Player Communications

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am working on the fine details of design for communications between players - which becomes most important when playing in a group session live over the Internet (NetPlay). I have a few questions as to how you would like this stuff handled.

Background
Basically, game events divide into 2 pieces: those that the player (think of this as 'you') makes happen and those that are made by other players or by the program as part of the normal sequence of play (e.g., weather rolls, checks for end of turn). Let's assume there are 4 players, with 2 Axis and 2 Allied players. One player on each side is a team leader, which gives that player the responsibility of deciding when all decisions have been made by his side for a phase (e.g., all land moves have been made) and the "behind the scenes" responsibility of routing messages between sides. The latter requires no actions by the team leader - NetPlay takes care of it without the players becoming involved.

In over the board games there is usually a lot of collaboration between players on the same side ("what do you think of me doing this?"). At the start of a game it is quite important since one player's setup may dictate how an ally sets up.

Question
So, there are a couple of ways I could handle communicating moves over the Internet. For discussion purposes, let's take set up at the start of the game. The sequence is:
1 - Units are randomly selected, or specific named units units are selected. As this is done, the units are placed in a "setup tray".
2 - The player decides which air units get pilots with unpiloted air units going into an air reserve pool (or which air units to 'take' and which go back into the force pool).
3 - The player places units on the map.
4 - The player rearranges units on the map with the option of splitting convoy units (e.g., from one unit containing 10 convoys into two with 5 convoys each), breaking down corps units, replacing regular USSR units with Siberians, an so on.
5 - The player decides that all his units are set up and ends his portion of the setup phase.

At which point should the other players in the game (or perhaps just those on his side?) see what is happening? They could be sent every step of the decision process, watching the player rearrange units, do and undo splitting convoys, ecetera. Or the program could skip over all the details and just send the final setup position. This could be different for whether the players are on the same side or not. Or some of the details could be omitted and others shown. As a "for instance" of the last, the players on the same side could be shown just the final position, but before the player commits to ending his portion of the setup phase. That would let his allies critique his setup without passing judgment on every detail.

There should be a common philosophy here, that is used not just during setup, but for every phase of the game. I find it easier to think about a specific situation and once I have figured that out, to broaden the solution to all similar situations.

So, how much detail concerning other players' actions/decisions should be sent over the Internet?

[Froonp]

My opinion right now.
For some events, such as the setup that you describe (or the Production phase, or the return to base phase, or the Partisan phase, or the US Entry Phase), I think that the program should allow the player who just thinks he has finished setting up his units, to show this setup to his allies, so that they can criticize or ask for specifics to be modified, bargain things, etc... When the discussion is finished, or when the player who sets up wants to do that, he should be allowed to "validate" his setup so that the game proceeds, whatever his allies say.

For other events, such as the Land Moves on the map, the Air Missions, the Naval Moves, etc... basically, all military manoeuvers, I think that all players should see in real time what the other players are doing. For example, in a situation in France in late 1944 where the CW and the US units may be intimately mixed, it would be good if the CW player, and the US player, each one seated at their own computer and running his onw copy of the game, could see the other player's units moving as they are moved. This way, communicating with Messenger / email / phone, whatever, he could say : please, move Eisenhower closer to this place because blablabla, and see his ally do it, and when it is done, he could move his own units that were dependent on Eisenhower's move (for whatever reasons), or he could ask for the move to be different ("don't move that far", or "please move as far as you can") and the US player would undo his move and do it again another way, etc...
Also, I think that it would be good because it would allow for the other side to witness your hesitations, wonderings, as he can see when you hesitate moving counters on the real map.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Ok. To enpand on this a bit, let's say there are 3 players on one side. The map could get pretty confusing, with it jumping around as China, the USSR and CW make different moves. CWIF's default setup was for 2 map views to be active at once. One showed what the local player was doing/moving and the second was for what remote players were doing/moving. Any thoughts concerning how multiple map views should be used?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Ok. To enpand on this a bit, let's say there are 3 players on one side. The map could get pretty confusing, with it jumping around as China, the USSR and CW make different moves. CWIF's default setup was for 2 map views to be active at once. One showed what the local player was doing/moving and the second was for what remote players were doing/moving. Any thoughts concerning how multiple map views should be used?

Well, I, as the CW player for example, would choose if I want to have a bit of map showing China or USSR or any other area. But If I so choose, I should see the other player's movement in real time on my screen, as they move units.
I mean that, the map should certainly not be "jumping to action", unless I so choose, why not have this as an option, but certainly not as a normal way of doing. When I play WiF, I want to be able to focus on the parts of the map I'm interested in, and forget about the others.

I should also be allowed to scroll the map anywhere I want, while the other players are playing their phase, at least this can help me to be patient waiting for them. And if there are moves that are done, I should be able to see them.

Maybe there should also be some way to highlight recent & current moves, so that I have more chances of seeing them on counter cluttered parts of the map.

I should also be able to state that "I'm not finished moving" to my fellow players.

[Froonp]

Hey, you all reading [X(], do not leave me alone with Steve, come and give your feeling too [:D] [:D] [:D]

[Jeff Gilbert]

I will, I will ... [X(]
I'm still organizing my thoughts prior to getting on a plane to London tomorrow.

[stretch]

I echo Patrice's comments.  Browse the map if I want, or choose to follow each move.  Also, perhaps an alert pops up when someone else commits another unit to a move so I can follow along by text even if I am elsewhere on the map.  It could pop up in the same place you put chat messages, different color or size font or some such.  Depending on how much chatter there is it might only be on screen a couple of seconds, but is still provides something.  In a perfect world the message would include a clickable element that would center my map on that spot.
 
 
 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: stretch
I echo Patrice's comments.  Browse the map if I want, or choose to follow each move.  Also, perhaps an alert pops up when someone else commits another unit to a move so I can follow along by text even if I am elsewhere on the map.  It could pop up in the same place you put chat messages, different color or size font or some such.  Depending on how much chatter there is it might only be on screen a couple of seconds, but is still provides something.  In a perfect world the message would include a clickable element that would center my map on that spot.

Hmmm. Each game event generates an entry in the game record log. Those are grouped into transactions, and when a transaction is complete, then the whole transaction is ready for transmission to other players. For example, if you move a land unit several hexes, each hex is an entry and the whole sequence of hex entries is a transaction. The program only sends complete transactions. Other examples are units destroyed/shattered/damaged/aborted in combat. The whole set of units so transformed are sent as one transaction. So, ...

I could post each transaction and/or retain the last transaction by a remote player on the screen. That would be an abbreviated communication and not some long-winded description. I could also maintain a list of 'remote' transactions and let that be called up so the player could examine each event in more detail.

But all the above would stilll leave open the question of when to update the local game state with the results of decisions made by remote players. It is the undoing of moves that concerns me most. I would sort of like the game record log to be 'clean' - reflecting only the final decisions and not all the wishy-washy fumbling around with the units during a phase. But I do not want to go to the effort of finding each previous move and revising the game record log by removing entries that were later changed by the player. There are pluses and minuses to each design. hence I am seeking input from players before I start writing code for a specific design/philosophy.

[Harold Haralson]

I would suggest setting it up as options.
That is one thing I liked about Gary Grigsby's war in
the Pacific. You could get a final report or watch what
happens on each move.

So... if someone wanted to see every move or detail
that could be one option; If they only wanted to see
the map moves that could be an option; If they wanted
only to see the summary report that could be an option.

[lavisj]

I also agree that most options should be optional. My biggest concern would be avoiding player's data overload. And since the limit of information overload really is dependent upon the players, the player should be able to configure the amount of info he receives, which includes following moves and such. A good exemple of that would be an interface like the one in Europa Universalis.

[Mziln]

I do not want the screen jerking around showing other players moves. This would slow and distract from the game forcing you to watch each player’s individual move. I am more interested in moving my units.
 
To me the most important part of an Internet move would be the end results. If you have a particular geographic area of interest and you fail to inspect it that is your fault.  
 
 
I prefer each player to be able to…
 
(A) Discuss any strategies at any time during the game. This will happen anyway using IcQ, Instant Messenger, email, or etc.
(B) Make his/her individual moves without distraction. 
(C) When finished you should be able to go and review other players moves if you desire.
 
 
Since you should have 2 transaction files.
 
(1) Where the units begin their turn.
(2) Where the units will end their move.
 
The computer should be able to replicate and display a player’s moves for the movement phase. It should also allow players to change their moves before the phase ends.

[Jimm]

The computer should be able to replicate and display a player’s moves for the movement phase. It should also allow players to change their moves before the phase ends.

I agree with this. Ideally you want to be able to switch between theatres and review what happened in each one so you are not relying on realtime seeing things happening.

[lavisj]

The problem is that the game sometimes require for players to mix the order in which they move their units for supply purposes. For exemple in a CW-US combined advance in France supplied by Eisenhower, some units both CW and US would have to move, then the HQ and then the units from both US and CW which are now in supply could move.
So, a way for both players to move at the same time would be required, unless the computer keeps track of the starting position and ending position of HQ's indicating to the next player which units can move (which would be thos in supply before the HQ moves, and those in supply after it moved).
 
Also, discussing strategies might be good in moving units around with the two players, and so I think it is important that movement can be seen live it the player feels it is necessary.

[Greyshaft]

Can you implement a system where players can see each others PC screen in a window (but can't move units)? Player 1 does the moving of the units and players 2 & 3 watch and kibbitz by instant messenging 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lavisj
The problem is that the game sometimes require for players to mix the order in which they move their units for supply purposes. For exemple in a CW-US combined advance in France supplied by Eisenhower, some units both CW and US would have to move, then the HQ and then the units from both US and CW which are now in supply could move.
So, a way for both players to move at the same time would be required, unless the computer keeps track of the starting position and ending position of HQ's indicating to the next player which units can move (which would be thos in supply before the HQ moves, and those in supply after it moved).

Also, discussing strategies might be good in moving units around with the two players, and so I think it is important that movement can be seen live it the player feels it is necessary.

For setup, each major power must complete setting up his units before the next major power starts. But that is unusual.

In most movement phases, all players on a side can make their moves in any order/simultaneously. And they can undo their moves too - right up to the point that the team leader commits all the major powers on his side to having finished the phase. [Obviously naval moves that can be intercepted can NOT be undone, and once made are "locked in" with no undos.]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Can you implement a system where players can see each others PC screen in a window (but can't move units)? Player 1 does the moving of the units and players 2 & 3 watch and kibbitz by instant messenging 

Yes. This is how CWIF was set up to work.

The more difficult situation is when everyone on a side is moving units at teh same time. As I player I definitely want the opposing players to move as fast as they can - not in slow motion with every move being checked and rechecked by everyone on the side. As for the players on my side - taking a lot of time to study each move is only natural.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

The computer should be able to replicate and display a player’s moves for the movement phase. It should also allow players to change their moves before the phase ends.

I agree with this. Ideally you want to be able to switch between theatres and review what happened in each one so you are not relying on realtime seeing things happening.

I am beginning to get a feel for the design now, but I could still use some more advice - even if it is only to say that you like what someone else said. A lot of this has to do with personal preferences/playing style, so I am uncomfortable relying solely on my own concept of what is best.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jeff Gilbert

I will, I will ... [X(]
I'm still organizing my thoughts prior to getting on a plane to London tomorrow.

London.... [:D] [:D]
GREATEST PLACE IN THE WORLD !!! [8D]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

The computer should be able to replicate and display a player’s moves for the movement phase. It should also allow players to change their moves before the phase ends.

I agree with this. Ideally you want to be able to switch between theatres and review what happened in each one so you are not relying on realtime seeing things happening.

I love that too.

(1) Where the units begin their turn.
(2) Where the units will end their move.

And that also fro Mzlin.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Can you implement a system where players can see each others PC screen in a window (but can't move units)?

Isn't this kind of similar to having another map displayed on the screen (a separate map from the one you use to move your units), where you see the movements of the units ?