PBEM - lack of choices for players

[jjdenver]

Hi,

It seems that in PBEM players don't get to make any choices. For example USSR automatically goes to war with Finland, there is no choice for Finland to back down instead of fight. When tech upgrades happen, the choice of bonus is automatically made - player doesn't get a choice.

Can this be patched? I don't see why players can't make their own decisions (in particular diplomatic decisions are very important) in PBEM?

Thanks

[freeboy]

not so.
the technology upgrade is player controlled, when u build units u select what level, or am I missunderstanding u?

[stone10]

I've just start my first PBEM using USSR...if I can't make any choices, the BIE events are going to kill me.

[macroeconomics]

Finland can definitely back down if they are human controlled. If the AI controls Finland, then it is a probability assigned to them fighting or giving in. I don't know what that probability is.

[gwgardner]

It was a design choice for PBEM, I believe. Otherwise, there would be incredible numbers of back and forth turns in multiplayer, between the normal player turns, just to resolve the event options.

When you play multiplayer, therefore, you are essentially NOT an all powerful dictator. You are the leader, but diplomatic and other events happen, and decisions are made by other institutions and people within your regime. At least that's the way I look at it.

Check the event reports after every turn to see what has happened that may affect your leadership decisions.

The beauty of it is that no two multiplayer games, of the same scenario, are going to be same.

[freeboy]

or u can asseign the countries to human, but that will add to total time for game

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: macroeconomics
Finland can definitely back down if they are human controlled. If the AI controls Finland, then it is a probability assigned to them fighting or giving in. I don't know what that probability is.

Sorry Macro - love your AAR but in this you are wrong. In PBEM no choice is given. I control Finland in a PBEM game and got no choice at all - Finland is at war with USSR now - which i assume because the scripts are broken - means USSR will be at war with Germany in 1940 just like in your game (Finland and Romania cause Germany and USSR to go to war).

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
It was a design choice for PBEM, I believe. Otherwise, there would be incredible numbers of back and forth turns in multiplayer, between the normal player turns, just to resolve the event options.

When you play multiplayer, therefore, you are essentially NOT an all powerful dictator. You are the leader, but diplomatic and other events happen, and decisions are made by other institutions and people within your regime. At least that's the way I look at it.

Check the event reports after every turn to see what has happened that may affect your leadership decisions.

The beauty of it is that no two multiplayer games, of the same scenario, are going to be same.

Sadly GW, those decisions are one of the best parts of the game. Maybe every single decision shouldn't go back and forth but at the start of the German turn or Finland turn why wouldn't I be presented with the decision? For example when I'm playing Finland (not the AI mind you) why when I start a turn wouldn't I get an option to choose to back down? If it's because this happens during Soviet turn then let me pre-choose important decisions by checking a checkbox - show me a list of possible decisions in the next 12 months and let me check a box about what I'll choose. No need to do this for EVERY event - like do I complete a cruiser for example - but for very important events like winter war I should get a choice.

Also for tech upgrades, I don't see any reason why you can't make this choice during German turn. As the German when I start or when I end my turn I should get to choose tech upgrade reward right? Makes no sense.

Anyway this will make EVERY game the same since Finland will ALWAYS resist, and USSR Germany will ALWAYS go to war in 1940 no? It's just bad bad bad production of the game and arguing it's not a problem is burying your head in the sand. You can like the game and still say there are things wrong with it.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: freeboy
or u can asseign the countries to human, but that will add to total time for game

Assigning them to human in PBEM does no good. You get to make ZERO decisions. None in PBEM. Even worse (and I could be wrong, hope I'm wrong about this) the decisions made are fixed - they are always the same - Finland will always resist for example.

[doomtrader]

@jjdenver, many of the events which are going to happen during the game, are happening randomly, also many of them are depends on the previous choices and on the current international situation, so there is no chance to predict which events will happen within next 12 months.

[gwgardner]

As far as I know, all events have a random factor, so every game will NOT be like every other. 

I agree that it would be optimal to have some kind of PER COUNTRY event checkoff system, with no inter-turn events.  Maybe it's something they'll look at down the road.  It just ain't in the cards right now, I'll bet. 

Blame me - I strongly urged Wastelands, in lieu of a per country system - to have the system make all event choices and to place the results in the reports.  I don't know if my recommendation was indeed decisive - I don't have THAT big of a notion of my own importance.  I did however think it a suitable option.  Still do.  The player doesn't have to be a god.

Even the butcher of the west and the butcher of the east didn't have the power to make every decision in isolation from the will of others. Witness the failed pressure on Spain.

[doomtrader]

gwgarner's suggestion has greatly affected the decision.

[gwgardner]

It should be noted that the event scripts are available for modding by anyone. If a particular event is absolutely undersirable in the game you want to play, remove it. Or change the odds of it triggering.

In games like HOI, user mods are important additions to the game experience. I see no reason why it can't be the same with ToF.

Let's get an historical accuracy mod by a player, who wants the Soviet Union never to declare war early, or some such.

The sky is the limit in this game.

[freeboy]

jj,
Is that our game? I could perhaps hedge finland and USSR dow... as a house rule

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
As far as I know, all events have a random factor, so every game will NOT be like every other. 

I agree that it would be optimal to have some kind of PER COUNTRY event checkoff system, with no inter-turn events.  Maybe it's something they'll look at down the road.  It just ain't in the cards right now, I'll bet. 

Blame me - I strongly urged Wastelands, in lieu of a per country system - to have the system make all event choices and to place the results in the reports.  I don't know if my recommendation was indeed decisive - I don't have THAT big of a notion of my own importance.  I did however think it a suitable option.  Still do.  The player doesn't have to be a god.

Even the butcher of the west and the butcher of the east didn't have the power to make every decision in isolation from the will of others. Witness the failed pressure on Spain.

Sigh. Just wow. So because you wanted all decisions, every single decision, every minor decision, every major decision, every tech decision to be out of the player's control - the rest of us have no control over even one decision in the game other than pushing pieces? Couldn't this be something that is set in preferences instead of decided for us?

Why is it different vs the AI than it is in PBEM? In games vs the AI the player gets to make all sorts of interesting decisions and it's FUN - witness Macro's AAR - he's almost gleeful about getting to make all of these decisions. A lot of us get too bored playing the AI to ever play a game against the AI. This means those of us who don't enjoy AI games and only do PBEM never get to make any decisions. That's goofy.

Half of the flavor and the fun of WW2 games is guiding your country. This isn't a tactical game. It's a strategic game. The player should at least get the OPTION to turn on decisions. The decisions might have consequences. If I as Stalin pressure the Finns maybe my unrest goes up, or Sweden gets upset with me, etc. But in a strategic game - which is what this is - not operational, not tactical - at least give the player the OPTION to make decisions in PBEM.

[freeboy]

well, in our game ussr at war with Fin, and not
Germany
and totally unprepared for war

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver


Sigh. Just wow. So because you wanted all decisions, every single decision, every minor decision, every major decision, every tech decision to be out of the player's control - the rest of us have no control over even one decision in the game other than pushing pieces? Couldn't this be something that is set in preferences instead of decided for us?

Now you're just making stuff up. No point in bothering to respond to you.

[jjdenver]

What exactly am I making up? What decisions are presented to the player by the game other than building and moving units? And why is this different in PBEM than in AI games? Can't this be an option that players can turn on or off?

[edit] in pbem

[edit2] I forgot about putting build points into research - the player gets to do this also.

And you being dismissive of my questions about the game feels insulting GW. I don't deserve that - we can discuss the game. I think the game has potential or I wouldn't have spent my money on it. It's vastly disappointing though to find out that the game I see in AAR's against the AI, and that led me to purchase the game is not the game I get in PBEM.

[freeboy]

can u explain."every tech decision?"

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: freeboy
can u explain."every tech decision?"

Sure, if you read Macroeconomics AAR you will see that each time a country "techs up" there is a choice presented to the player - at least this is what it seems like from his AAR. The player chooses a "bonus" or "benefit" such as a free unit, reduced reinforcement cost for that unit type, ability to add extra strength to a unit, something like that.

You'll also see that at various points countries are presented with important decisions like his most recent decision about whether or not to accept an armistice with the UK. There are other decisions such as the Soviet decision about whether to accept armistice with Finland at the end of winter 39-40 or whether to continue the war, the Finnish decision (I presume) about whether to accept Soviet demands for territory or give in to the demands.

None of this is presented to the player in PBEM.