PBEM

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: micheljq



That can be helpful, is it complicated to code?



Fine with me.

The difficulty of coding depends on what level of detail is shown. For example, paradrops are pretty easy to do, but air transport is not. That's because the transported unit does not have to be stacked with the transport at the start of the phase. A large transport (capable of carrying a corps/army) could have dozens of potential 'passengers' and showing that would be complex. The same is true for air reorganization.

Listing bombers that might fly in a carpet bombing or ground strike mission wouldn't be hard, but throwing in fighter escorts would be much more difficult. Perhaps I could just list all the escorts.[&:] The complexity derives from some fighters being able to support some bombers to some destination hexes, but not all bombers to all hexes.

As I said, I am still trying to figure this out. So I am open to any and all ideas about this.

What information would you like to have available (other than scanning the entire map on your own) when entering Standing Orders for CAP? Remember that this design decision will form the foundation for the SO for fighter interception (next in my list of things to figure out for PBEM).

Well of course it would be wonderful to see all the targets and escorts and such. But I'd say all or nothing. Don't do Strat and Carpet Bombing if escorts and ATR missions are too formidable to undertake.

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Steve,

Honestly for CAP I think the VAST majority of times it will be used is when there is a sensetive target that is beyond intercept range of your fighters (or at least some fighters). I think the use of CAP will occur when folks think "I have this unit that is vulnerable and I really need to have air cover" and when you evaluate you say "I do not have any(enough) fighters within Intercept range, so I need to fly one or more birds in CAP".

In short then for CAP I wouldn't be too exhaustive in options of they are difficult to code, as I think CAP will be used sparingly, and when it is the hexes for CAP consideration will be few.

I agree entirely.

Ok.

Here is where I stand on CAP presently:

1 - For port attacks, strategic bombing, and ground support, I will show the table I presented of threatened hexes (i.e., destination hexes). The player has to figure out what enemy air units might fly to those hexes, though he will guaranteed that at least 1 bomber is capable of attacking the hex.

2 - For paradrops, air transport, and air reorganization, I will show the ATRs and possible fighters/escorts (i.e., enemy air units). The player will have to figure out possible destination hexes to protect with CAP.

3 - For carpet bombing/ground strikes, I will show the tactical/strategic bombers and possible fighters/escorts. Again, the player will have to figure out possible destination hexes.

I will mock up the form for #2 and #3 and post it here when I get a chance.

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Ok.

Here is where I stand on CAP presently:

1 - For port attacks, strategic bombing, and ground support, I will show the table I presented of threatened hexes (i.e., destination hexes). The player has to figure out what enemy air units might fly to those hexes, though he will guaranteed that at least 1 bomber is capable of attacking the hex.

2 - For paradrops, air transport, and air reorganization, I will show the ATRs and possible fighters/escorts (i.e., enemy air units). The player will have to figure out possible destination hexes to protect with CAP.

3 - For carpet bombing/ground strikes, I will show the tactical/strategic bombers and possible fighters/escorts. Again, the player will have to figure out possible destination hexes.

I will mock up the form for #2 and #3 and post it here when I get a chance.

I think this is more than sufficient for CAP. In the rare occasions its thought to be needed one can use the information to know which/how many CAP fighters to fly. Hopefully some of this code will be able to be used elsewhere too!

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Ok.

Here is where I stand on CAP presently:

1 - For port attacks, strategic bombing, and ground support, I will show the table I presented of threatened hexes (i.e., destination hexes). The player has to figure out what enemy air units might fly to those hexes, though he will guaranteed that at least 1 bomber is capable of attacking the hex.

2 - For paradrops, air transport, and air reorganization, I will show the ATRs and possible fighters/escorts (i.e., enemy air units). The player will have to figure out possible destination hexes to protect with CAP.

3 - For carpet bombing/ground strikes, I will show the tactical/strategic bombers and possible fighters/escorts. Again, the player will have to figure out possible destination hexes.

I will mock up the form for #2 and #3 and post it here when I get a chance.

I think this is more than sufficient for CAP. In the rare occasions its thought to be needed one can use the information to know which/how many CAP fighters to fly. Hopefully some of this code will be able to be used elsewhere too!

Yes.

I always try to do the easiest stuff first and then build on that. As I work I get a better understanding of not only what should be done but how to do it (i.e., code it).

[Lützow]

I got a question about PBEM and a general concern about WiF.

How to break down a global scenario to a point where can it be managed by merely two players and still keep a sufficient level of depth and detail?
I haven't seen a wargame or boardgame adaption yet which could arrange this.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

I got a question about PBEM and a general concern about WiF.

How to break down a global scenario to a point where can it be managed by merely two players and still keep a sufficient level of depth and detail?
I haven't seen a wargame or boardgame adaption yet which could arrange this.

I can think of several ways to interpret your question. Rather than having me make a guess, perhaps you could provide more specifics?

By "global scenario" I take it you mean a game that uses the entire world.

But what do you mean by 'managed'?

[Lützow]

Yes, I meant the entire world. In Hearts of Iron the scenario got split between several AI opponents (or human players), in order to keep it still playable without sacrifying too much details, while turnbased boardgame adapations (thinking about Axies & Allies or A World at War) never found the right balance.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Yes, I meant the entire world. In Hearts of Iron the scenario got split between several AI opponents (or human players), in order to keep it still playable without sacrifying too much details, while turnbased boardgame adapations (thinking about Axies & Allies or A World at War) never found the right balance.

Hmmm, I think your question is more about player interface design than it is about PBEM.

There is a thread on Design of the Player Interface - it is long. I have written about this concern several times in that thread, though I do not know exactly which post(s).

You might also look at the posts I have made for the Players Manual. Here is an except (below).

HOWEVER, if you want to continue this discussion, please take it to one of those two threads, rather than this one.
===

8.0 Player Interface
8.1 Introduction to the Player Interface

The Matrix Games World in Flames player interface has many elements that are common to other computer war games. It has drop down menus, popup menus, detailed maps, global maps, units within hexagons, dozens of short cut keys defined, and it uses the cursor as a tool for examining and moving units. One of the things that make this player interface unusual is the vast number of forms used during game play with which players make decisions and/or review information on current game status.

The complexity of MWIF is clearly manifest in the number of: hexes in the world map (70,200), hex terrain types (12), units (~4000), unit types (72), optional rules (80), and phases(60) and subphases (92) in the sequence of play . Enabling players to access the information they need to make decisions and to understand the diverse aspects of the phases/subphases of the game necessitated a sophisticated player interface.

There are over 90 forms in the game, which are described in this section of the Players Manual. Most of the sections contain screen shots of the forms they describe. Equally useful, during game play you can click on any form’s help button to display context sensitive help for that form. What is then presented is the same text that is contained in this section.

Unique to MWIF are: map views (see section 8.4.3) and screen layouts (see section 8.6). Also MWIF uses Flyouts (see section 8.4.5) rather aggressively for selecting and manipulating units. Another form that I haven’t seen in other computer war games is the Selectable Units form (see section 8.7.1.20). Altogether, these 4 forms make viewing the map and units and selecting units for movement and combat fairly easy to do, despite the massive size of the game. You might also want to explore the Naval Review Details and Naval Review Summary forms (see sections 8.7.1.11 and 8.7.1.12 respectively), which simplify evaluating the disposition of naval forces and the movement of naval task forces.

[Lützow]

Shannon, my concern is rather about the right balance of micromanagement and how to handle it in an entire world scenario which get split between two players. This is something which none of the boardgame adaptions I played so far got accomplished well. Sorry, if my question was ambiguous.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Shannon, my concern is rather about the right balance of micromanagement and how to handle it in an entire world scenario which get split between two players. This is something which none of the boardgame adaptions I played so far got accomplished well. Sorry, if my question was ambiguous.

It should be no harder to play this game PBEM 2-player as it is FTF 2-player. Yes there is a LOT to remember and it seems you always forget something (or maybe you can never make the "perfect" move) - but that's WiF. From what I 've seen of the game and the PBEM forms, it will all be there - your problem will be in finding sufficient time to achieve perfection.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Shannon, my concern is rather about the right balance of micromanagement and how to handle it in an entire world scenario which get split between two players. This is something which none of the boardgame adaptions I played so far got accomplished well. Sorry, if my question was ambiguous.

MWIF (and WIF in general) addresses the vastness of the conflict in several ways:

1 - while land and air moves are hex based, naval movement is area based. You can move a naval unit from the east coast of the US to Europe using 4 "movement points" to traverse ~100 hexes.

2 - the basic scale of the game is corps/army for land units; using divisions is optional.

3 - adding all the light cruisers is optional.

4 - adding separate carrier air units is optional.

5 - the complexities of the rules can be reduced by not using the 80 optional rules.

The end result is that not using the optional rules cuts the number of units in half. That means much less micro-management.

But then not again, if you want to micro-manage, you can.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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.

[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 ->

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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[X(] 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).

[brian brian]

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.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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!).

[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
 
 
 
 
 
 

[IKerensky_alt]

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 ).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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).