Matrix Games Forums

Possible improvement in PBEM:

Battle files:

Is it possible to have if then for each country at war? such as if france and spain are at war, spain can say if corp difference > +2 then chose X chit, if corp difference > - 2 then Y chit; if guard corp involved and round 1, morale >2.0 and morale difference >+X then commit the guard, in round 2 if morele > 1.0 in round etc..

I know that this would be a complicated screen and may need a month of programming, but it would really improve speed with battles, without the need to send battle files?

Diplomacy:

have everyone do diplomacy phase at the same time, and have the computer load them in order

Economy phase:

Have everyone do economy phase at the same time and have the computer load them in order

This is just a beginning, and maybe people can add/subtract. I realize that there are some implications with changing this, but there are other rules that have been changed for the sake of computerizing the game, and I think this would be well worth it.

Does no one read posts any more? Did we seriously need ANOTHER thread on this topic?

PBEM quick combat is the best way to keep the game pace up.
Having parts of the game be IGO-UGO and other parts be simultaneous could be a problem.
 
BTW: I'm still wondering what a simultaneous eco phase would gain? You still cannot proceed until ALL players are done so if someone is slow then the game still slows?
 

Gees...sorry, I didn't see another thread about the specifics...I wanted to post this as a proposal and see if anyone thought anything of it. The truth is, many don't read older threads either...
 
Marshall Ellis...the advantage would be that you wouldn't have to wait for the prior file.  As soon as the land combat is done, all people can do the econ phase...but if one person can't play on Tues, Wed for example, and the land phase was done on Friday, he could do his phase...but if he had to wait until he got the prior phase on Tues, that would delay it even more...
 
That is the advantage of having everyone do their phases at the same time (if possible) Land, etc cannot be done this way of course.

Simultaneous Eco would of course be alot faster, even if one player is slow.
 
Doing it in sequence is obviously slower, by any calculation. The PBEM system leaves a lot to be desired in any case, EiA is a game with frequent player interaction making it hard to shoehorn into a PBEM type mode.
 
PBEM quick combat is pretty poor and removes a good deal of the fun of the game. My suggestion would be coding a TCP/IP client/server interface, but given the state of the game I suppose that is very tall order.

No worries Dodod. You are keeping the conversation vital and current. Anyone who is overfamiliar can simply gloss over while an initiate can absorb the details if they should wish. Keep up the postings!

best
Mardonius

The PBEM combat forgoes chits..which is a great part of the game...

I think the method described would be the best way to do it over email, and truthfully, doesn't need that much programming.  A series of if thens that would be with the land phase file...This would lead to dramatic and I mean dramatic decrease in battle time.

I don't see how simultaneous phases would be different as the host would still load the turns in order...why would one player require the econ phase of the other to go on?? when it just needs to be entered in order...?

I realize this last part is more programming, but really, it would speed the game up at least 50% in those phases. AT LEAST

ORIGINAL: dodod

The PBEM combat forgoes chits..which is a great part of the game...

PBEM Quick combat still uses chits, just the AI picks the Defender's.

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

PBEM quick combat is the best way to keep the game pace up.
Having parts of the game be IGO-UGO and other parts be simultaneous could be a problem.

BTW: I'm still wondering what a simultaneous eco phase would gain? You still cannot proceed until ALL players are done so if someone is slow then the game still slows?

Offcourse Marshall one could be slow, but instead of players using say 7-14 days(if they use house rules 24h/48H) cause of player avaiblility and timing for file exchanges, you cut it down to 1-2 days.

Same goes for diplomacy phase.


I do hope some game improvement, diplomacy phase, economicy phases, There is little reason players cant commit them same time. Eg that they have to wait. Since they resolved after all played that phase.

Regards
Bresh

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

PBEM quick combat is the best way to keep the game pace up.
Having parts of the game be IGO-UGO and other parts be simultaneous could be a problem.

BTW: I'm still wondering what a simultaneous eco phase would gain? You still cannot proceed until ALL players are done so if someone is slow then the game still slows?

With serial econ phase, each player has to wait for all of the previous players to finish. I can't remember the order, but, just for the sake of illustrating, let's say it is

A F G P R S T

A has no wait.
F has to wait for A
G has to wait for F then A
P has to wait for G then F then A
etc.

The last person (in this case, T) has to wait for each of the others to serially finish their turn.

Attaching numbers, let's say these players really fly through it, and each one finishes in exactly 10 minutes. Plus, they are ready instantly (i.e. they are reading their email as soon as it is sent).

A's wait is 0
F's wait is 10
G's wait is 20
P's wait is 30
R's wait is 40
S's wait is 50
T's wait is 60
The first person to go in the diplo phase waits another 10 minutes, for a total of 70.

Now, let's apply the same numbers to an asynchronous turn:

A's wait is 0
F's wait is 0
G's wait is 0
etc.

The first person to go in the diplo phase waits just 10 minutes from the start of the econ phase, because the phase entries for all 7 players are all done at the same time.

Now, instead of 10 minutes, let's use the "house rule" most campaigns have: 24-hour max wait for a turn. In this case, the average wait is half that (trust me on the math) or 12 hours.

So, in a real-world, but near worst-case scenario, the person taking the first turn in the diplo phase waits 84 hours. Compare that to the asynchronous verison with the same variables: 12 hours.
They're all zero.

Now, in the REAL world, the formula for asynchronous is actually:

Delay between start of econ phase and start of diplo phase >= the longest time any power takes to finish.

This is significantly better than "the sum of the times each player took to finish".

ORIGINAL: Soapy Frog
My suggestion would be coding a TCP/IP client/server interface, but given the state of the game I suppose that is very tall order.

Remember, though:

This ONLY works if all seven players are active AND connected to the other players (or, to a central server). If any of them steps away, the game stops until his or her next phase.

By the way, I'm working on a way to "fake" a TCP/IP session. However, I have to get a second license to test it, and I recently lost my job, so I can't afford any more money. I'm hoping for a friend to possibly bring over his copy.

PBEM needs a sticky post to the top, and it also needs someone to go through through and keep the first post as a list of what has been suggested. Perhaps also a star rating system as to what the players deem important.
 
For example I am sure it's been mentioned but it would be nice for the AI to check and see if the next player has any possible actions in the next phase. For example the Prussian Naval phase. If the player has no navy skip his turn.  Or how about during the diplomacy phase a check box for the turn for phases to skip? Each player can then go and check the phases he wants to skip such as Reinforcement, Naval or perhaps even land with just auto forage? Some countries do go through 18 months of vacation for their armies and once they are in the right areas all they have to do is auto forage for some turns.
 
On the Reinforcement phase when a player takes over a minor that only has a garrison, this should be done by the AI. If you think some players might object make it an option you can select.
 
Just a couple of thoughts. I am very happy to have the game. Thanks again for all the hard work.
 
Larry W. Rose