Choosing Sides

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Choosing Sides in MWiF

Here is my first pass at how the multi-player game will be set up. Nothing has been coded yet, so I am completely open to your comments and suggestions. Please don’t get bogged down in the topic of the AI. If it hurts your eyes to read those two letters, just pretend they aren’t there.

There are two opposing sides in MWiF: Axis and Allies. Except when playing solitaire, each side needs a team leader. Within the context of the game, a team leader primarily serves as an administrator. They can also play one of the countries, though that is not required. The purpose for having team leaders is so there is one person who: (1) collects all the decisions (e.g., moves) for his side, updates the game with those decisions, forwards the updated game to his team members, and forwards the decisions and updated game to the opposing team leader, (2) receives all the enemy decisions, updates his game with those decisions, validates that his revised game matches the one sent by the opposing team leader, and sends the updated game on to all the members of his team, and (3) decides who on his team plays each country on his side. The last responsibility enables the team leader to assign someone to step in for a missing player for a turn or two, or to outright replace a player.

Individual players can be assigned to each country on a side. This includes not only the major powers but also any minor powers that join his side during the course of the game. It is up to the team leader to decide whether all the minor countries are played by one person, by several people, or by a unique person for each minor country. The team leader can also transfer his title and responsibilities to another member of the team. This accommodates both the situation where the team leader needs to be absent from play for a period of time as well as the case where the team leader wants to leave the game completely. Some members of the team may not be playing any countries but simply watching the game. Care should be taken to include not just anybody on a team to ‘watch’. The possibility exists that the ‘watcher’ is more than that - serving as a spy who reports everything to the opposing side.

Note that the AI can be assigned to play a country for any duration of time, so the AI is always available to cover for absent players should the team leader so decide. It is intentional that the AI can also be used in the role of a consultant. The team leader could assign the AI to a country, receive the AI’s judgment on what to do given the current position, and then return control of the country to a human player, passing along what the AI ‘recommends’.

One of the team leaders starts the game, choosing the scenario and all the options. Once the options are set, they are locked and cannot be changed. The exception to this rule is if you are playing solo. When the opposing team leader first receives the game, he signs himself in as team leader for his side. At this point, each team leader can send copies of the game to other members of his team, delegating countries to them as he does so.

Every player who is assigned a country, (or countries), has the capability of entering moves for his units and making other decisions relating to his country. When he has done so for the current turn/impulse/phase, he sends them to his team leader. A player is capable of seeing all the units on his team but is only capable of issuing orders to those belonging to his country, or delegated to him by another member of his team. See the next paragraph.

It is possible for a player to temporarily transfer units from his own control to someone else on his team. This gives the receiving player the ability to issue orders for those units. It does not override the restrictions imposed on cooperating powers in the rules! However, it does permit the German player to ‘give’ some units to Italy for use in Northern Africa, as just one example. A corollary to this capability is that a player can delegate responsibility for a portion of his units to another player, even one who is not currently assigned another major power. For instance, the USA player could split his forces into the European and Pacific theaters and have someone else handle one theater of operations while he handles the other. Other divisions of power might be based on unit type with an Admiralty lord or Air marshal being assigned. Note that the player who is playing a major power can always take back control of units of his nationality at any time. Such actions should be done tactfully, but the owning player has the ultimate say and is not responsible to anyone. Be aware that the team leader can always reassign a major power to someone else, so play nice.

The program will maintain an internal database of the players’ names with their passwords and who is playing which countries. The team leaders will be known as Axis and Allies and the Major Powers are Japan, Germany, Italy, USSR, USA, CW, China, and France. Each player will be assigned one or more positions. The available positions are team leaders and Major Powers as well as Watchers and controllers of minor countries. Specifically, the positions are:
Axis, Axis1 - Axis9, AxisW (can be held by more than one player)
Japan, Japan1 - Japan9
Germany, Germany1 - 9
Italy, Italy1 - 9
Allies, Allies1 - 9, AlliesW (can be held by more than one player)
USSR, USA, CW, etc. in the same manner.

A player can be assigned more than one position on a side. Note that being assigned any country gives the player the right to see all the units for his side, so also assigning him watcher status is redundant. MWIF will maintain a list of positions that are filled and by whom. Depending on the scenario, there are positions that must be filled. For example, in the World at Flames 1939 scenario, positions for all the major powers must be filled. As minor countries enter the game, the team leader decides who is going to play those countries. The positions Axis1 - 9 and Allies1 - 9 are for players of minor countries who are not already playing a major power. If the team leader assigns a minor country to a major power, then the minor country’s units are incorporated into that player’s list of controlled units. For example, when Rumania joins the Axis, the Rumanian units could be assigned to Germany, who would then control them just as he does the German units.

When a player loads a saved game, he logs in using his name and password. MWIF then lets him see all the units for his side and to give orders to those under his control. Indeed, MWIF will prompt him to give orders to units he might have forgotten.

A player assigned to a major power can delegate some of his units to be controlled by another player. This does not have to be done by the team leader (other than setting up the new member of the team - see below). The recipient could be playing a major power (e.g., Germany gives some German units to Italy) or an assistant. As example of an assistant, the USA could give units in the Pacific Theater to USA1. The positions USA1 - 9 are available for USA assistants.

The USA can have up to 9 assistants and so can each of the other major powers. Note that it is possible to delegate units such that there is one player controlling all of the naval units for the Allies. Simply have player X assigned to the positions USA1, CW1, France1, and USSR1 and delegate the respective naval units to each of those positions. The goal here is give the players a lot of flexibility in who controls which units and to not impose any undue restrictions. From the perspective of MWIF, every unit is assigned to one and only one position and each player holds one or more positions. This logic chain lets MWIF know who should be giving orders to any particular unit and also which units each player controls.

The original owner of a group of units (that is always a major power) can reclaim his units at any time. He simply does that at the start of a turn, impulse, or phase. Once he has reclaimed them, his orders will prevail and orders (if any) from the player who had previously controlled them will be ignored.

The team leader (Axis or Allies) are the only players (positions) who can add new players to a side. When they do so, a password will be automatically generated by MWIF and reported to the team leader. The team leader will have to communicate the password to the new player so he can log in.

Many of the decisions in MWIF are not related to units per se. For example, production and declaring war are actions taken by a major power. For these decisions, MWIF will ask the player who controls the major power to make the decisions. Decisions on initiative rerolls and some diplomatic actions will under the control of the team leader.

The structure of the player database is: Player Name, Password, List of Positions. The structure of the units control database is: Unit #, Position that controls the unit. MWIF will generate internal structures of: (1) Position, List of units, and (2) Player, List of units.

So, whadda ya think?

[Froonp]

Hello again,

I have some remarks here :

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A player can be assigned more than one position on a side. Note that being assigned any country gives the player the right to see all the units for his side, so also assigning him watcher status is redundant.

Are you talking wit Fog of War in mind ?
Otherwise, I don't see why any player would be prevented from seeing any on map unit. Everyone can see every units in the tabletop wargame, on the map, on the construction spiral, in the force pool, in the scrap heap, etc...

MWIF will maintain a list of positions that are filled and by whom. Depending on the scenario, there are positions that must be filled. For example, in the World at Flames 1939 scenario, positions for all the major powers must be filled. As minor countries enter the game, the team leader decides who is going to play those countries. The positions Axis1 - 9 and Allies1 - 9 are for players of minor countries who are not already playing a major power. If the team leader assigns a minor country to a major power, then the minor country’s units are incorporated into that player’s list of controlled units. For example, when Rumania joins the Axis, the Rumanian units could be assigned to Germany, who would then control them just as he does the German units.

Again, I'm not sure of understanding you here.
Normaly, Minor Countries are aligned by Major Power during the game, either because of an DoW or because it can be aligned because of another event.
Normaly, the player who plays the aligning major power gets to play the aligned minor units. Hence, they are incorporated into the player's list of controlled units, and consequently they are able to be delegated to another player.
I do not agree that the Team Leader should be assigning minor countries to major powers, minor countries are assigned to their controlling major power / player, and HE can delegate the use of their units.

Otherwise, I find the "Team Leader" idea a good one, and I like the idea of the roles and the assistants. Delegating units is a must, given the situation in Italy 42-43 or Western Europe in 44-45 where CW & US units are closely intermixed.

As well as delegating units, there should be a way for a Major Power's player to delegate some of his allowed moves (I speak of the allowed moves that come with your choice of Action in the Impulse). Example. The CW player delegate his couple of air units in the Central Pacific area (area needs to be defined for this purpose, and maybe for others) to the US player, and the CW players tells the US player (through negociation if necessary) that he also delegate 1 Air Mission to the US.

Patrice

[Smiffus64]

Sounds good. Go for it.

[Greyshaft]

aw sheesh... got 4 hours sleep last night and brain is overloading... I'll read it tomorrow... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So, whadda ya think?

I think its a brilliant idea.

What is your idea on the sequence of play though. What about all the actions required by the non-phasing player, during, for example, naval movement.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Yes, I was assuming fog of war existed. If the FOW option is not selected then everyone can see everything all the time.

You're right, the minor countries when aligned automatically go to the Major Power who brings them in. What I was thinking about was the neutrals (e.g. Poland) who get attacked. Normally these go to CW? I could set this up to be automatic too. I was just thinking about giving the players more flexibility so one player doesn't have so much to do that he slows down the game (been there, experienced that).

Your point about delegating the number of allowable actions is a good one that I hadn't thought of. Iguess it would have to be done at the same time that the Major Power selects his action for the impulse. MWIF would check to see if there is a subordinate commander and if so request the Major Power player to allocate actions to the subordinate(s).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Right now I am thinking of using the full sequence of play as in RaW 7. There is a long list of phases and subphases. I was always aware that there were a lot, but seeng a complete list of them in CWIF's source code was an eye opener.

Leaving the PBEM issue for future discussion, the multi-player game would have everyone online that needs to be for each phase and the communication system would basically replace the verbal "I am doing this, are you going to do anything about it?" used in over the board play. The non-phasing player either says no or says which of his units are going to do what. The ideal is for the communication link to be invisible and the interaction between players to happen automatically.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
You're right, the minor countries when aligned automatically go to the Major Power who brings them in. What I was thinking about was the neutrals (e.g. Poland) who get attacked. Normally these go to CW?

When Poland get attacked, it aligns with an active major power. In the case of Poland, there is no active major power, but it aligns with the CW.
In every case in the game, minors get aligned one way or the other with major powers, and are moved by this major power, and are limeted by that major power's actions limits.
The "delegation" mechanism will be here to get those minors to be moved by another player if necessary, but basicaly they "belong" to the major who aligned them.

[Froonp]

the multi-player game would have everyone online that needs to be for each phase and the communication system would basically replace the verbal "I am doing this, are you going to do anything about it?" used in over the board play.

There was a good suggestion made on this board by I don't remember who, about playing when not everyone was online, and I thought it was a very good suggestion. It was about some sort of contingency behaviors programmed for some particular units. But I suggest you to read it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Yeah, atacked minors get played by a major power. In all of my over the board games of WiF we just played one side against the other - ignoring the bidding process. I was worrying about how to decide who plays what minor countries given that everyone has bid for the major power they are playing. Could a player make stupid moves for a minor power just to keep one of his allies doing well? I realize that historically such actions were not beneath Stalin or Hitler or ...? However I am still trying to identify a way to make group decisions for a side. One possibility is having a team leader. Another is to decide by voting? Do the neutral major powers get to vote? Someone has to physically inform MWIF what has been decided (initiative reroll for example) and MWIF has to know which player that is. I am still open to suggestions. It's always possible to write several sets of code for something this simple and let the players choose one when they start the game.

[Froonp]

However I am still trying to identify a way to make group decisions for a side. One possibility is having a team leader. Another is to decide by voting? Do the neutral major powers get to vote? Someone has to physically inform MWIF what has been decided (initiative reroll for example) and MWIF has to know which player that is. I am still open to suggestions. It's always possible to write several sets of code for something this simple and let the players choose one when they start the game.

This has answers in the RAW, hasn't it ?
Initiative rerolls, who enters an hex in the first place after an attack, and all those things.
Sometimes it is the Major Power with the most BP produced last turn who decides, sometimes it is the major power with the combat unit with the best combat factor, it varies with the situation, and is described in RAW as far as I can remember.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

There was a good suggestion made on this board by I don't remember who, about playing when not everyone was online, and I thought it was a very good suggestion. It was about some sort of contingency behaviors programmed for some particular units. But I suggest you to read it.

I think you are refernig to the comment about having a fixed amount of time for a player to respond or else some default action takes place. That solution makes me uneasy. Communications can fail, especially if the players are in different parts of the world. You might also have the case where a player is waiting for his opponent to move all his pieces and after a half an hour he stops focusing on the game. Even a 1 minute grace period might not be enough if a trip to the bathroom was involved.

Simplifying the problem somewhat, in most cases only one player needs to respond. This is true for most naval and air interdictions, flying CAP, and US entry actions. Those players should be on line and available to respond quickly. At first they might just say "thinking about it", to let everyone know that they know it's their turn. If the player doesn't give at least that response, then I currently favor having the team leader decide. I'm not real happy with this solution either, but I don't have anything better so far. The design for team play mandates that the team leader be present in order for the game to proceed, so he should be available all the time.

This still seems messy to me. I wouldn't like someone making combat decision for me, but I don't like having the entire game grind to a standstill because of one player's absence.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

one when they start the game.

This has answers in the RAW, hasn't it ?
Initiative rerolls, who enters an hex in the first place after an attack, and all those things.
Sometimes it is the Major Power with the most BP produced last turn who decides, sometimes it is the major power with the combat unit with the best combat factor, it varies with the situation, and is described in RAW as far as I can remember.
[/quote]


Ah, I was unaware it was in RaW 7. My over the board play of WiF is somewhat dated. I'll go with RaW 7, but I am still open to the possibility of coding alternatives if enough people want them.

[Froonp]

I think you are refernig to the comment about having a fixed amount of time for a player to respond or else some default action takes place. That solution makes me uneasy. Communications can fail, especially if the players are in different parts of the world. You might also have the case where a player is waiting for his opponent to move all his pieces and after a half an hour he stops focusing on the game. Even a 1 minute grace period might not be enough if a trip to the bathroom was involved.

It was the "non-phasing options" Dialogue idea that I like, it was in the "My suggestion" Topic from PanzerJaeger.
You're right it may not be entirely the solution, but I think it may helps, and be part of the solution.

[Hortlund]

Well, that was for some sort of pbem/tcp hybrid.

Im perfectly content with the desicion that mp will be tcp/ip, as it removes many of the issues about how to deal with the non-phasing player etc.

[Froonp]

So am I, because WiF FE never was a PBM game in the first hand, and WiF FE always required that all players be present at the same time. At least, being present seated at a computer can be more confortable than being present in my garage when the temperature drops to freezing of climbs to sweating... [:)]

[Mziln]

Patrice has it right...

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Normaly, Minor Countries are aligned by Major Power during the game, either because of an DoW or because it can be aligned because of another event.

From WiF-RaW-7-aug-04

9.8 Aligning minors

If a neutral minor can align with your major power (see 19.6 Soviet border rectification, 19.7 Axis minor countries and 19.8 Allied minor countries), you can declare that it is aligning with you. You can only declare one minor aligned with your major power in each friendly impulse.

Your major power controls a minor that aligns with it exactly as if another major power had declared war on it.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There are two opposing sides in MWiF: Axis and Allies. Except when playing solitaire, each side needs a team leader. Within the context of the game, a team leader primarily serves as an administrator. They can also play one of the countries, though that is not required. The purpose for having team leaders is so there is one person who: (1) collects all the decisions (e.g., moves) for his side, updates the game with those decisions, forwards the updated game to his team members, and forwards the decisions and updated game to the opposing team leader, (2) receives all the enemy decisions, updates his game with those decisions, validates that his revised game matches the one sent by the opposing team leader, and sends the updated game on to all the members of his team, and (3) decides who on his team plays each country on his side. The last responsibility enables the team leader to assign someone to step in for a missing player for a turn or two, or to outright replace a player.

I agree with a administrator that decides who plays which major powers (and if you have that many players, minor countries ). But, moving their units are the responsability of the players of those powers and countries. I wouldn't want my moves edited, production changed, or political decisions made for me.

Why play if it could all be eddited by another player?

11. Implementing actions

Major powers that didn’t pass perform the various activities listed at D2.3 in the sequence of play. The order your side does these activities is important, so please follow it carefully.

[Greyshaft]

The purpose for having team leaders is so there is one person who: (1) collects all the decisions (e.g., moves) for his side, updates the game with those decisions, forwards the updated game to his team members, and forwards the decisions and updated game to the opposing team leader,

I like the theory but it really puts the kibosh on the idea of players fighting out the tactical air battles. The “I abort my front fighter and inflict a kill on you. What are you going to lose?” isn’t going to happen.

As well as delegating units, there should be a way for a Major Power's player to delegate some of his allowed moves (I speak of the allowed moves that come with your choice of Action in the Impulse).

This could lead to some serious game balance issues. I find a lot of the tension of WiF is the question of move type. That tension would become less if moves were tradable and Offensive Chits would become of less value.

Leaving the PBEM issue for future discussion, the multi-player game would have everyone online that needs to be for each phase and the communication system would basically replace the verbal "I am doing this, are you going to do anything about it?" used in over the board play. The non-phasing player either says no or says which of his units are going to do what. The ideal is for the communication link to be invisible and the interaction between players to happen automatically.

Fine in principle but I think you need positive control ie non-phasing player must click mouse to affirm that they are not intercepting etc otherwise they might complain not enough time to consider the move or their link was down.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I agree with a administrator that decides who plays which major powers (and if you have that many players, minor countries ). But, moving their units are the responsability of the players of those powers and countries. I wouldn't want my moves edited, production changed, or political decisions made for me.

Why play if it could all be eddited by another player?

Sorry I wasn't clearer about this. Each major power moves his own units. Those orders cannot be changed by anyone.

However, he can assign some of his units to another player, either another major power or an assistant. You are already familiar with the former situation as it occurs with Rommel in Africa. The latter is a new idea intended to let additional players take on roles in the game. Assigning an assistant to be air marshall for Germany is one example. In that case all the German planes would be given orders by the air marshall. Final control would always rest with the peson playing Germany, who could fire the air marshall at any time and take back control of all the German planes. These are all options and would only be used if more than 6 people wanted to play in the same game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

The purpose for having team leaders is so there is one person who: (1) collects all the decisions (e.g., moves) for his side, updates the game with those decisions, forwards the updated game to his team members, and forwards the decisions and updated game to the opposing team leader,

I like the theory but it really puts the kibosh on the idea of players fighting out the tactical air battles. The “I abort my front fighter and inflict a kill on you. What are you going to lose?” isn’t going to happen.

You lost me here. Can you explain further?

As well as delegating units, there should be a way for a Major Power's player to delegate some of his allowed moves (I speak of the allowed moves that come with your choice of Action in the Impulse).

This could lead to some serious game balance issues. I find a lot of the tension of WiF is the question of move type. That tension would become less if moves were tradable and Offensive Chits would become of less value.

The discussion going into this assumed that the major power player was giving allowable moves to his assistant not to another major power. For example, if the US has set up an assistant to handle the European theater while he concentrates on the Pacific, then at the start of each impulse, the US player would decide how many of the allowable actions would be made by the assistant (ETO) and how many by himself (PTO). The RaW would not be violated.

Leaving the PBEM issue for future discussion, the multi-player game would have everyone online that needs to be for each phase and the communication system would basically replace the verbal "I am doing this, are you going to do anything about it?" used in over the board play. The non-phasing player either says no or says which of his units are going to do what. The ideal is for the communication link to be invisible and the interaction between players to happen automatically.

Fine in principle but I think you need positive control ie non-phasing player must click mouse to affirm that they are not intercepting etc otherwise they might complain not enough time to consider the move or their link was down.

Good point. Positive acknowledgment should always be required.