his escort.

The decision is thus more complicated as your bomber escort will be flying as 'interceptor'  against the opponent bomber escort but will cost air mission, while your interceptor wont. And that is not really the same thing than Intercepting and Bombing.

Let say my opponent is sending Ground Support, I have a weak FTR that can intercept but wont as he is useless, I have Ground Support avaliable but without other escort. I need to know the value of the ennemy escort(and potential interceptor) to see if I need to escort my own GS even adding a feeble escort to soak up losses if there is heavy FTR. I also need to set a rule that I will abort the round after the weak FTR is killed.

Let say I have many FTR that can intercept but my LND are weak and small in rating. I can be enticed to send it if my opponent have a lot of FTR protecting his Ground Support because he simply could soak up losses for my FTR. That is a Ground Support mission that I wont fly if I already have the upper hand in FTR or there is no escort...

Also you need to set a rule about the abort as the Ground Strike is different as it is interception and escort, you could want to abort : when your bombers are clear through, when your opponent bomber are gone, when you have no more escort, only when there is no more bomber from any side, never. You have to set your aims at : having you GS go through, having his GS stopped, killing your opponent planes, saving your planes. Quite a lot of decision to make ( and a +1 for the Netplay over PBEM :p ).

Ground support bombers and all interceptors do not require air missions.

The nitty-gritty of the air-to-air combat et al, is in Section V of the PBEM sequence of play (it is not part of SO 19). I have very long notes for each SO in the air-to-air combat subphase. Once I get the end-of-turn phases figured out, I'll reduce those long paragraphs to something more managable (and post them here).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Greywolf)
Post #: 40
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 10:12:39 AM   
Greywolf

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 11/15/2000
Status: offline
Yes, but they 'use' the planes as they turn them down... that is what I mean :)

And I would love to read more about the decision process of the AIO.

_____________________________

Lt. Col. Ivan 'Greywolf' Kerensky

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 41
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 4:06:30 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1676
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I would also suggest adding to the PBEM player's guide that it would help a great, great deal to not use Bounce Combat in a pure PBEM game. I never want to use Bounce Combat anyway as there is only so much time in the day. WiF is an abstract game and air combat represents when the steady attritional losses all military units experience finally accumulate to the point that the unit is no longer useful. It is not a tactical air combat game. (Don't forget the air units are a bit abstract too and don't always consist of pure squadrons of this or that model plane flying by the hundreds). Don't even get me started on the new Fighter Bounce option in paper WiF. Anyway, Bounce Combat via email would be a horror, imo.

I think the land combats will be quite often simpler than you are predicting. There is not always defensive air, the attacker frequently makes all of the decisions (retreats, table choice, etc.). I would hope that a Standing Order could be to see all the combat results at once and then make any necessary loss decisions on the defender's part. The attacker would have to agree to this, but anything that saves an email would be helpful.

I'm presuming that the non-phasing Standing Order email could go out with their re-org decisions in the previous impulse, particularly for the side moving first that would know the weather in their following impluse? Maybe it could just be a part of every email?

Couldn't Emergency HQ Supply be part of SO 23 or SO 20? (with that 'specific for each vulnerable hex' tag?)

I guess I would be grateful if an opponent had a minor set up in advance via a Standing Order, but I think I would be rather unlikely to use this, except for Denmark perhaps.

Looks like Air Transport could use one of those V1=>V5 notes for relevant air combat too.


I'm trying to think of an example, but could the game emails perhaps initally keep a few things 'secret' from the receiving player. The attacker could make decisions...the email would go out...the defender would make their decisions....the attacking email could then reveal something, like a combat result, then the defender could make any necessary additional decisions. For example, the attacking player makes a land attack against two defending units. The defender has to pick the combat table. He does, clicking a radio button. Then the program reveals the die roll, which calls for a single defender casualty. The defender makes this choice and then an email is finally returned to the attacker. Maybe land combat isn't the best example with die roll results coming in from the eMWiF server or however that works. Maybe this idea would have more application in naval or air combat, maybe particularly with Surprise Points. I'll try and look at the email sequence there in more detail later.

Oh and in naval combat it would be super nice if the program could use the new Randomised Surface/Naval Air Combat Losses optional rules. I realize these are newer than the rules set to be used for MWiF. But they would be a huge time saver in naval combat. They are quite more realistic than the defender-pick-losses-in-surface-combat system that we have now. The main reason not to use them in person is the hassle of randomly picking a target from, say, 11 ships. With a computer this would not be a problem at all and would be a big time saver in any type of play; solitaire/AI/netplay and most especially PBEM. Yes, you could no longer apply your Abort results to all your previously damaged ships like WiF players do currently. And your NAVs couldn't sink the TRS still loaded with the HQ-A after the first wave has gone ashore like you can now. But navies hardly suffer enough attrition in the game and a few less ships to move around as the game goes along would not be a bad thing I don't think. (Yes I like the new double-results-on-cruisers optional for use with the CLs).

(in reply to Greywolf)
Post #: 42
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 4:55:23 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1676
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
oh, and I am presuming the program can always eliminate an email step where there is no decision to be made ... i.e. there are no nearby HQs, defensive SB/GS possibilities, or table choice to be made in land combat. or heck, even select-casualty decisions. when none of those are possible, the whole attacker impulse right through the re-org phase could arrive in a single email with all results bundled inside?

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 43
RE: PBEM - 5/28/2009 7:36:43 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

oh, and I am presuming the program can always eliminate an email step where there is no decision to be made ... i.e. there are no nearby HQs, defensive SB/GS possibilities, or table choice to be made in land combat. or heck, even select-casualty decisions. when none of those are possible, the whole attacker impulse right through the re-org phase could arrive in a single email with all results bundled inside?

Yes. If there is no decision to be made by the other side, the current decision maker just moves on to his next decision and the whole shebang is sent over as a single email.

A player can review & revise his Standing Orders any time he is the decision maker (i.e., preparing his next email). MWIF will prompt him to do just that for the SOs that are likely to be invoked during his opponent's next turn as decision maker.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 44
RE: PBEM - 5/29/2009 2:36:16 AM   
Gurggulk


Posts: 41
Joined: 5/28/2009
Status: offline
I'm thinking that playing the Barbarrosa and Guadalcanal scenarios might be a good way to learn how to PBEM.

Once the system down understood, on to the Global war.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 45
RE: PBEM - 6/2/2009 7:50:42 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1676
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Well, if you ask the guys who want to play over the internet, NetPlay is the most important thing to do first. And if you ask the guys who want to play by email, the PBEM system needs to be worked on first.

I need them all to work.



this isn't quite the thread for it, so I'm posting this AI/Real quote in the PBEM thread, but really I think both NetPlay and PBEM need each other.

Maybe NetPlay wouldn't need PBEM, ...IF... once you connect to the other player, your game is immediately 'synced' on both machines. This would be needed so large complicated moves, such as a land impulse on the eastern front, or a global naval impulse, could be 'composed' offline. If that could be done and then emailed to the other machine, that would work fine - and then you are partially doing a PBEM. I really doubt many folks would want to play pure NetPlay, with pieces only moved while two or more machines are connected.

PBEM would be hugely aided by being able to switch to live NetPlay at certain points, such as a critical land-combat phase on the eastern front, or naval combat featuring activations over the globe in the same impulse. [quick PBEM naval combat idea .... make all first round combats in all areas simultaneous, handled in the same email. A definite change to the sequence of play though.]

I can't recall the thinking on how much MWiF 1.0 will handle the two types of game play being interchangeable though I think there has been a decision.

Another idea/question....if there is a powerful 'override' feature in the game that could let other people, yes even the Enemy Team Leader perhaps, move pieces/make decisions, things could be speeded up greatly in PBEM. Such a feature would have to have each side/player agree and maybe require a password or something. Maybe the phasing email that comes in would include an option to approve decisions made to your non-phasing pieces, so the phasing player couldn't secretly move your infantry off an important hex in some other unnoticed corner of the war. That way the side making decisions could roll through say an air combat using live internet chat or a phone call, and enter the non-phasing player's choice of a "DX" result in air combat, for example.


(in reply to Gurggulk)
Post #: 46
RE: PBEM - 6/2/2009 9:50:07 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Well, if you ask the guys who want to play over the internet, NetPlay is the most important thing to do first. And if you ask the guys who want to play by email, the PBEM system needs to be worked on first.

I need them all to work.



this isn't quite the thread for it, so I'm posting this AI/Real quote in the PBEM thread, but really I think both NetPlay and PBEM need each other.

Maybe NetPlay wouldn't need PBEM, ...IF... once you connect to the other player, your game is immediately 'synced' on both machines. This would be needed so large complicated moves, such as a land impulse on the eastern front, or a global naval impulse, could be 'composed' offline. If that could be done and then emailed to the other machine, that would work fine - and then you are partially doing a PBEM. I really doubt many folks would want to play pure NetPlay, with pieces only moved while two or more machines are connected.

PBEM would be hugely aided by being able to switch to live NetPlay at certain points, such as a critical land-combat phase on the eastern front, or naval combat featuring activations over the globe in the same impulse. [quick PBEM naval combat idea .... make all first round combats in all areas simultaneous, handled in the same email. A definite change to the sequence of play though.]

I can't recall the thinking on how much MWiF 1.0 will handle the two types of game play being interchangeable though I think there has been a decision.

Another idea/question....if there is a powerful 'override' feature in the game that could let other people, yes even the Enemy Team Leader perhaps, move pieces/make decisions, things could be speeded up greatly in PBEM. Such a feature would have to have each side/player agree and maybe require a password or something. Maybe the phasing email that comes in would include an option to approve decisions made to your non-phasing pieces, so the phasing player couldn't secretly move your infantry off an important hex in some other unnoticed corner of the war. That way the side making decisions could roll through say an air combat using live internet chat or a phone call, and enter the non-phasing player's choice of a "DX" result in air combat, for example.



Controlling the other side's units are not part of the PBEM design. The Standing Orders are for that.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 47
RE: PBEM - 6/12/2009 7:35:42 PM   
c92nichj


Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline
Playing WIF PBEM for 7 years now using both CWIF, Cyberboard and Vassal I think that early in the war during winter only 1 email per impulse might be needed and maybe 3 mails during summer impulses. One or two during emails at End of turn.
Further on the meails might be 5 in a turn or during particulary large naval battles even more than that but that is rare.
Still at this pace getting to '44 by a set of pretty active players still will take close to two years of playing.
10-14 emails per impulse sounds almost unplayable.


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Playing PBEM using CWiF where the phasing player is expected to take reasonable actions for the nonphasing player, unless specifically told not to do so, I have found that only 1 to 3 emails per impulse have been needed from S/O39 to M/A40 and then gradually increasing in number as the fighting gets more widespread and involved. By the time Russia and Germany are at war it increases to perhaps 6 emails per impulse and after the US gets into the war a furhter increase is usual.

By J/A43 typically some 350 emails have been sent.  Of course this method of playing leaves a lot of decision making to the phasing player for the nonphasing one. This is the area where the MWiF standing orders should be able to work a lot better for the nonphasing player than the past CWiF play.  Hopefully the total number of Emails can be reduced compared to my CWiF experiences.

Lars








(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 48
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 12:04:05 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
I might have been posting some of the forms for PBEM in the Interface Design thread. I'll try to make all future posts about PBEM forms to this thread.

Here is the form for the first three Standing Orders with actual data. The program initializes Germany as the aligning country by default (this is the Global War scenario). To change the major power to Italy or Japan, you click on the minor country and then click on the radio button to the right. A fairly painless process, though there are a lot of minor countries to process.

I plan on adding buttons that provide the ability to save and restore these settings to/from disk. When I do that, I'll have the beta testers come up with a better default than this current one.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)
Post #: 49
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 10:26:28 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2260
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Any value in putting the countries most likely to be aligned at the top of the list? Saves trawling through Angola, Argentina etc.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 50
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 5:17:53 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Any value in putting the countries most likely to be aligned at the top of the list? Saves trawling through Angola, Argentina etc.

Cheers, Neilster


Not much. They all need this decision made -and once you make it, you are unlikely to change your mind later. Being able to find a specific country using alphabetical order is probably easiest.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 51
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 6:58:38 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 664
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Any value in putting the countries most likely to be aligned at the top of the list? Saves trawling through Angola, Argentina etc.

Cheers, Neilster


Not much. They all need this decision made -and once you make it, you are unlikely to change your mind later. Being able to find a specific country using alphabetical order is probably easiest.


Or maybe 3 sections, potential Axis minor countries, potential Allies minor countries, and a third one for the others which, in most campaigns, we won't deal with them?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 52
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 7:30:31 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4316
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Any value in putting the countries most likely to be aligned at the top of the list? Saves trawling through Angola, Argentina etc.

Cheers, Neilster


Not much. They all need this decision made -and once you make it, you are unlikely to change your mind later. Being able to find a specific country using alphabetical order is probably easiest.

Is it the type of list where you can type FREX 'r' and be taken to the first entry beginning with 'R'. If so, there should be no issue.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 53
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 7:47:08 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Any value in putting the countries most likely to be aligned at the top of the list? Saves trawling through Angola, Argentina etc.

Cheers, Neilster


Not much. They all need this decision made -and once you make it, you are unlikely to change your mind later. Being able to find a specific country using alphabetical order is probably easiest.


Or maybe 3 sections, potential Axis minor countries, potential Allies minor countries, and a third one for the others which, in most campaigns, we won't deal with them?


PBEM Standing Orders are already more comlpex than I would like. Further subdivisions of the information would make it more so - in my opinion. This list runs to a third partial 'page', so it isn't that long. If we were listing all the countries (250+) then I would agree with you. But only minor countries can be declared war on.

This 'problem' is going to come up again in SO 4 (which I am working on presently). The task there is to decide where to place: (1) your reserve units if a major power declares war on you, and (2) where to place the units of an attacked minor. But again, this is a much reduced list of countries, since only those which have units are considered. By the way, most major powers have none or very few reserve units to place on the map. The USSR is the sole exception, but even then many of their reserve units are required to arrive in specific cities.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 54
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 7:48:25 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Any value in putting the countries most likely to be aligned at the top of the list? Saves trawling through Angola, Argentina etc.

Cheers, Neilster


Not much. They all need this decision made -and once you make it, you are unlikely to change your mind later. Being able to find a specific country using alphabetical order is probably easiest.

Is it the type of list where you can type FREX 'r' and be taken to the first entry beginning with 'R'. If so, there should be no issue.

No. See my reply in the immediate previous post.

===
And thanks to both of you for thinking about this and providing me with feedback/advice.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 55
RE: PBEM - 7/24/2009 8:33:06 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
I might be mistaking something here.  But these are decisions that will be made once and rarely changed.  I believe Steve also said he will have code to allow us to save these as a preference file of some sort.  So literally I think it will be a matter of when we first play the game PBEM we will need to come up with the decisions on these standing orders forms.  Then we save it, and it rarely if ever changes.  I don't think the list being sorted alterative methods is much of an issue.

What I envision happening in a typical game is.

Step 1 - Oh I am playing the axis
Step 2 - Load up my axis preferences
Step 3 - Mmmm I am playing John
Step 4 - Make some tweaks based upon what I know about John
Step 5 - Come up with a general strategy
Step 6 - More tweaks to adjust for my general stategy

Then occasionally during the game I will make adjustments to a particular country depending on how things work out, like wanting Italy to align rather than Germany or deciding I know want to deny a claim on Bessarabia.


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 56
RE: PBEM - 7/25/2009 12:27:03 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
But only minor countries can be declared war on.

Is this really so ?

There are Territories that I would like to be authorized to DoW them.

For example, when Free France gets conquered and New Caledonia was Free French, as a Territory it becomes neutral. What force is preventing Japan to DoW New Caledonia to invade it and benefit from its generous resource point ?

Same for Island and Greenland. What force on Earth prevents the Germans from DoWing Island after it have became neutral when Denmark fell ?


Oh oh.... I'm reading the rule, and I see that RAW 9.2 How to declare war only speaks about Major Powers and Minor Countries. Would this be this all mighty rule that prevents the Germans their rights on neutral Island, or the Imperial Japan his deserved rights on neutral (finally liberated from French influence) New Caledonia ???

Well well, digging deeper into the rules, I find that I find no restrictions indeed to enter a neutral territory. Would this be allowed without even DoWing it ? RAW 11.11.5 Active major powers only speaks about entering major powers or minor countries, not territories, only the last sentense says "units cannot enter a country controlled by another power on their side without permission of the owner."

By saying "country" it can encompass territories, but again it don't talks about neutral Territories.

So I think I'm going to ask this to Harry Rowland.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 57
RE: PBEM - 7/25/2009 2:18:20 PM   
coregames


Posts: 469
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
But only minor countries can be declared war on.

Is this really so ?

There are Territories that I would like to be authorized to DoW them.

For example, when Free France gets conquered and New Caledonia was Free French, as a Territory it becomes neutral. What force is preventing Japan to DoW New Caledonia to invade it and benefit from its generous resource point ?

Same for Island and Greenland. What force on Earth prevents the Germans from DoWing Island after it have became neutral when Denmark fell ?


Oh oh.... I'm reading the rule, and I see that RAW 9.2 How to declare war only speaks about Major Powers and Minor Countries. Would this be this all mighty rule that prevents the Germans their rights on neutral Island, or the Imperial Japan his deserved rights on neutral (finally liberated from French influence) New Caledonia ???

Well well, digging deeper into the rules, I find that I find no restrictions indeed to enter a neutral territory. Would this be allowed without even DoWing it ? RAW 11.11.5 Active major powers only speaks about entering major powers or minor countries, not territories, only the last sentense says "units cannot enter a country controlled by another power on their side without permission of the owner."

By saying "country" it can encompass territories, but again it don't talks about neutral Territories.

So I think I'm going to ask this to Harry Rowland.


I believe all the territories in a sea area for which starting control is not specified are considered to be controlled by the power that is listed next to the sea area's name. There is no such thing as neutral territory in WiF, only neutral countries.

_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 58
RE: PBEM - 7/25/2009 2:32:28 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
But only minor countries can be declared war on.

Is this really so ?

There are Territories that I would like to be authorized to DoW them.

For example, when Free France gets conquered and New Caledonia was Free French, as a Territory it becomes neutral. What force is preventing Japan to DoW New Caledonia to invade it and benefit from its generous resource point ?

Same for Island and Greenland. What force on Earth prevents the Germans from DoWing Island after it have became neutral when Denmark fell ?


Oh oh.... I'm reading the rule, and I see that RAW 9.2 How to declare war only speaks about Major Powers and Minor Countries. Would this be this all mighty rule that prevents the Germans their rights on neutral Island, or the Imperial Japan his deserved rights on neutral (finally liberated from French influence) New Caledonia ???

Well well, digging deeper into the rules, I find that I find no restrictions indeed to enter a neutral territory. Would this be allowed without even DoWing it ? RAW 11.11.5 Active major powers only speaks about entering major powers or minor countries, not territories, only the last sentense says "units cannot enter a country controlled by another power on their side without permission of the owner."

By saying "country" it can encompass territories, but again it don't talks about neutral Territories.

So I think I'm going to ask this to Harry Rowland.


I believe all the territories in a sea area for which starting control is not specified are considered to be controlled by the power that is listed next to the sea area's name. There is no such thing as neutral territory in WiF, only neutral countries.

Initialy, yes, but when a Minor Country is completely conquered, the Territories it controlled become neutral again. As I said in my examples, this can happen with New Caledonia (it happened in a game I played), with Iceland, Greenland, Crete....

But the answer to the question is within the rules :

RAW 13.7.1 Conquest
Complete conquest
7th para
Each remaining territory and conquered home country it controls becomes controlled by the major power with the greatest influence in that country or territory (see incomplete conquest above). If no-one has any influence there, that territory or home country becomes neutral. Each neutral territory may subsequently be declared war on as if it were a minor country.

So territories in that case are treated as minor countries. They can be DoWed, and IMO they count as minor countries for US Entry effect.

(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 59
RE: PBEM - 7/25/2009 4:53:51 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18356
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
But only minor countries can be declared war on.

Is this really so ?

There are Territories that I would like to be authorized to DoW them.

For example, when Free France gets conquered and New Caledonia was Free French, as a Territory it becomes neutral. What force is preventing Japan to DoW New Caledonia to invade it and benefit from its generous resource point ?

Same for Island and Greenland. What force on Earth prevents the Germans from DoWing Island after it have became neutral when Denmark fell ?


Oh oh.... I'm reading the rule, and I see that RAW 9.2 How to declare war only speaks about Major Powers and Minor Countries. Would this be this all mighty rule that prevents the Germans their rights on neutral Island, or the Imperial Japan his deserved rights on neutral (finally liberated from French influence) New Caledonia ???

Well well, digging deeper into the rules, I find that I find no restrictions indeed to enter a neutral territory. Would this be allowed without even DoWing it ? RAW 11.11.5 Active major powers only speaks about entering major powers or minor countries, not territories, only the last sentense says "units cannot enter a country controlled by another power on their side without permission of the owner."

By saying "country" it can encompass territories, but again it don't talks about neutral Territories.

So I think I'm going to ask this to Harry Rowland.


I believe all the territories in a sea area for which starting control is not specified are considered to be controlled by the power that is listed next to the sea area's name. There is no such thing as neutral territory in WiF, only neutral countries.

Initialy, yes, but when a Minor Country is completely conquered, the Territories it controlled become neutral again. As I said in my examples, this can happen with New Caledonia (it happened in a game I played), with Iceland, Greenland, Crete....

But the answer to the question is within the rules :

RAW 13.7.1 Conquest
Complete conquest
7th para
Each remaining territory and conquered home country it controls becomes controlled by the major power with the greatest influence in that country or territory (see incomplete conquest above). If no-one has any influence there, that territory or home country becomes neutral. Each neutral territory may subsequently be declared war on as if it were a minor country.

So territories in that case are treated as minor countries. They can be DoWed, and IMO they count as minor countries for US Entry effect.

There is code to convert territories to minor countries. I have looked at it in passing though I have not validated it. I am not sure how you conquer one if these things, since they do not have a capital or factory. Perhaps that is in the code too.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: PBEM Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.129