Matrix Games Forums

Implementing a special multi-player PBEM feature is not something we plan on doing. However, I don't see why a player couldn't save the game off mid-turn and pass it to another player to continue on with the turn. Given the HQ structure, it's very easy to split forces cleanly between players. I played War in the East (the SPI boardgame) as part of 2-3 player teams back in my uncle's garage in 1975. Why not do the same here. There are penalties for units from different formations participating together in an attack, so generally boundaries of army groups/fronts, armies and corps do play a part in the game (a good thing).

I'm not sure why special code would need to be written as long as the player's agreed not to touch each other's units.

As for the scenarios, we've been mostly playing the main Campaign 41-45 which we've been calling Barbarossa (just to confuse you [:)]). Few testers have gotten past spring 42 so far (although I think someone got to 43, and Gary has run AI vs AI further out and has done some limited work on the Campaign 1943-45 scenario). We plan on having a shorter scenario Barbarossa that will end in 1941. We've also been playing Typhoon, a scenario that runs from Sept 25 41 - Jan 8 1942. Our plan is to provide an editor with the game, and this editor will allow people to create smaller map scenarios (we're working on Uranus - Stalingrad) now. The weekly turns cannot be modded. German units can be easily broken into units that are 1/3 of a division. Other more detailed changes could be made as well. I don't see why these scenarios couldn't work out, as long as you can live with the weekly turns. We do hope that a corps of scenario designers/editors will develop additonal scenarios after release. We've recently added a limited ability for scenario designers to script opening AI moves (important for offensives), so that should help as well.

I think that a specific will be able to improve several thing :
_ enforce the command chain, as I see it with a player having GHQ control
_ speed game, the GHQ player could define area of operation (cannot overlap) that could allow for pbem player to make their turn simutaneously when in PBEM (thought do I reckon that in IGOUGO, it is less appealing and need more synch than in a WEGO like WitP)
_ in TCP/IP it will allow the team to play simultaneously (best I think)
_ may be a system to decide of VP to choose who is the best generals (a competition in the team).

so for that I think that a code is needed.

Of course, you don't need code to do that, but we don't need code to play wargames or roll dices to begin with. Code is here to enhance what we can do without, isn't it?

PS : I can live with the weekly turn [:)]

I understand the desire to have something in TCP/IP. It's not going to happen in WitE. Too much time to code something like that, sorry. I understand the desire to have these things, it's just not something we can afford to spend time on given our resource limitations. But as I say, if you want to pass it around and agree on your own house rules, it should work fine.

Thanks to have taken time to answer.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wow, I never knew that WitP was a "fialure"...[8|] Always thought it was one of, if not the most successful game in the whole Matrix lineup, but I guess I, and all others who bought it, must be wrong.

What agree with Termie, had to happen some time!

Has the WITP & AE forum hit the 1 mill. mark yet?

Back in the days of Board games, we had a variety of game scales, from SPI's WW2, AH's "Third Reich" at stategic levels with units representing Armies & Army Groups, down to monsters such as GDW's Drag Nach Osten & Unetschieden (apologies for spellin.)

Each had its champions and detractors, some want to get immersed into a game, which is possible in WITP or the new ED/BTR, others are happier playing at a different level. Some want to recreate & challenge history, see why a certain unit or weapon is effective, others want to play with grand strategy and dont care about the minutae. Problem here is keeping everyone happy which is never going to work.

I look forward to WITE hitting the shelves, not an East Front fan but that hasnt stopped me before.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Implementing a special multi-player PBEM feature is not something we plan on doing. However, I don't see why a player couldn't save the game off mid-turn and pass it to another player to continue on with the turn.

Hmmmm..... that is what I was trying to say <g>. Should not be any problem with WitE and PBEM.... no special code would need to be implemented.

As far as TCP/IP play.... a number of games tried that and it was not very successful. A matter of players all having to be online at the same time, waiting for the other players to do their turn, etc. PBEM was the better way to go.

I brought up Rob's scenarios in TOAW and they are actually division level with panzer and other elite units in regiments.... so, should be no problem there... and the scale is 10 km/hex which is not that different from the 10 mile (about 15 km/hex) scale of WitE. However, huge difference in the time scale, daily turns vs weekly turns. In WitE terms, this would be scenarios running between 1 and 6 turns. So, probably would have to combine some of them, with one essentially being AGC to the gates of Moscow, a second being the whole Kiev 'adventure', etc. I will drop him a line and see what he thinks.

Zaratoughda

Well, it isn't WitP. Joel wonders why I pear into 42 alot (Its fun). I play this game every day (4 hours or more), the only thing I'm concerned about is when my wife leaves. To leave me the %*^# alone. I'm at this now for 17 months. It doesn't get better...Just wait, its hard to wait, but its Gary at his very best...We have a very good team on this...

Each had its champions and detractors, some want to get immersed into a game, which is possible in WITP or the new ED/BTR, others are happier playing at a different level. Some want to recreate & challenge history, see why a certain unit or weapon is effective, others want to play with grand strategy and dont care about the minutae. Problem here is keeping everyone happy which is never going to work.

I never asked to downscales those games. I think they will be better with a built in teamplay feature. And they are the size needed to be play in team play.

As far as TCP/IP play.... a number of games tried that and it was not very successful. A matter of players all having to be online at the same time, waiting for the other players to do their turn, etc. PBEM was the better way to go.

I spoke of TCP/IP for the team-play feature : ie to let 3 or 4 players move the counters at the same times. Which will be a simultaneous, not wait the other turn. AND TCP/IP is not needed for IGOUGO (2 players that is), but it is a good feature (like seeing the turn of your opponent as he play it) when you are both connected as it had some element that PBEM don't, beside it is definetly better than hotseat (I tried). (TCP/IP is a must for WEGO on the other hand)

Are we at the end of this thread yet?

It looks like questions were asked and the answers were givin.

Anything else is just fluff...

[:)][:)][:)]

Just clearing thing out. I am bothered when I feel people have misunderstood me.
As far as the developpement team is concern, the answers has been given.

Well we just upgraded an already great map to look even better. I hope that sometime soon we can give some new screenshots. It's not my call, cross your fingers...

To beat a dead horse & as a veteran Multi-Player participant in another game system I would not find the absence of a simultaneous play feature a handicap. As Joel has pointed out you can always allocate different areas of responsibility to each subordinate then pass the game file down the chain of command.

I too found WitP way too much for my feeble brain but I am really looking forward to WitE. As a matter of fact it will be the impetus for me to finally purchase a new computer. Although I did not persist with WitP I have a high regard for the design & the people with the brain power to play it.

Imagine though: a game driving a computer purchase. This game really excites me.

Dale, Gary and Joel are lofty. I like to think as myseft as smart. These guy are to much. We have two new guys Pavel and Andy, among others, my head spins. I can't keep up with a the changes. I think Gary came back to earth on this one to suck us in. I'm a huge fan of WWII, Eastern Front the biggest fan...I dream at night about this game, lol...And can't wait to play it the next day. I love this game, and were still in alpha...

I hope its not like World at war,what a pile of crap.

POE

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

I hope its not like World at war,what a pile of crap.

Is this guy for real?[8|]

May be he has not look at the screenshot or description of the game. But as we don't know what he dislikes in WaW hard to answer, except that the game will radicaly different for what I have see and cannot really be compare (scale, purpose and level of details too different).

Thought I like WaW as it do for rapid game.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
On the other hands, those that want lots of micro-management can increase the admin points. This provides some flexibility for even PBEM players.

This is just brilliant. One of the best innovations (potentially) I have heard of in wargaming for a long time.

Why? Personally, I dislike micromanagement, as I like to have "narrative flow" while playing a wargame. I like "making history", not planning operations.

I fully understand that many others have different preferences. Which is why making micromanagement a scarce resoruce, the total level of which is customizable on a per-session basis, so brilliant.

Will be giving WitE more attention from now on.

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Even if the game seems better than WiP. I am afraid that some needed UI feature for such game will be lacking. I stop playing WiP when the PBEM speed got longer than the turn theorical time, lack of statisical data user friendly. In brief, too much details so I felt that to have fun I need to have a team to manage my side of the war. Which led to the bigest lacking in such a monster game : No multiplayers for one side.

So I ask will this game have multiplayers for one side? That is the possibility for the player to allocate part of the front or selected unit to another player (a bit like Hitler gave only a limited number of unit to Manstein, it only at the end that Guderian was given command of the all front).

This features is the difference between a buy or ignore (unless turn are very short to play but how can it be with a big game as this...).

Now you know why they make more ice cream flavors other than just vanilla.