Are We There Yet?

[Dabrion]

I agree, tankers are the single issue U have with this product! And Perfection...

[Omnius]

Shannon V. OKeets,
Wow way cool dude! I expected to pay for an update like most every other program would require when not fully fleshed out. While the wait has been long I'm very impressed with how long you've tended to this program post release!

Any idea when we'll see tankers. I keep thinking it will alleviate a lot of cargo ship pipelines from being interrupted when a new oil trade overseas route is opened up. That's what drives me nuts as the U.K. player. Plus being able to prioritize certain routes to not be changed unless there is a lack of ships in a sea zone from combat or poor planning.

Thanks Mate! [:D]

[Omnius]

Dabrion,
Let's hope Shannon gets oil tankers coded soon!

[tom730_slith]

Still play solitaire and still enjoy this game! I recently purchased a "half-price sale" version for a great friend who lives in another part of the U.S., so I'll be looking into the best way to play against a real live opponent before long!

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: tom730

Still play solitaire and still enjoy this game! I recently purchased a "half-price sale" version for a great friend who lives in another part of the U.S., so I'll be looking into the best way to play against a real live opponent before long!

There's 3 choices to play against a remote opponent.
1. NetPlay (in beta but getting there as of the pending next release)
2. Screen sharing software
3. PBEM

Although 2 and 3 are not "official" you can find many, many threads here that talk about them.

[juntoalmar]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: tom730

Still play solitaire and still enjoy this game! I recently purchased a "half-price sale" version for a great friend who lives in another part of the U.S., so I'll be looking into the best way to play against a real live opponent before long!

There's 3 choices to play against a remote opponent.
1. NetPlay (in beta but getting there as of the pending next release)
2. Screen sharing software
3. PBEM

Although 2 and 3 are not "official" you can find many, many threads here that talk about them.

At the moment I'm playing by means of 3 (PBEM, 4 players) and I have done it before by 2 (in two different ways: TeamViewer and Google Hangouts, two players) and I can confirm the game is very playable. I encourage everyone to try to do it, you will see it's easier than you think.

Looking forward for Netplay to be open for all players. More people will join this great game.

[Majorball68]

Would it be difficult for the programmers to make it easier to facilitate PBEM given the game is relatively stable in head to head and solitaire games?

[Centuur]

I don't know if it is difficult to program. But I do know that there are a lot of decisions players have to make in a short moment of time when playing on the board. For example: a large naval battle involving carriers with planes alone can mean that if one does things according to the rules, one might see a lot of mails being send between the players. And with a lot, I mean a lot...

Every player has to make his own decisions whether or not he aborts, destroys or clears his (or his opponents) planes and later ships in combat. Every player gets every round the question whether or not to end the battle. The number of screens on which the program waits for a decision is quite large.

That's the main problem where PBEM is concerned. Almost in all phases, both players will have the opportunity to make decisions, which will require e-mails amd will hold the game to wait for an answer.

Personally, I believe that PBEM would be a very slow way to play this game, even with the "standard orders" option which is considered for PBEM.

[paulderynck]

People are successfully playing the game PBEM by means of one or more of:
- providing standing orders
- instant messaging, and
- "do what logical thing you would do if in my situation and I'll live with it"

Also needed is to trust the other guy not to view and make decisions based on US entry chits he shouldn't be able to see.

As for more than 2-player PBEM, I'd say that is too time consuming to be possible at all due to the sequence of play and the number of emails that would have to circulate.

As for a program version supporting PBEM, it is so far out on the roadmap, I really don't expect to see it anytime in the next decade.

[juntoalmar]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I don't know if it is difficult to program. But I do know that there are a lot of decisions players have to make in a short moment of time when playing on the board. For example: a large naval battle involving carriers with planes alone can mean that if one does things according to the rules, one might see a lot of mails being send between the players. And with a lot, I mean a lot...

Every player has to make his own decisions whether or not he aborts, destroys or clears his (or his opponents) planes and later ships in combat. Every player gets every round the question whether or not to end the battle. The number of screens on which the program waits for a decision is quite large.

That's the main problem where PBEM is concerned. Almost in all phases, both players will have the opportunity to make decisions, which will require e-mails amd will hold the game to wait for an answer.

Personally, I believe that PBEM would be a very slow way to play this game, even with the "standard orders" option which is considered for PBEM.

I have always advocated for improving the chances of PBEM game by:

a) standing orders
b) Mini AI that would take non-phasing player's decision. I expect this mini-AI would have a minimum fraction of complexity compared to the full AI needed for the game.

Generally speaking, I have always preferred PBEM games.

[4personalbusiness]

I've been PBEM exclusively since 2002 using Cyberboard, CWIF and now MWIF. If both players can play (asynchronously) every day, you can finish an MWIF Global War scenario in about 8-9 months and the exchange of about 700 game files plus another few hundred emails for Q&A about reactions of various kinds. So, that means sending/receiving 5-6 emails each day consisting of game files and reaction Q&A. Right now I have two games going simultaneously and it's not stretching me at all (and I'm not retired or single!).

PBEM games require a different mindset than FTF or netplay games. Personally, I prefer both the pace and the flexibility. I can "play" the game whenever I have some free time and don't have to commit to a large block of time.

Now, PBEM probably won't work well for people who want to make each and every decision. A2A combat is an obvious example. All my air combats are run by the phasing player. The non-phasing player provides the line-up and general instructions and the phasing player implements them. I've never had a problem using this scheme. Yes, periodically, the phasing player might do something I wouldn't have done, but that's the fog of war! And, of course, you always have the mulligan option (do over) if something really bad happens.

And, yes, trust is key to making this work. I've played with about a dozen players from all over the world and can say that their integrity was beyond question. However, they were all experienced players so I don't know how PBEM might work with a newbie who could make some wacky decisions! But, it's just a game after all and bad mistakes can always be fixed.

If it sounds like I'm trying to "sell" PBEM, I guess I am--but only for people who share my mindset. If you prefer netplay, great! All I'm saying is that PBEM, even without any additional programming, is a completely viable and fun way to play the game.

If anyone would like to learn how PBEM can work, I'd be happy to give some advice and can even play another game at this point. Let me know.

Pete

[juntoalmar]

I'm with you Pete. I like being able to think a movement, different alternatives, checking the game manual for as long as I need (with nobody waiting online for me). That's what's interesting of wargaming for me.

[paulderynck]

Essentially our multi-player server based game is very similar in concept. We seldom expect all players to be online for everything but meet up when needed via instant messaging.

The advantage is the game is always there when you want to connect to it. Sometimes when a lengthy land or naval move is in the offing, a player will download a save of the game and do his move at home where he has his own screen layouts and map views and likely multiple monitors. Then upload the game file when done. For turn endings and other "critical" rolls we generally will ask at least one player from the other side to observe, unless they decline and say go ahead.

So - much the same except it accommodates more than 2 players much more efficiently than PBEM would, and for the big exciting battles allows everyone to "tune-in" if they are available.

[juntoalmar]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Essentially our multi-player server based game is very similar in concept.

With this you mean Net Play?

[4personalbusiness]

So, it sounds like Paul is describing a "virtual table" where players can come and go as needed and available. That sounds more to my liking. When I tried live play via VASSAL and Ventrillo, the two parts of the experience I HATED were a) scheduling times when 4-5 grown men could all commit 4 hours to play and b) waiting for the other side to make their moves. I always thought, "this is cool but there must be a better way!" Maybe what Paul is describing is that way.

I was telling Lars that the only thing I don't like about PBEM is not being able to play on a team (which I think adds a lot). So, I'll try this when it's ready.

Pete

[paulderynck]

Not NetPlay, I'm talking about installing MWiF on a dedicated server or PC along with Teamviewer (or some other screen/mouse sharing program). By having nothing else but an OS on this host computer, there are no worries about unattended access to someone's personal computer.

[juntoalmar]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Not NetPlay, I'm talking about installing MWiF on a dedicated server or PC along with Teamviewer (or some other screen/mouse sharing program). By having nothing else but an OS on this host computer, there are no worries about unattended access to someone's personal computer.

Uhm, that means a PC running 24/7 just for this. Not very energy efficient or environmentally friendly.

Maybe this can be accomplished with some of the Amazon web services. I think I read something like this here, maybe that's what you are talking about.

[brian brian]

I skimmed through the newest responses here, but this game needs a hybrid play approach. Live play at some points as each side makes numerous inter-twined decisions. But at other points, the software enforcing the rules should be leveraged to simplify play _for the players_. A pure PBEM approach or a pure simultaneous live player approach is just less likely to happen for such a long, slow game.

[juntoalmar]

I think best option is:

- PBEM + Dropbox for most of the turn
- Quick messaging (like whatsapp, skype or facetime) including screenshot for quick decisions (like combats). You can even answer that on the go from your phone.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Not NetPlay, I'm talking about installing MWiF on a dedicated server or PC along with Teamviewer (or some other screen/mouse sharing program). By having nothing else but an OS on this host computer, there are no worries about unattended access to someone's personal computer.

Uhm, that means a PC running 24/7 just for this. Not very energy efficient or environmentally friendly.

Maybe this can be accomplished with some of the Amazon web services. I think I read something like this here, maybe that's what you are talking about.

It is indeed on AWS.