Reconsidering email turn sequencing

[Mike D]

I'd like to see the email process sped up as well. Maybe this can be considered for CM2? Maybe even make it so that we as the players can choose one method or the other so that where cheating might be of a concern like in tournament play the current method can be used vs. when we are playing with a friend that we "trust" (not sure exactly who this would be ) we could use the faster method.

I can see Charles eye's rolling back in his head now as he lets out a groan. Oh God, now they want the option to choose how they play the email games.

Yeah, and we're going to want all sorts of other stuff too. Probably won't get a lot of it, but then it never hurts to ask/suggest it.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Dar]

Wow! We're re-hashing this old thread? For a minute, I thought somebody hacked my account when I saw my post--and then I saw the date!

I believe in another thread BTS agreed that the two-emails/turn is a viable option and still provides the security they want. However, it was too late in the game and they elected to postpone it for either a patch or incorporate the scheme in CM2.

Dar

[Maastrictian]

PeterK wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

When A sends his turn after viewing 9 and doing 10, that saved file would have to contain both the movie for 9 _and_ the moves for 10. The way things are done now is that a saved game file contains either moves or a movie but never both. It's the simplest way of doing it. The old way forces the game to hold on to too much old info that you would, as a programmer, rather get rid of as soon as possible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I can understand the issue as a technical problem. Legacy code can be hard to overcome and noone can get everything right on the first try. CM is an amazing product, this e-mail thing is the first real grip I've had with it. I was confused, I had the impression that the PBEM issue (in this specific case) was a security issue. If it is a technical one this makes more sence. Thanks.

--Chris

[Mannheim Tanker]

Just to add my $.02, I agree with those that feel TCP/IP is NOT the answer to this problem. Sure, it will be fun, but not all of us can sit down and play for 4 hours straight, especially with someone overseas. The best solution is to provide a "fast email" (trust your opponent) option. If you think that this creates a "diplomatic" crisis, then just get over it Just say that it's your policy to use that mode in every case. People will understand. If they still get offended, then they're probably not worth playing anyway

[Peterk]

> I've had with it. I was confused, I had

> the impression that the PBEM issue (in

> this specific case) was a security issue.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure 100% myself.

The feeling I get is that it was done the way it is for coding simplicity and the fact that it made cheating impossible was a nice by-product.

p.

[Dar]

Perhaps we haven't been explaining it well enough, but there's no need to have a "fast" email system and give up security. It can still be done in two emails/turn with security.

Basically, you have:

1. Player A sets up his forces. Email setup A to Player B.

2. Player B sets up his forces. B issues Turn 1 orders and sends them to Player A.

3. Player A issues Turn 1 orders and generates film for Turn 1, which he can not view, and sends it to Player B.

4. Player B watches Turn 1 film and issues Turn 2 orders. He sends one email attachment, which contains the Turn 1 film that Player A has not seen and his Turn 2 orders, back to A.

5. Player A watches Turn 1 film and issues orders for Turn 2. He generates film for Turn 2 which, again, he can not see, and sends it to Player B.

6. Repeat Steps 4. through 6. incrementing the Turn numbers until game is over.

Basically, Player A sends the film for Turn N to B. B sends the film back and his orders for Turn N+1. A can't see the films he generates until B has seen them so security is in place. A generates the films without needing to send orders to B, so they only need two emails/turn instead of three.

End result:

Two emails/turn. Security is still in place.

Like I mentioned, though, BTS seemed agreeable to getting this in, but not in the initial release.

Dar

[Iconoclast]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dar:

Basically, Player A sends the film for Turn N to B. B sends the film back and his orders for Turn N+1. A can't see the films he generates until B has seen them so security is in place. A generates the films without needing to send orders to B, so they only need two emails/turn instead of three.

End result:

Two emails/turn. Security is still in place.

Like I mentioned, though, BTS seemed agreeable to getting this in, but not in the initial release.

Dar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These days I only have time for social (vice ladder-style) play with long-standing (i.e., trusted) opponents. Given these conditions, we've been using the "field expedient" version of this idea in which the two players exchange passwords (I favor "A" and "B" for simplicity). After player A plots and executes, he saves the file with a name like "View me," then loads it as his opponent and runs the view. If you're careful to avert your vision and only look far enough up the screen to be certain of hitting the "Stop" button on the movie, you can exit your opponent's view phase without seeing anything untoward. You save "his" file, load it, plot your turn, save it as "Play me", and then send your opponent both files. He loads "View me" to see the preceding turn execute, then loads "Play me" to plot and execute the turn you just plotted. He then makes his own "View me" and "Play me" pair to send back to you.

Is this a kludge? Definitely! Would I use it in ladder play? No! Is is secure? No way! Does it work? Damn straight. We call it Blitz PBEM, and it's great for my needs--playing relatively slow-moving matches against trusted opponents.

[JWorthing]

If it ain't broke, dont fix it.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Iconoclast: Great idea. I'll definitely suggest this with my trusted opponents.

JWorthing: While it's not broke, it still needs fixing...the current system is entirely too awkward if you feel you don't need the security. I'm currently playing one opponent that can only send me about 3 mails a week. At that rate with the current system, I'll be playing this game until October!

[Maastrictian]

Mannheim Tanker wrote

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

JWorthing: While it's not broke, it still needs fixing...the current system is entirely too awkward if you feel you don't need the security.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still haven't heard a reason why the system that I proposed (well, actually just restated) is not secure.

--Chris

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Maastrictian: You method seems to just as secure.

But Dar's method is faster still and also just as secure.

I think the issue is simply that altering the turn sequence of the game is not 'that easy' (this is not just a 'tweak'). I would not expect to see any change until at least the patch with internet play is released.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.