Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: PBEM - 7/28/2009 7:52:27 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 665
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.



I like this better already, thanks.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 91
RE: PBEM - 7/28/2009 7:55:22 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1423
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks.

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

Then just take the default setups at the start and review/revise them country by country when you believe it is important to do so.

Some players will want to examine all the minor countries and see what each one has in the way of units. For example, as a new player it would be very important to find out what each of the European minor countries has in the way of units.
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.


I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down…

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 92
RE: PBEM - 7/28/2009 8:00:42 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

Go ahead burn me down…


Prepares his flammenpanzer

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 93
RE: PBEM - 7/28/2009 8:25:15 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18411
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks.

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

Then just take the default setups at the start and review/revise them country by country when you believe it is important to do so.

Some players will want to examine all the minor countries and see what each one has in the way of units. For example, as a new player it would be very important to find out what each of the European minor countries has in the way of units.
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.


I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down…

If setting up the minor is easy to do, then what is the problem with having the player do it instead of the AIA?

If setting up a minor requires some thought, then that is what "playing the game" is all about.
===
I'm sorry, but MWIF requires dealing with a lot of different aspects of the war. Some players don't like {fill in the blank} and would prefer to have the AIA take care of that aspect of the game rather than make those decisions themselves. I do not see it as part of my task as the designer/programmer to alleviate all those 'annoyances', especially given that different players have different preferences. For me, the epitome of all that is to have the AI play both sides so the 'player' can just watch.

It reminds of my friend who use to write movie reviews ... he was set up on a blind date with a girl and took her to a foreign movie that had subtitles ... her comment was "Are we going to have to read this entire movie?".

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 94
RE: PBEM - 7/28/2009 8:32:49 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 665
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down…


I am not very warm for this idea of having AIO doing the setup for me either.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 7/28/2009 9:17:54 PM >

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 95
RE: PBEM - 7/28/2009 8:45:46 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1423
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: online
It is only a option... ( I found no image of me doing Seppuku )

< Message edited by peskpesk -- 7/28/2009 8:50:17 PM >


_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 96
RE: PBEM - 7/28/2009 9:23:46 PM   
Froonp


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.



I like this better already, thanks.

IMO this is the perfect solution here.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 97
RE: PBEM - 7/29/2009 1:12:42 AM   
BallyJ

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline

After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority"

I think this is a good idea. Standing orders are really something the players should have the ability to negotiate before the game starts.After all what some find as facinating decissions others see as minor details. The important thing is that players are happy with the system.
As an aside I have never seen a game develope where we the future players have had so much input. This is a great site.
regards John

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 98
RE: PBEM - 7/29/2009 8:39:27 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18411
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BallyJ


After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority"

I think this is a good idea. Standing orders are really something the players should have the ability to negotiate before the game starts.After all what some find as facinating decissions others see as minor details. The important thing is that players are happy with the system.
As an aside I have never seen a game develope where we the future players have had so much input. This is a great site.
regards John

Well, I would rather hear the complaints now, when I can modify the design, than hear them after people have bought the product and they are spoken in anger.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to BallyJ)
Post #: 99
RE: PBEM - 7/29/2009 2:43:49 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 665
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
That's why I am complaining now!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 100
RE: PBEM - 8/26/2011 12:44:30 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3384
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
On the players manual on PBEM I have one request. I'm having difficulties with the use of both blue and purple in these pages (being a little colourblind they look the same to me...). Is it possible to change the purple or the blue in another colour (Green?).

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 101
RE: PBEM - 8/26/2011 2:49:01 PM   
Taxman66


Posts: 132
Joined: 3/19/2008
Status: offline
Maybe changing the darkness of the shade(s) would help you?

_____________________________

"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 102
RE: PBEM - 8/26/2011 5:04:45 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18411
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

On the players manual on PBEM I have one request. I'm having difficulties with the use of both blue and purple in these pages (being a little colourblind they look the same to me...). Is it possible to change the purple or the blue in another colour (Green?).

I'll make sure the Matrix Editor does the final colors in ones that can be differentiated by everyone. I did that already for the Status Indicators so I have in hand a set of colors approved by (I forget who - some group that that specializes in this).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 103
RE: PBEM - 8/27/2011 10:03:46 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 3384
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Thanks. That would make things better. I have to say that on the whole, I haven't got a lot of problems with the maps and units on it. The Barbarossa and the China items in here are all good for me to see what's happening... Well done.


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 104
RE: PBEM - 9/20/2011 8:11:36 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3384
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
A question regarding PBEM (and perhaps also internetplay) and stacking limits...
If for example both the US and the CW player are moving land units in the movement phase and are both moving stacks into the same hex, causing overstacking at the end of the phase, units have to be destroyed, according to the rules... Is there a warning given to the players by the program, and if not, is there a warning that the players should communicate to prevent this in the manual? If I'm a player of the game, I wouldn't like a game to say that I have to destroy units, because my ally made a mistake (hey, I don't ever make mistakes in WiF , so you have to destroy you're units...)...


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 105
RE: PBEM - 9/20/2011 11:09:34 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18411
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

A question regarding PBEM (and perhaps also internetplay) and stacking limits...
If for example both the US and the CW player are moving land units in the movement phase and are both moving stacks into the same hex, causing overstacking at the end of the phase, units have to be destroyed, according to the rules... Is there a warning given to the players by the program, and if not, is there a warning that the players should communicate to prevent this in the manual? If I'm a player of the game, I wouldn't like a game to say that I have to destroy units, because my ally made a mistake (hey, I don't ever make mistakes in WiF , so you have to destroy you're units...)...


PBEM is for 2 players only so this isn't an issue there.

For NetPlay, the "Master Server" processes player moves/decisions one at a time and only does so if the sending computer had its version of the game up-to-date at the time of submission. If you arrive second and haven't 'seen' the other player's move, then you have to resubmit your move/decision.

As for overstacking, it is only permitted under certain circumstances and the player is forewarned of possible consequences.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 106
RE: PBEM - 9/21/2011 2:20:27 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3384
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

A question regarding PBEM (and perhaps also internetplay) and stacking limits...
If for example both the US and the CW player are moving land units in the movement phase and are both moving stacks into the same hex, causing overstacking at the end of the phase, units have to be destroyed, according to the rules... Is there a warning given to the players by the program, and if not, is there a warning that the players should communicate to prevent this in the manual? If I'm a player of the game, I wouldn't like a game to say that I have to destroy units, because my ally made a mistake (hey, I don't ever make mistakes in WiF , so you have to destroy you're units...)...


PBEM is for 2 players only so this isn't an issue there.

For NetPlay, the "Master Server" processes player moves/decisions one at a time and only does so if the sending computer had its version of the game up-to-date at the time of submission. If you arrive second and haven't 'seen' the other player's move, then you have to resubmit your move/decision.

As for overstacking, it is only permitted under certain circumstances and the player is forewarned of possible consequences.

So this means that the first player to submit his landmoves is the one who gets the hex... I've seen a game where both the US and the CW player had a large discussion about who was allowed to enter a victory hex (Rome, I believe it was) first, since both really needed it... Needless to say that I (as the USSR player) was very upset with the total lack of coöperation between both the US and the CW player at that time. Well, that was a lesson for us: never have the two brothers on the same team again.
Thanks for the answer.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 107
RE: PBEM - 9/21/2011 4:04:13 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3572
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

A question regarding PBEM (and perhaps also internetplay) and stacking limits...
If for example both the US and the CW player are moving land units in the movement phase and are both moving stacks into the same hex, causing overstacking at the end of the phase, units have to be destroyed, according to the rules... Is there a warning given to the players by the program, and if not, is there a warning that the players should communicate to prevent this in the manual? If I'm a player of the game, I wouldn't like a game to say that I have to destroy units, because my ally made a mistake (hey, I don't ever make mistakes in WiF , so you have to destroy you're units...)...


PBEM is for 2 players only so this isn't an issue there.

For NetPlay, the "Master Server" processes player moves/decisions one at a time and only does so if the sending computer had its version of the game up-to-date at the time of submission. If you arrive second and haven't 'seen' the other player's move, then you have to resubmit your move/decision.

As for overstacking, it is only permitted under certain circumstances and the player is forewarned of possible consequences.

So this means that the first player to submit his landmoves is the one who gets the hex... I've seen a game where both the US and the CW player had a large discussion about who was allowed to enter a victory hex (Rome, I believe it was) first, since both really needed it... Needless to say that I (as the USSR player) was very upset with the total lack of coöperation between both the US and the CW player at that time. Well, that was a lesson for us: never have the two brothers on the same team again.
Thanks for the answer.

I think the answer is, "yes, first in gets the prize". However, if I remember correctly (I'd have to find the documentation to be certain), there will be a messaging system you can use to discuss strategy. We actually have been using Skype to run some tests on NetPlay, so that we can talk while we're working. I don't know if that is something you can use with more than one person at a time (I haven't tried). However, you could place the 'call' when you need to, and send text messages to others, I think.

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 108
RE: PBEM - 9/21/2011 11:37:47 PM   
troop76

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/18/2007
Status: offline
is there going to be a quick way for a player to designate say, planes intercepting a ground strike or naval air interception....so instead of having to send a file every time the player could shoot a quick email saying which planes are intercepting and the moving player could make those moves? Same with multiple rounds of air combat and naval combat? Otherwise this could become a long and tedious process.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 109
RE: PBEM - 9/21/2011 11:50:44 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18411
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

is there going to be a quick way for a player to designate say, planes intercepting a ground strike or naval air interception....so instead of having to send a file every time the player could shoot a quick email saying which planes are intercepting and the moving player could make those moves? Same with multiple rounds of air combat and naval combat? Otherwise this could become a long and tedious process.

Welcome to the forum.

You should read the beginning of this thread to learn about Standing Orders. Their purpose is to solve exactly the problem you describe.

There is another thread somewhere that goes into more detail concerning the PBEM design. It is quite lengthy and contains posts that track the development process for PBEM in MWIF.

There is yet another thread concerning the Players Manual that has sections about PBEM.

But if you just go to the start of this thread and read through you should get the jist of how MWIF handles PBEM. The other threads only need to be ferreted out if you want to delve into the intricacies.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 9/21/2011 11:51:28 PM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to troop76)
Post #: 110
RE: PBEM - 9/23/2011 4:07:49 PM   
troop76

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/18/2007
Status: offline
Two things I noticed from initial read through:

Seems to be a lot of time spent on putting in standing orders for Minor country setups. Frankly in our cyberboard games this is something that we DONT have standing orders for and usually have the defending player send a file. Interesting that you are going the opposite direction in this.

Secondly you make the comment that you won't let the active player control the non-phasing players units at all and that reactions will be controlled by standing orders. This seems to make things overly complicated, and that standing orders would have to be extremely complicated...Just thing of all the different permutations (Sp?) of a multiple air combat rounds or naval combat. Giving the ability for the non-phasing player to just be able to say: oh first rond I got an AA, ok I abort your second bomber or vice versa, instead of sending a file, or setting up a SO For every possible combination seems to be much easier.
Unless I'm missing something. Reading walls of text is not my forte.

Or you could just have me test the thing..:D

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 111
RE: PBEM - 9/23/2011 10:29:25 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3572
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

Two things I noticed from initial read through:

Seems to be a lot of time spent on putting in standing orders for Minor country setups. Frankly in our cyberboard games this is something that we DONT have standing orders for and usually have the defending player send a file. Interesting that you are going the opposite direction in this.

Secondly you make the comment that you won't let the active player control the non-phasing players units at all and that reactions will be controlled by standing orders. This seems to make things overly complicated, and that standing orders would have to be extremely complicated...Just thing of all the different permutations (Sp?) of a multiple air combat rounds or naval combat. Giving the ability for the non-phasing player to just be able to say: oh first rond I got an AA, ok I abort your second bomber or vice versa, instead of sending a file, or setting up a SO For every possible combination seems to be much easier.
Unless I'm missing something. Reading walls of text is not my forte.

Or you could just have me test the thing..:D

Part of the PBEM setup is going to be the ability to prioritize using a variety of options -- maybe you want to protect your best Tactical LNDs, or maybe you prefer to keep your best Strategic LNDs in the game. After that, the AIA makes choices on behalf of the non-phasing player. You can set up the standing orders to be as simple or as complex as you want. In most cases, you'll only need to do this once in a while. Your standing orders can probably be kept "as is" from impulse to impulse and from turn to turn.

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to troop76)
Post #: 112
RE: PBEM - 9/24/2011 4:24:51 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18411
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince


quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

Two things I noticed from initial read through:

Seems to be a lot of time spent on putting in standing orders for Minor country setups. Frankly in our cyberboard games this is something that we DONT have standing orders for and usually have the defending player send a file. Interesting that you are going the opposite direction in this.

Secondly you make the comment that you won't let the active player control the non-phasing players units at all and that reactions will be controlled by standing orders. This seems to make things overly complicated, and that standing orders would have to be extremely complicated...Just thing of all the different permutations (Sp?) of a multiple air combat rounds or naval combat. Giving the ability for the non-phasing player to just be able to say: oh first rond I got an AA, ok I abort your second bomber or vice versa, instead of sending a file, or setting up a SO For every possible combination seems to be much easier.
Unless I'm missing something. Reading walls of text is not my forte.

Or you could just have me test the thing..:D

Part of the PBEM setup is going to be the ability to prioritize using a variety of options -- maybe you want to protect your best Tactical LNDs, or maybe you prefer to keep your best Strategic LNDs in the game. After that, the AIA makes choices on behalf of the non-phasing player. You can set up the standing orders to be as simple or as complex as you want. In most cases, you'll only need to do this once in a while. Your standing orders can probably be kept "as is" from impulse to impulse and from turn to turn.

Similarly for deciding which major power aligns minor countries when they are attacked by the other side. Each game will start with a default list of who aligns whom, which you can modify. You don't really have to go through them all and decide about each one - just pass a glance over the list and see if any of the defaults are not to your liking. Once you have done that, you can forget about that Standing Order for the rest of the game.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 113
RE: PBEM - 11/25/2013 3:18:03 AM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
the obvious solution for the younger generation would be sms

"Who in hell's name is giving you a sms at 4'o clock in the morning!!!"
"It's 6'o clock p.m., Darling - in Singapore! And my fleet is under attack! I MUST protect the ships!!"

Speaking of homes in flame, Tamagotchi for adults. .-)

sry, couldn't resist.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 114
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: PBEM Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.125