PBEM: 3 e-mails per turn really necessary?

[Dschugaschwili]

I know this issue has been discussed before, but as far as I can remember nobody has come up with this method before:

The changes I propose start after turn 1. The orders for the first turn are given as always. After that every time a player views a movie he gives his orders for the next turn immediately after the movie. Example (changes to the current system are in bold):

1. Player 1 gives turn 1 orders.

2. Player 2 gives turn 1 orders. Movie is calculated.

3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2.

4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated.

5. Go to step 3 with all numbers increased by 1.

This system would only require two e-mails per turn, and I don't see any way to cheat. It may require a change to the PBEM file format though because movie data and orders have to be sent in one file which wasn't necessary before. Come to think of it, it was necessary even before because you could give orders for multiple turns, so my system probably doesn't even require a big change to the file format.

Does anybody see any problems that I failed to notice? I know that the movies are all calculated on the same computer, but I don't really see a big problem with that.

Any other comments?

Dschugaschwili

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Dschugaschwili ]</p>

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Agreed.

IIRC I raised the same issue here some time ago, no answer was given...

:confused:

[Kingfish]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2.

4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated.<hr></blockquote>

You are correct, this has been brought up before, and what I do rememeber from those discussions was you can't issue orders to a new turn until both players have seen the last turn's movie. Something about player 1 having the capability to reload a bad movie until he gets a favorable result, then issuing orders before player 2 can respond. Something like that.

[Porajkl]

Great idea! That would decrease time with sending PBEMs for 33%!!! 30 turn game with one mail per day per player now takes a month and a half! With new system it would take only one month. I hope BTS is doing on that...

[Nabla]

This is a great idea since it would also change the nature of PBEM gaming. You would have a new video with every email, that is, action all the time.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

You are correct, this has been brought up before, and what I do rememeber from those discussions was you can't issue orders to a new turn until both players have seen the last turn's movie. Something about player 1 having the capability to reload a bad movie until he gets a favorable result, then issuing orders before player 2 can respond. Something like that.<hr></blockquote>

How can this be ? With the proposed sequence player 1 cannot play again the turn, only view it (the turn has been resolved) - then play a NEW turn...

That WOULD be an issue with a sequence where player 1 could give orders and see the movie for the SAME turn - not the case here.

So I still wonder why BTS didn't do that... just lengthen PBEM play ? :eek:

[Fangorn]

Nice idea!

What have been brought up before is a "trust" option, when the player believe the opponent won't cheat. The sequence would be player 1 order/ player 2 order and movie (here he can cheat by changing the orders untill he gets a perfect turn)/ player 1 movie and orders/ player 2 order and movie and so on.

[chrisl]

I think this has actually come up before, or something pretty close. The problem with this scheme is that all of the movies are calculated on the same machine--that of player 2. BTS several times mentioned something to the effect that they chose not to allow this, so that if one person managed to hack their machine or the file, the damage would be reduced. This was before the TCP version was released.

Now that TCP uses only one machine for computations (the reasons for this were addressed a while back), this barrier has been broken, and BTS may be willing to reconsider a similar arrangement. Then again, they might not, since it would be much harder to hack the file in the short time available in a TCP match than if you created a file editor and could go through and edit at your leisure before sending it to your opponent via email. In fact, all player 2 would have to do is crack player 1's password to gain a substantial advantage, since he could watch the file before sending it off, and redo moves accordingly. (edited to note that the advantage of having the opponents password is slightly greater if all the calculations are done on one the machine of the person with both passwords).

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: chrisl ]</p>

[edgars]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> You are correct, this has been brought up before, and what I do rememeber from those discussions was you can't issue orders to a new turn until both players have seen the last turn's movie. Something about player 1 having the capability to reload a bad movie until he gets a favorable result, then issuing orders before player 2 can respond. Something like that.<hr></blockquote>

the movie has already been calculated on other player's machine, so you cannot "re-calculate" it, you recieve a movie data and CM plays back it to you.

[Maastrictian]

And they say the search doesn't work.

Reconsidering email turn sequencing

--Chris

[Graaf Spee]

Lets see if my memory works like it should.

It has been brought up before and Steve (Charles?) said that it would require a lot of coding. Much more than changing the PBEM file format. I cant remember what was said about future changes but for now three emails per turn is something we have to live with. :-(

/Kristian

[Kingfish]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>the movie has already been calculated on other player's machine, so you cannot "re-calculate" it, you recieve a movie data and CM plays back it to you.<hr></blockquote>

But you could reload it and get a different outcome over time. Here are a few quotes from a couple of old timers who know the system well:

Fionn:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>"Why is this done? To stop CHEATING.. Some players would simply replay the resolution phase until the MOST favourable results possible came up and then send it off to you. By not allowing them to see the results of their orders until you see them first no cheating can occur."<hr></blockquote>

Leland:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>quote:

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

Player B: watch playback turn 1 and orders turn 2

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

This is the problem, the same one Steve pointed out in response to ianc's suggestion. The FIRST player to watch a playback CANNOT be allowed to issue orders before the opponent has also seen the playback. If you allow this, that player can recalculate the turn multiple times to achieve favorable results.<hr></blockquote>

Leland again:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>A generate/watch turn one movie

A doesn't like results he got

A generate and watch new turn one movie

A likes this result better

A plot turn two <hr></blockquote>

So you can see that even though player 1 calculates the movie, player 2 can reload the movie until he likes the outcome, then send back to player 1. This process can be repeated throughout the game giving one player an unfair advantage. You can't have one player generate new orders until the turn is officially over, and that means both players have seen the movie.

BTW, unless I’m missing something here, you still need three e-mails exchanged with this new system before a turn is resolved. Here’s how I see it:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> 1. Player 1 gives turn 1 orders. (E-mail)

2. Player 2 gives turn 1 orders. Movie is calculated. (E-mail)

3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2. (E-mail)

4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated.

<hr></blockquote>

[Tanaka]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

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

quote:

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

Player B: watch playback turn 1 and orders turn 2

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

... If you allow this, that player can recalculate the turn multiple times to achieve favorable results.

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

<hr></blockquote>

No he can't, the calculations were already done on the other player's computer (the one who didn't see the movie)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

BTW, unless I’m missing something here, you still need three e-mails exchanged with this new system before a turn is resolved. Here’s how I see it:

quote:

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

1. Player 1 gives turn 1 orders. (E-mail)

2. Player 2 gives turn 1 orders. Movie is calculated. (E-mail)

3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2. (E-mail)

4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated.

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

<hr></blockquote>

Yes, you are missing something, with this method, 2 steps are required (3 and 4), only in the first turn the steps 1 and 2 are needed.

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

I can think only in 2 "problems" for this method

1- It's always the same machine who does the calculation, like in TCPIP games, and unlike in TCPIP games, if some one brakes the code, it has the time to do any "changes" it wants.

2- I've the feeling that is harder to code... but has it is already more or less done on TCPIP... I realy don't know

3- A single file would be bigger (movie+orders)...but less file barter would be needed

So, maybe after all, only 1 problem remains, the number 1... but again, it's hard to brake the code

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Tanaka ]</p>

[Dschugaschwili]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

But you could reload it and get a different outcome over time.

<hr></blockquote>

No you can't. If you look at my proposal, you can easily see that the player calculating the movie is always the second one to view it. So as long as he doesn't know the opponent's password, he can't cheat in any way short of hacking the file, and that's definitely not easy. I've tried it back in the beta demo days and failed.

Dschugaschwili

[Kingfish]

Here is your system:

1. Player 1 gives turn 1 orders.

2. Player 2 gives turn 1 orders. Movie is calculated.

3. Player 1 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie data and turn 2 orders are sent to player 2.

4. Player 2 views turn 1 movie and gives turn 2 orders. Movie is calculated.

Here is Elvis's system from almost 2 years ago:

Player B: place orders for turn 1

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

Player A: place orders for turn 1

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

Player B: watch playback turn 1 and orders turn 2

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

Player A: watch playback turn 1 and place orders for turn 2

Perhaps there's something I'm missing here, but they do look alot alike. Now, notice Leland's response:

>>The FIRST player to watch a playback CANNOT be allowed to issue orders before the opponent has also seen the playback. If you allow this, that player can recalculate the turn multiple times to achieve favorable results.<<

Here is another quote from Leland:

>>The problem is that the orders files themselves don't contain all the information needed to generate the results due to randomness in the execution/calculation - issuing the same orders does not necessarily produce the same results.<<

IOW, there is a randomness in the movies that will generate different results if played multiple times. That randomness can be used by a player to their advantage if he is allowed to watch the movies and issue orders before his opponent.

To be honest I would love for your system to work. However, it looks like Elvis came up with an almost identical system 2 years ago and it was shot down for the reasons stated above.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

IOW, there is a randomness in the movies that will generate different results if played multiple times. That randomness can be used by a player to their advantage if he is allowed to watch the movies and issue orders before his opponent.<hr></blockquote>

I do not believe this is true. I think Leland was mistaken. As long as the person calculating the turn does not get to view the results before the other player sees it, it is secure.

If the movie was different each time you viewed it, you could cheat now.

Dschugaschwili's/Elvis's system was shot down for purely technical reasons. BTS had trouble getting the files to contain the orders for the current turn and the movie for the previous turn at the same time. If the technical hurdles could be overcome there is no reason why this would not work fine.

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Wreck]

Having read the earlier thread and this one, I have to agree with those that want this change.

The reasons given why it can't be done generally make no sense. Especially, the notion that giving orders after seeing the movie allows you to cheat. Huh? How is the order-giving possibly related to the ability to reload the file? Is it currently the case that the player viewing the movie first can reload it and get different results?? If so he can cheat right now, easily. If not, then I see no way that adding on some orders would affect the movie replay.

Two of the reasons do make some sense.

First, that BTS coded it the way it is and don't want to change it. Well, inertia is a good explanation, but we are talking about a relatively small change that would have a high payoff. Having played a fair amount of email now, I can testify that that cutting out 1/3 of the back-forths would dramatically speed it up.

Second, someone raised the point that alternating the machine where the turn is computed is a good thing. Presumably then someone who had altered his copy could only cheat every other turn. However I would much prefer all or nothing -- the "host" machine should always compute all turns, as it is done in TCP. This way I can play people I don't trust (me hosting), and also I can play people I do trust (doesn't matter who hosts). In email I wouldn't play people I don't trust, because if they cheat on "only" half the turns it is nearly as bad as them cheating on all the turns. All they have to do is arrange for their tank to crest at the start of the turn where they are going to control the computation.

[Dschugaschwili]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wreck:

Second, someone raised the point that alternating the machine where the turn is computed is a good thing. Presumably then someone who had altered his copy could only cheat every other turn. However I would much prefer all or nothing -- the "host" machine should always compute all turns, as it is done in TCP. This way I can play people I don't trust (me hosting), and also I can play people I do trust (doesn't matter who hosts). In email I wouldn't play people I don't trust, because if they cheat on "only" half the turns it is nearly as bad as them cheating on all the turns. All they have to do is arrange for their tank to crest at the start of the turn where they are going to control the computation.<hr></blockquote>

Exactly. Let's examine this cheating issue in greater detail:

1. A cheater is able to somehow figure out my password. Now if he

a. calculates a turn himself, he can view the results using my password and try again if the results do not please him. Nothing new here. I'll call this the easy way of cheating.

b. He doesn't calculate the movie. In that case he can view it first, he can view the movie from his opponent's side and see his orders that carry on into the next turn, and if he wants to, he can load a previous PBEM file to redo the opponent's last orders (or even go one step farther back and change his own ones too) and calculate the movie again himself. Of course this has to be done very carefully so the opponent won't notice any difference to the orders he's given. I'll call this the hard way of cheating.

Even if he doesn't do anything else, the fact that someone who knows the opponent's password can always see what he has, where it's located and what orders are left from previous rounds, which should be enough to win the game even without furter cheating.

2. The cheater has found a way to hack the files without needing a password. This means he can "read" what happens in a movie by just looking at the file and knows how to change it without having to look at the movie. In that case it doesn't make a difference if he hacks the movie file he just created or the one he just received. So it doesn't even matter if he has calculated the movie himself or not.

So it seems that the only case where the two-e-mails-per-turn system makes a difference is against a cheater who only cheats the easy way. With the current system he can cheat every other turn, which is enough because he can time the deceisive fights to take place on these turns. With the two-e-mails-per-turn system, he can either cheat always (which isn't really much worse than half of the time) or never, which is clearly better than half of the time.

To sum it up, the only thing I can think of standing against this system is a technical issue with the PBEM file format, but only BTS can comment on that.

Dschugaschwili

[Brian Rock]

I've never liked the CM system for PBEM. I was used to the TacOps system which allowed you a much faster pace:

Player A

Inputs orders and sends file

Player B

Inputs orders and runs turn one,

Inputs orders for turn two,

Sends both files (turns one and two) to player A

Player A views turn one,

Inputs orders for turn two and runs turn one,

Inputs orders for turn three,

Sends turns two and three to player B...

It was open to cheating, but I'm very selective with how I play with, so it wasn't a problem for me. After doing two turns per email the CM three-email system was positively glacial in comparison and I never warmed to it.

Now TCP rocks, but I keep weird hours and never find time for a game.

Alas! Solitaire QBs are my lot in life. (swoon)

[Fuerte2]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

To sum it up, the only thing I can think of standing against this system is a technical issue with the PBEM file format, but only BTS can comment on that.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, I agree. You got a very strong point here. I hope that BTS makes this change, it would make the PBEM much faster. Of course the PBEM file format would change a bit, but it seems that the change would be quite trivial.

[Nabla]

Yes it would seem that there is no way to cheat with the model suggested here (well, except if you can hack the code, but that's a problem with the current system as well).

It would be nice to hear BTS's response since they've given a lot of thought to this.

[SlowMotion]

I think this would be one of the most praised improvements of CMBB. Getting rid of that every third turn when nothing happens would be soooo good.

[Nabla]

No word from the HQ yet, justing bumping to see if they'd respond.

[Dschugaschwili]

Another possible way of cheating just crossed my mind. This one only works if the cheater is the one who calculates the movie. He could modify the CM executable to make his troops better, like more accurate or having a better morale etc.

Of course this could be stopped by including a checksum of the CM executable used in the PBEM file, so if both executables are different, it is easily recognizable. This system may even be in place already, I never tried.

Dschugaschwili

[xerxes]

Changing to a 2 email/turn system would be an immense improvement. Even if it did result in a slight increase in "cheatability" that would be entirely acceptable.

I'll give you another good cheat. Try setting up a comp picks QB. Cheating on this is as easy as falling off the turnip truck. (i.e. the originator can see their force selection before they send the 1st file to their opponent). Personally I'd like to see this problem addressed, but since I only play people I trust it's no big deal. Getting rid of the extra email would be far more valuable to me.

-marc