Newbee question

[philturco]

This has probably been asked and answered but what is the best way for a newbee to learn this game? I am very excited over all the good things I've heard and want to start playing what sounds like the WWII strategic game I've been daydreaming that someday someone would make. Is this game ever going to be for PBEM?

[Eradanfaroth]

Watch video tutorials if you understand english reasonably well.

The other tutorials otherwise or in addition would be good.

After this, playing Barbarossa and Guadalcanal solo for one turn or two to apply your fresh knowledge.

After this, playing solo or try to find an adversary on the forum.
Your knowledge of the game is never complete ^^

[Dr. Foo]

Bibbo,

Not sure, but PBEM might be impossible for this game, as your opponent can react to your moves during your turn. Therefore, it is not really a I-Go-U-Go type of game. If you send out bombers I can send out interceptors, or if you sortie some ships I can intercept them as well.

There would be too many stops in the middle of your turn just so your opponent can react to your moves and send the file back to you. Which is why they have introduced live Netplay.

[AxelNL]

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

Bibbo,

Not sure, but PBEM might be impossible for this game, as your opponent can react to your moves during your turn. Therefore, it is not really a I-Go-U-Go type of game. If you send out bombers I can send out interceptors, or if you sortie some ships I can intercept them as well.

There would be too many stops in the middle of your turn just so your opponent can react to your moves and send the file back to you. Which is why they have introduced live Netplay.

To stop Steve reacting on this question (so that he can spend time on bug hunting): he has some innovative idea's about PBEM. But first his attention needs to go to netplay bugs...

[AxelNL]

A quote from Steve in another thread:

The trouble with just simply sending a saved game to your opponent is that World in Flames has dozens of places in the sequence of play where interactions between the two players take place. The decision maker switches back and forth again and again. The requisite number of emails is simply prohibitive. I'm sorry, but that is the nature of the game design. It was intended to be played face-to-face and so the designers wanted to keep both the players heavily engaged in the game, rather than falling asleep while their opponent ponders a move.

My intention to overcome this difficulty for PBEM is twofold:

1 - Create Standing Orders where a player enters how he wants to respond to a situation where he needs to make a decision in the middle of the other player's 'turn'. These would be hidden from his opponent. The computer would act on behalf of the other player (AI Assistant) following the standing orders. Furthermore the computer would immediately send out emails about the opponent's decisions and the execution of standing orders to prevent cheating.

2 - Enable switching between NetPlay and PBEM. The idea here is to enable the more intense interactions (e.g., combat situations) to be handled in NetPlay. Then land moves and production decisions that are typically done in batches could be handled as emails.

Cheers

[76mm]

This would be a really interesting hybrid of PBEM/live play. Has anyone seen this kind of setup in a different game?

[Numdydar]

No. Since 99% of computer games are designed to not have things like this occur in mutiplayer.

So you either have real time, Warcraft, Hearts of Iron, etc. or turn based, ie. PBEM, where only one or two files/turn are needed to send back and forth. I am sure that the PBEM experience of Empire in Arms is something no one at ADG/Matrix would like to recreate [:)]