speeding up play

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

1.  Marshall wins.  Unless convinced otherwise.
2.  Yes.  But why not assume all the other AI players were using simulataneous turns, after all the rate at which an AI processes is quite fast so as to be Simultaneous when playing solo.
3. I understand that.  The fact still remains that the game is moving at the speed of the slowest player, and given that many of the actions in one phase are dependent on what happens in another, combining some will have some drastic unintended consequnces

Have any of you ever played EiA with simultaneous turns via PbEM?  I've played in 5, that were pretty similar from a mechanical point of view, but they did cause an endless array of headaches.
If you have, how did you  deal with unintended results?  Let them be?

As an aside, whats equally bothersome, to me anyways, is that many of you advocating simultaneous turns are the same ones upset that the game is not a port of EiA, wherein sequential turns were the rule.  How do you all square that?

Todd

3. This is not true. There is no "slowest" player in this scenario. How is the slowest player? Player 3 or Player 1? Player 1 wanted to do his turn between 5-8pm but he couldn't because he was waiting on Player 3, but wait, some other player has to wait on player 1, who takes 21 hours to do his turn.

I "square" it by asking for IP play. I'm not going to get that so I'm trying to find a way to convince Matrix and Marshall that the internet exists and we don't have a need for dialup login BBSes anymore, er, I mean PBEM.

Bear is right, no one is really considering simul Reinf, most everyone is looking towards simul Dip and simul Eco.

The fact remains, and this is indisputable: with the best case scenario the game does not slow down with simul and with the worst case scenario the game speeds up dramatically. Not sure where the argument is!?

[borner]

player 1 - in the USA east cost submits turn 9pm.
player 2 US central, turn done 10pm
player 3 somewhere down under, does his turn when he gets home, early day US time
player 4, USA somewhere, does his turn where he gets home from work. we are now on day two. Overnight in Europe.
player 5, say in Germany, does his turn when he get up before work
player 6, back in the USA, does his turn from his laptop in the afternoon local time
player 7  USA does his turn in the evening.....
 
This is pretty realistic in my opinion. 3 days total. if phase is done at once, one turn. It is not due to the slowest player, but time zones and sequence.
 
as for IP, how do you get players from multiple nations all online at the same time??? 
 
 
Memo to Dancing bear and neverman - well said
 

[Thresh]

Simultaneous diplomacy was the only thing being considered. If you objections are based on the above assumption that rein and dip would all be done at once, than I can see why you were objecting so strenuously. Sim diplomacy would not affect the scenario you outline above.

Then take the situation outlined above and remove the reinforcement part.

Simultaneous econ you can do, because there's nothing in another countries build that will significantly affect another country IMO, but the diplomatic phase....If your trying to combine all of section 4.0 into one step you're getting a brickload of headaches in return.  My example above is just a small (but admittedly on the extreme end) one of the experiences I've encountered in Simul play, there are plenty of other minor ones that affect the game just as much. 

I'll ask again, who else here on this thread other than myself has played EiA with simultaneous phases?

Todd
 

[mr.godo]

Austria didnt call any allies, and because of its combined movement is moving after Prussia...

Austria didn't call any allies? That's unfortunate. Combined movement?...

Then take the situation outlined above and remove the reinforcement part.
...
I'll ask again, who else here on this thread other than myself has played EiA with simultaneous phases?

That's easy!!! Everyone does!
Diplomacy is rendered simultaneously!
"6.0 The Diplomacy Phase
The Diplomacy Phase employs a pre-action reaction format (standing orders) for several functions through the use of the Diplomatic Reactions Screen (below) and the Victory Conditions screen, the results of which are calculated simultaneously and revealed at the start of the reinforcement phase"

Combined movement? Combined Diplomacy and Reinforcement? You're talking about the board game Empires in Arms played with funky house rules that do not make sense (combining Diplomacy and Reinforcement while adopting a sequential file submission would never work). This discussion is about the computer game Empires in Arms, abbreviated EiANW. No wonder we're having such a hard time communicating! We don't want to necessarily take different phases and combine them (see below). We want to allow simultaneous submission of game files for phases which are not sequentially dependant. Movement is sequentially dependant: the Russian moves, then the Turk moves. Etc. Just like in the board game. This would not be simultaneous. Diplomacy is rendered simultaneously, therefore we should be allowed to submit the phases simultaneously and once all phases are submitted, the host processes the turn and we start the process of sequential phases with the reinforcement phase.

Bear is right, no one is really considering simul Reinf, most everyone is looking towards simul Dip and simul Eco.

I advocate simultaneous reinforcement. The only reason it's done in the board game in a igougo approach is because there's no fair way to set up forces secretly. I understand that this changes the complexion of the game, but it is not something that is so ridiculous to propose and it will save time if simultaneous file submission is adopted. I also think that there should be radical changes made to the whole builds process: the reason economics is lumped into three month turns is because 1) it's tedious to track money and 2) it would take too long to have an econ phase every month. Make a combined reinforcement/econ phase every turn. Why do troops only show up in certain months? That's not realistic at all! I should be able to get infantry in January. Or guards in February. And the computer can handle the accounting.

[bresh]

Ponder, logic says diplomacy and eco-phases if done syncronious it will speed the game. Compared to current.

Example if you play a 24H/phase game. Lets say on the average very fast players use 8h/phase(time zone/work/sleep/real life).

This means bit over 2 days for these phases, compared to 2-5 days witch is what is most common speed for most games i played.
Reinforcement is also discussed, and on the tactical level i would not think its a gain to "join". What about minor's etc.

Regards
Bresh

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh



I'll ask again, who else here on this thread other than myself has played EiA with simultaneous phases?

Todd

Please note godo's post where he quotes the "standing orders" for Dip Phase as is done with EiANW.

SO, simul Dip is really already implemented we just need to be able to do the turn out of order.

I have played simul Dip and Eco phases in FtF games all the time.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

I advocate simultaneous reinforcement. The only reason it's done in the board game in a igougo approach is because there's no fair way to set up forces secretly.

This is incorrect, and shapes the rest of your argument. The reason this is done sequentially in the board game is because certain powers deserved to be able to see the results of other powers' reinforcements before placing their own.

Matrix made the same mistake when they crafted the reinforcement ordering for the network game. The error can be seen very clearly:

In the original boardgame, France goes last in the land reinforcement phase, but GB goes last in the naval reinforcement phase. Clearly, there is a difference, and this can only be attributed to their dominance at land and sea, respectively.

EIANW masks these differences, and has almost completely lost the significance of the ordering of reinforcement: GB goes second in reinforcement, when she should be going last or next to last. This is a reason some people don't see a problem with simulataneous reinforcement: The effects of reinforcement ordering have already been lost, to a degree!

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I have played simul Dip and Eco phases in FtF games all the time.

This is correct: Virtually all games took advantage of humans' ability to abstract time and combined these steps.

BUT, it misses one point: In all cases, a single player could request to do things in order, and then the game would have to adopt that order. In our games, this usually happened just as enforced peace was expiring, or shortly before, at a minimum. It also happened a lot in the minor country land-grab that occurs at the beginning of the game.

Because the game will either do it one way or the other, it must be accepted that there WILL be a cost imposed by simultaneous turns happening. As you pointed out elsewhere, this cost is already in place in EIANW, to a certain extent. For example, the pre-ordering for call to allies and minor country control (etc.)

I still support simultaneous diplomacy, but I realize there WILL be a cost to it.

At this point, the reinforcement step has not already been neutered like the diplomacy phase has, so the cost to make reinforcement simultaneous is much higher. But, since the current reinforcement setup greatly penalizes Great Britain as regards naval reinforcement, the cost would be borne mostly by France, and this would offset the penalty GB already has paid (vs EIA).

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
I have played simul Dip and Eco phases in FtF games all the time.

This is correct: Virtually all games took advantage of humans' ability to abstract time and combined these steps.

BUT, it misses one point: In all cases, a single player could request to do things in order, and then the game would have to adopt that order. In our games, this usually happened just as enforced peace was expiring, or shortly before, at a minimum. It also happened a lot in the minor country land-grab that occurs at the beginning of the game.

Because the game will either do it one way or the other, it must be accepted that there WILL be a cost imposed by simultaneous turns happening. As you pointed out elsewhere, this cost is already in place in EIANW, to a certain extent. For example, the pre-ordering for call to allies and minor country control (etc.)

I still support simultaneous diplomacy, but I realize there WILL be a cost to it.

At this point, the reinforcement step has not already been neutered like the diplomacy phase has, so the cost to make reinforcement simultaneous is much higher. But, since the current reinforcement setup greatly penalizes Great Britain as regards naval reinforcement, the cost would be borne mostly by France, and this would offset the penalty GB already has paid (vs EIA).

I would actuallt support when skipping works, to add the extra naval-reinforcement phase. (most players would set it to be skippe then, so in general it would only add the lost phase for GB).
Offcourse it can be argued GB seems to strong as it is, So we do need naval evasion back to.

Regards
Bresh

[mr.godo]

I still support simultaneous diplomacy, but I realize there WILL be a cost to it.

Let's get things nicely defined, shall we?

SIMULTANEOUS RESOLUTION - all players turns being resolved at the same time
SIMULTANEOUS SUBMISSION - player turns being submitted to a central host who then processes the turn
COMBINED PHASES - two or more phases combined into one phase, such as combining economics and reinforcement
COMBINED STEPS - when steps within a phase a combined into the phase, such as declarations of war, peace, etc. within the diplomacy step.

Jimmer, you're referring to combined steps, correct? How does that affect the speed of the game? I do not believe this is at issue here. The engine has been designed and breaking it up into dow, peace, etc. would adversely affect the speed of the game. Mind you, I have run into issues with the interface regarding who I choose to go to war with and who I remain allied with.

The diplomacy phase is being resolved for all players at the same time. This is not up for discussion either.

I'm advocating simultaneous submissions, that's all. The turn is what it is, all players should be able to send their email turn to the host who then crunches through and hands back the reinf phase.

This is incorrect, and shapes the rest of your argument. The reason this is done sequentially in the board game is because certain powers deserved to be able to see the results of other powers' reinforcements before placing their own.

Then explain to me the reason that infantry only show up during the third month of a year. You never see infantry reinforcements during January. Does this represent some natural phenomenon where your levies only arrived every three months or is it some form of game approximation?
With respect to sequential reinforcement steps, the reason, or at least part of the reason, for having a turn order in a game is because it is not conducive to peaceful play if you have no order. It's just board game logic and it should be dumped in favour of a more fluid system that manages time better. Was Turkish intelligence really that great to have them rated fifth in the sequence? What about Great Britain's control of the sea? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them always set up last given that they're more able to drop forces off by sea while the french would have to march there?

[Ashtar]

mr.godo...

mr.godo, the reason many people here wants to see EIANW as close as possible to EIA is that EIA was a beautiful balanced game. The more things you change without a serious playtesting, the more chances to disrupt that balance you have.

Have reinforce be simultaneous and you will strip France of some advantage it has.
For one, now France can decide his land order of movement in the reinforce phase after having witnessed where the other powers reinforced. Other powers, on the other hand,
have to decide about borrowing corps to allies before knowing when France will move...
Can you foresee all such effects and re-balance the game?

In my opinion, game can be positively speed up by:

1. Having synchronous diplomatic and economic phases (everyone can do its moves without
waiting for the others - then game loads them in order).
2. Allowing players to declare a naval phase skip in their reinforce phase (to be kept
secret, i.e. none knows but when the skipping players turn arrives the game
automatically generates a null turn)
3. Combine diplomatic and economic phases together (every three months after your
economic phase you also play the diplo, without waiting for all other eco and diplo
from other players. Then, once again, the game loads them in order, first the eco,
then the diplo.

This is going to speed up game by around 30%, probably almost 45% in enforcement peace periods (the worse, since enthusiasm wanes no one is eager to check its e-mail and play quickly when you know you have nothing funny to do in your next 60 turns... so in my experience games slows down more there)

[NeverMan]

Unfortunately, this game has already been butchered to the point of mutilation and really looks little like the original EiA.

Although I would love to see a Empires in Arms game, I'm not sure that argument can be used here. The game might as well be altered to the point of playability and renamed and then someone else can make EiA.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo

I still support simultaneous diplomacy, but I realize there WILL be a cost to it.

Let's get things nicely defined, shall we?

SIMULTANEOUS RESOLUTION - all players turns being resolved at the same time
SIMULTANEOUS SUBMISSION - player turns being submitted to a central host who then processes the turn
COMBINED PHASES - two or more phases combined into one phase, such as combining economics and reinforcement
COMBINED STEPS - when steps within a phase a combined into the phase, such as declarations of war, peace, etc. within the diplomacy step.

Jimmer, you're referring to combined steps, correct? How does that affect the speed of the game? I do not believe this is at issue here.

I'm not sure I agree with the definitions.

Simultaneous phasing means all players can submit their phase PBM file at any time (after the previous phase, that is). It's simultaneous only in that they all get processed at once, after the last person has submitted the phase orders. A better term might be "asychronous submission of PBM files for a phase".

Your "simultaneous submission" is close to this, but this doesn't require a central host. The game would process these on each player's system. Your "simultaneous resolution" is part of my definition (the very last step).

Skipping means that a player can set an option to skip his portion of one or more phases.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Ashtar
1. Having synchronous diplomatic and economic phases (everyone can do its moves without
waiting for the others - then game loads them in order).

I think you meant asynchronous.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo
Then explain to me the reason that infantry only show up during the third month of a year. You never see infantry reinforcements during January. Does this represent some natural phenomenon where your levies only arrived every three months or is it some form of game approximation?

This is completely unrelated to my statement.

[fvianello]

Your "simultaneous submission" is close to this, but this doesn't require a central host. The game would process these on each player's system.

Who rolls the dice?

[fvianello]

Simultaneous phasing means all players can submit their phase PBM file at any time (after the previous phase, that is). It's simultaneous only in that they all get processed at once, after the last person has submitted the phase orders.

If the phase is processed on every players' pc, who rolls the dice ?

If the phase is processed on the last player's pc, he should also send out the phase results to everyone (i am russia, i want to know what happened in the reinf phase before moving my navy).

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: mr.godo
With respect to sequential reinforcement steps, the reason, or at least part of the reason, for having a turn order in a game is because it is not conducive to peaceful play if you have no order. It's just board game logic and it should be dumped in favour of a more fluid system that manages time better. Was Turkish intelligence really that great to have them rated fifth in the sequence? What about Great Britain's control of the sea? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them always set up last given that they're more able to drop forces off by sea while the french would have to march there?

Yes, that's part of the reason. But, I included that part in my post. The issue isn't just sequencing for game play. There were DIFFERENT reinforcement orders (to which you allude). Within a game-play-only explanation, there is no valid reason for this. Thus, we must conclude that they intended GB's naval domination to be extended to the reinforcement phase as well as the naval phase (similar to France's situation in the land stuff).

EIANW has already lost this distinction, and it is very clear that this change impacts GB negatively. Whether that's a good thing or not remains to be seen, but there IS an impact (as people claiming the red herring that "GB is already too powerful at sea" have already noted).

If the reinforcement phase is made simultaneous (asynchronously submitted), then a similar change will occur to France's land power: It will be weakened. To what extent will this affect game play? That remains to be seen.

I support a limited simultaneous reinforcement phase: The five powers all do their turn asynchronously. Then, France does her turn. Finally GB does hers. Or, reverse those last two. Or, better yet, allow France to do land after GB and GB to do land after France, but I suspect that is too difficult to program in.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

Your "simultaneous submission" is close to this, but this doesn't require a central host. The game would process these on each player's system.

Who rolls the dice?

Whoever does now. Remember that the die rolling can be done without knowing what is being rolled against. One just must have an algorithm for applying the results in a consisten order.

Alternately, the dice rolling could be done by the person going first in the next phase. That would probably be a change to the code, though.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca
If the phase is processed on every players' pc, who rolls the dice ?

If the phase is processed on the last player's pc, he should also send out the phase results to everyone (i am russia, i want to know what happened in the reinf phase before moving my navy).

This pair of questions explains why the code is difficult to write. Asynchronous tasking is the most difficult of all programming challenges. But, EIANW is probably saved by the fact that there is always a "next" player (not necessarily in the same phase), and THAT player's computer can roll all of the dice.

Your question also highlights why EIANW can never be the same as EIA: The ordering matters in EIA, and some actions are dependent upon previous results.