PBEM - lack of choices for players

[Barthheart]

Have to agree with JJ... this will greatly reduce the fun of a PBEM game...[:(]

[freeboy]

we will have to see what there is in the game

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

ORIGINAL: freeboy
can u explain."every tech decision?"

Sure, if you read Macroeconomics AAR you will see that each time a country "techs up" there is a choice presented to the player - at least this is what it seems like from his AAR. The player chooses a "bonus" or "benefit" such as a free unit, reduced reinforcement cost for that unit type, ability to add extra strength to a unit, something like that.

You'll also see that at various points countries are presented with important decisions like his most recent decision about whether or not to accept an armistice with the UK. There are other decisions such as the Soviet decision about whether to accept armistice with Finland at the end of winter 39-40 or whether to continue the war, the Finnish decision (I presume) about whether to accept Soviet demands for territory or give in to the demands.

None of this is presented to the player in PBEM.

That is quite disappointing to hear. Those are significant decisions that can have a big effect on the eventual outcome of the war. But at this point in the game's development what chance is there of this being changed?

[Razz1]

Finland does not choose to go to war.

The Soviet Union does.

Don't align with Finland. When that happens your in a war with Russia.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: Razz
Finland does not choose to go to war.
The Soviet Union does.
Don't align with Finland. When that happens your in a war with Russia.

Righto - but when I translate what you're saying it's this:

"Don't align with Finland. When that happens you're in a war with Russia"
meaning: Broken script in the game forces USSR and Germany into a war because of the historical Winter War

"Finland does not choose to go to war"
meaning: In PBEM it's irrelevant - player makes no choices. Russia will go to war and Finland will go to war with no choice presented to either player.

[Razz1]

Not true. There is a chance the Soviet Union will not go to war.

It's not 100% Winter War.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: Razz

Not true. There is a chance the Soviet Union will not go to war.

It's not 100% Winter War.

Ok let me change it then.

"Don't align with Finland. When that happens you're in a war with Russia"
meaning: Broken script in the game forces USSR and Germany into a war because of the historical Winter War
2nd meaning: I have no choice about aligning with Finland - the game doesn't give me a chance to choose align or no align

"Finland does not choose to go to war"
meaning: In PBEM it's irrelevant - player makes no choices. Russia may or may not go to war, Finland may or may not go to war - there's no choice.

[freeboy]

I do not think the axis have Finland as memeber automatically  in 39 and 40

[Razz1]

They don't.

I suggest you re-read the section on diplomacy.

You control the alignment through DP actions via influence and DOW etc..

[jjdenver]

I'll see what happens in my game. I've done nothing to influence Finland in any way - I'll let you know if they align to Germany. I'm curious if Macro influenced them in his game at all.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

What exactly am I making up? What decisions are presented to the player by the game other than building and moving units? And why is this different in PBEM than in AI games? Can't this be an option that players can turn on or off?

[edit] in pbem

[edit2] I forgot about putting build points into research - the player gets to do this also.

And you being dismissive of my questions about the game feels insulting GW. I don't deserve that - we can discuss the game. I think the game has potential or I wouldn't have spent my money on it. It's vastly disappointing though to find out that the game I see in AAR's against the AI, and that led me to purchase the game is not the game I get in PBEM.

Give up, JJD....I've already seen that they tend to dismiss player objections on game mechanics or design choices as irrational or irritating.
The game basic engine is very good, but a lot of things will have to be fixed by modding it.

[doomtrader]

It is possible to implement a feature which will allow players to make the choices by them, but there are two issues why we would like to avoid that.

1. It of course requires some coding work, which can be spent on something else, but this is not a major issue, more important is that
2. when implementing such feature, one turn can be sometimes send like 10-12 times between the players.

Of course additional amount of work will allow us to display only some of the events in PBEM (no planning or in other words making choices with advance for sure), but who is going to choose which are important enough and which are not. You know, if there are two players, there are three opinions.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca


Give up, JJD....I've already seen that they tend to dismiss player objections on game mechanics or design choices as irrational or irritating.
The game basic engine is very good, but a lot of things will have to be fixed by modding it.

I defy you to point out any statement here by Wastelands that has been dismissive.

I am not a part of Wastelands. Razz is not a part of Wastelands. I, and he, are just other players, with some playtesting experience with the game. Razz can be a pain in the you know what. I on the other hand am a model of serenity. I never said jjdenver was irrational, but he was irritating, because he put words in my mouth, using hyperbole.

Back to the issue at hand. It was a design choice to have the game make event choices in multiplayer, due to the time it would take to implement a different mechanism. The game had to be released someday, and that seemed a workable solution. I suspect that if players as a whole tend to dislike the game making event decisions in multiplayer, that Wastelands will put it on their list of possible changes to be made in a future patch.

It would help, in getting Wastelands to do that, to suggest ways to implement it, as jjdenver did. It won't happen soon, I would guess. In the meantime, the game is not a wash, just because of this issue.

[fvianello]

I defy you to point out any statement here by Wastelands that has been dismissive.

Since you asked, look at the thread "Moving ships from Baltic to North Sea".
Or maybe don't, it doesn't really make a big difference.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
It is possible to implement a feature which will allow players to make the choices by them, but there are two issues why we would like to avoid that.

1. It of course requires some coding work, which can be spent on something else, but this is not a major issue, more important is that
2. when implementing such feature, one turn can be sometimes send like 10-12 times between the players.

Of course additional amount of work will allow us to display only some of the events in PBEM (no planning or in other words making choices with advance for sure), but who is going to choose which are important enough and which are not. You know, if there are two players, there are three opinions.

Doomtrader - I (and I think most players) - would gladly exchange a few more files for the chance to make these decisions. To me this would be the most important fix you could make to the game right now. There are others that need attention but I think this is the biggest.

As for how to implement it, I'd suggest giving players an option in preferences. Specifically as follows:

For who chooses important events I would suggest that you (Wastelands Interactive) assign each event an importance level from 1 to 10. For example tech events might be level 5. Deciding whether to concede as Finland might be level 8. Deciding whether to accept armistice or Vichy from another country might be 10. Then in preferences let players set PBEM decision level to a value from 0 to 10. If they select 0 they will never get choices in PBEM. If they select 5 they'll get tech decisions and other decisions ranked importance 5 - 10. etc. You get the idea.

Thanks for the response.

[doomtrader]

we are going to see what can be done. However there is something like 1500-2000 events that we will have to adjust importance