PBEM Land Action Phase

[Shannon V. OKeets]

PBEM Land Action Phase

If you haven’t already, you should read through the postings in the PBEM Overview thread to get a sense of how the communications between players will be performed.

This thread focuses on minimizing the number of emails needed to implement land combat decisions. Here are the different phases and subphases of land movement and combat, in order:
-------------------------------------
1 Rail Movement, - Rule 11.10
2 Land Movement, - Rule 11.11
2.1 Overrun - Rule 11.11.6
3 Air Transport, - Rule 11.12
4 Unload Land Units from Ships, - Rule 11.13
5 Invasion, - Rule 11.14
6 Paradrop, - Rule 11.15
7 Land Combat
7.1 Land Combat Declaration, - Rule 11.16.1
7.2 Shore Bombardment D, - Rule 11.16.2 Option 38
7.3 Shore Bombardment A, - Rule 11.16.2
7.4 Emergency HQ Supply, - Rule 2.4.2 Option 6
7.5 HQ Support Defender, - Rule 11.16.3 Option 13
7.6 HQ Support Attacker, - Rule 11.16.3 Option 13
7.7 Ground Support, - Rule 11.16.4
7.8 Ignore Notional Unit
7.9 Land Combat Resolution, - Rule 11.16.5
7.9.1 Choosing Tables
7.9.2 Choosing Losses
7.9.3 Path of Retreat
7.9.4 Advance after combat
7.9.5 Forced Air Rebase
7.9.6 Forced Naval Rebase
7.9.7 Overstacked Losses
8 Air Rebase, - Rule 11.17
9 Air Supply, - Rule 11.18.1
10 Reorganization, - Rule 11.18
10.1 HQ Reorganization - Rule 11.18.2
10.2 TRS Supply, - Rule 11.18.3
-----------------------------------------

Almost all of these can be done by the phasing player with no response from the non-phasing player - except for silent groans and cheers depending on what the phasing player does.

Items where the non-phasing player makes decisions are 2.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9.1, 7.9.2, 7.9.3, 7.9.5, 7.9.6, and 7.9.7. Most of these occur rarely; some of them occur all the time.

Overruns can result in air and naval units having to rebase. Choosing where they go is up to the non-phasing player. In the above items list this applies to 2.1, 7.9.5, 7.9.6, and 7.9.7. We could just let the AI make these decisions. Alternatively, we could let the player provide a rebase destination (hex or prioritized hex list) for each of his units prior to the phasing player’s move, just in case they get overrun. Likewise we could let the AI decide which units to eliminate when overstacking after a retreat cannot be prevented.

7.2 (Defensive Shore Bombardment) , 7.4 (Emergency HQ Supply), 7.5 (Defender’s HQ Support), and 7.8 (Ignore Notional Unit) could be solved by having standing orders. These would be similar to those for air units. By the way, 7.7 (Ground Support) is covered by standing orders, as discussed in the thread on PBEM Air.

This leaves the most important items that happen almost every turn: 7.9.1 (Choosing Tables), 7.9.2 (Choosing Losses), and 7.9.3 (Path of Retreat). I think standing orders work for all of these. The non-phasing player would simply choose combat tables for each hex in the front line - just in case it is attacked. The priority for taking losses in a hex could also be entered and so could path of retreat. If the non-phasing player doesn’t bother to enter standing orders, then the AI could make the decision.

All in all, I believe that land actions can be done without any emails other than the phasing player announcing his attacks via email and receiving a starting random number from the non-phasing player. Wait a minute, the phasing player would have to send the order of his attacks as well. We don’t want the phasing player to try out different sequences of attacks to see which gives him the best results.

Comments?

P.S. I have attached below parts of some posts that appeared in PBEM Overview and seem relevant to this thread.
=================================
If you want to defend an important hex that is being attacked, [the non-phasing player will want to decide on] HQ-support, Ground Support, defensive shore bombardment.
=================================
There are not many things that the non-phasing player needs to do during land movement, the only thing I can think of is HQ, Art -support during attacks. But I typically know if I want to do defensive support before my opponent move, so a standing order would work well here.
=================================

[Froonp]

This leaves the most important items that happen almost every turn: 7.9.1 (Choosing Tables), 7.9.2 (Choosing Losses), and 7.9.3 (Path of Retreat). I think standing orders work for all of these.

7.9.3 Path of retreat is chosen by the attacker, no need for standing orders.

[Froonp]

The non-phasing player would simply choose combat tables for each hex in the front line - just in case it is attacked.

This choice is 95% of the time pretty straight, with the defender choosing the worse table for the attacker (assault). Only on rare exceptions the defender would choose to make a mobile defense and lower his losses by chosing a blitz (if he has a retreat path),so I think that Standing Orders will work very good for this.

[Froonp]

All in all, I believe that land actions can be done without any emails other than the phasing player announcing his attacks via email and receiving a starting random number from the non-phasing player. Wait a minute, the phasing player would have to send the order of his attacks as well. We don’t want the phasing player to try out different sequences of attacks to see which gives him the best results.

If I understood correctly, there will be a mail sent to the non phasing player after the phasing player have decided and announced all his attacks ?
If so, then the non phasing player can choose himself the support, hq support, notional, etc... Can't he ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

All in all, I believe that land actions can be done without any emails other than the phasing player announcing his attacks via email and receiving a starting random number from the non-phasing player. Wait a minute, the phasing player would have to send the order of his attacks as well. We don’t want the phasing player to try out different sequences of attacks to see which gives him the best results.

If I understood correctly, there will be a mail sent to the non phasing player after the phasing player have decided and announced all his attacks ?
If so, then the non phasing player can choose himself the support, hq support, notional, etc... Can't he ?

Yes. My only concern is the delay due to the non-phasing player thinking about what to do. This would be worse if there were several players on each team. The game would wait until all the non-phasing players think things over and make decisions. If, instead, this is all handled by standing orders, only one member of the non-phasing side (the team leader) would need to be involved and he would only have to send back an email confirming that he received the phasing players' orders. We could make this an option and let the players choose one or the other before the game starts.

I have a new worry that came to me after I wrote the first post for this thread.

The phasing player needs to decide whether to advance or not. And if so, which units to advance and to which hexes. If he can see the results of all the combats at once, he can decide AFTER all the dice have been rolled, where to advance and how. I don't like that at all. The solutions to this problem that come to me at the moment are ugly. Maybe after a good night's sleep, I'll have prettier solutions.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me that the attacker chooses the retreat path.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

All in all, I believe that land actions can be done without any emails other than the phasing player announcing his attacks via email and receiving a starting random number from the non-phasing player. Wait a minute, the phasing player would have to send the order of his attacks as well. We don’t want the phasing player to try out different sequences of attacks to see which gives him the best results.

I don't quite follow why the non-phasing player need to send an email to the phasing player? What if you are in different timezones and asleep than the game would pretty much stop until you get an opportunity to to reply with an email, I like the ACTS solution better for die rolls where they are stored centrally and don't need any interaction from the non-phasing player to continue your move.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
All in all, I believe that land actions can be done without any emails other than the phasing player announcing his attacks via email and receiving a starting random number from the non-phasing player. Wait a minute, the phasing player would have to send the order of his attacks as well. We don’t want the phasing player to try out different sequences of attacks to see which gives him the best results.

I don't quite follow why the non-phasing player need to send an email to the phasing player? What if you are in different timezones and asleep than the game would pretty much stop until you get an opportunity to to reply with an email, I like the ACTS solution better for die rolls where they are stored centrally and don't need any interaction from the non-phasing player to continue your move.

I wrote about this in the PBEM Overview thread. ACTS, or some other third party, is a viable solution. But, I would like MWIF to be self contained - without the need for a third party.

If I can find a way that an email server can give an automatic response (you might have seen that some people send out automatic messages to every email they receive while they are away on vacation?), then the non-phasing player wouldn't have to actually do anything. The phasing player would send his orders via email, the non-phasing player's email server would reply with an email that gives a random number for doing all the die rolls. The phasing player could then resolve all the combats (or whatever needs the random number). When the non-phasing player next logs into his email system, he gets to see both the email he received and the one his server sent. I don't know if I can get this to work on all email servers (or even on one) but it is a thought.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I wrote about this in the PBEM Overview thread. ACTS, or some other third party, is a viable solution. But, I would like MWIF to be self contained - without the need for a third party.

If I can find a way that an email server can give an automatic response (you might have seen that some people send out automatic messages to every email they receive while they are away on vacation?), then the non-phasing player wouldn't have to actually do anything. The phasing player would send his orders via email, the non-phasing player's email server would reply with an email that gives a random number for doing all the die rolls. The phasing player could then resolve all the combats (or whatever needs the random number). When the non-phasing player next logs into his email system, he gets to see both the email he received and the one his server sent. I don't know if I can get this to work on all email servers (or even on one) but it is a thought.

Having a little experience with email servers I believe that you might get it to work on one server, but to get it to work on all different types of configuration people have, I think you are in for a lot of hard work.
It would probably be quicker for you to write your own ACTS-type server and place it on for example the matrix internet site, that way you would still be selfcontained and not use a third party. You could also send some data from the server to make sure that the player are not cheating woth the order of events.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Having a little experience with email servers I believe that you might get it to work on one server, but to get it to work on all different types of configuration people have, I think you are in for a lot of hard work.
It would probably be quicker for you to write your own ACTS-type server and place it on for example the matrix internet site, that way you would still be selfcontained and not use a third party. You could also send some data from the server to make sure that the player are not cheating woth the order of events.

Good idea. Letting Matirx act as a third party, hosting some small support program (not MWIF in its entirety) could make life a lot easier for designing PBEM.

You should realize that I can be quite stubborn in my quest for the perfect solution. This is both one of my strengths and one of my weaknesses. As a programmer, refusal to give up is an essential personality trait. It does get in the way when I need to acccept that the perfect solution might not exist.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Good idea. Letting Matirx act as a third party, hosting some small support program (not MWIF in its entirety) could make life a lot easier for designing PBEM...

Why does Matrix have to be the third party and thereby promise that the MWiF server will always be running. If you release the server code with the game then you pass that responsibility to the players. I think there was a space game <Nexus? Nexgen?> that did exactly that and let the players run the game servers. As long as they buy their copy of the game why should you prevent them from running their own server. Maybe Matrix runs it for a year or so.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Why does Matrix have to be the third party and thereby promise that the MWiF server will always be running. If you release the server code with the game then you pass that responsibility to the players.

I sais this somewhere else but it bears repeatnig here. eMWIF ( the little server program) will be part of the software included with MWIF. The players can then put it on any server they like.

[herwin]

Again, having build ground combat command and control systems, there is a specific flavor that I want. Basically, good ground commanders make things happen. Sure, things get screwed up, but nothing major happens unless forces move. In WWII, mobile operations involved a change of scenary, and that motion of the front line only occured when the defending commanders were forced out. Try to get that flavor--infantry battles might have set things up, but the mobile forces changed the entire nature of operations with their high tempo. Note also that some infantry forces were able to do that--the French in Italy, the 14th Army in Burma, and German Jaeger and Mountain forces in Greece and the Caucasus. (The 14th Army reconquered Burma using airmobile operations!)

Another issue is logistics. Some forces were very mobile, but lacked much of a logistic tail, while others were able to supply themselves at long range. Those factors controlled how deep the mobile phase would reach.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: herwin
Again, having build ground combat command and control systems, there is a specific flavor that I want. Basically, good ground commanders make things happen. Sure, things get screwed up, but nothing major happens unless forces move. In WWII, mobile operations involved a change of scenary, and that motion of the front line only occured when the defending commanders were forced out. Try to get that flavor--infantry battles might have set things up, but the mobile forces changed the entire nature of operations with their high tempo. Note also that some infantry forces were able to do that--the French in Italy, the 14th Army in Burma, and German Jaeger and Mountain forces in Greece and the Caucasus. (The 14th Army reconquered Burma using airmobile operations!)

Another issue is logistics. Some forces were very mobile, but lacked much of a logistic tail, while others were able to supply themselves at long range. Those factors controlled how deep the mobile phase would reach.

Some background seems worth repeating here.

My primary goal in writing MWIF is to transport the board game World in Flames to the computer. In so doing, there will have to be some changes made, but they should be kept as minimal as possible. Changing the map is the biggest change. Adding PBEM is another major change, but that is an optional way to play and even within PBEM the component parts are individually optional. Other aspects of the board game are being left as is: units, unit capabilities, unit interactions with each other & the map, the sequence of play, resources & production, political interactions between nations, and so on.

The logic for this decision is quite simple. WIF is tremendously popular. However, players are somewhat frustrated by the requirements for playing over the board. The major problems being: gathering enough players for a game, meeting at a single physical location, dedicating semi-permanent table space for laying out the maps, and setting up the game. MWIF should solve most of those problems if not all of them. Therefore, a market exists for MWIF. Indeed, there are many players who have been clamoring for MWIF for over a decade.

Redesigning MWIF from the ground up, so it better simulates World War II, is not part of my task list. In fact, I would not have signed on to the project if it had been the goal.

I do have a host of design issues I need to resolve but they do not relate to the simulation per se. I am concerned about how the map and units look on the screen, the game interface, how PBEM will work, which optional rules and WIF add-ons will be included, the addition of computer 'extras' in the form of animations, sounds, historical detail, a help system, game replay, and an AI Assistant, and, lastly, solitaire play against the computer (AI Opponent).

To make sure my perspective on what is a good design and what isn't, I have started a dozen or more threads on this forum to elicit comments, criticisms, and suggestions from people who want this game "done right". The later phrase is totally subjective and defined by each person individually. I filter all the information I am given and make decisions about MWIF's design. I try hard not to aggrevate anyone in the process, but regretably fail from time to time.