Why isn't PBEM integrated into wargames?

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: mack2
.....and intergrate direct connections into their games, so both people are online at the same time, can play a game

without needing to muck around emailing each other.

The SSG games have done this since late 2003 with the release of Korsun Pocket.


Korsun Pocket
Battles in Normandy
Battles in Italy
Battlefront


And I need you to be at your PC at about 3am you're time because thats about 8pm my time so we can play online! [:D]

-

[e_barkmann]

yeah I think the beauty of pbem is that wargamers interested in our 'narrow' game subject matter are rarely online at the same time, or certainly there is no critical mass for direct connections to work and get a community.

Using applications like Hamachi are counter-productive due to the limitation of 16 members per free account, and frankly who knows what else they built into their vpn product.

It seems to me the general wargame community is ageing,don't have much free time and PBEM at your own pace seems a good solution. I'd applaud more development work to go into anti-cheating methods in PBEM than say, looking at hosting rooms for direct connections.

Cheers Chris

[Erik Rutins]

As a few others have noted, what you're describing has already been done by SSG and I've long suggested that other developers use a similar system. It does make PBEM management much easier (not that it's hard without, but every bit helps).

[marcusm]

Let's hope so.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant
It seems to me the general wargame community is ageing,don't have much free time and PBEM at your own pace seems a good solution. I'd applaud more development work to go into anti-cheating methods in PBEM than say, looking at hosting rooms for direct connections.

If the wargame community really needs anti-cheating methods more than they need something that brings in new blood then I quit.

[e_barkmann]

yes that's a good sentiment but I don't see that spending good development time on a real time hookup system is going to necessarily bring in new people - that's really a different subject altogether.

cheers Chris

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

yes that's a good sentiment but I don't see that spending good development time on a real time hookup system is going to necessarily bring in new people - that's really a different subject altogether.

cheers Chris

No its quite the same to me. Like with the BBB complaint newer users aren't use to the process for PBEM. New wargamers don't get things we've long grown accustomed to. Zone of Control seems so simple once you get it but its just one of many many things its just ASSUMED a player has at least a vague understanding of.

What I would like to see is not necessarily even a real-time hookup system in terms of TCP/IP play but rather some sort of central server hub we all login too like a GAMESPY for Wargames where we can chat and exchange our PBEM turns all through that central system. Get tech support etc. Ya know like the other genres have gotten to do for over a decade You logon and see your turns posted click it and it launches you into the game with that turn. Once you save it brings you back and parks the file automatically in the other players account.

I know I'm dreaming though. Till then I'd just like to see everyone use something more along the lines of what SSG has done then..

[e_barkmann]

I'd agree with you regarding a central meeting place, but it seems to me Matrix have given this a good shot with offering chat rooms, a Teamspeak server and support for BattleHQ. Also, for this to work, Matrix would need to enforce use of the appropriate SDK's and I wonder how devs would feel about that.

Since there is already a Gamespy - perhaps Matrix should approach them for appropriate access?

It would be great for exposure...but Gamespy might say 'waddaya mean it's not realtime???'

cheers Chris

[Veldor]

Right but I think whats really needed is a REAL reason to actually go to any of those places. Gamespy cant really offer that since meeting TCP/IP opponents would definitely be one reason, but if you could also exchange PBEM turns at such a place automatically as well that would really cement the deal. Then such a place could eventually benefit all Matrix Games as not many too date are TCP/IP but nearly all are either PBEM or TCP/IP. It would have to be one place to serve all purposes.

Then you enhance that basic stuff with chatrooms, a few well place game adds, and so on

[Rooster]

ORIGINAL: marcusm
I actually heard of the PBEM portal system regarding AGEOD:s Civil War game. I have and like that game but the pbem system is a real pain in the butt to use. Wargame designers really need to think of accessibility when desiging games. It would do alot to bring new wargamers to the community. I am one of those who refuse to buy into the "Wargamers will never increase and alway be in decline". It is possibe to recruit new gamers. For the simple fact that history interst never dies out, it was why I started in the first place.

You make some good points. Ageod's PBEM is quite clunky. It really needs this portal system, but I think the person using it is developing it in their spare time.

Is it something about WEGO that makes PBEM a pain? PBEM with Combat Mission is a little clunky too.

Couldn't agree more about accessibility and new blood.

[marcusm]

Some kind of Client/Server system like Stars perhaps?

[freeboy]

ok, surprised that no-one pointed out ssg titles have been using one for years

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, surprised that no-one pointed out ssg titles have been using one for years

Nothing client/server or centralized about their system as far as I know. The other portions already been mentioned.