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

Question on Netplay

 
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 >> Question on Netplay Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question on Netplay - 3/20/2012 2:49:21 PM   
troop76

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/18/2007
Status: offline
I'm just wondering if Netplay will allow async play? ie a player is able to make a move without the other player being logged on? I'm thinking with the Matrix dedicated server, it could maybe store the Gamelog until the next player logs on, syncs up his game, does his phase and then shoots out his gamelog to the cloud for the other player to log back on.

Maybe its a pipe dream but it would be damn cool. For one it would replace the need for PBEM, second...I'm not a fan of Netplay...my gaming hours are irregular at best so a async style of play would be best and would allow a game to move much faster...and WIF is well suited to that.

So any chance of that with Netplay?
Post #: 1
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/20/2012 4:48:10 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

I'm just wondering if Netplay will allow async play? ie a player is able to make a move without the other player being logged on? I'm thinking with the Matrix dedicated server, it could maybe store the Gamelog until the next player logs on, syncs up his game, does his phase and then shoots out his gamelog to the cloud for the other player to log back on.

Maybe its a pipe dream but it would be damn cool. For one it would replace the need for PBEM, second...I'm not a fan of Netplay...my gaming hours are irregular at best so a async style of play would be best and would allow a game to move much faster...and WIF is well suited to that.

So any chance of that with Netplay?

I have 3 answers: yes, maybe, and no.

The real problem with your proposed method of playing is the game itself. Very few places in the rules have one player make a lot of moves without requiring decisions by his opponent.

For instance, the 8 air missions all start with the non-phasing player deciding about Combat Air Patrol, then the phasing side flies it bombers and escorts, and back to the non-phasing side for defensive interceptors, then the phasing side flies attacking interceptors, and the air-to-air combat has numerous decisions by both sides. The non-phasing decides about anti-aircraft fire, the air missions go in, and then both sides return their air units to base.

Naval movement is about equally bad with naval units able to intercept and force combat on enemy naval units that enter their sea area.

Land movement is one place where the phasing side can move freely while their opponent watches passively. But even there, overrun enemy units (air and naval) that are forced to rebase have their moves plotted by the non-phasing side.

So the answer is NO.

Now for PBEM, I have designed an entire system of Standing Orders which enables the non-phasing player to say what he will do in certain situations. This enables the Artificial Assistant to made moves on his behalf by following the conditional logic defined in the Standing Orders. This has a very minor affect on the normal sequence of play. The disadvantage is that the non-phasing player doesn't have as much control as he would have if he were making each decision in real time, with complete knowledge about the tactical situation. I also have yet to finish coding the PBEM implementation.

So the answer is MAYBE, depending on the players' willingness to accept some compromise in their ability to control their units' movements.

However, I intend to make it possible for players to switch between NetPlay and PBEM. This would let them play over the internet for crucial places in the game where both players want to control precisely what their units do, and then switch to PBEM for the times when Standing Orders would work well enough. Which mode of play they use would be entirely up to the players.

So the answer is obviously YES.


There is also the technical question (which I can not answer at this time) on how much data can be stored on the Matrix Server. I don't think this will be a problem since the amount of data will be small - but I really don't know the answer since there could be several other technical impediments to assuming the system is cloud-like in its implementation.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to troop76)
Post #: 2
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/20/2012 6:28:21 PM   
troop76

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/18/2007
Status: offline
Thanks Shannon for the answer.
The irony of MWIF is that through its exactness it makes PBEM actually slower than playing say through Cyberboard...though with less errors.

I like the idea of being able to switch between netplay and PBEM....I guess I would like it all be available through Netplay, not having to resort to emailing each other files.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 3
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/20/2012 6:55:47 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

Thanks Shannon for the answer.
The irony of MWIF is that through its exactness it makes PBEM actually slower than playing say through Cyberboard...though with less errors.

I like the idea of being able to switch between netplay and PBEM....I guess I would like it all be available through Netplay, not having to resort to emailing each other files.

When I know more about the technical implementation of the Matrix server, I'll post more about this. Right now I have only suppositions and speculation to go by.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to troop76)
Post #: 4
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/20/2012 8:33:17 PM   
paulderynck


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: troop76

I'm just wondering if Netplay will allow async play? ie a player is able to make a move without the other player being logged on? I'm thinking with the Matrix dedicated server, it could maybe store the Gamelog until the next player logs on, syncs up his game, does his phase and then shoots out his gamelog to the cloud for the other player to log back on.

Maybe its a pipe dream but it would be damn cool. For one it would replace the need for PBEM, second...I'm not a fan of Netplay...my gaming hours are irregular at best so a async style of play would be best and would allow a game to move much faster...and WIF is well suited to that.

So any chance of that with Netplay?

I have 3 answers: yes, maybe, and no.

The real problem with your proposed method of playing is the game itself. Very few places in the rules have one player make a lot of moves without requiring decisions by his opponent.

For instance, the 8 air missions all start with the non-phasing player deciding about Combat Air Patrol, then the phasing side flies it bombers and escorts, and back to the non-phasing side for defensive interceptors, then the phasing side flies attacking interceptors, and the air-to-air combat has numerous decisions by both sides. The non-phasing decides about anti-aircraft fire, the air missions go in, and then both sides return their air units to base.

Naval movement is about equally bad with naval units able to intercept and force combat on enemy naval units that enter their sea area.

Land movement is one place where the phasing side can move freely while their opponent watches passively. But even there, overrun enemy units (air and naval) that are forced to rebase have their moves plotted by the non-phasing side.

So the answer is NO.

Now for PBEM, I have designed an entire system of Standing Orders which enables the non-phasing player to say what he will do in certain situations. This enables the Artificial Assistant to made moves on his behalf by following the conditional logic defined in the Standing Orders. This has a very minor affect on the normal sequence of play. The disadvantage is that the non-phasing player doesn't have as much control as he would have if he were making each decision in real time, with complete knowledge about the tactical situation. I also have yet to finish coding the PBEM implementation.

So the answer is MAYBE, depending on the players' willingness to accept some compromise in their ability to control their units' movements.

However, I intend to make it possible for players to switch between NetPlay and PBEM. This would let them play over the internet for crucial places in the game where both players want to control precisely what their units do, and then switch to PBEM for the times when Standing Orders would work well enough. Which mode of play they use would be entirely up to the players.

So the answer is obviously YES.


There is also the technical question (which I can not answer at this time) on how much data can be stored on the Matrix Server. I don't think this will be a problem since the amount of data will be small - but I really don't know the answer since there could be several other technical impediments to assuming the system is cloud-like in its implementation.

Perhaps here's another 'Yes' (sort of)? So one side has a ton of Land moves to make and the other has nothing to do. They could just leave their connection up and go make themselves a sandwich and replenish their beverage... Or turn in for the night and save the game the next day.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 5
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/21/2012 3:18:56 AM   
SewerStarFish


Posts: 304
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline
So if two players in very different time zones want to play they will have to use the standing orders of PBEM? Or is there some way that two people with OCD and great patience can PBEM step by step?

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 6
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/21/2012 4:47:35 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

So if two players in very different time zones want to play they will have to use the standing orders of PBEM? Or is there some way that two people with OCD and great patience can PBEM step by step?

Step by step is very difficult. A single ground support phase could require dozens of emails. You might have the patience to do that occasionally, but for the entire game? I don't think so. I speak as someone who use to play chess by mail (postcards) for years (>50 games).

---

My wife calls her father every Sunday at 8:30 in the morning Honolulu time, which is 8:30 in the morning Switzerland time. You could probably set up a weekend game schedule of 7:00 - 12:00, even for people on the opposite sides of the planet. It wouldn't be that bad if the time difference were 'only' 6 hours instead of 12. That seems more feasible to me than sending endless emails just to get through a single air mission phase (there are 8 air missions possible per impulse). The naval stuff could take even longer when both sides have a lot of ships at sea.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 3/21/2012 4:49:41 AM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to SewerStarFish)
Post #: 7
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/21/2012 6:46:42 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 664
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
Is there a way to program my orders so I, for instance, will not do CAP during the port attack nor strategic bombardment phase this turn or impulse? in a PBeM game I mean.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 3/21/2012 6:48:35 PM >


_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 8
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/21/2012 7:11:07 PM   
troop76

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 12/18/2007
Status: offline
I believe that's what the 'standing orders' functionality will be for.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 9
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/21/2012 8:45:04 PM   
SewerStarFish


Posts: 304
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

So if two players in very different time zones want to play they will have to use the standing orders of PBEM? Or is there some way that two people with OCD and great patience can PBEM step by step?

Step by step is very difficult. A single ground support phase could require dozens of emails. You might have the patience to do that occasionally, but for the entire game? I don't think so. I speak as someone who use to play chess by mail (postcards) for years (>50 games).

---

My wife calls her father every Sunday at 8:30 in the morning Honolulu time, which is 8:30 in the morning Switzerland time. You could probably set up a weekend game schedule of 7:00 - 12:00, even for people on the opposite sides of the planet. It wouldn't be that bad if the time difference were 'only' 6 hours instead of 12. That seems more feasible to me than sending endless emails just to get through a single air mission phase (there are 8 air missions possible per impulse). The naval stuff could take even longer when both sides have a lot of ships at sea.



Well that's ok, I could never have OCD anyway. Those letters are in the wrong order.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 10
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/21/2012 8:47:42 PM   
Jimm


Posts: 580
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: York, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Perhaps here's another 'Yes' (sort of)? So one side has a ton of Land moves to make and the other has nothing to do. They could just leave their connection up and go make themselves a sandwich and replenish their beverage... Or turn in for the night and save the game the next day.


Perhaps game setup, scrapping etc at the start too.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 11
RE: Question on Netplay - 3/21/2012 8:59:50 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Perhaps here's another 'Yes' (sort of)? So one side has a ton of Land moves to make and the other has nothing to do. They could just leave their connection up and go make themselves a sandwich and replenish their beverage... Or turn in for the night and save the game the next day.


Perhaps game setup, scrapping etc at the start too.


Yes, and several of the end-of-turn phases (e.g., production planning and production).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Jimm)
Post #: 12
RE: Question on Netplay - 4/24/2012 8:37:40 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Is there a way to program my orders so I, for instance, will not do CAP during the port attack nor strategic bombardment phase this turn or impulse? in a PBeM game I mean.

I should have answered this more completely.

MWIF in general enables players to disable CAP (and some phases) for individual major powers by air mission. I think this screenshot gives the general idea of how it works. You can do this for all modes of play.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 13
RE: Question on Netplay - 4/25/2012 4:06:06 PM   
micheljq


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

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Question on Netplay Page: [1]
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

0.078