NPV - No Player Victory

[DeadInThrench]

I had been out of wargaming for about 10 years and.... started getting back into it about a year ago and.... have had a couple of experiences with PBEM which..... were not all that satisfying.

And I think the problem is... compared to playing board wargames face to face... with PBEM you are playing against someone you don't really know (even compared to a ftd game where you just met the person)... and so what happens.... the PBEM games oftentimes get to the point of being... too cutthroat.

So... what I have been thinking... is a deal where both players agree to play a game 'NPV'... no player victory. In other words... if you are playing a game on the Battle of Gettysburg... at the end of the game either the Union or Confederates are victorious... but neither player can claim victory... if they agreed to play NPV at the start.

So.... for those that want to play 'just for fun'.... or are more interested in the historical aspect of the game rather than the competition.... IMO this would be the way to go.

Also... there are other aspects here. First, there are a lot of games out there now with a lot of scenarios... and a lot of those scenarios.... aren't necessarily balanced... and nobody would want to play the side with the wrong end of the stick in a ladder game. But, with NPV.... you don't have to concern yourself about balance... and can instead just play any scenario... just for fun or the historical aspect.

Another factor here.... just as the Internet is a haven for low lifes like pedophiles, etc, etc, it is also a haven for.... cheaters in wargames (lol). It's not a matter of the number of players that are cheaters... but a matter of the Internet attracting those that are... like a magnet.

Not saying that there isn't value in competition play... for when you want a more intense experience... just saying that IMO, when you want a less intense experience... playing a game just for fun... or are more interested in the historical aspects... then NPV.... is the way to go.

Comments??

DiT

[stevecal]

I'm sorry that you have had negative experiences with PBEM.

I must say that it is VERY different from my experience. I have been playing wargames by email and before that by snail mail(I'm showing my age!) for many years. I can say that I have never had to deal with a cheater. There have been disagreements over rules, but they were always able to be resolved. And I feel that I have developed many friendships with my opponents. Some I continue to play with year after year!

My advice: If you know someone is cheating, end the game & move on! Make a mental note never to play that person again. Keep looking for opponents. There are many, many good ones out there!

Good luck in your gaming!

Steve

[105mm Howitzer]

I concur with Stevecal, although never tried PBEM myself. I do play on an international scrabble website, and yes, there are cheaters there too. Just when you're about to win, they disconnect, abandon the game, etc... I just put them in my not to play file, and carry on. At least with the web, the advantage is that you can report cheaters to the hosts, something that cannot be done with pbem. Anyway, good hunting.[;)]

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
And I think the problem is... compared to playing board wargames face to face... with PBEM you are playing against someone you don't really know (even compared to a ftd game where you just met the person)... and so what happens.... the PBEM games oftentimes get to the point of being... too cutthroat.

Unless you of course play against someone you know from the face to face wargaming.....While not having much experience of PBEM compared to many great (war)gamers on this board, I do have some experience of WitP and TOAW PBEM and extensive experience of running an online hockey league for about 5 years with a full set of 20+ General Managers. Talk about cutthroat during the free agency when the star players became available..... I guess you have to establish a feel for what type of game you want to play. Some like it cutthroat, some like it more storytelling etc etc. Communicate a lot so your goal of the game is clear

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
So... what I have been thinking... is a deal where both players agree to play a game 'NPV'... no player victory. In other words... if you are playing a game on the Battle of Gettysburg... at the end of the game either the Union or Confederates are victorious... but neither player can claim victory... if they agreed to play NPV at the start.

Nice thought, and it will work provided you have communicated extensively about what it means beforehand. On the other hand, this was never an issue in any of my PBEM's as the game itself was more the main purpose than the result as such

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Also... there are other aspects here. First, there are a lot of games out there now with a lot of scenarios... and a lot of those scenarios.... aren't necessarily balanced... and nobody would want to play the side with the wrong end of the stick in a ladder game. But, with NPV.... you don't have to concern yourself about balance... and can instead just play any scenario... just for fun or the historical aspect.

Here, I must say I disagree! Balance is everything regardless of how you choose to judge the end result of the game/scenario. A poorly balanced scenario will generally not be very fun to play, at least not in PBEM..... Then balance can of course be expressed in different ways in a game, but that's a different discussion.....

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Another factor here.... just as the Internet is a haven for low lifes like pedophiles, etc, etc, it is also a haven for.... cheaters in wargames (lol). It's not a matter of the number of players that are cheaters... but a matter of the Internet attracting those that are... like a magnet.

Totally disagree, that's sounds like saying that based on your reasoning, and since a majority of the active members of this, and other, forum(s) are PBEM (aka Internet) wargamers, a large portion are (attracted by the Internet magnet) cheaters. This was not what you wanted to say? There are two things that make your statement wrong:

• "In the old days", there was no such option as PBEM. You met and played a boardgame. Not much room for cheating, but a higher degree of errors and mistakes and the additional "dog runs over the map" event. This meant your selection of opponents were limited to people you physically met. Key word is limited as the community around each game was local as opposed to the situation in the next bullet point
• Now, the majority of the gaming is done over the internet. Your pool of potential opponents have grown from the few gamers in your neighbourhood and the additional gaming convention to a global community spanning not only cultures but also ages and more

Based on this, I'd say the situation is completely different compared to "before", and gamers need to (and mostly have) adopted to the new paradigm. The backside is that you need to work more in the "finding an opponent" phase if you want to be sure you phase an opponent with the same mindset and idea of what your game will be all about compared to calling your buddies and battling it out over the weekend. In the old world you knew what you got, but it was more or less the same every time. Now, you are not so certain, but you get a new challenge every time....

Not sure what the conclusion is? Make it clear before you start what's in the game for both you and your opponent before you start, and that your pool of extremely skilled gamers have increased by a factor of some thousands maybe?

[DeadInThrench]

Guys... ya know.... the one thing I can't understand... is why you all are getting so DEFENSIVE about something like this. Really.... why would it bother you if two players decided to play a game with 'no player victory'??

Also.... as far as there not being cheaters out there and scenarios that aren't balanced... can we get real?? Why would games like winSPWW2 and TOAW go to the extents they do to stop cheating and... the thing is... a lot of other games don't have that, now do they? And looking at just about any ladder.... you will find lists of scenarios that are balanced and those that are not... and just because a scenario isn't balanced... doesn't mean it isn't interesting and can't be fun.

But my post wasn't primarily about cheaters and unbalanced scenarios... it was about players that REALLY are just interested in playing for fun or historicity and are not into the competitive side of wargaming... and I don't see why that presents a problem for you.

DiT

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
Guys... ya know.... the one thing I can't understand... is why you all are getting so DEFENSIVE about something like this. Really.... why would it bother you if two players decided to play a game with 'no player victory'??

Also.... as far as there not being cheaters out there and scenarios that aren't balanced... can we get real?? Why would games like winSPWW2 and TOAW go to the extents they do to stop cheating and... the thing is... a lot of other games don't have that, now do they? And looking at just about any ladder.... you will find lists of scenarios that are balanced and those that are not... and just because a scenario isn't balanced... doesn't mean it isn't interesting and can't be fun.

But my post wasn't primarily about cheaters and unbalanced scenarios... it was about players that REALLY are just interested in playing for fun or historicity and are not into the competitive side of wargaming... and I don't see why that presents a problem for you.

I can't see anyone being defensive about this? It's a forum for discussion and we are discussing, or did I miss something [;)]. Anyhow, I don't thing it bothers anyone around here why two players play a game, I mean why would it? I also think most members here are less into winning, or victory, at least as defined by the games we play. It seems to me, most of the (active) members seems more interested in how things are planned and executed and how the different games deal with tactical, operational and strategic challenges. Of course, most games here are not part of ladders at which point things get more competitive (which is why me personally I don't get involved in ladders since it's not why I play wargames....)

Did anyone challenge that there are cheaters and unbalance or otherwise poor scenarios out there? No, not really, as doing so would be naive to the point of being stupid. I took the liberty of elaborating a little on the reasons why cheating and opponent "mismatches" are more common today compared to yesterday, which is not the equivalent of saying "there are no cheaters"

I also believe that most players around here are REALLY interested in playing for fun or historicity. I also think most of us enjoy winning, but that it means different things in different games or in different scenarios. As an example, I will shamelessly refer to the last PBEM game I played in TOAW, in which I lost the scenario according to TOAW, but was myself quite happy to perform better compared to the Soviets in the real battle, and I also considered the game to end in a tactical win for the Germans, but somewhat of a strategic win for the Soviets as Germany would have had to face a lot more surviving Soviet forces on the way to Stalingrad. Have a look here if you are interested, but be prepared for 6.5MB of PDF....

Finally, if you posted and did not want us to respond, why post at all? I can't see how responses to you post can present a problem to you?

[ravinhood]

This is the reason we want more programming for SOLO AI play, then we don't have to worry about cheaters. It would take me a long time to trust anyone from the internet because well like you said you just don't know people and you can't really judge a person by what they type. Soooooooooo if we could just get devlopers to make better AI's and make them FIRST instead of last we wouldn't need to play online or PBEM games.

@Widell
You tell him Widell

[DeadInThrench]

Guys.... you win! Verbosity and seeming to contradict oneself in one's own post.... is TOO MUCH for me <g>.

ravinhood..... given you trust people over the internet even less than me (I respect that <g>).... I would think that something like... no player victory.... would be something you would want.... because it excludes the cheaters and those that are only interested in the ego trip from winning right from the get go... and playing NPV... would thus allow you to enjoy a PBEM game and not have to deal with those things.

But, whatever.

DiT

[anvl]

Dit,,

seems that most of the posters here do enjoy pbem,, and gaming with others as well.. except for you..you must have had some not so nice experiences here to feel so strongly about it...

considering our tet-a-tet before,, I would say you are a very competetive person,, who doesn't really like to lose,,,

for me,, a no player victory,, is sorta like,, well,, you know,, no culmination.or kinda leaves ya hanging,,,. for me,, to come up with a plan of action,, and see how well it comes off,, or not,, is a very important part of the game,,

for me,, to have a game with differing victory conditions is really great,, altho hard to create,, meaning,, both sides can win,lose,draw or any combo..

example:&nbsp; side A needs hold the bridge for X turns in a defensive game,, whilst side B needs cross the bridge in max Y turns,, where Y is greater than X.&nbsp; B can then have a variable victory depending on just how long it takes to cross the bridge..

[ravinhood]

Well I don't care to play a game just for historical sake or just for the sake of playing it out to see what might happen. I wanna WIN. It's just human nature I guess at least for most of us to be competitive. I guess it's why I don't care to read about history I'd rather play history and make my own. Reading is boring to me and I'll fall asleep faster than babies being born most all the time when the reading is just boring history. Now a good fiction novel of "War of the Lance" I'll get all up into that. But, reading about hitler coming into power and political bs before a war and well anything other than the battles themselves I'll just fall right off to sleep, book falls to floor and that's the end of that.

[DeadInThrench]

ravinhood....

Well... the problem outside PBEM is... like you say... the AI in most computer wargames these days.... is not very good. Yeah, I have been thinking about what you said initially and I might just agree with your perspective.... except for the AI problem.

And... what's worse.... is things seem to be going DOWNHILL as far as the AI in computer wargames... with 'better graphics' seeming to be the higher priority.

One example... Horse and Musket.... had average AI for a game of it's time..... could defend OK but when it came to attacking... tended to throw units into the fray piecemeal.... with the resultant failures (the HPS EAW series is pretty much the same).

But.... when they went to Dragoon: Prussian War Machine.... sheesh... the AI is much worse... tends to try to outflank and leaves it's center wide open... and can't defend anymore... and the new PWM.... emphasis on more graphics improvements and not a much better AI.

The game that I have played recently that has the best AI for games of this period... is the old SSI ACW series (and also Sons of Liberty and Battles of Napoleon). Yeah, you can still beat the computer here but... it makes concerted attacks... doesn't throw it's units in piecemeal... and dosen't come off looking like an idiot... and if you don't play good it will kick your butt in no uncertain terms.

The thing is.... these are just about the oldest games out there (lol... I would doubt you can get these anywhere except on the abandonware sites now.... I had purchased most of these myself way back when)... and like I say.... things seem to be going in the opposite direction as far as AI is concerned.

So.... IMO... right now things look kinda bleak as far as better AI is concerned... hopefully things will turn around but... not in a position to hold my breath on that.

DiT

[105mm Howitzer]

Cannot argue against the merits of dull historical books abd their bs, Ravin, but on the other hand, it's such books that help understand why certain nations adopted such and such strategies, or why they developped weapon " x", etc...I find that reading such tomes to be beneficial in the long run. ( even though they do tend to be cut and dry)

[anvl]

If you are looking for a good historical, blackpowder game with an excellent AI,, give Take Command Second Manassas a try.&nbsp;

MadMinute Games Message Board :: Index

and keep an eye on Histwars nappy release,, coming up pretty soon...&nbsp;

Battlefront.com Discussion Forums: HistWar: Les Grognards

both have trendsetting gaming systems,, and AI to match..

and you don't have to hold your breath,, just buy the game,,,&nbsp;

anvil

[ravinhood]

Well I certainly agree with you on the old SSI civil war series and Sons of Liberty and War of the Lance AI's. I've always said the old 80's games AI's were much better than todays AI's and I still play them on my commodore 64 or Amiga 500. AND you got laminated maps in those old Civil War series games, try to get a publisher to give you a fold out map on anything nowadays. It's rare very rare. I have an old 48 x 36 map of Gondor out of an old Commodore 64 game War of Middle Earth, game sucked, but, the map is excellent proably worth the price of the game back then just for that map. Nearly every wargame back then in the 80's came with maps for two players even. Many of them laminated.
&nbsp;
That's why today I crusade for better AI play than these silly graphic updates to old games and hell making the AI worse than they were. I don't know why publishers and programmers seem to think we want better graphics without better challenge along with them. Then some of the developers come on here with EXCUSES about why's and whatfor's and it's already been proven in the 80's it could be done. So, I dismiss a lot of the lies they are telling us about AI's and modern day games. The hex based principle is still here so I don't see why AI's all of a sudden got worse because the game is a sequel of something already done a long time ago.

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench
And... what's worse.... is things seem to be going DOWNHILL as far as the AI in computer wargames... with 'better graphics' seeming to be the higher priority.

You should have a look at Panther Games titles Highway to the Reich and Conquest of the Aegan (HTTR and COTA for short) here at Matrix. Specially COTA has excellent AI. I do agree that AI in general is hard, while fancy graphics are getting easier and easier to come up with so you are most likely right in your assessment.....