Improving PBEM, again

[Marshall Ellis]

How many use yahoo/google groups?
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

How many use yahoo/google groups?

2 = google
1 = yahoo
1 = TGHQ forum (for some odd reason, not sure why this group doesn't use google since it's so much better)

[timewalker03]

Neverman why they won't use google is a factor of control and feeling important.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: timewalker03

Neverman why they won't use google is a factor of control and feeling important.

I have been getting that impression lately, not just from the group or gazfun but from our new host also, it's quite strange.

[eske]

The purpose of TGHQ is to create a group of wargamers willing to commit themselves to the games they enter in a wellbehaved maner and a positive atmosphere. Thus making it possible to actually complete a game like EiANW.
 
It may be a little more encumberant in use than google/yahoo groups, but gazfun is doing quite well with the resources he got. The main advantages as a pleyer is, there are more games running, more than 7 players around making them easier to find, more players gathering experiences on how to keep this game going in spite of difficulties encountered. A better chance to find temps when a player is away, or replacements. It is possible to sign up for new games or vacancies etc. etc.
 
All in all using this forum to upload gamesfiles is a small price for what you get, IMHO.
 
/eske

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: eske

The purpose of TGHQ is to create a group of wargamers willing to commit themselves to the games they enter in a wellbehaved maner and a positive atmosphere. Thus making it possible to actually complete a game like EiANW.

It may be a little more encumberant in use than google/yahoo groups, but gazfun is doing quite well with the resources he got. The main advantages as a pleyer is, there are more games running, more than 7 players around making them easier to find, more players gathering experiences on how to keep this game going in spite of difficulties encountered. A better chance to find temps when a player is away, or replacements. It is possible to sign up for new games or vacancies etc. etc.

All in all using this forum to upload gamesfiles is a small price for what you get, IMHO.

/eske

Doesn't sound any different than THIS forum, to be honest.

The fact is that TGHQ can still do ALL those things with their FORUM and have the groups use a better tool like google, I guess I don't really see the conflict.

[Marshall Ellis]

I'm not familiar with TGHQ and have never used it??? I may have to investigate for my curiosity.
 

[bOrIuM]

Is it possible to activate/deactivate the auto-battle for PBEM games ? It is very frustrating when a single corp (or two corps) play a battle alone with a pre-selected tactic ? What if we WANT to play all battles ?

[Marshall Ellis]

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

Is it possible to activate/deactivate the auto-battle for PBEM games ? It is very frustrating when a single corp (or two corps) play a battle alone with a pre-selected tactic ? What if we WANT to play all battles ?

Nope. Single corps defending should always give temp control to the computer.
PBEM quick combat will ALWAYS give the defender temp control to the computer.
Now, you should be able to enable / disable PBEM Quick Combat IF you have allowed game config changes to happen during the game. Does this make sense?

[gwheelock]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

Is it possible to activate/deactivate the auto-battle for PBEM games ? It is very frustrating when a single corp (or two corps) play a battle alone with a pre-selected tactic ? What if we WANT to play all battles ?

Nope. Single corps defending should always give temp control to the computer.
PBEM quick combat will ALWAYS give the defender temp control to the computer.
Now, you should be able to enable / disable PBEM Quick Combat IF you have allowed game config changes to happen during the game. Does this make sense?

Actually; you need to be able to disable this even for "Single corps defending" at the
defending player's option. The reason is that "Single corps defending" isn't always a
"single" corp - it may very well be in a position to be REINFORCED by an entire stack &
you are not allowing this.

[Jimmer]

I'll go one step further than Gwheelock: ALL battles that have corps on both sides should always be fought with chits.
 
To refresh your memory, there was a HUGE thread that discussed this a while back. That was the one where people got all bent out of shape over the issue of trivial combats when a 5-to-1 ratio of strengths exists. I mention that only to remind you of the discussion; it's not directly related to this question (but, I can't find the thread now).
 
The end result of that discussion was that ALL battles that were not trivial combats MUST be fought by the players, unless the defender specified a chit pull in the stack's standing orders.
 
Trivial combats are excepted because you can't reinforce into a trivial combat. (On the flip side, though, a force that took part in a trivial combat should still be available to reinforce other combats.)

[bOrIuM]

Or what if its a guard corp, you may want to commit the guards ?

And I particulary agree with the reinforcement for that corp.

And I add, even if Trivial combats downt need the action of a player, its currently impossible for a player whos besiged to know what is the force of his opponent.

[Marshall Ellis]

What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!
 
 
 

[eske]

Still thinks being able to preset an order, that forces battlesfile exchange for a single defending corps is most flexible solution.
 
And integrating it into the UI should be straight forward. Just add this option below the list of chits available....
 
/eske

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!

I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!

I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors.

I think I agree, but I'll restate to make sure:

I agree with Marshall as regards combat with minors that are only controlled by the major for the "minor country control" process, not minors that fully belong to a major power.

So, if I as Prussia declare war on Hess, and someone (GB, maybe) gets control, I have no problem with that being done the way things are now.

But, later in the game, when France declares war on me (and I still own Hesse), I want to have the chit pull.

See also the response I'm about to write to Eske.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: eske

Still thinks being able to preset an order, that forces battlesfile exchange for a single defending corps is most flexible solution.

And integrating it into the UI should be straight forward. Just add this option below the list of chits available....

/eske

This is possible now, IF one remembers to do it. But, the problem I have is that options change depending on the situation. Before Nappy got defeated in some battle, I might be more interested in a risky choice. But, after I've lost the 5 PP for losing with Nappy, I'm going to be much more interested in "safe" options. This can and does change in the middle of phases (even in the middle of a single player's phase).

[Jimmer]

By the way, making it optional (especially if you make it optional player-specific) would be a good compromise. The default could be left as is, and then players can bark at each other for not using the default.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

What about simply making single corps minors subject to the temp AI control?
Reinforcement and Guard commitment should not be an issue here. Is this a reasonable compromise? Otherwise you will swap files FOR all of the minors in the game with corps!

I really don't have a problem with this as long as you mean Minor Minors, not MP Minors.

I think I agree, but I'll restate to make sure:

I agree with Marshall as regards combat with minors that are only controlled by the major for the "minor country control" process, not minors that fully belong to a major power.

So, if I as Prussia declare war on Hess, and someone (GB, maybe) gets control, I have no problem with that being done the way things are now.

But, later in the game, when France declares war on me (and I still own Hesse), I want to have the chit pull.

See also the response I'm about to write to Eske.

yes, this is exactly what I meant.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
yes, this is exactly what I meant.

Thanks. I thought so, but I wanted to make sure.