Not to PBEM

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Veldor
The simple truth is, from a wargame developmental standpoint, if you don't factor in the A.I. every step of the way you are shooting yourself and your game for sure. If your PBEM support is slightly lacking, by comparison, all you really need deal with are half a dozen diehards who will never let the issue die. Again, maybe that is enough.

More or less true. I agree that AI players are the majority and developers need to "factor in the AI every step of the way". Factoring in the AI will NOT change the fact that the AI is, and will remain, pretty feeble opponent in majority of wargames and majority of situations/scenarios but I certainly agree it has to be "factored in". At least as a training tool for PBEM (majority of AIs is no better than a training tool anyway).

However, PBEM is the easiest form of H2H (human to human) play to implement. Save turns, pack them for PBEM, implement some password security or something and that's it. There are cheap, or even free programming libraries for those simple, mundane tasks (from a software developer's POV). No need to do any complex work such as is needed for the AI.

So, say 70% of players are AI type, but their demands are very time consuming (AI). 30% are PBEM-type, but their demands are EXTREMELY simple. There's almost nothing to "factor in" in your game development to satisfy this "diehard" group.

There is simply NO excuse NOT to implement PBEM support if you're making a turn based game.

That's why I personally took some of the last year's Matrix releases as insult. Not merely bad games, but simply embarrasing. They had/have feeble AIs (which is what I expect anyway) but they didn't even have the proper PBEM support to compensate, at the time of their release.

That, for me, is simply inexcusable.

BTW I like all forms of H2H play. Direct play, multiplay FPS, whatever. It's just that the PBEM remains the most practical, and the least "developer-demanding" way to play turn based games. A guy (exp101) posted this in another sub forum (EIA) and I'll quote him: "Personally, I like the PBEM format because it allows plenty of time for analysis (or maybe even some over-analysis ). A good move is like fine wine or art: to be savored & relished, or crafted into a thing of beauty. This doesn't happen much when sitting down at a table cranking out phases."

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

In my MMORG days I encountered a plethora of "twenty-somethings going on thirteen"......it seems they all migrated to the PBEM world!

What is it Hans? Have you found zhe (not a typo) mirror?[;)] But if you insist could you tell me more about your other -say black belt- experiences?

[emcgman]

#1 reason I don't play PBEM.

I can't even come close to winning against AI [:D]

But as far as strength of AI in these type of games, it will only get better with time. Eventually, we will have AI that can not be beat. It all comes down to mathematics. And computers are king in this realm. Just need more history of programming to build on.

Chess has finally got to where the program Rybka, no one can beat it. But it did take decades of programming, building on the exact same rules and concepts for it to get that far.

A huge factor with wargaming, is every design is a little different, so programmers aren't able to just continually build on one design. If they could over a couple decades, wargame AI would be a lot better than it is now.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

In my MMORG days I encountered a plethora of "twenty-somethings going on thirteen"......it seems they all migrated to the PBEM world!

What is it Hans? Have you found zhe (not a typo) mirror?[;)] But if you insist could you tell me more about your other -say black belt- experiences?

I ignored your first non-sequitur, but you seem to be on a roll.

Work on getting a clue!

[ravinhood]

To me playing against an AI is like playing against the mind(s) of the developer(s) who made it. Thus those of us that play against AI's ARE PLAYING ANOTHER HUMAN or even several humans at once. It's all in the perspective. But, when developers open up the AI to be tweaked and changed like Spartan and Kohan II then people can make their own AI's and let others play against them and thus even more HUMAN AI's for solo players to play against. AI's don't create themselves guess Oleg never thought of that. All AI's are a HUMAN invention and creation, thus, we all are playing against another human or humans.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
To me playing against an AI is like playing against the mind(s) of the developer(s) who made it. Thus those of us that play against AI's ARE PLAYING ANOTHER HUMAN or even several humans at once. It's all in the perspective. But, when developers open up the AI to be tweaked and changed like Spartan and Kohan II then people can make their own AI's and let others play against them and thus even more HUMAN AI's for solo players to play against. AI's don't create themselves guess Oleg never thought of that. All AI's are a HUMAN invention and creation, thus, we all are playing against another human or humans.

Hardly so unless the game is heavily scripted and scenario specific. In classic wargames you don't play against developers not even in the metaphoric sense. You're usually playing against very generic, and very incapable AI.

Now that I mentioned scripting I am BIG fan of scripting in game scenario design, but it does not work well in "classic" wargames. It works best in simulations IMO.

There was this game - Dangerous Waters, nuke submarine and general modern naval sim - I had more fun doing my own scenarios in the editor than playing the game. When doing my own scenario I relied on the excellent scripting capabilities of the editor, but AI, as discussed in this thread, rarely came into play. I did imagine as if I am "playing" against invisible human, so "if he does that I will script 'my' AI subs to do that - haha he's in for a surprise". The scenario building in DW is like, "if trigger A, then do the script B". This kind of AI is fun to work with from both sides, but it's not a "real" strategic AI, it would better be called "programmed opponent".

That's scripting that's not AI. Having said that there are wargames that could benefit from this approach but they are relatively rare. Grand strategic games like WITP or EIA, those relying on diplomacy, strategic goals, reinforcements, true FOW (not cheating all seeeing AI).... will remain the domain of human minds for a long long long time to come.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Let me add...
 
The reason why "classic" wargame designers avoid scripting - and it's a good reason - is that scripting is a big enemy of replayability. Generic AI, no matter how stupid, is replayable, provided that the player does not leave the game in disgust after 5 minutes of frustrating AI play [:D] If the player is OK with the feeble AI (or if he plays PBEM) the replayability of such wargame is very high.
 
Scripted scenarios, like the ones in Dangerous Waters, can be fun once, perhaps twice, after that the player knows the script and it's not much fun to replay the scenario after that.

[Captain Cruft]

I really do wish the computer wargaming industry would discover some honesty and stop providing AIs. There is no point to it other than simple money grubbing, and the diversion of resources almost always results in reduced game quality. What's wrong with being a hobbyist human only industry like board gaming? It would be much healthier IMHO.

[marcusm]

Alternative 2. Developers do whatever they please and you the consumer can decide whether it's worth your money.

TOAW3 is a great example of game with good enough AI (as long as the scenariodesigners know what they are doing), to please  most gamers. Not everyone (certainly not the  whiners in this thread) but good for most.

I like pbem but sometimes I just want that quick wargaming fix. What better option than to fire up a short scenario against the AI?

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: marcusm

Alternative 2. Developers do whatever they please and you the consumer can decide whether it's worth your money.

Well that is indeed the current model. Except that a) most games don't provide a demo, so it's a bit difficult to decide "whether it's worth your money" and b) as a corollary of that almost invariably after purchasing the AI-using consumer is disappointed. Or possibly more usually the game gets played for a month or so by the majority "casual gamer" then ditched. Which suits the current record industry a-like business model quite well, as far as it goes.

I have previously advocated for wargames to go in the direction of MMORPGs, with server-based architecture and monthly subscriptions. Multi-player online (the computerised equivalent of face to face) is IMHO the only real future for the genre. There are only so many old 90s kludgefest games that publishers can resurrect for a quick buck, but no-one has yet been brave enough to admit the position and then actually do something about it.

Serve a niche market well, charge a realistic price, and stop trying to be all things to all men.

[ravinhood]

You guys ever take a look at the "Looking for Opponent" threads within each games forum that provides it? Notice how little or practically any traffic is alive in them? I think that pretty much sums up the amount of motovation and drive people have to play against each other as the numbers are small and feeble.
 
Plus I still disagree with you Oleg, no matter if the AI is scripted or not they ALL are developed by a HUMAN. Each human developer of the AI within the game are a bit different. That is why we have some games with exceptional AI's even when programmed to CHEAT and then we have AI's like in RTW and M2TW that were programmed by ignorant fools who obviously don't know anything about tactics and strategy and how to develop it within a game. Every game I play I see a different PERSON behind the AI programming and either applaud him/her or ridicule their ignorance. It's not the AI's fault when an AI is bad it can't be, because an AI doesn't programe itself. So, there's no separation of scripted or not, merely the different APPROACH a HUMAN who is developing the AI goes. Take the AI in Making History for example say vs your SC2/WAW expansion. They both cover the same subject matter, but, Making Histories AI developer went in a more open and less scripted manner of development while SC2/WAW is scripted. They are completely different games with completely different outcomes, but, still based on the HUMAN minds interpretation of how they should play out. So, an AI is really only as "INTELLIGENT" as the developer. THus, playing against the human mind of all developers of AI's out there cannot be denied.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Dare I posit the following, that wargamers once involved themselves in the hobby out of a commonality of interests:

1) They had a fascination with military history and it's analysis.

2) They enjoyed playing games, cards, board-games, miniatures, whatever.

3) Wargaming provided them with a social outlet that was, at once, both competitive and fraternal.

It seems to me that the discussion attendant to this thread suggests that #3 is sort of an afterthought for many of our readers. Apparently, for many of you, wargaming has devolved into a hobby in which gameplay is a largely solitary affair which you discuss with others on forums like this. I suppose that it could be suggested that this "conversation" is where the "social outlet" lies, but somehow that doesn't ring true, not one bit.

The overwhelming majority of posters here on the forum strike me as genuninely fine fellas. That said, I honestly don't see the kind of relationships forming amongst the brethren, hereabouts, that I've developed over four decades with my "gaming buddies." Those bonds were formed in the crucible of hundreds of hours spent huddled together over our hobby, fighting it out over one of the several varieties of wargame at hand.

Honestly, I think that #3 is more important than many folks want to admit. Absent my comrades, I don't think that I'd have stuck with the hobby as long as I have. It'd just have been too lonely.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Dare I posit the following, that wargamers once involved themselves in the hobby out of a commonality of interests:

1) They had a fascination with military history and it's analysis.

2) They enjoyed playing games, cards, board-games, miniatures, whatever.

3) Wargaming provided them with a social outlet that was, at once, both competitive and fraternal.

It seems to me that the discussion attendant to this thread suggests that #3 is sort of an afterthought for many of our readers. Apparently, for many of you, wargaming has devolved into a hobby in which gameplay is a largely solitary affair which you discuss with others on forums like this. I suppose that it could be suggested that this "conversation" is where the "social outlet" lies, but somehow that doesn't ring true, not one bit.

The overwhelming majority of posters here on the forum strike me as genuninely fine fellas. That said, I honestly don't see the kind of relationships forming amongst the brethren, hereabouts, that I've developed over four decades with my "gaming buddies." Those bonds were formed in the crucible of hundreds of hours spent huddled together over our hobby, fighting it out over one of the several varieties of wargame at hand.

Honestly, I think that #3 is more important than many folks want to admit. Absent my comrades, I don't think that I'd have stuck with the hobby as long as I have. It'd just have been too lonely.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I agree strongly with your assessment especially number 3. However, that being said, since some of us still particpate in F2F boardgaming we get our social "fix" by that medium and don't need or care to pursue it electronically.

Also, your closing statement is extremely subjective. Some of us may just be the "loner" types and never feel lonely because we aren't surrrounded by and interacting with others. Some people have stronger needs for socialization that others. That's why one size doesn't fit all.

[06 Maestro]

PoE

Your analisys is correct; for me, anyway. I doubt that I would have bought my 1st pc (TOAW 1) game if there was not an option/opportunity for interaction with other players.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Honestly, I think that #3 is more important than many folks want to admit. Absent my comrades, I don't think that I'd have stuck with the hobby as long as I have. It'd just have been too lonely.

I started getting seriously into table-top gaming in 1970 - via Strat-O-Matic Baseball & Football. I was able to occasionally draw friends & relatives into playing but not that often. They were casually interested at best and I was a "Strat-O-Matic Fanatic". So 99% of the games I played were solo, since the gamemaker was good enough to provide that option.Then I started getting deeply interested in WW2 history and wargames. I couldn't sustain my friends involvement in games that generally lasted under an hour. I had virtually no chance in getting them to play games that might last weeks/months.

When computer games came along with a built-in opponent, I jumped on the band wagon immediately. It was a Godsend. Nobody else I knew even owned a computer, let alone would be interested in playing games that lasted so long and had such learning curves. So playing solo was a necessity for me. Now, with all the other demands of life, I'm the one not interested in committing to a game that might last years.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Dare I posit the following, that wargamers once involved themselves in the hobby out of a commonality of interests:

1) They had a fascination with military history and it's analysis.

2) They enjoyed playing games, cards, board-games, miniatures, whatever.

3) Wargaming provided them with a social outlet that was, at once, both competitive and fraternal.

It seems to me that the discussion attendant to this thread suggests that #3 is sort of an afterthought for many of our readers. Apparently, for many of you, wargaming has devolved into a hobby in which gameplay is a largely solitary affair which you discuss with others on forums like this. I suppose that it could be suggested that this "conversation" is where the "social outlet" lies, but somehow that doesn't ring true, not one bit.

The overwhelming majority of posters here on the forum strike me as genuninely fine fellas. That said, I honestly don't see the kind of relationships forming amongst the brethren, hereabouts, that I've developed over four decades with my "gaming buddies." Those bonds were formed in the crucible of hundreds of hours spent huddled together over our hobby, fighting it out over one of the several varieties of wargame at hand.

Honestly, I think that #3 is more important than many folks want to admit. Absent my comrades, I don't think that I'd have stuck with the hobby as long as I have. It'd just have been too lonely.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I've no problem with that assessment, however when mentioned in terms of PBEM games it'd be like having a rule in FTF gaming where you leave the room entirely during your opponents turn and have a chess clock going while "switching sides" that allowed for about a minutes worth of uninterrupted chatter after which your opponent got an uninterrupted minute of chatter and then one plays and one leaves.

Thus I think your argument works a whole lot better in relation to TCP/IP Network gaming. It's a bit why I've suggested PBEM games evolve into a server system. Maybe that way you can at least chat with other players during an opponents turn (or even your opponent if they dont mind)... Review other games in progress/Saved AARs/etc. all through one interface. See a report of all games open and have it automated to send turns around. And a dozen other things others could think of and not me. Not all that hard compared to making an actual proper network TCP/IP game. And would go aways towards merging two minorities (PBEMers and NetworkGamers) into one category vs. Strickly AI Players.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Honestly, I think that #3 is more important than many folks want to admit. Absent my comrades, I don't think that I'd have stuck with the hobby as long as I have. It'd just have been too lonely.

I started getting seriously into table-top gaming in 1970 - via Strat-O-Matic Baseball & Football. I was able to occasionally draw friends & relatives into playing but not that often. They were casually interested at best and I was a "Strat-O-Matic Fanatic". So 99% of the games I played were solo, since the gamemaker was good enough to provide that option.Then I started getting deeply interested in WW2 history and wargames. I couldn't sustain my friends involvement in games that generally lasted under an hour. I had virtually no chance in getting them to play games that might last weeks/months.

When computer games came along with a built-in opponent, I jumped on the band wagon immediately. It was a Godsend. Nobody else I knew even owned a computer, let alone would be interested in playing games that lasted so long and had such learning curves. So playing solo was a necessity for me. Now, with all the other demands of life, I'm the one not interested in committing to a game that might last years.

If, only, that was the case, with everyone. To have contacts to play board games.
My experience was to play them solo. I was not as fortunate. Once, and only once, was I lucky enough to have players to share a boardgame with. It was in college and we only played once AH's 3Riech. It was great fun. Zap
And so more or less like Mjk428 the computer came along (easy set up ) and an opponent.

[ravinhood]

And in the 80's some very good AI opponents I would add. 2mb-5mb games with more power to please than most of your 2 gigabyte games today. Who doesn't recall Knights of the Desert, Tigers in the Snow, Battle for Normandy some of the very first computer wargames that actually DID play like a board wargame. Then developers got off into animation land even back then and changed the nato counters into 8 bit tanks an infantry men and you got games like Jagd and Wargame Construction Set 1 and TAC anyone remember AH's computer TAC? Then there was the first REAL TIME STRATEGY game called "Combat Leader" hahah it had these retangular boxes for tanks and something that looked like a I with o's on both sides of it to represent infantry and mortars. Ahhhh those were the days of good times and great computer wargames.