how PBEM games will be handled ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I have never dived in to the details of this thread but I think I might some more when free time allows, I had to stop after absorbing one portion of it.

I like the Standing Orders concept. Basically it sounds like any time you are generating an email, you would have the option of modifying Standing Orders and these would go out with the new email, but would remain invisible to your opponent. Neat.

Perhaps if this game ever develops a player rating system, one of the things that could be listed would be how many times a player requested to slow things down to an email per die roll. That would vary considerably among players and it would help in selecting opponent playing style you are comfortable with.

This might be feature creep, but ideally there would be a way to conduct critical air/naval combats over Internet chat or by players talking on the phone. Perhaps a standing order could be to allow the enemy player a limited power to enter your decisions during such a 'live' combat.

For naval combat, adding the new 'randomised naval combat results' optional would greatly speed up the micro-managing of naval combat that is so easy in ftf but would seem to be so time-consuming via email. We used such house rules before they even appeared in the Annual, and I really like them.



Anyway, I checked in to this thread with a simple question...how big do you estimate will be the biggest move files, say the one sent out right after a busy set of land moves in the middle of the game?

Tiny. Even without compression, there are only a dozen bytes or so per unit moved. So if you moved 100 units (say, naval units) we are still looking at only a thousand or so bytes. By comparison, a JPG that is 100 by 100 pixels is 30000 bytes (24 bit color => 3 bytes per pixel).

[brian brian]

Ahhh, only something that changed from a previous email would generate new data. That would help a lot.

[hjaco]

One thing I don't get is how to avoid or solve conflicts in standing orders on the same side?

Say Italy and Germany for some reason choose different SO for intercepting enemy bombers in an impulse i.e. Italian FTR stays down and Germans wan't to intercept at all cost?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

One thing I don't get is how to avoid or solve conflicts in standing orders on the same side?

Say Italy and Germany for some reason choose different SO for intercepting enemy bombers in an impulse i.e. Italian FTR stays down and Germans wan't to intercept at all cost?

A good point. For now, I am planning on only two players for a PBEM games.
---
If there were multiple players on each side, then a player's standing orders would only affect his units. Actually, it seems likely that Standing Orders might be by major power most of the time. Which means that the CW might have one set of SO and the USA a different set. I'll think about that the next time I read through what I have written for Standing Orders.
---
By the way, I have the technical code working for NetPlay (over the Internet), though it is only a stand-alone program at this point. The techinical code for PBEM will be similar. In fact, after looking through the documentation Indy 10, sending and receiving emails will be easier to write than creating and maintaining Internet connections between computers.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I've decided that for PBEM games, I will give the players the ablity to enter the requiaite information for Internet play as well - if they so desire. The additional information is pretty simple: (1) who will Host the game, and (2) the IP Address and Port number the host machine will use.

The purpose is to let the players switch from PBEM to NetPLay and back whenever they want to. This would speed things up a lot during some of the places in the sequence of play where the decision maker's switch back and forth a lot. Note that the game will have to have been started either as a PBEM game, or as a 2-player NetPlay game.

Of course this would be totally at the players' discretion, to be used whenever they want.
===
I have also given some thought about changing mode of play, in general, during a game. There are conflicting goal sets involved I quickly realized:
1 - prevent cheating by preventing players from looking at the US and neutrality pact markers during a game;
2 - enable players to continue playing abandoned games.

Case in point:
1 - If the players can switch from NetPlay to Solitaire, they will be able to see all the markers (cheat).
2 - If the players cannot switch from NetPlay to Solitaire and their opponent simply stops playing, the player who wants to continue will be unable to do so.

Perhaps that is a poor example, but you see the overall problem. I would like to assure players that their opponents are not cheating while at the same time avoid players having useless "abandoned games". My current solution (10 minutes old) is to enable players to switch mode, if all players agree.

[Ullern]

Thats a fair solution.

And generally I think if you have taken steps to prevent cheating its ok that the game is rendered useless after a player quits.

I would circumvent such a restriction anyways, since I trust the people I will play with, by sending saved hot seat games instead of using the e-mail with cheating restrictions. [:'(]

But if you want cheating prevention mechanisms to work, a method won't work.

[brian brian]

"The purpose is to let the players switch from PBEM to NetPLay and back whenever they want to. This would speed things up a lot during some of the places in the sequence of play where the decision maker's switch back and forth a lot. "

This made me think...why put much into a pure PBEM system? If NetPlay can handle the connections, a huge majority of people would prefer to play like this: I start my impulse and offer to be 'live online' at an agreed time to handle naval interceptions (just finish all the non-interceptable ones first), combats and the air strike phases. Then we go offline and wait while some land moves (like say the Russian front) are all decided on, then go back to live-online to handle ground strikes and combat. If someone wants to play via email and skip days or weeks between emails and use all kinds of standing orders to cover this that and the other thing, let them stay with the two freeware programs that one can already use. So perhaps the Standing Orders system can be kept quite simple...if you don't like such broad standing orders, arrange to be online with your opponent. Given the capabilities of the internet now, I wouldn't really want to play a purely email game.

This part, I think you can dial in for the ease of the users a little bit more:

"give the players the ablity to enter the requiaite information for Internet play as well - if they so desire. The additional information is pretty simple: (1) who will Host the game, and (2) the IP Address and Port number the host machine will use."

I have some experience with coaching people through the intricacies of using BitTorrent programs and the joys of Port Forwarding and firewalls. MWiF will not need high-speed connections, so maximizing the throughput of what a particular ISP is willing to give up is not really needed; just a secure way through the firewall for each player. But very few internet users want to deal with IP Addresses and Port numbers themselves. I would suggest keeping this invisible to everyone, with the exception of a small bit of coaching for whatever security pop-up window XP or Vista initiates when this process first runs. Just have each player connect to the eMWiF server. Lots and lots of video games are played this way and this shouldn't be too hard to set up for the players. Asking them to find their IP address and enter it on their own will annoy them. If the server capabilities aren't available, let MWiF generate and send a special MWiF email bundle with the IP information to the other computer. And then of course people will want access to their game from different places, so the IP address and such will have to be dynamic anyway.


For the problem of entry chits, why not keep them on the eMWiF server? The server would only allow the owning player to see them (not the whole side, an actual rule in WiF), and could handle showing them to other players during US Entry actions. If the game ends by mutual agreement, a standard saved-game could be created for anyone who wants to explore "What If"? Ahhh, but what if a petulant opponent refuses to give this agreement? Perhaps the server could give up the information needed after an adequate time delay.

[I'll bet you didn't know that Japan can only build 8 new factories; after that they are out of spots to put a blue factory. I have a Japan in a game that is laying down every ship in the force pool; they own Capetown, 4 of the 6 oil in the Middle East, Suez, Irkutsk, Burma, and the Allied colonies in Indonesia. Although China, India, and Australia are still fighting, there is no oil left in any of those countries and they can't really threaten the Co-Prosperity Sphere's internal communications. Since Russia has been conquered, the US has it's hands full keeping the UK alive. This on-game board won't be continued until automatic victory (London; the Kriegsmarine Plan Z force is still under construction) and would be a perfect candidate to explore what happens to the West after Russia goes out of the game entirely.]

[rmdesantis]

I have been away from WIF for many years, having moved away from friends and been bogged down with work and life. Reading about the immenent release of MWIF is really quite exciting for myself and a friend (with whom I used to play). For me, I am on the opposite side regarding netplay. It's a nice to have, but without a robust PBEM setup, the game won't be playable. I will play on the road (I travel 70% of the time) crossing many time zones, so for me, PBEM is the only way I'll be able to do anything with the game.
 
I realize that the decision on what features to put into the game are based on economic reality, but here's one vote for a robust PBEM system.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: rmdesantis

I have been away from WIF for many years, having moved away from friends and been bogged down with work and life. Reading about the immenent release of MWIF is really quite exciting for myself and a friend (with whom I used to play). For me, I am on the opposite side regarding netplay. It's a nice to have, but without a robust PBEM setup, the game won't be playable. I will play on the road (I travel 70% of the time) crossing many time zones, so for me, PBEM is the only way I'll be able to do anything with the game.

I realize that the decision on what features to put into the game are based on economic reality, but here's one vote for a robust PBEM system.

PBEM is much easier to code than NetPlay. But they both require the same firm sequence of play code foundation. NetPlay needs it to deal with the widely distributed decision making. PBEM needs it because to cut the number of emails to a reasonable number, the sequence of play needs to be tweaked.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

Also Air units?:
A1) When returning to base from a Naval Area (because of abort or because of RTB and end of turn) your opponent may have captured some or all air bases, so that you have not enough room to land every aircraft.

A2) When returning air units from any air missions, it is possible that you have a unit with very limited range that you should land, but your good ally has returned all his air craft from combat before you did, so all hexes within range are fully stacked. (This is usually resolved smoothly in my group. but how will such be resolved in the game, and also if there is late game competition between allies for the victory, one may be stubborn...)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

Also Air units?:
A1) When returning to base from a Naval Area (because of abort or because of RTB and end of turn) your opponent may have captured some or all air bases, so that you have not enough room to land every aircraft.

A2) When returning air units from any air missions, it is possible that you have a unit with very limited range that you should land, but your good ally has returned all his air craft from combat before you did, so all hexes within range are fully stacked. (This is usually resolved smoothly in my group. but how will such be resolved in the game, and also if there is late game competition between allies for the victory, one may be stubborn...)

Sigh.[8|]

This stuff is right in the cracks of the rules.

At least for returning carrier air units to carriers there is no problem since the owner decides and can only return to carrier that melong to the matching major power.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am going over the changes to the sequence of play for PBEM and I am beginning to wonder if there are any places in the SOP where the non-phasing side has to choose which units are destroyed because of overstacking.

1 - In a discussion with the beta testers, the conclusion was that the attacker chooses the order in which units retreat from a land combat, so if overstacking prevents units from retreating and they are therefore destroyed, the decision as to which unit(s) are destroyed is made by the phasing side.

2 - If a change in the weather causes units in lakes to drown or be destroyed by freezing (boat planes), then all the units are destroyed, so no decision needs to be made.

3 - If a land atack destroys a unit in the defending hex that was provvidnig an air unit stacking bonus (e.g., an HQ or ENG), then the non-phasing player has to choose which air unit to destroy. If this happens to the attacking side, then the phasing player decides which of his air units to destroy.

Only #3 seems to require a decision by the non-phasing side.

Are there other times in the game when overstacking occurs? You can't overstack voluntarily, which removes a whole lot of possibilities.

- Perhaps there is a possiblity concerning foreign troop commitment?

- Overstacking doesn't apply to minor country units outside their home country, since the restriction is on 'moving' outside the home country. Once your passport has been stamped, they can't deport you.

If the only place where this decision is needed by the non-phasing side in #3 above, then I'll let the program decide which is the worst air unit and destroy that, rather than develop a Standing Order for dealing with such a miniscule issue.

If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

Also Air units?:
A1) When returning to base from a Naval Area (because of abort or because of RTB and end of turn) your opponent may have captured some or all air bases, so that you have not enough room to land every aircraft.

A2) When returning air units from any air missions, it is possible that you have a unit with very limited range that you should land, but your good ally has returned all his air craft from combat before you did, so all hexes within range are fully stacked. (This is usually resolved smoothly in my group. but how will such be resolved in the game, and also if there is late game competition between allies for the victory, one may be stubborn...)

I believe that those cases where a naval unit or an air unit has to rebase, or to return to base, and have not base to return to IS NOT decided by stacking limits.

If an air unit can't return to base, or a naval unit can't rebase, it is destroyed, period.

You can't base it in a port or hex, and then declare there is an overstack, and then destroy another unit.


As a side note, please note that this is the owner of the hex how decides what's dead in an overstack, and that this is the face-up units first.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As a side note, please note that this is the owner of the hex how decides what's dead in an overstack, and that this is the face-up units first.

Indeed. It is the owner of the hex that destroys overstacked units. But Harry ruled that the retreated units causing overstacking must be eliminated.

From FAQ:
Q11.16-10:
When reading retreat in 11.16.5 it seems
clear that if you have no place to retreat,
including a hex causing overstacking, that
the units die as indicated by "(or destroy it
if this is not possible)".
However, some people look at 2.3.1 that
says if you are overstacked that the owner
destroys his own units. What really causes
problems with this view is the wording in
2.3.1 that says you must destroy face-up
units before face down with the result that
you can retreat flipped units to a hex and
force the other face-up units to die. Is this
right?

Answer:
The retreating units are destroyed. Date
07/03/2008

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As a side note, please note that this is the owner of the hex how decides what's dead in an overstack, and that this is the face-up units first.

Indeed. It is the owner of the hex that destroys overstacked units. But Harry ruled that the retreated units causing overstacking must be eliminated.

From FAQ:
Q11.16-10:
When reading retreat in 11.16.5 it seems
clear that if you have no place to retreat,
including a hex causing overstacking, that
the units die as indicated by "(or destroy it
if this is not possible)".
However, some people look at 2.3.1 that
says if you are overstacked that the owner
destroys his own units. What really causes
problems with this view is the wording in
2.3.1 that says you must destroy face-up
units before face down with the result that
you can retreat flipped units to a hex and
force the other face-up units to die. Is this
right?

Answer:
The retreating units are destroyed. Date
07/03/2008

That's right. I was not implying the contrary.
This is what Steve listed, as item #1 above, and I agree this is OK.
Retreating units are even destroyed before overstacking, because they can't retreat and are destroyed.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: ullern





If you have a forced rebase of a naval unit and the naval unit can only go to ports already fully stacked. I believe that last time my group was in that situation we allowed over stacking in the port, and then the owner had to choose which units to destroy.

-> Same can happen if you have to return to base and the port is full.

-> Another variation of the same: Say you abort a group of 3 units from a naval combat, now the rules say that all these have to go to the same port, but what if you abort through some Sea Areas and then end up to be forced to land in a Sea Area where no minor port have room for all three of them? I'd say this is another case of over stacking. (If there had been no possible interceptions then the owner should be able to undo though.)

Note: I didn't check the rules now, I just took this from memory.

Also Air units?:
A1) When returning to base from a Naval Area (because of abort or because of RTB and end of turn) your opponent may have captured some or all air bases, so that you have not enough room to land every aircraft.

A2) When returning air units from any air missions, it is possible that you have a unit with very limited range that you should land, but your good ally has returned all his air craft from combat before you did, so all hexes within range are fully stacked. (This is usually resolved smoothly in my group. but how will such be resolved in the game, and also if there is late game competition between allies for the victory, one may be stubborn...)

I believe that those cases where a naval unit or an air unit has to rebase, or to return to base, and have not base to return to IS NOT decided by stacking limits.

If an air unit can't return to base, or a naval unit can't rebase, it is destroyed, period.

You can't base it in a port or hex, and then declare there is an overstack, and then destroy another unit.


As a side note, please note that this is the owner of the hex how decides what's dead in an overstack, and that this is the face-up units first.

The problem here is when there is some room available for the returning/rebasing units, but not enough room for all of them. If the British have 3 naval units and the US have 3, all of which are aborted from a naval combat, but there is only 1 minor port that they can reach, then which units are destroyed? I think this becomes an overstacking issue - and as you said, resolved by the major power that controls the hex. The same thing can happen with air units (more unlikely, but possible).

[Orm]

Deleted because arguing about a vague worded retreat rule and and wishing it stated that it was the defender who got to destroy his own retreated units does not make it so.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The problem here is when there is some room available for the returning/rebasing units, but not enough room for all of them. If the British have 3 naval units and the US have 3, all of which are aborted from a naval combat, but there is only 1 minor port that they can reach, then which units are destroyed? I think this becomes an overstacking issue - and as you said, resolved by the major power that controls the hex. The same thing can happen with air units (more unlikely, but possible).

No, no overstacking issue.

The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The problem here is when there is some room available for the returning/rebasing units, but not enough room for all of them. If the British have 3 naval units and the US have 3, all of which are aborted from a naval combat, but there is only 1 minor port that they can reach, then which units are destroyed? I think this becomes an overstacking issue - and as you said, resolved by the major power that controls the hex. The same thing can happen with air units (more unlikely, but possible).

No, no overstacking issue.

The owner of the units that need to return to base decide which unit return to base first. When the port is full, the rest of the units that need to return to base are destroyed without seeing the green & red buoys at the port's entry.

The problem is when there are two different owners both os whom want to use the base.