Player Communications

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Can you implement a system where players can see each others PC screen in a window (but can't move units)?

Isn't this kind of similar to having another map displayed on the screen (a separate map from the one you use to move your units), where you see the movements of the units ?

To help this discussion, perhaps we could refer to the "primary map view" and secondary map view(s). Players with multiple monitors or very large monitors could easily set up secondary map views to keep tabs on what other players are doing ('monitor' what they are doing[:D]). Those using a single monitor might want to dedicate it to the primary map view. Later they would review what had happened elsewhere.

Different system configurations are important considerations for this design issue.

[lavisj]

I think that the best way to combine the requirements of players having to move simultaneously in real time, and the oposing player wanting the move as quickly as possible, would be to split the movement process by theaters.
 
I seem to remember that the theater split was already made before. You would therefore be prompted to move units in a given theater. Once that one theater is done, you would validate the theater and it would move to the next one. As soon as that theater is locked, the oposite player could then review the moves on that theater while the phasing team is working on the next one.
 
Of course the problem will arise when units switch theaters. We therefore need to define theaters either as units starting the move in it, or ending the move in it. I think that the best would be to have units ending their movements in the theater to count. For exemple, when doing the China theater, you can move units into it, but once it is "submitted" you could only move units out of it.
 
This would create a de facto coordination between the players on the same side, and would also give more to do to the other team, allowing to start planing their own moves on the already submitted theater..... it might very well accelerate the game. Besides that theater split is probably what players do spontaneously when they play.
 
Just a thought.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lavisj
I think that the best way to combine the requirements of players having to move simultaneously in real time, and the oposing player wanting the move as quickly as possible, would be to split the movement process by theaters.

I seem to remember that the theater split was already made before. You would therefore be prompted to move units in a given theater. Once that one theater is done, you would validate the theater and it would move to the next one. As soon as that theater is locked, the oposite player could then review the moves on that theater while the phasing team is working on the next one.

Of course the problem will arise when units switch theaters. We therefore need to define theaters either as units starting the move in it, or ending the move in it. I think that the best would be to have units ending their movements in the theater to count. For exemple, when doing the China theater, you can move units into it, but once it is "submitted" you could only move units out of it.

This would create a de facto coordination between the players on the same side, and would also give more to do to the other team, allowing to start planing their own moves on the already submitted theater..... it might very well accelerate the game. Besides that theater split is probably what players do spontaneously when they play.

Just a thought.

The devil is in the details. But I think your idea is worth exploring some more.

As I have said before, I work best by starting with a specific case and analyzing that more or less fully. Then extrapolating to a more general application.

So, what are the theaters? Europe seems an obvious choice but what are its boundaries? It would be nice if the world could be cut into theaters that encompass the whole world but are mutually exclusive.

Do the theater definitions change depending on phase of game? The land movement phase versus the naval movement phase comes to mind.

This would seem to be of most use during a two player game, where one side moves all its units in one theater and announces land attacks. While the non-phasing player is pondering what defensive steps to take, the phasing player could then move on to another theater. Do you see it being used during 4 player games too?

[stretch]

one small thing you can do, maybe it was mentioned and I missed it...  make a toggle to color code with a border (like you do with units eligible to move) for units that moved that impulse.  It would be a nice way to quickly see what spots you need to perhaps look over more closely. 

[c92nichj]

Do the theater definitions change depending on phase of game? The land movement phase versus the naval movement phase comes to mind.

They most certainly do. Poland in '39 is a theatre the French border another.

Battle of atlantic, east front, china and africa can be three theaters in '41.

In '43 we might have pacific, china, east front, italy and germany as theaters.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Do the theater definitions change depending on phase of game? The land movement phase versus the naval movement phase comes to mind.

They most certainly do. Poland in '39 is a theatre the French border another.

Battle of atlantic, east front, china and africa can be three theaters in '41.

In '43 we might have pacific, china, east front, italy and germany as theaters.

Smaller theaters makes overlap more likely to happen. That is especially true for air units.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Do the theater definitions change depending on phase of game? The land movement phase versus the naval movement phase comes to mind.

They most certainly do. Poland in '39 is a theatre the French border another.

Battle of atlantic, east front, china and africa can be three theaters in '41.

In '43 we might have pacific, china, east front, italy and germany as theaters.

Maybe theaters of operations can be linked to WiF FE "maps" ?

The map of MWiF is of one piece sure, but I believe that each country on this map "knows" which WiF FE map it is on (Europe, Africa, Asia, Pacific, America). Example, Egypt know it is on the Africa and Europe maps, Jordan knows it is on the Europe map, Upper Volta knows it is on the Africa map, etc...

So why not having the theaters simply be the WiF FE maps ?

Moreover, this is exactly how "theaters" are defined when the real WiF FE game is played face to face, so this would not be a change.


Another approach would be to define some geographical areas, such as Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Eastern Asia, Pacific islands, Americas, or even smaller areas. Those geographical definitions would be hard coded into the countries data (as the "maps" currently are), and then, the players could define what a theater of operation is. They would have a mean to create a theater of operation and select which geographical areas they want to be in it, and would be able to say "I'm done in this theater", or delete a theater that is of no more use, etc...


But I think that working with the map data as they are currently coded in the countries data is the best way to go, as this is already done, and the real game is already played this way.

[Froonp]

Also, I believe that naval movement should not be linked to "theaters".

I think that naval movements are in small number enough, and important enough, and moreover often are a condition to future air missions and land movements so that they are made all over the world before the rest of the Action Stage of the sequence of play is allowed to be played "per theatre", do you see what I mean ?

The player (in the Action Stage) would be required to follow the sequence of play up to the Strategic Bombing Step (not included) all over the world, and then he would be allowed to make the rest of his actions from the Strategic Bombardment Step, theater per theater.

Example : The US doing a combined move would be required move his ships all over the world (3 Naval moves), fight all his naval combats all over the world, and then he would do all the actions he needs on the Europe Map, it would be possible for him to validate this Europe theater so that the opposing side can begin pondering the situation and think their own turn, while the US would do the actions he needs on the Pacific map (the Pacific & Asia map could be made a one and only theater), etc... theater per theater until the Action Stage is over.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Also, I believe that naval movement should not be linked to "theaters".

I think that naval movements are in small number enough, and important enough, and moreover often are a condition to future air missions and land movements so that they are made all over the world before the rest of the Action Stage of the sequence of play is allowed to be played "per theatre", do you see what I mean ?

The player (in the Action Stage) would be required to follow the sequence of play up to the Strategic Bombing Step (not included) all over the world, and then he would be allowed to make the rest of his actions from the Strategic Bombardment Step, theater per theater.

Example : The US doing a combined move would be required move his ships all over the world (3 Naval moves), fight all his naval combats all over the world, and then he would do all the actions he needs on the Europe Map, it would be possible for him to validate this Europe theater so that the opposing side can begin pondering the situation and think their own turn, while the US would do the actions he needs on the Pacific map (the Pacific & Asia map could be made a one and only theater), etc... theater per theater until the Action Stage is over.

You have begun to touch upon something that occurred to me yesterday: this 'feature' really is about changing the sequence of play. I am not sure I am up to doing that at the present time. Yes, it could improve the speed of play for a game, but it violates all kinds of underlying assumptions that the source code is based on. If nothing else, the game record log would be out-of-sequence. For now, I am going to put considering this feature aside.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Player Communications
(as of February 17, 2007)

Thanks to all your help at clarifying the issues, I believe I have a fairly good design concept for player communications during Internet play. There are many details to be worked out yet, but for now I see there being 3 basic functionalities: (1) map view update, (2) notification, and (3) replay.

Map view update
The player can use one or more map views and designate it/them to update automatically whenever a remote player makes a move (or decision). Remote player actions would always be grouped by transactions, so complete moves would be shown all at once, from the start hex to the end hex rather than one by one as the remote player chooses each hex. Similarly a set of combat result decisions would be shown all at once rather than individually. Even with this qualification, there may be a lot of updates since there can be a lot of transactions (e.g., during a USSR land move).

The map view characteristics could be fixed or dynamic. Characteristics are things like zoom level, unit resolution, and center hex. The width and height of the map view itself would always be locked. When set as dynamic, the program would adjust the map view characteristics to be sure to present the remote players’ moves, changing the center hex (by scrolling or jumping). I am not sure about the details here. Typically for me, I’ll program the fixed view first and then figure out the details of the dynamic map view once I see how the simpler fixed view works. The purpose behind the dynamic view is provide the ability to display all the remote players actions in a single map view. The fixed view has a lot aesthetic attractions but might ‘miss’ some actions by the remote player that are ‘off-screen’.

There will also be filters for map view updates. This will enable one map view to be dedicated to actions by a single major power (e.g., Germany) or by a single player - who might control more than one major power, but will only be moving one of those major powers one at a time. Other filters could restrict updates to showing movement of land, air, or naval units. Again the details are hazy at this point.

Notification
When a player has limited screen real estate and can only afford to display a single map view, then notification may be a less intrusive way to stay informed about what remote players are doing. There are likely to be other reasons for choosing notification instead of map view updates. Indeed, a player might want to have map view update for one major power and notification for all the others.

Notification could be a horizontal band of text that scrolls from right to left across the screen, with old text disappearing off the left side and new text appearing on the right. This is a ticker-tape presentation of updates. Though it has a certain sexiness to it, it is probably impractical for MWIF. For one thing, retrieval of old information that you want to go back and look at again would require some additional interface capabilities. And when there is a lot happening at once, it might be difficult to keep up with the information overload.

A better, though more bland, solution would be a vertical scroll list of transactions - in abbreviated form. The vertical dimension of the display would be controlled by the player and could show a little as a single transaction, or as many as dozens of lines at once. Like the horizontal band, the list would add new transactions as they arrive over the Internet, with the newest at the bottom and the oldest at the top. The player could scroll the display backwards/upwards to see any items he missed. Any selected/clicked on item could be expanded from its abbreviated form to provide more specifics.

Notification could be ultimately expanded by invoking the third choice: replay.

Replay
Game replay is already on my list of task items, so this would simply require enabling the player to invoke it during a game rather than as an after action report. Previously I had decided that it would be essential for keeping players current on an Internet game when they had to leave the computer for a period of time (e.g., to maintain a supply of food and drink by the monitor).

I haven’t settled on exactly what game replay features will be included. Clearly the list of features could be very long, though MWIF product 1 will have a minimal set if I have anything to say about it. Replaying the moves in a map view and displaying the full results of player decisions would be a minimal set.

During an Internet game, the player will be able to essentially see the same thing in a map view he would have seen if he had chosen option 1 above. Instead of the map view updating in real time though, it would be under the player’s control. That will permit the player to change the map view characteristics as he thinks best as the replay occurs (e.g., zoom level, unit resolution).

Conclusion
This gives me enough of a design to work with for now. As I get deeper into it and come across other conceptual problems, I’ll be back to ask for more advice. Thanks to everyone who gave me their suggestions.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Replay
Game replay is already on my list of task items, so this would simply require enabling the player to invoke it during a game rather than as an after action report. Previously I had decided that it would be essential for keeping players current on an Internet game when they had to leave the computer for a period of time (e.g., to maintain a supply of food and drink by the monitor).

I haven’t settled on exactly what game replay features will be included. Clearly the list of features could be very long, though MWIF product 1 will have a minimal set if I have anything to say about it. Replaying the moves in a map view and displaying the full results of player decisions would be a minimal set.

During an Internet game, the player will be able to essentially see the same thing in a map view he would have seen if he had chosen option 1 above. Instead of the map view updating in real time though, it would be under the player’s control. That will permit the player to change the map view characteristics as he thinks best as the replay occurs (e.g., zoom level, unit resolution).

This made me think of something, about replay.
You could add a command in the right click menu of enemy units called "replay last impulse" (and also on friendly units not controlled by you), that would allow you to see what was the last movement of that single unit. You would see it go back to its original location, and move to its final location. This may be better than a full replay of all the units, as you maybe are interested only in a few of them.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
This made me think of something, about replay.
You could add a command in the right click menu of enemy units called "replay last impulse" (and also on friendly units not controlled by you), that would allow you to see what was the last movement of that single unit. You would see it go back to its original location, and move to its final location. This may be better than a full replay of all the units, as you maybe are interested only in a few of them.

There are a lot of possibilities (just tactical air, just armor, just HQs). Once I have the basics in place, I'll consider one or two "very useful" additions, but not a wide swathe of features.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Also, I believe that naval movement should not be linked to "theaters".

I think that naval movements are in small number enough, and important enough, and moreover often are a condition to future air missions and land movements so that they are made all over the world before the rest of the Action Stage of the sequence of play is allowed to be played "per theatre", do you see what I mean ?

The player (in the Action Stage) would be required to follow the sequence of play up to the Strategic Bombing Step (not included) all over the world, and then he would be allowed to make the rest of his actions from the Strategic Bombardment Step, theater per theater.

Example : The US doing a combined move would be required move his ships all over the world (3 Naval moves), fight all his naval combats all over the world, and then he would do all the actions he needs on the Europe Map, it would be possible for him to validate this Europe theater so that the opposing side can begin pondering the situation and think their own turn, while the US would do the actions he needs on the Pacific map (the Pacific & Asia map could be made a one and only theater), etc... theater per theater until the Action Stage is over.

You have begun to touch upon something that occurred to me yesterday: this 'feature' really is about changing the sequence of play. I am not sure I am up to doing that at the present time. Yes, it could improve the speed of play for a game, but it violates all kinds of underlying assumptions that the source code is based on. If nothing else, the game record log would be out-of-sequence. For now, I am going to put considering this feature aside.

I probably came across somewhat harsh above. I believe an alternate solution to speed up play is already on my task list: preplanned decisions. The purpose of preplanned decisions is to enable a player to plot out what he is going to do (moves, builds, & perhaps other decisions) while he is waiting for other players. Then when it is his turn to move/decide, he can review his preplanned decisions and either commit to them or retract them. This should speed up play quite a bit, assuming the opponent doesn't do something unexpected. In a very real sense, this is comparable to what had been suggested as "moving by theater".

[Froonp]

I probably came across somewhat harsh above. I believe an alternate solution to speed up play is already on my task list: preplanned decisions. The purpose of preplanned decisions is to enable a player to plot out what he is going to do (moves, builds, & perhaps other decisions) while he is waiting for other players. Then when it is his turn to move/decide, he can review his preplanned decisions and either commit to them or retract them. This should speed up play quite a bit, assuming the opponent doesn't do something unexpected. In a very real sense, this is comparable to what had been suggested as "moving by theater".

Yes, and this does not disrupt the Sequence of play.
It will be a very good addition to the game, that we will dream to have in the paper game then !!! [:D]

[Mziln]

My major concern is how diferent is internet play going to be compared to...
 
(1) AI
(2) Hotseat
(3) Email

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln
My major concern is how diferent is internet play going to be compared to...

(1) AI
(2) Hotseat
(3) Email

The sequence of play would be the same for Internet, AI, and Hotseat. PBEM has a modified sequence of play to reduce the # of emails required (though the players have the option of not using the modified sequence of play and instead pass along MWIF PBEM games-in-progress to their children to finish).