Multiplayer (more than 2 player) Netplay

[davidachamberlain]

Has there been any testing at all for more than 2 players? I realize that the current version up to 2.28 is limited to 2.

Is this on the roadmap for some future (after 3.0) version?

Dave

[paulderynck]

More than two was on the roadmap for NetPlay - once NetPlay is working for two.

But several groups are already playing multi-player through the use of screen/mouse sharing programs like Teamviewer.

[davidachamberlain]

Thanks, Paul. That was what I sensed from other threads. Yes, that is a work around, but is really the same as multiple hot-seats.

It does make sense to limit to 2 until 2 is working. I just was not sure if anything had gone past that yet, behind the scenes.

I guess that will come after v3, so will be several months away.


Dave

[davidachamberlain]

I went back to Erik's post from last year and I guess that kind of says it all. At the present time, we are just looking to the completion of step 0 below with additional rules and scenarios before increasing to more than 2 players. Based on current priorities, the other additions which are more content related than technical are probably going to continue. We are still a ways off from more than 2 players.

0. Finish Fixing Solitaire and Netplay (details above)

1. Additional Optional Rules

If you look at the beginning of Vol. I of the Player's Manual, you'll see a list of additional optional rules to add, with those that are closest to completion marked with asterisks.

The exact order of implementation for optional rules remains to be decided. We would welcome community input and feedback on which optional rules are of greatest importance to you. The below are currently the closest to completion:

- Optional Rule #47 (Isolated Reorganization Limits)
- City-based volunteers (this is already mostly implemented)
- Guards Banner Armies
- Kamikazes
- Rough Seas
- Naval Supply Units (this one is harder and will be left as one of the last)
- Convoy in Flames (this is likely the hardest and riskiest of all - we're expecting to get to this only once we're very happy that the vast majority of issues have been resolved)

We expect about 1-2 months of development to be spend adding in some of the additional optional rules, depending on which make the final list.

2. Additional Scenarios
- Fascist Tide
- Day of Infamy

Each of these will need about 1 month of development time. We're planning on Fascist Tide first, but much of the required work will apply to both, mainly in terms of how the off-map forces/assets/production are handled.

3. NetPlay expanded to 4 players (possibly 6)

Only after we're sure that NetPlay is very solid for 2 players, but we do not expect 4 or 6 player NetPlay to generate many issues that would not already appear in 2 player NetPlay. This is estimated to take 2-3 months of development time.

4. The AI (post-2015)

This is still something we plan to and want to do, but will nevertheless be a large task. Realistically this is not going to happen this year, but could be started before the end of next year. When we get started on this, more information and details will be provided. This could swap places with 4 player NetPlay in the priority order depending on community preference, though we expect 4 player NetPlay to be a much smaller task once we get to that point.

[Jagdtiger14]

After 2 player NetPlay, I would like to see more work done on the frustrating convoy issues. But I'm guessing that would be "finish fixing solitaire" within #0 above?

[brian brian]

Not sure where to post this, too many threads possible.

I think you should really analyze exactly how this game is played before a lot of effort goes into Multi-Player NetPlay. If it is a rigid system requiring all players to be logged in to the server simultaneously then games will move very, very slowly. Since the rules are hard-coded in, take advantage of that and let the server allow non-phasing players to be offline whenever possible. The Russian player needn't be connected while the IJN fights the USN, for example. Likewise, the USA player needn't be online while the land units are moved in Russia.

[davidachamberlain]

I am not sure if that is a question about how the game is played, but more on how it should be played. I believe the design goal was to simulate much of the tabletop game.

A team (Axis/Allies) will simultaneously work through the impulses of the phases to get to the point where action would be triggered by the opponent players.

For the most part, that is how things happen now with 2 player. The addition of more players should not change that, but there will need to be more processing to assimilate the moves of multiple players on a team before communicating the updates to all players.

With that in mind, I don't think that this would be much of a problem.

Regarding your point about not needing to be online while different theatres are in play, I have to disagree. The way the tabletop game is played, everything for a phasing team happens at once. You can not really have things going in one theatre without the others. Turns end on a die roll (for the entire game). Actions on each side happen simultaneously. Russia needs to care to some extent on what is happening in China/Japan as US needs to care about what is happening in the Pacific and Europe. Germany needs to care about what is happening on both their fronts, so even though in early stages, the US might not have a direct impact on what happens in Russia, that will start to occur at some point.

This is not a game multiple timelines dealt with independently. US and UK actions will often occur in multiple theatres after the US is fully in the game and even occasionally before that time.

Unless there is the ability to transfer responsibilities between players on the same side, it is an all hands on deck requirement. That may make this player re-assignment requirement something that needs additional thought at some point.

Dave

[davidachamberlain]

YOU can CLOSE this Thread as answered.

[Centuur]

I agree totally that if you really want to have all players on one side having to do things when online, Brian Brian is right that a game can take a long time to get finished.

It's something which we need to think about, IMHO. What happens if one of the players suddenly can't proceed anymore? Are we having a "dead" game in such a case? I don't want that to happen, since games of MWIF will tend to take a long time to finish. Can we "lend" a game to a person on the other side in cases where one is out of touch for a longer periode? We need some solutions for that, I believe.

[juntoalmar]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I agree totally that if you really want to have all players on one side having to do things when online, Brian Brian is right that a game can take a long time to get finished.

It's something which we need to think about, IMHO. What happens if one of the players suddenly can't proceed anymore? Are we having a "dead" game in such a case? I don't want that to happen, since games of MWIF will tend to take a long time to finish. Can we "lend" a game to a person on the other side in cases where one is out of touch for a longer periode? We need some solutions for that, I believe.

I think the discussion has been moved to the General Forum. here