Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

If i use the Standing Orders for minor setups in the 1st turn of the game. Do every single nation in the world. Its seems to me i can change my Standing Orders for say any nation at any time before war is declared. there is no Fog of War, the player knows where everything is.

Its up to the player to decide if his SO's are up to date depending on the global situation. This is PBEM we are talking about, time is not an issue.

I don't see a problem. The SO's are not written in virtual stone, are they?

Correct, they are not. In fact, the player should check SO #4 (setting up units of attacked minor countries) at the end of each impulse where his was the phasing side. The other side might DOW at the beginning of the next impulse.

The point being made here is that you do not know which major power on the other side might DOW the minor country when you update SO #4. That additional piece of information might affect your deployment. I have trouble accepting this as a major point though since if that were going to make a major difference, I would have multiple major powers DOW simultaneously.

Nonetheless, that is more about me being a player than it is about me being a game designer. My current (partially formed) idea is to add a check field where players could indicate which minor countries they want to set up 'personally', using a separate email. The default would be to set that flag to off, though the players could change the On/Off settings whenever they wanted.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

If i use the Standing Orders for minor setups in the 1st turn of the game. Do every single nation in the world. Its seems to me i can change my Standing Orders for say any nation at any time before war is declared. there is no Fog of War, the player knows where everything is.

Its up to the player to decide if his SO's are up to date depending on the global situation. This is PBEM we are talking about, time is not an issue.

I don't see a problem. The SO's are not written in virtual stone, are they?

Correct, they are not. In fact, the player should check SO #4 (setting up units of attacked minor countries) at the end of each impulse where his was the phasing side. The other side might DOW at the beginning of the next impulse.

The point being made here is that you do not know which major power on the other side might DOW the minor country when you update SO #4. That additional piece of information might affect your deployment. I have trouble accepting this as a major point though since if that were going to make a major difference, I would have multiple major powers DOW simultaneously.

Nonetheless, that is more about me being a player than it is about me being a game designer. My current (partially formed) idea is to add a check field where players could indicate which minor countries they want to set up 'personally', using a separate email. The default would be to set that flag to off, though the players could change the On/Off settings whenever they wanted.

Is Poland one of these, or is there a separate phase for setting up Poland since it must be DOW'ed and the only variable is how the German has set up? The only advantage Poland has is seeing the German set-up.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Gurggulk

If i use the Standing Orders for minor setups in the 1st turn of the game. Do every single nation in the world. Its seems to me i can change my Standing Orders for say any nation at any time before war is declared. there is no Fog of War, the player knows where everything is.

Its up to the player to decide if his SO's are up to date depending on the global situation. This is PBEM we are talking about, time is not an issue.

I don't see a problem. The SO's are not written in virtual stone, are they?

Correct, they are not. In fact, the player should check SO #4 (setting up units of attacked minor countries) at the end of each impulse where his was the phasing side. The other side might DOW at the beginning of the next impulse.

The point being made here is that you do not know which major power on the other side might DOW the minor country when you update SO #4. That additional piece of information might affect your deployment. I have trouble accepting this as a major point though since if that were going to make a major difference, I would have multiple major powers DOW simultaneously.

Nonetheless, that is more about me being a player than it is about me being a game designer. My current (partially formed) idea is to add a check field where players could indicate which minor countries they want to set up 'personally', using a separate email. The default would be to set that flag to off, though the players could change the On/Off settings whenever they wanted.

Is Poland one of these, or is there a separate phase for setting up Poland since it must be DOW'ed and the only variable is how the German has set up? The only advantage Poland has is seeing the German set-up.

There is a specific email for Poland (W2). I had originally intended W2 to be sent every DOW phase where a DOW occurs. But upon closer examination I decided only Poland really needed it. RIght now W1 and W3 are merged into a single email except during the first impulse of Global War & Fascist Tide (i.e., when Poland needs to be set up).

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Page 1 of 2.

The right side shows where the Axis wants the Finnish units placed if the Allies decalre war on that minor country.

Hi Shannon,

Can you be more specific on this, do you mean that in each game we have to prepare the setup of each minor country for when or in case they will be attacked by the opposing faction?

Thanks,

Personally I don't want to think of a setup for each minor country when I begin a PBEM game, I will think of the placement of the units when the minor country is declared war upon only. Why should I think of the placement of the units for Argentina's minor country when it's almost sure nobody will DOW it?

In my opinion it's a waste of time an energy. We should setup the units of a minor country only when someone DOWs it.

Well, that's what I think. [:'(]

setting up a minor would indeed depend on lots of variables, at times even including the weather for that impulse. although I have never played WiF via email, the tension of trying to find ways to speed up the process vs. how much fine control a player will be willing to cede in the interests of saving an email step is interesting; it's like a whole new design element. WiF has always been about choices, as a friend of mine on the rules committee likes to point out. much like the real commanders-in-chief, a player experiences limits on just how much control they can exercise over their military forces simultaneously.

If I understand Steve's goal here, the set-ups for minors are just an element of the Standing Orders you can CHOOSE to use in the interest of speeding up the game in just this one phase. you would not be required to set up Argentina in advance, and at any time you are sending an email you could turn a Standing Order set-up on or off. At other times it is clear an enemy DoW by an an obviously adjacent Major Power is imminent, the weather will be generally very well-known in advance (Jul/Aug), and to help save a step off a cumbersome game-play process, you COULD have the set-up ready to go ahead of time. it's just a player convenience feature, not a mandatory feature.

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks. [:)]

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

PBEM will be a trade off - if you want full control of every detail in every step, you will be swamped with emails and game would progress very slowly. Each e-mail easely delays a game by one full day in real life if not more. Is the setup of say Belgium important enough to stall the game, just because you dont know if Italy or Germany declares war? I would have thougth no.

ORIGINAL: praem

PBEM will be a trade off - if you want full control of every detail in every step, you will be swamped with emails and game would progress very slowly. Each e-mail easely delays a game by one full day in real life if not more. Is the setup of say Belgium important enough to stall the game, just because you dont know if Italy or Germany declares war? I would have thougth no.

I agree. But the setup of Yugoslavia for example might well depend upon wo makes the DOW and what the weather this impulse might be like.

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks. [:)]

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

Then just take the default setups at the start and review/revise them country by country when you believe it is important to do so.[:)]

Some players will want to examine all the minor countries and see what each one has in the way of units. For example, as a new player it would be very important to find out what each of the European minor countries has in the way of units.
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeet

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.

No, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I disagree with what Brian says. Waiting for the reply from a player who is doing his setup for a minor country is not a big deal. I play that way already in a Vassal game, what is delaying the game is certainly not the minor's setups when they are DOWed, as if DOWs were happening all the time in a game. That event is not happening often, maybe on the beginning of a campaign but after it happens rarely.

If a player is bored/frustrated at the slow pace of a PBEM just because I am doing a minor's setup, maybe he is not ready to play a PBEM game. When port attacks, ground strikes, strategic bombardments, land attacks with their air to air combats will come, the game will really be delayed. That's what is delaying a game, and it is quite normal. And personally I live with that and like it that way.

Just my 2 cents, you are the boss, you do what you think is right. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

I like this better already, thanks. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks. [:)]

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

Then just take the default setups at the start and review/revise them country by country when you believe it is important to do so.[:)]

Some players will want to examine all the minor countries and see what each one has in the way of units. For example, as a new player it would be very important to find out what each of the European minor countries has in the way of units.
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.

I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down… [:D]

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

Go ahead burn me down… [:D]

Prepares his flammenpanzer

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Yeah if you can choose but are not obliged to, than it's fine. But, I mean I hope it is not required. Thanks. [:)]

I speak for myself of course, but when I begin a Fascist Tide for example the only minor's setup I think of in 1939 for example, will be Poland. Forgive my bad english.

Then just take the default setups at the start and review/revise them country by country when you believe it is important to do so.[:)]

Some players will want to examine all the minor countries and see what each one has in the way of units. For example, as a new player it would be very important to find out what each of the European minor countries has in the way of units.
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

However, as Brian said, if you expect to have the same degree of fine control over decision making in a PBEM game as you have in an over-the-board game, then you are going to have hundreds of additional emails and the game will take much longer to play. You also run the risk of your opponent becoming bored/frustrated at the slow pace of play and abandoning the game.

The important thing to remember here is that your opponent is dealing with the same limitations imposed in using standing orders instead of direct control.

I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down… [:D]

If setting up the minor is easy to do, then what is the problem with having the player do it instead of the AIA?

If setting up a minor requires some thought, then that is what "playing the game" is all about.
===
I'm sorry, but MWIF requires dealing with a lot of different aspects of the war. Some players don't like {fill in the blank} and would prefer to have the AIA take care of that aspect of the game rather than make those decisions themselves. I do not see it as part of my task as the designer/programmer to alleviate all those 'annoyances', especially given that different players have different preferences. For me, the epitome of all that is to have the AI play both sides so the 'player' can just watch.

It reminds of my friend who use to write movie reviews ... he was set up on a blind date with a girl and took her to a foreign movie that had subtitles ... her comment was "Are we going to have to read this entire movie?".

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

I know Steve does not like it but I don't see why (other that development time) we can't have an option to let the AIO setup a minor country when it’s declared war, if no specific setup is done by the player overriding the default one. This would skip the need for additional emails and like some one said earlier who puts in the effort to specific setup for all minor that might be declared war on?
With this option I only need do the setup for all important minor the rest I can use the standard setup or leave it to the AIO to do it for me.

Go ahead burn me down… [:D]

I am not very warm for this idea of having AIO doing the setup for me either.

It is only a option... ( I found no image of me doing Seppuku [;)] )

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
===
After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority" as the game designer.

I like this better already, thanks. [:)]

IMO this is the perfect solution here.

After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority"

I think this is a good idea. Standing orders are really something the players should have the ability to negotiate before the game starts.After all what some find as facinating decissions others see as minor details. The important thing is that players are happy with the system.
As an aside I have never seen a game develope where we the future players have had so much input. This is a great site.[:)]
regards John

ORIGINAL: BallyJ


After a full night's sleep, I am coming around to the idea of enabling the player to check-mark each minor country for whether he wants to set it up using an email instead of standing order #4. It's not that hard for me to code and I dislike exerting "parental authority"

I think this is a good idea. Standing orders are really something the players should have the ability to negotiate before the game starts.After all what some find as facinating decissions others see as minor details. The important thing is that players are happy with the system.
As an aside I have never seen a game develope where we the future players have had so much input. This is a great site.[:)]
regards John

Well, I would rather hear the complaints now, when I can modify the design, than hear them after people have bought the product and they are spoken in anger.[:D]

That's why I am complaining now! [:D][:D][:D]