PBEM

[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?).

[Taxman66]

Maybe changing the darkness of the shade(s) would help you?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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).

[Centuur]

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.[:)]

[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...)...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

[trooper76]

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.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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.

[trooper76]

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..

[Red Prince]

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..

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.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

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..

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.

[Wuffer]

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.