PBEM Thoughts

[Alex Gilbert]

(copied from the mods forum where I put it incorrectly)

Thought I would include a topic for PBEM. I am exactly 1 turn into a PBEM game but some initial thoughts:

1. Replay works very nicely. I did not even realize how much it would improve the PBEM game. Excellent idea, to whoever thought of adding it.

2. I am a little confused on the save files. I am playing CSA-- am I the only one that has to send the replay files, or should I also get a set of replay files from my opponent? I think it is the former, since the CSA orders come immediately before the resolution phase of the turn.

3. As it currently exists, it IS possible to issue orders in the replay file (on a whim, I tried to issue movement orders, and it worked). I do not think this is a big problem, since the replay files are separate from the game files, but it IS possible.

4. I noticed in PBEM that all generals start out as 1-star only (as opposed to the single player game). I do not object to this, as it gives me more freedom to promote. Just wanted to mention this in case it was unintentional.

That is it for the initial thoughts. Will post more as things come up.

Alex

[Gil R.]

Alex, thank you for the feedback. My responses in order:

1. Eric did the programming, and you guys on the forum did the requesting. I'll take no credit, but am glad that you like it.

2. Only the CSA player sends the replay files, since he's the one generating them. He can watch them even before he receives back the Union player's latest turn, but can't continue play from them because they don't contain the Union player's moves.

3. You're right that it is currently possible to give orders as the CSA player in the replay file, but those don't have an effect. There is a message that tells the CSA player once the replay is over that he should go back to the main menu, but we do need something more foolproof in there so that people won't mistakenly spend half an hour taking their turn and then discovering it was all wasted. (We discovered this issue late in beta, but didn't want to delay public beta over it. It's good to have the reminder, though.)

4. That shouldn't be happening. Which scenario were you playing, and were you using "More Generals" or "Fewer Generals," and were you using randomized start dates?

[Alex Gilbert]

As my Union counterpart set up the game, I will get back to you on the specifics of the set-up. I know we are using the southern steel scenario, and random stats and hidden stats for generals.

Two other things came up as I have just completed turn 2 as the confederates.

1. I was not given a chance to use my partisans/raiders. I am pretty sure they were in the right position (an enemy province bordering CSA territory). Will see if this happens again next turn as well.

2. The union mover into Upper Tennessee river. I happened to have an unattached brigade there (it was supposed to reinforce my fort garrisons, but I guess did not make it inside in time), so a battle was fought. Unfortunately, the computer dragged all of my garrisons into the field battle. I had not seen this in the pre-patch game. Offhand, I think in most cases, players would rather have their garrisons cower within the walls rather than have them beaten up in open combat before the siege. Perhaps an adjustment to the AI routine is in order in this case.

Alex

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert
1. I was not given a chance to use my partisans/raiders. I am pretty sure they were in the right position (an enemy province bordering CSA territory). Will see if this happens again next turn as well.

In PBEM games, the AI should automatically use them for you - so they should have done something, but you won't get a pop-up choice.

2. The union mover into Upper Tennessee river. I happened to have an unattached brigade there (it was supposed to reinforce my fort garrisons, but I guess did not make it inside in time), so a battle was fought. Unfortunately, the computer dragged all of my garrisons into the field battle. I had not seen this in the pre-patch game. Offhand, I think in most cases, players would rather have their garrisons cower within the walls rather than have them beaten up in open combat before the siege. Perhaps an adjustment to the AI routine is in order in this case.

I'd have to agree on that.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

As my Union counterpart set up the game, I will get back to you on the specifics of the set-up. I know we are using the southern steel scenario, and random stats and hidden stats for generals.

Two other things came up as I have just completed turn 2 as the confederates.

1. I was not given a chance to use my partisans/raiders. I am pretty sure they were in the right position (an enemy province bordering CSA territory). Will see if this happens again next turn as well.

2. The union mover into Upper Tennessee river. I happened to have an unattached brigade there (it was supposed to reinforce my fort garrisons, but I guess did not make it inside in time), so a battle was fought. Unfortunately, the computer dragged all of my garrisons into the field battle. I had not seen this in the pre-patch game. Offhand, I think in most cases, players would rather have their garrisons cower within the walls rather than have them beaten up in open combat before the siege. Perhaps an adjustment to the AI routine is in order in this case.

Alex

Regarding #1, this was a necessary programming change. For reasons I don't understand (not being the programmer), the addition of the PBEM replay necessitates taking away from the player the choice of what partisans and raiders do (though he still moves them where he wants them). As for #2, I've been testing PBEM quite a bit and don't remember seeing that. Quite odd. Please make a note of which turn this happened in, so that if Eric wants the files he can get them from you.

[Alex Gilbert]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

As my Union counterpart set up the game, I will get back to you on the specifics of the set-up. I know we are using the southern steel scenario, and random stats and hidden stats for generals.

Two other things came up as I have just completed turn 2 as the confederates.

1. I was not given a chance to use my partisans/raiders. I am pretty sure they were in the right position (an enemy province bordering CSA territory). Will see if this happens again next turn as well.

2. The union mover into Upper Tennessee river. I happened to have an unattached brigade there (it was supposed to reinforce my fort garrisons, but I guess did not make it inside in time), so a battle was fought. Unfortunately, the computer dragged all of my garrisons into the field battle. I had not seen this in the pre-patch game. Offhand, I think in most cases, players would rather have their garrisons cower within the walls rather than have them beaten up in open combat before the siege. Perhaps an adjustment to the AI routine is in order in this case.

Alex

Regarding #1, this was a necessary programming change. For reasons I don't understand (not being the programmer), the addition of the PBEM replay necessitates taking away from the player the choice of what partisans and raiders do (though he still moves them where he wants them). As for #2, I've been testing PBEM quite a bit and don't remember seeing that. Quite odd. Please make a note of which turn this happened in, so that if Eric wants the files he can get them from you.

OK. I can live with that. Too bad but if its gotta be, its gotta be.

Regarding my earlier comment about generals, it turns out we are playing the "standard scenario" which may explain why all the initial generals are 1 star only.

Regarding the sortie made for me by the computer, I have the save if you want it. It was the late Nov 1861 turn.

Just 1 additional note as of Early Dec 1861:
The events report that appears in the replay is NOT the same that appears in the next turn. What I mean is that the various events seem to be re-rolled for when the actual next turn proceeds. (I am not sure if that is at all clear)
Here is what I saw: When I ran the replay after submitting the Late Nov 1861 turn, the events report showed one of my runners was sunk, and the siege of Ft. Pillow had lowered the fort strength from 100 to 88. When I received the turn back from my opponent to make my Early Dec 1861 moves, I found that my runner had NOT been sunk and the fort had been damaged from 100 to 75. (I am sure there were other differences, but I did not note them).
It seems that the rolls for the variable events are being repeated AFTER the replay.

Alex

[ericbabe]

We have had problems reported that the replay and the actual turn that happened can become unsynchronized.  We haven't figured out what it is in the turn sequence that causes this as (at least in my test games) it doesn't happen all the time.  This actually is one of the issues that has delayed release of the patch more than anything else -- if we can't fix it we'll have to pull the replay feature, which I really don't want to do.  But it is something we're working on.

I can make it so that garrisons are never called out in a pbem game.

[Gil R.]

Regarding the lack of synchronization, it would be helpful to know what you did in the turn that precipitated it (if you can remember). The current theory is that some action causes it. One of my goals for the weekend is to play both sides in PBEM and each turn do just one thing, to see if I can isolate it. If you notice anything that might help please don't hesitate to share it here.

[Gil R.]

As you play PBEM, could you do us a favor and before hitting "End Turn" always do a "Save As"? That way, if a replay doesn't synchronize properly you'll be able to give Eric both the files generated after the turn and the files just before ending the turn. When doing the "Save As" you should give the files a name different from the actual game files (e.g., "SAVEAS-TURN1") -- the game will still know to properly name the files that are generated. This would be a tremendous help, if you (or others) were to be able to provide both pre- and post-End Turn files.

[Alex Gilbert]

Not a problem. I still have all my old end of turn files that I send via e-mail, but I will also (as long as I remember) do a separate save.

let me know if you want them, otherwise I will just save them until you ask. For what it is worth, I have not noticed any synchronization issues since turn 2 in the game.

Regarding my actions prior to the sychronization issue, I cant remember all of them, and am not sure how much specificity you need. I did move containers, brigades, partisans, raiders, and runners all in that turn. I believe I started a laboratory, but did not buy purchase any units. I did not conscript, impress, or muster any units. I dont recall if I made any promotions of generals. I did not adjust my foreign spending. There was a federal siege in the upper Tenn/Miss river, and a small battle in fredericksburg in which the computer called for reinforcements on the CSA side (which arrived in time).

That is all I can recall of the specifics.

Alex

[Gil R.]

The problem seems to pop up about once every 8-10 turns, which is one reason it's been hard to pin down.

In my current PBEM game against myself I'm deliberately avoiding battles, and am just building and moving guys around, so that I can rule that out. (I'm also going to begin a siege soon. I'm not the programmer, but based on the various issues associated with sieges I wouldn't be surprised if they're behind this. I think I'll besiege Augusta, since that seems to be all the rage these days.)

[Gil R.]

I might have just duplicated the PBEM siege, but can't be certain yet. My theory that it's linked to sieges might be correct, but I think it happens when there are two or more sieges going on at once. So, please give this a shot and see if things don't match up. In the meantime, Eric's going to check my save files and see if those provide any clues.

[Gil R.]

I've done some further testing tonight, and the PBEM synchronization bug is almost certainly caused by a PBEM siege bug. In PBEM, if one begins a siege as an encirclement siege (or, perhaps, any non-"normal" siege, though I haven't tested these yet) it will turn into a "normal" siege in the replay files, but remain an encirclement siege in the regular PBEM save files. That's bug#1. Bug#2, the synchronization bug, appears to happen when this happens, since the random numbers generated by the random-numbers generator are no longer in synch. This second (and far more important) problem may be caused only when there are two sieges going, but perhaps it only takes one siege to cause it.

Anyway, Eric has my save files and will be examining them. Still, if anyone else experiences the synchronization bug, please hold on to your files and report it here.

(For those who don't understand what I'm referring to, this is how the bug manifests itself: the items in the Event Reports that one obtains from PBEM replay or from normal PBEM files will have different info, so that in one report raiders cause economic damage while in another they steal guns, in one report a general trains a unit in some ability but in the other he doesn't, in one report battle casualties will be X but in the other they'll be Y, etc. etc. etc. This is all caused by the same randomly generated numbers being applied to different aspects of the game. The key is for Eric to make sure that in both normal PBEM files and replay files the same random numbers are used for the same calculations.)

Once this is solved PBEM will be fully operational, and we'll be much closer to going gold.