Matrix Games Forums

I've been reading all this for a few weeks now, and I am impressed and VERY impatient.

I do have one fear regarding the play, however. I've never played PBEM. Doing one turn a night seems like it will work fine. But what if you want to do, say, 5 turns in a night? So, I take 10-30 minutes to do my turn (from what I've read), and then have to twiddle my thumbs while opponents (and allies if not a 2 player game) do their stuff?

This kind of kills the fun of doing an intense round (a few hours) of GGWaW play, doesn't it?

One possible solution might be to allow simultaneous turns, where each player makes his decisions simultaneously, and then the computer resolves the outcome. E.g. players could agree that all turns will be resolved on the half hour, and 6 turns can be completed in 3 hours.

Could this work? Or am I missing something in the mechanics of PBEM with GGWaW? It seems like a real issue that could use improvement.

Thanks folks.

No this could not work not only in WAW, but in no other PBEM game I know of.

I consider myself very dedicated PBEM player and turn games I really love, I play exclusively by PBEM. Yes "thumb twiddling" can be a problem, but you'll get used to it, it's even part of the fun sometimes. If you analyse our latest alpha PBEM AARs you'll notice they have large periods of thumb-twiddling [:D]

Possible solutions are:

a) find yourself opponent(s) that follow your pace of play (with some of my UV opponents I used to do 10 turns per day)
b) start several PBEM games, so you always have something to do

Hmmm, that's about it. PBEM play involves other people, human beings. Ultimately any solution to satisfying PBEM play involves finding the right people. Not much to add about that. No game can solve that particular problem. After a while several groups of WAW PBEM players will "crystalize": slow players, fast players, dedicated players, online league players, "quitters" (group I hate the most), perhaps even cheaters. You'll have to get to know who to avoid, and who to play with. That's all there is to it.

Here, if you have trouble finding the worthy opponents, I invite you to play your first PBEM vs me once the game is out. [:D] But I must say in WAW I find 4-player games are the most fun. Of course that means instead of "pairing" 2 players who suit each other, you have to find 4.

O.

I used to play Space Empires IV. It was/is a great game and used a central server to accept all turns. The server would process all the turns and send them back. If your turn was not in on time you missed. BUT, the minimum turn period was 2 days and often a week.

Also, the game engine was built for this. WaW is turn based which is my preference for war games and it does a great job.

High Command in c. 1995 did that (simultaneous turns) but didn't have any specific pbem features. Implementing it in GG:WaW would involve a complete reworking of the mechanics, which I think are fine already.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Here, if you have trouble finding the worthy opponents, I invite you to play your first PBEM vs me once the game is out.

Ooof, a newbie against an alpha tester veteran. That might not be pretty.

ORIGINAL: a19999577

High Command in c. 1995 did that (simultaneous turns) but didn't have any specific pbem features. Implementing it in GG:WaW would involve a complete reworking of the mechanics, which I think are fine already.

God, what a pretty piece of junk that game was. It truly showed how simultaneous movement was a disaster for a WWII game. I still remember being able to break down a British Armor unit into smaller troops after landing in Germany in 1940 and then running around taking cities in Germany.

I thought High Command was pretty cool for its time. The AI was awful and I never played PBEM so I got tired of it quickly, but I thought they had some pretty good concepts.

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
One possible solution might be to allow simultaneous turns, where each player makes his decisions simultaneously

Perhaps I should clarify. Of course I recognize that this isn't something that can just be "allowed", and it would dramatically impact game play.

I confess that simultaneous play still fascinates me. I imagine the thrill of doing all my planning, hitting "go", and within seconds or minutes (depends on how well coordinated we all are) seeing all the results of my own choices, along with those of my enemies and allies, and moving right on to the next round of decisions...

It has potential difficulties (Yohan's High Command example), but nothing that can't be fixed. For example, just have selectable "fast" and "slow" speeds, except that any units in combat in the prior turn must go "slow" (other units may choose to go "slow" to maintain cohesian in this case). "Fast" movement occurs simultaneously, but before "slow" movement. Then nearby fresh reserves would always be able to catch battle weary troops before they leave the scene of the last turn's battle.

Anyway, the important thing is that GGWaW has a "fast" deployment.

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

I thought High Command was pretty cool for its time. The AI was awful and I never played PBEM so I got tired of it quickly, but I thought they had some pretty good concepts.

Don't get me wrong the concept was awesome, graphics were great etc. It was just totally unplayable.

This brings up an interesting concept I've been thinking about, brought on by the postings about the nonphasing players reactions in MWiF. I to am a proponent of simultaneous movement, combat, etc, sort of on the order of HttR RTS play but slightly modified. Imagine a simultaneous turn being played out that allows each player to be proactive with a finite set of reserve forces to be interjected into the turn at the owning players discretion. The reserve forces size and deployment restrictions would be based on a set of requirements such as command and control competency of controlling leaders, intelligence, etc. Sometime in the planning stage, each player would designate certain forces for reactive reinforcement to the developing situation as the simultaneous turn plays out, choosing to use them or not, in the mission designated or an alternative capacity they are capable of. So what do you think, is this a viable development for future wargaming designers to contemplate?

Sounds good to me, but for an entirely new game altogether.

Imagine a simultaneous turn being played out that allows each player to be proactive with a finite set of reserve forces to be interjected into the turn at the owning players discretion. The reserve forces size and deployment restrictions would be based on a set of requirements such as command and control competency of controlling leaders, intelligence, etc. Sometime in the planning stage, each player would designate certain forces for reactive reinforcement to the developing situation as the simultaneous turn plays out, choosing to use them or not, in the mission designated or an alternative capacity they are capable of.

The Gamer's Operational Combat Series (OCS) boardgames do just what you describe.
http://www.multimanpublishing.com/theGamers/ocs.php

Simultaneous turns are ideal from a solo perspective. One of GGs Eastern front games did this, if I recall correctly. The simultaneous aspect fixes so many problems with a wargame. As far as PBEM, I don't know. I don't play that way, so it is of no concern to me. Space Empires IV has an option to play either simultaneously OR turn-based...great option. That is what I play mostly now, along with Spartan.

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey
So what do you think, is this a viable development for future wargaming designers to contemplate?

Far more non-computer games have this than are generally credited. Even Squad Leader had "Defensive Fire". Sci-Fi games like Warhammer 40K's Space Hulk had "Overwatch Mode" etc.

Why don't more computer games? Harder to implement. Causes problems with PBEM style play, etc.

I like that sort of thing a lot though and the games that implement it. It is a better more realistic and more fun alternative to simultaneous or strict turn-based formats IMHO.