how PBEM games will be handled ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

The problem is when there are two different owners both os whom want to use the base.

Isn't it the role of the team leader at this moment (as when there are losses suffered during a land combat, to choose amongst multiple major powers) to choose who can rebase and who is destroyed ?

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

The problem is when there are two different owners both os whom want to use the base.

Isn't it the role of the team leader at this moment (as when there are losses suffered during a land combat, to choose amongst multiple major powers) to choose who can rebase and who is destroyed ?

I am not sure I agree with Froonp's reading of the rules, but I don't mind, it sounds good.
But the question is if this solves the problem?

Froonp say that the owner decides which unit to abort first, and that this will solve the problem. But I believe Froonp's solution is not yet good enough, because the owner does not need to abort the units individually, the units can be aborted as a group. Aborting as a group can be very sensible if you have to abort through multiple Sea Areas.

- The only restriction we can apply to the group is that the group must be able to stack together, so they must cooperate. But they can be controlled by different players
- Also I believe it will be hard to apply any sensible number limitation on the group.

Consider the following example:
Four SCS (two French and Two American) in the North Atlantic are aborted. They choose to abort as a group. And they really have a whole range of major ports and minor ports which they can go to because they can stack in any French or American controlled port. Now the player controlling the group aborts to Cape St Vincent, where Italy can intercept the units. Italy chooses not to. But the only legal port which they can reach from Cape St.Vincent is the minor port of Casablanca where there are already an American SCS. So the group are one unit too many, and they can't undo because Italy had a choice.

What I meant to illustrate is that to make sure that the game never ends up in an over stack situation there are a whole range of complicated issues to resolve. Much of the complexity is due to the fact that multiple players have a lot of choices to make before the abort moves are concluded. A much simpler solution is to have a window appear at the time the units enter the port.

I agree with Patrice that it makes sense to read the rule in a way that it's one of the aborting units that must be destroyed, and not a normal over stack case in the port. But my conclusion is that the restriction must be applied at the end of the abort move, and not at the beginning (unless no legal port exists).
_ I don't care if you call this an over stack case or an abort issue...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The problem is when there are two different owners both os whom want to use the base.

Isn't it the role of the team leader at this moment (as when there are losses suffered during a land combat, to choose amongst multiple major powers) to choose who can rebase and who is destroyed ?

I am not sure I agree with Froonp's reading of the rules, but I don't mind, it sounds good.
But the question is if this solves the problem?

Froonp say that the owner decides which unit to abort first, and that this will solve the problem. But I believe Froonp's solution is not yet good enough, because the owner does not need to abort the units individually, the units can be aborted as a group. Aborting as a group can be very sensible if you have to abort through multiple Sea Areas.

- The only restriction we can apply to the group is that the group must be able to stack together, so they must cooperate. But they can be controlled by different players
- Also I believe it will be hard to apply any sensible number limitation on the group.

Consider the following example:
Four SCS (two French and Two American) in the North Atlantic are aborted. They choose to abort as a group. And they really have a whole range of major ports and minor ports which they can go to because they can stack in any French or American controlled port. Now the player controlling the group aborts to Cape St Vincent, where Italy can intercept the units. Italy chooses not to. But the only legal port which they can reach from Cape St.Vincent is the minor port of Casablanca where there are already an American SCS. So the group are one unit too many, and they can't undo because Italy had a choice.

What I meant to illustrate is that to make sure that the game never ends up in an over stack situation there are a whole range of complicated issues to resolve. Much of the complexity is due to the fact that multiple players have a lot of choices to make before the abort moves are concluded. A much simpler solution is to have a window appear at the time the units enter the port.

I agree with Patrice that it makes sense to read the rule in a way that it's one of the aborting units that must be destroyed, and not a normal over stack case in the port. But my conclusion is that the restriction must be applied at the end of the abort move, and not at the beginning (unless no legal port exists).
_ I don't care if you call this an over stack case or an abort issue...

Yes. I agree. And the same holds true for air units (though rare to the point of never occurring).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is my first form for PBEM.

It provides access to the Standing Orders and lists the emails sent and received.

Date/Time are real world, while Turn/Impulse/Phase/Subphase are for the simulated world. The Type and NUmber refer to email types and a simple counter of all the emails transmitted in the game. The email type relates to the sequence of play (e.g., W1 through W3 are emails that are sent during the Declaration of War phase).

I consider this a 'Monitor' form and I am still developing one for NetPlay - that will supplement the existing NetPlay Chat form.

For those of you who play email games, is there other information that I should add to this form?




EDIT: By the way, this is the start of the Global War scenario, with Italy setting up its units first! This lets the Allied player set up all 5 of his major powers in one email, and then the Axis player sets up Japan and Germany. That means only 3 emails are used to set up all the major powers.

[lomyrin]

An immediate question -  will the opposing side be able to clck on and open the various areas for decisions such as claims allow or deny for example at any other time than when such a claim has just been made ?
 
Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

An immediate question -  will the opposing side be able to clck on and open the various areas for decisions such as claims allow or deny for example at any other time than when such a claim has just been made ?

Lars

Each side has its own set of standing orders. You will never be able to see your opponent's standing orders. For example, standing orders may use a random number to make decisions, so even if the SO was No last time it was executed it might be Yes the next time.

[bredsjomagnus]

But if I don´t want to accept, say, the finnish boarder claim, does that mean that the SO can ignore that and accept it anyway (because of the randomness)? [&:][X(]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But if I don´t want to accept, say, the finnish boarder claim, does that mean that the SO can ignore that and accept it anyway (because of the randomness)? [&:][X(]

'May' is the operative word. It is up to the player whether he wants the response certain or not. I was just illustrating that the conditionals can use random numbers if the player wants them to. Most of the time you won't; but perhaps there might be situations where you would like to use a "coin toss", just to be unpredictable.

[bredsjomagnus]

Ok. Got it.
 
Sounds like a nice idea, that I can 'toss a coin' and let the computer decide if I want to.
 
Sometimes its not easy to know what to do. And if you can blame the computer for a bad decision it might feel better when those FTRs get destroyed [:D].

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But if I don´t want to accept, say, the finnish boarder claim, does that mean that the SO can ignore that and accept it anyway (because of the randomness)? [&:][X(]

Claims are a 1 time occurence eazch, so I don't think they will be random at all. The player will decide in advance for each.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But if I don´t want to accept, say, the finnish boarder claim, does that mean that the SO can ignore that and accept it anyway (because of the randomness)? [&:][X(]

Claims are a 1 time occurence eazch, so I don't think they will be random at all. The player will decide in advance for each.

Yeah, a poor example. But as Bredsjomagnus said, for sending up fighters introducing some randomness might be a useful ploy.

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

An immediate question -  will the opposing side be able to clck on and open the various areas for decisions such as claims allow or deny for example at any other time than when such a claim has just been made ?

Lars

Each side has its own set of standing orders. You will never be able to see your opponent's standing orders. For example, standing orders may use a random number to make decisions, so even if the SO was No last time it was executed it might be Yes the next time.

So, will a player be able to set the probability of a "Yes" as being 0-100%, or will it just be 50%?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: amwild

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

An immediate question -  will the opposing side be able to clck on and open the various areas for decisions such as claims allow or deny for example at any other time than when such a claim has just been made ?

Lars

Each side has its own set of standing orders. You will never be able to see your opponent's standing orders. For example, standing orders may use a random number to make decisions, so even if the SO was No last time it was executed it might be Yes the next time.

So, will a player be able to set the probability of a "Yes" as being 0-100%, or will it just be 50%?

The program will use the oh-so-interesting 100 sided coin.[;)]