PBEM Non-Action Stages

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
1 - there is a remove air unit sequence after setting up units that seems unnecessary to me. Every major power is asked whether he wants to remove any air units. Since you just put them on the map instead of into the air reverse pool, the answer will always be NO, won't it?

After reinforcement a player may want to withdraw planes and put them in the reserve, to gain an extra pilot for next turns reinforcements.

from a sequence of play perspective it could be done in the same as the reinforcement stage instead of skipping through each player in a separate phase, it usulaly how it is played anyhow.

Yes, this is how it is done presently. When setting up units, you have so many pilots that you assign to air units, and then place the air units on the map. Once all the pilots have been assigned, the remaining air units are placed in the air reserve. Or, you can directly move air untis to the air reserve and acheive the effect of having extra pilot(s) available for the next turn. These activities can be done in any order (and undone) up to the point that you commit to ending your setup phase.

As Patrice points out, there is the possibility that a player, based on how other players have set up after his own setup, may want to remove an air unit from the map. I have to struggle to think of a reason that the new information of how the opponent has set up might create a desire to remove an air unit. But I guess it's possible. I just find it extremely unlikely and there is the downside that following the WIF FE rules precisely in this regard has every new game start with a pretty much useless cycle through all the players asking if they want to remove air units. Boring![>:]
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
ORIGINAL: c92nichj
To see if I have understood what you mean I have developed a use case.

Assume I am playing the allies it is J/A 1941 and I won th initiative for the turn and both the allies and the axis have made a couple of impulses.
Monday morning I recieve the move from the axis.
- Japan conquered a chineese city and I see that I got a US entry chit.
- Russia is in bad shape so all Allies decided to pass.
- I'm lucky and the turn ends.
An email is automatically sent to the axis player who lives in Hawaii and is sound asleep when Im working on my move stating that he can start his end of turn moves.
I continue working on Email G
- Two partisan appear in USSR and I place them on a german controlled resource. which will reduce his production.
- I choose gear up for US entry.
Email G is sent of to my sleeping friend on Hawaii.
I contunue with Email H as I had the initiative.
I send two empty transport from the Italian coast, back to england to pick up some new reinforcement. The German AIA intercepts them in Bay of Biscay, I'm unlucky and the sub finds and a short battle occurs which is handled by me and Germany's AIA, one transport is damaged and the the otherone is aborted to Liverpool.
Email H is sent away to Hawaii and I have to wait until my opponent in hawaii sends me file I, before I can continue.

Tuesday in Hawaii the Axis player continues, first he completes email G, where there is nothing for him to do as no allied partisans appears, and no pacts is in existence.
Next he can see that his the AIA used his Sub in Bay of Biscay to damage a transport. The only other Axis ship that was used during the previous turn is a Japaneese transport in the chineese coast, he returns it to Tokyo.
An email is sent to me stating I can start with Email J

My opponent in Hawaii completes his production and reinforcements and sends me email K.

Wednesday I complete my version of email K and MWIF checks who wins the initiative I win but the Axis standing rule rerolls and he wins the roll.

Thursday In Hawaii Italy declares war on Persia, email D is sent.

Friday I setup the lone persian cav in Teheran with email E.

Saturday in Hawaii the next impulse starts.

Is this a correct understanding of how it would work?

The Email H where the German SUB intercepts the Allied TRS in B Biscay would only be there if the German player had it stay at sea. That decision has to be made before the Allied return to base occurs.

There is an Email 'stay at sea' decision missing in the sequence shown.

Lars

Using the notation from the PBEM documentation of September 5, 2005, I can paraphrase what you wrote as:

Email E1 is sent by MWIF to both players announcing the End of turn and the results of the partisan rolls. (E is for End of turn emails).
E2 (your G) from both players is necessary if and only if new partisans appeared.

You should wait on receiving Axis E2 before sending E3. If there were no Axis partisans to place, then there will be no Axis E2.
E3 (you combined this with G) denotes your US Entry options - since you are playing the Allies in J/A 1941.
E4 (your H) is sent by you - Allies return to base
E5 (your I) is sent by Axis player - Axis returns to base
E6 (your J and K) is created and sent by both sides, but not opened by either side's MWIF until both sides have sent E6.
E7 (you did not label this) is sent by MWIF to both players - initiative rolls and rerolls (if any); handled by MWIF using Standing Orders from both sides
W1 (your D) is sent by Axis since he won the initiative - this includes the declaration of war on Persia.
W2 (your E) is sent to set up the Persian unit, though that could be handled using a standing order.

So, yes, c92nichj, your understanding is perfect.

Lars, I think you missed his email 'I'. Either that, or the fact I expect the return to base decision to be made simultaneously with the stay at sea decision.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
lomyrin
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: San Diego

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by lomyrin »

OK, I could have missed the decisionmaking for the stay sea and the RTB sequences. If the program can deal with both simultaneously and implement any resulting actions, per standing orders?, all in one step, that is fine.
 
Playing CWiF it is by necessity sequential.
 
Lars
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by Froonp »

As Patrice points out, there is the possibility that a player, based on how other players have set up after his own setup, may want to remove an air unit from the map. I have to struggle to think of a reason that the new information of how the opponent has set up might create a desire to remove an air unit. But I guess it's possible. I just find it extremely unlikely and there is the downside that following the WIF FE rules precisely in this regard has every new game start with a pretty much useless cycle through all the players asking if they want to remove air units. Boring!
Found an example.
French sets up its CVP on its CV.
Germany sets up against France, for an obvious France 39 strategy.
France decides to take back the CVP to the reserve pool at start, gets the pilot back as a spare pilot, so that it can set up an extra land based plane in N/D39.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
As Patrice points out, there is the possibility that a player, based on how other players have set up after his own setup, may want to remove an air unit from the map. I have to struggle to think of a reason that the new information of how the opponent has set up might create a desire to remove an air unit. But I guess it's possible. I just find it extremely unlikely and there is the downside that following the WIF FE rules precisely in this regard has every new game start with a pretty much useless cycle through all the players asking if they want to remove air units. Boring!
Found an example.
French sets up its CVP on its CV.
Germany sets up against France, for an obvious France 39 strategy.
France decides to take back the CVP to the reserve pool at start, gets the pilot back as a spare pilot, so that it can set up an extra land based plane in N/D39.

I have had an idea here, that is a more general solution to reducing meaningless/boring mouse clicks.

For some of the phases (clearly not all), at the start of the phase the program pops up a list of the major powers as checkboxes and the players can check those that want to do something in the phase. If none is checked, then the program goes on to the next phase. If one or more is checked, then the program cycles through the list of those that are checked for the phase, skipping over the others. I could see this being useful in a lot of places:
- Declarations of war
- Lending/trade agreements
- CAP
etc.

The gain is that by making this 1 decision prior to the phase actually starting, the player(s) can bypass a lot of other screens. For example, if none of the major powers on the Allied side wants to fly port attack CAP, then 5 end-of-phase clicks are eliminated.

This would need to be implemented in conjunction with something Patrice asked for and I made a preliminary start on - a visible sequence of play.

The sequence of play would be a drop down list of the stage/phase/subphases of a turn, with the current place in the SOP highlighted. This could be rolled up and out of the way when not in use. It would roll down automatically when the prephase major power checklist (PMPC) appears (as described above).

I am thinking that the PMPC could also be used for scrapping units at the start of the game, where each major power simply checks on Standard Default or Personal Default and then doesn't have to visit the scrap list form at all. Scrapping would all be done out of sight.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Incy
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:12 am

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by Incy »

I think what is really needed for game speed is some sort of "sequence of play execution queue" (SOPEQ), where some players can skip forwards in the SOPEQ and "prerecord" steps later in the sequence.

This is how WiF is played face-to-face, while germany is in one phase, japan will probably do something completely different, and when japan is finnished but germany still plays, USSR & China will start doing (or planning) things in the asian theathre.

How to implement that is a tough call, but I would guess it would have to be modelled over some of the same principles that are used in face-to-face gaming.
non- or loosely- interacting theathres are identified, and each "theathre" is allowed to progress at it's own pace, until such time as "theathres" get to where they would merge up with other theathres, for example because of a EOT or weather roll. Let's call this a "commit point" (CP).

"theathre" separation should be viable if there is enough separation in:
-game distance (geography)
-action limits
-relevance

or if there are no or very weak "commit points" (CP).


Before I explain further, let me furst suggest that a good SOPEQ would be a lot easier to implement with minor tweaking and relaxation of sequence of play.

OK, so how would SOPEQ work?
Basically, all game actions are put on SOPEQ rather than implemented directly in the game. The game interface would simultaneously allow actions from different steps in SOP, but they would be inserted into SOPEQ (in ordner of SOP) rather than being implemented).
Example: naval moves, land moves, air missions, reorganisation, strategic bombardment, etc can all be carried out in whatever order the player chooses. The exception is that no action can be taken if it is AFTER a CP in the SOP.

As a consequence, every action on the SOPEQ should be possible to undo. Since many actions on the micro-level are related, the SOPEQ must also hold dependencies between the queue elements.
Example: two land moves are both on SOPEQ, one is dependant on the other (the first move set the second mover in supply).

Also, to increase the distance between CPs (and increase what a player can do out of sequence), it should be possible to add actions to SOPEQ that can remove (or act as) CP.
Example: Stalin doesn't plan on doing any groundstrikes. Within range of his LND the ground strike phase acts as a CP. Stalin clicks on "end phase" (or the "no GS" button??) for ground strikes. The CP is disabled, and Stalin can now do his land moves, declare attacks, and fly air support.

OK, so when does actions on the SOPEQ get implemented? Each step in SOP should have (allready has!) a "end phase"/"step completed" button. When the previous step in the SOPEQ is complete, the SOPEQ will look for the "end phase" action for the next step. If it's allready on the SOPEQ, (or once it's added to the SOPEQ), every action on the SOPEQ that is part of that step is implemented.

How will the player know what's on the SOPEQ? Every action in the SOPEQ will be shown in the game engine, but will be clearly marked in some manner so it's clear that this is a PLANNED move, and is thus subject to change.

But how to work out the CP, and how to make CPs theathre-dependent?
Well, each type of CP (I think they will all be "end phase" clicks) must be analyzed for dependencies. So for each CP/"end phase" step, there will be some rule specifying how it will affect actions in later steps. I think this is best done by assigning a list of CPs that might act as a dependency for every action.
Actions will not be selectable unless all dependant CPs are resolved or completed. A CP can be resolved by being irrelevant.
Example:
friendly naval move "end phase" is a resolvable CP for land move. It is resolved for all friendly land units that have an overland supply path, or an oversea supplypath without enemy units present on the path. It is non-resolvable if the supply path is overseas and there are enemy units in the path (that could potentially search and cut the path)

OK, I think I'll stop right there, and see what people make of this...

Incy



Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Incy,

I agree with the problem you have identified but your solution is way too difficult to implement. The interactions between unit types, phase, and major powers grow exponentially. I would hate to have to program handling every possibility.

Instead, we had previously discussed in the forum having "prerecorded moves". This is similar to what you are suggesting but much less ambitious.

I still haven't worked out all the details of how to get the program to accept making moves out of sequence, but I have that problem for the interactive tutorials too. Killing two birds (or more) with one stone, I plan on revising how the game engine processes the player's input, and have it accept both actions performed during tutorials and when entering prerecorded moves.

Assume that a player has recorded some tentative moves while he was waiting on his opponent to do stuff. When it comes time for him to make the moves he had prerecorded, the program will remove those that are no longer possible - because the game state changed between the time the move was recorded and time it was to be implemented. Then the program will make each possible move and ask the player to confirm or cancel it. I know the moves could be automated, removing the need for player confirmation. However, I am exerting parental control here (Don't run with scissors!) and requiring confirmation of each order to: (1) make sure the player still wants to do it, and (2) refresh the move in the player's mind (for example, he might have make the move yesterday).
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
SamuraiProgrmmr
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:15 am
Location: NW Tennessee

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by SamuraiProgrmmr »

WOW what a feature![&o]
Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?
pak19652002
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:40 am
Contact:

Another useful feature.

Post by pak19652002 »


Speaking of nifty features, which pre-recorded movement certainly is, I'm reminded of another feature that I've been meaning to ask about. In CWiF, there is a debug function that allows players to move units outside the rules and sequence of play. I guess this was included for testing purposes and because there were shortcomings in CWiF that demanded human intervention. There were some other debug functions as well, e.g., editing dice rolls, unrestricted DOWs, etc.

I was wondering if these testing functions could be turned into options so that players (by agreement) could "play god" if desired. I don't think it would require any more work on Steve's part since it is already implemented, but it would provide players with some flexibility to deal with any bugs that survive (god forbid!) or allow corrections, mulligans or whatever...like they could in the board game or CyberBoard.

I repeat: This would only be an option agreed upon by the players. The game could of course be played on "unforgiving mode" also.

I don't have any experience with other computer wargames so forgive my ignorance about how this situation is normally handled.

Peter

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

WOW what a feature![&o]
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Another useful feature.

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: pak19652002
Speaking of nifty features, which pre-recorded movement certainly is, I'm reminded of another feature that I've been meaning to ask about. In CWiF, there is a debug function that allows players to move units outside the rules and sequence of play. I guess this was included for testing purposes and because there were shortcomings in CWiF that demanded human intervention. There were some other debug functions as well, e.g., editing dice rolls, unrestricted DOWs, etc.

I was wondering if these testing functions could be turned into options so that players (by agreement) could "play god" if desired. I don't think it would require any more work on Steve's part since it is already implemented, but it would provide players with some flexibility to deal with any bugs that survive (god forbid!) or allow corrections, mulligans or whatever...like they could in the board game or CyberBoard.

I repeat: This would only be an option agreed upon by the players. The game could of course be played on "unforgiving mode" also.

I don't have any experience with other computer wargames so forgive my ignorance about how this situation is normally handled.

Peter

A strong (but not definitive) no.

For one, it goes against my basic gaming principles/philosophy. But equally important, the debug features in CWIF and MWIF are extremely buggy and I crash the program routinely when trying to use them. I spent some time trying to remove the bugs, but after correcting a dozen problems and then finding the program simply crashed in new and different places, I abandoned the effort.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
c92nichj
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Contact:

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by c92nichj »

I would more like the ability to not enforce the sequence of play at the end of turn.

Normally in a FTF game as well as in a CB game a player does his build, reinforcement, lending and aircraft removal as one step in parallell with the other players. I think that this move could be made ala diplomacy secretly by each player and then revealed once both sides moves are in. (it is straying from a strict implementation of RAW but I think it is warranted


Often also stay at sea, return to base, place partisan and US entry is done in that same step, but I can see that including those might lead to problems.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: PBEM Non-Action Stages

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
I would more like the ability to not enforce the sequence of play at the end of turn.

Normally in a FTF game as well as in a CB game a player does his build, reinforcement, lending and aircraft removal as one step in parallell with the other players. I think that this move could be made ala diplomacy secretly by each player and then revealed once both sides moves are in. (it is straying from a strict implementation of RAW but I think it is warranted


Often also stay at sea, return to base, place partisan and US entry is done in that same step, but I can see that including those might lead to problems.

That is the way I have PBEM designed now. Email E6 (each player creates an E6 email) handles all of the following. Once all the E6 emails have been sent and received, MWIF opens them all and processes them simultaneously.
---------------------------------------
∙ Email E6 from both sides: Rules 9.5 => 14, 2 => 4 - all players update their SOs
13.5 Final reorganization (Rules 13.5)
13.5.1 Use oil (Rules 13.5.1) Option 48
14 Production (Rules 13.6)
14.1 Breaking down units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
14.2 Building units (Rules 13.6.5) - eMWIF randomly selects units from force pool
14.3 Intelligence (Rules 22.1) Option 63
14.4 Factory Destruction (Rules 22.2) Option 30
14.5 Reforming units (Rules 22.4.1) Option 2
15 Peace (Rules 13.7) - MWIF decides
15.1 Conquest (Rules 13.7.1) - MWIF decides - eMWIF (for where the units go)
15.2 Allied support (Rules 13.7.2) - MWIF decides
15.3 Mutual peace (Rules 13.7.3) - either side can offer mutual peace. If this happens then the other side needs to respond with an email either accepting or rejecting the offer.
15.4 Vichy declaration (Rules 13.7.4)
15.4.1 Creation (Rules 17.1) - eMWIF (for which countries go Free French)
15.4.2 Determine control (Rules 17.2)
15.4.3 Setup Vichy units (Rules 17.3)
16 Liberation (Rules 13.7.5)
17 Surrender (Rules 13.7.6)
18 Victory check (Rules 13.8) - MWIF decides
If End of Game, go to 19 below.
Otherwise
--------------------------------------------- Reinforcements & Initiative
2 Reinforcements (Rules 4.0)
2.1 Force pool changes (Rules 4.1)
2.1.1 Remove Air Units (Rules 4.1.3)
2.1.2 Replacement naval units (Rules 4.1.4) Option 67
2.2 Placing reinforcements (Rules 4.2)
3 Lending Resources (Rules 5.0)
3.1 Trade agreements (Rules 5.1)
4 Initiative (Rules 6.0) - both players provide standing orders for rerolls and deciding who has the initiative to start the next turn - SO 1
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
pak19652002
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:40 am
Contact:

players playing god

Post by pak19652002 »

I'm not qualified to debate wargaming philosophy. And I certainly can't address the bug issue other than to say that my CWiF games have never crashed because of the limited way I use the debug feature. But I have now played enough WiF with a sufficient number of players (some tournament grade) to base my opinion on pragmatism. That is, in every game there have been instances where changes were made after the fact. I'm not talking about WiFCon here (which I have never attended), so I can't say what happens under tournament conditions.

But, in every "friendly game" that I've participated in, the reality is that accommodations are made, disputes settled, arguments negotiated, rules interpreted, mistakes overlooked, etc.

I'll give you an example: I'm playing a CyberBoard game with John Reynen, Nicklas and Henrik. I'm Germany and I forgot to move any units on one of four fronts Germany has going. I sent the move file out and Henrik (Russia) emailed me to ask whether I made a mistake. I thanked him for his sportsmanship and sent an amended file. Everyone I play with makes allowances for their partners and views this simply as good sportsmanship.

One other factor to keep this in mind: This is not a video game that takes only a few hours to play. Without exaggeration, we commit a year or more to these PBEM games. I, for one, don't want to continue playing a game for nine long months that was tainted early on by a mistake (or other snafu). It just sucks the fun out of it.

So, I have to go to the mat on this issue. Perhaps mine is a lone voice (it will be interesting to see if anyone else cares). But I would risk crashing a game for this sort of feature (when the game crashes, we just reload an earlier saved copy anyway; or is this safety feature to be eliminated also?).

Please, please, please consider ways that some sort of "safety valve" can be installed in the event players want--or need-- to use it. It's the one feature of the cardboard game that I do really like!

Peter



ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: pak19652002
Speaking of nifty features, which pre-recorded movement certainly is, I'm reminded of another feature that I've been meaning to ask about. In CWiF, there is a debug function that allows players to move units outside the rules and sequence of play. I guess this was included for testing purposes and because there were shortcomings in CWiF that demanded human intervention. There were some other debug functions as well, e.g., editing dice rolls, unrestricted DOWs, etc.

I was wondering if these testing functions could be turned into options so that players (by agreement) could "play god" if desired. I don't think it would require any more work on Steve's part since it is already implemented, but it would provide players with some flexibility to deal with any bugs that survive (god forbid!) or allow corrections, mulligans or whatever...like they could in the board game or CyberBoard.

I repeat: This would only be an option agreed upon by the players. The game could of course be played on "unforgiving mode" also.

I don't have any experience with other computer wargames so forgive my ignorance about how this situation is normally handled.

Peter

A strong (but not definitive) no.

For one, it goes against my basic gaming principles/philosophy. But equally important, the debug features in CWIF and MWIF are extremely buggy and I crash the program routinely when trying to use them. I spent some time trying to remove the bugs, but after correcting a dozen problems and then finding the program simply crashed in new and different places, I abandoned the effort.
User avatar
c92nichj
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:15 pm
Contact:

RE: players playing god

Post by c92nichj »

I think this feature will be less needed in MWIF than in CB, just because you have the opportunity to cycle through all your units before making your file. On the other hand the sequence of play is enforced harder which will make it impossible to make a rail move after you started your land move.

However it will still happen and the feature that Peter is asking for will be needed to allow for mistakes made by the players. I used the CWIF version quite alot and never had it crash if I was very diligent in making sure that I moved the unit to a legal position, no overstacking etc.

User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: players playing god

Post by Froonp »

However it will still happen and the feature that Peter is asking for will be needed to allow for mistakes made by the players.
Yes, this feature will be needed.
Go back 1 step ?, cancel the whole current step ?
I don't know if the current "cancel last action" feature is sufficient, because I remember when I tested CWiF, that I quite often had to load the auto save of the previous step, because I forgot to do something during the previous step, that was important enough to warrant cancelling the whole current step to go back to the previous step.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: players playing god

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
However it will still happen and the feature that Peter is asking for will be needed to allow for mistakes made by the players.
Yes, this feature will be needed.
Go back 1 step ?, cancel the whole current step ?
I don't know if the current "cancel last action" feature is sufficient, because I remember when I tested CWiF, that I quite often had to load the auto save of the previous step, because I forgot to do something during the previous step, that was important enough to warrant cancelling the whole current step to go back to the previous step.

For right now I am planning on 2 methods to help player correct mistakes. First is the undo (with a new undo all) during a phase. Second is the restore game from an earlier phase. Now the later only store 1 impulses worth of saved positions at the end of each phase. If you want to go back earlier, then you need to have manually performed a save game - outside of the automatic saved gamed file naming system.

The game record log may be of assistance here, since it will let you restre a game and then replay it up to the crisis point - when you forgot to do something, or otherwise messed up.

I am really unhappy with relying on the debug feature. After all, as you describe it you are expecting it to be used mostly by people who screw up while playing. Aren't they the people most likely to press a wrong button when using the debug routines and then crash the program?

Anyway, the common philosophy of computer war games is you play them and live with your mistakes. If you are really unhappy about an outcome, you go back to a saved copy of the game. At least that is how I play them.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: players playing god

Post by Froonp »

For right now I am planning on 2 methods to help player correct mistakes. First is the undo (with a new undo all) during a phase. Second is the restore game from an earlier phase. Now the later only store 1 impulses worth of saved positions at the end of each phase. If you want to go back earlier, then you need to have manually performed a save game - outside of the automatic saved gamed file naming system.
1 impulse is generaly sufficient, as event in face to face games, things forgotten from more than 1 impulse won't be allowed to be made. Generaly it is only steps from the current impulse, such as forgetting 1 rail move, or having done all rail moves, but forgotten about this particular unit you wanted to rail move in place of another less important, same for aircraft rebasing, or air missions, where you forgot you needed x air missions / x land moves for paradrop and used up nearly all air missions / land moves earlier.
User avatar
SamuraiProgrmmr
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:15 am
Location: NW Tennessee

RE: players playing god

Post by SamuraiProgrmmr »

I would like to say that 'forgetting' to do something is Part Of The Game (TM). [:-]

I used to be very frustrated when an opponent would move many pieces, realize that the attack would not give the very highest odds, and then move everything back to where it 'started'.

However, after several abortive attempts, he would then find a way to throw the original attack at the odds he wanted.

I don't think there was ever any malice aforethougt, but when the pieces got moved back to their starting points, no one was really sure that was where they started.

Being able to prerecord moves and then apply them will give the same functionality without 'screwing' up the game.

Being able to go back to where you forgot something and move forward if all players agree is ok by me.

Being able to 'alter' the game layout is not something I care about.

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?
pak19652002
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:40 am
Contact:

case in point

Post by pak19652002 »

Let me ask you all this: After the RTB phase is over, would you allow players to RTB a unit that was left in a sea zone inadvertantly. We do this all the time. An allied plane is flipped in Baltic 3 box and clearly would be returned to base for reorg. It's pretty lonely up there and he was simply overlooked. Before any action takes place during the next turn but after production and reinforcement, the player asks to return the plane to base, flip it and expend oil as necessary.

I've seen this done over and over again and I don't mind it a bit. I don't think that the solutions proposed thus far would allow this sort of correction to be made. With the edit function, it is easily taken care of. It's even easier to correct in CB and cardboard, of course.

Now, I know this shouldn't happen in MWiF (or CWiF) since a player can cycle through all moves. But it still happens. Again, I am not arguing computer wargame philosophy here. That's like arguing religion! If people want to play without such accommodations, that's OK with me. It's a matter of choice. I believe that players should have the ability to choose to make such corrections if they want. Apart from the bug issue, why deny them this option if it is already part of the game?

Peter
User avatar
Ballista
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:53 pm
Contact:

RE: case in point

Post by Ballista »

Let me ring in my vote for the debug placement to be turned on if desired as well (default = off). I play a lot of CWIF (which will be MWIF) solo, and sometimes to spice things up (or do something wacky for the heck of it) I want to set some interesting situation up.
dsrgames.blogspot.com

dsrgames@yahoo.com
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”