No PBEM replay for opponents turn????

[Jeff Heidman]

This is desperately needed, I think.

Am I missing something? I find it ahrd to believe I cannot tell what my opponent did last turn other than losses.

Jeff

[Guanoman]

Agreed 110%.

I knew there was something that I'd forgotten to ask about, and this is it.

There really should be some sort of replay feature to just see the attacks, and maybe movement that is visible.

[Blackhorse]

Totally agree. PBEM desperately needs a replay feature.

However, Hubert has implied this will not be implemented.

[Stormbringer]

I will post again in favor of this feature. I thought that the game was designed with pbem in mind and no playback?! I have played a couple of pbems already but not being able to see what my opponent has done really turns me off.

Because of the way that reinforcements are paid for at the end of a turn you can not tell who attacked and what losses they might have incured!

Not to mention the fact that it is BORING! I want to see a little action! At the very least what my opponent has done!

I don't play CM against the AI anymore. You can only do so much with AI and once you figure it out there is litte challlenge. PBEM and TCP/IP make the game a continual learning process. People will try the darndest things. But you won't know what they were because you can't see the replay!

This is the ONLY feature that I care to post about. I can live with everything else, although I am sure some tweaks might be made. I respectfully ask Mr. Cater, again, and those involved in Fury, to reconsider this and try to include it at some point in the future.

[ May 30, 2002, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Stormbringer ]

[Wolfpack]

I would also like to see this...of course, what I'd like even more right now is TCP/IP to be put in. I hate playing PBEM anyway, I forget what I'm doing by the time I get the turns back. As is, playback is really a feature that is crying for implementation if it's not a huge bother.

[rleete]

I'll chime in here, too. With just the report screens, PBEM is downright boring.

[BloodyBucket]

Big Bump for the replay feature.

[Dan Neely]

Totally agree about the need for a PBEM playback feature. TCP/IP would be a nice addition, but would probabally require signifigantly more work to implement. Without one of these options I doubt I'll buy the game. AIs generally lack in replay value, and without a way to see what my opponent did PBEMs would be too much of a pain.

[Elmo]

I'm also only interested in PBEM play and a replay feature would be mandatory for me to buy as well.

[SuperTed]

Guys,

Having played both against the AI and via PBEM, I can tell you I agree that a replay feature would be nice. However, not having that feature is hardly a game killer. Since there is a relatively small number of units on the map (compared to a game like TOAW) even at the peak of the war, it really is not all that hard to determine what happened during the enemy's previous turn.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

....it really is not all that hard to determine what happened during the enemy's previous turn.

If you say so. I respectfully disagree. People want to see the fighting action. For the Allies, much of this fight is on the defense, meaning it occurs on the opponents turn. Meaning: the defender has no idea what actions took place exactly.

I would rather not imagine what took place. Much better to see it.

MHO

-Sarge

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Dan Neely:

Totally agree about the need for a PBEM playback feature. TCP/IP would be a nice addition, but would probabally require signifigantly more work to implement. Without one of these options I doubt I'll buy the game. AIs generally lack in replay value, and without a way to see what my opponent did PBEMs would be too much of a pain.

TCP/IP play will be included in a free future patch after the game is officially released. Interesting idea to have the replay feature for PBEM games. Definitly something to consider, but for whatever it's worth, I actually prefer the non-replay, I think it adds to the FoW when playing against a human opponent but of course that's just me

What I've found is that I like the way you can sneak around a lot and especially with naval warfare, you can sink an enemy ship and all they get back is a report of one of their ships lost at sea and not know by whom or what. It could have been by your whole fleet or by a combination of air and naval etc., and I've found it really adds to the overall tension.

Now I'm not saying I won't consider it, but maybe this is something to think about as well, but I'll let you guys debate it out

Hubert

[Jeff Heidman]

Wow, Hubert, I couldn't imagine disagreeing more.

FOW is not a matter of blindfolding me while my opponent moves units right under my nose.

If I have a ship sunk, and especially when that ship actually represents a fleet, I want to know how and why, so I cna react to that threat. If I don't know, how can I react? If it was with air power, than perhaps I need to buy some more planes, or whatever.

The idea that hiding the opponents move, even when you already ahve rules about FoW and spotting, has something to do with FoW seems downright silly to me, no offense intended.

Even if my tank *isn't* destroyed, all I see is that it has been damaged. How? By whom? It was 8 before, it's three now. What happened? That isn't fog of war, its a bad interface. Surely my tank knows what happened, right?

Jeff

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dan Neely:

Totally agree about the need for a PBEM playback feature. TCP/IP would be a nice addition, but would probabally require signifigantly more work to implement. Without one of these options I doubt I'll buy the game. AIs generally lack in replay value, and without a way to see what my opponent did PBEMs would be too much of a pain.

TCP/IP play will be included in a free future patch after the game is officially released. Interesting idea to have the replay feature for PBEM games. Definitly something to consider, but for whatever it's worth, I actually prefer the non-replay, I think it adds to the FoW when playing against a human opponent but of course that's just me

What I've found is that I like the way you can sneak around a lot and especially with naval warfare, you can sink an enemy ship and all they get back is a report of one of their ships lost at sea and not know by whom or what. It could have been by your whole fleet or by a combination of air and naval etc., and I've found it really adds to the overall tension.

Now I'm not saying I won't consider it, but maybe this is something to think about as well, but I'll let you guys debate it out

Hubert</font>

[Hubert Cater]

Edit:

Wow, Hubert, I couldn't imagine disagreeing more.

Well what can I say, I've played for so long this way that I've actually started to enjoy it, call it whatever you want but to each his own I guess

Still, replay is an idea for the future and if there is an option for both then I think that would make most people happy, but again no promises

Hubert

[ May 30, 2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

Actually that does make a bit of sense for the naval portion of the game, but for the land warfare side, it isn't so easy. On land, generally, there are other units around that would know how that unit on their flank just got destroyed, or at the minimum, there would be civilians to spread the tale. If a fleet goes down, you can't expect that unless it happens within site of land. I'm sure they'd get messages off, but I could live with this "FOW" in the naval battles...it's not often that I don't know what killed them anyway. Also, I'm not asking to know all of my opponents moves, just the ones that result in combat. Is there a way to add playback of just the battles from the last turn? I agree with SuperTed, it's not a game killer for me, but it would be kind of nice.

Nope, doesn't even make sense in a naval situation.

Each of these units represents a fleet of ships. When that carrier icon goes down, it doesn't mean every single ship in the fleet was sunk, and without any of them having any chance to say what happened. Presuambly it just means that the capital ships were destroyed, and the unit is no longer combat effective. Can anyone cite one single example in WW2 of an entire fleet getting sunk without a single ship escaping to tell the tai, much less just sending out a simple radio message saying "Hey, we are getting attacked by some land-based air backed up by the freaking Bismarck!"

These turns are a week long! These fights represent some series of engagements, right? This is like the Japanese fleet sailing off to take Midway, and then the Japanese high command just gets a message "All four carriers sunk." By what? Where? How?

Or better yet, come Dec. 7, 1941, in SC the US player will jsut get a message: "Pearl Harbor fleet destroyed". By who? The Mexicans?

The game has a mechanism for Fog of War. Calling a rather glaring oversight a "feature" is the almost a charicature of bad software production.

Overall this is a decent game, especially considering it is jsut one guy doing all the work. But this really is a big deal. You cannot make a game advertised as being designed around PBEM without the ability for each player to see what happened within his FoW envelope during the opposing players turn.

I predict that if this was added and made optional, 100% of PBEM players would use it.

Jeff

[ May 30, 2002, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Heidman ]

[Stormbringer]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

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

Actually that does make a bit of sense for the naval portion of the game, but for the land warfare side, it isn't so easy. On land, generally, there are other units around that would know how that unit on their flank just got destroyed, or at the minimum, there would be civilians to spread the tale. If a fleet goes down, you can't expect that unless it happens within site of land. I'm sure they'd get messages off, but I could live with this "FOW" in the naval battles...it's not often that I don't know what killed them anyway. Also, I'm not asking to know all of my opponents moves, just the ones that result in combat. Is there a way to add playback of just the battles from the last turn? I agree with SuperTed, it's not a game killer for me, but it would be kind of nice.

Nope, doesn't even make sense in a naval situation.

Each of these units represents a fleet of ships. When that carrier icon goes down, it doesn't mean every single ship in the fleet was sunk, and without any of them having any chance to say what happened. Presuambly it just means that the capital ships were destroyed, and the unit is no longer combat effective. Can anyone cite one single example in WW2 of an entire fleet getting sunk without a single ship escaping to tell the tai, much less just sending out a simple radio message saying "Hey, we are getting attacked by some land-based air backed up by the freaking Bismarck!"

These turns are a week long! These fights represent some series of engagements, right? This is like the Japanese fleet sailing off to take Midway, and then the Japanese high command just gets a message "All four carriers sunk." By what? Where? How?

Or better yet, come Dec. 7, 1941, in SC the US player will jsut get a message: "Pearl Harbor fleet destroyed". By who? The Mexicans?

The game has a mechanism for Fog of War. Calling a rather glaring oversight a "feature" is the almost a charicature of bad software production.

Overall this is a decent game, especially considering it is jsut one guy doing all the work. But this really is a big deal. You cannot make a game advertised as being designed around PBEM without the ability for each player to see what happened within his FoW envelope during the opposing players turn.

I predict that if this was added and made optional, 100% of PBEM players would use it.

Jeff</font>

[rleete]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

"Pearl Harbor fleet destroyed". By who? The Mexicans?

Damn, that was funny. Sig file material there, Jeff.

I do see your points, but also haven't had any real problems because of it. It just makes the defender's turns kinda boring. If anything, I'd like to see what happened, to see how well or badly the opponent's attack was doing.

If I see that it took 4 or 5 different units pounding on my one army to bring it to strength of 2, I'll be happy, knowing my defense was holding. If, on the other hand, I see a single attack do the same damage, I'll know he got lucky. That maybe my defense was sound, but the breaks went against me.

[Amy Aemilius]

Is PBEM replay more important than TCP/IP. From an economic standpoint, TCP/IP is more important because it will generate more sales for this game than PBEM replay. I for one will recommend this game to my friends only when the TCP/IP option is available. Nowadays, if you want a challenging game, play against a human rather than the AI.

[BloodyBucket]

The perfect solution would be, as Hubert has said, to have the option to toggle the opponent's turn replay off and on as agreed to beforehand by both players. It should be locked once the game starts.

If it had to be one way or the other, I would strongly vote for the view replay option. I agree that in strictly game terms, the no-view option might add a lot of FOW issues, but in simulation terms it falls far short of simulating the intelligence available to WWII commanders.

It would not be a game killer, but it would be a strong mark in the minus column.

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

What I've found is that I like the way you can sneak around a lot and especially with naval warfare, you can sink an enemy ship and all they get back is a report of one of their ships lost at sea and not know by whom or what. It could have been by your whole fleet or by a combination of air and naval etc., and I've found it really adds to the overall tension.

I've thought this over and I tend to agree. True enough that I haven't had a lot of experience playing PBEM, and I may change my mind then, but this adds to the FoW and makes the player pay strict attention to deployments, his own as well as all enemies.

In most cases we will know what has happened from the units present after the battle. We will have a good idea (if our Air Fleets have been active) of the opponent's air power. The problem will be when the naval unit suddenly disappears. :eek:

In that case we will suspect naval activity (and Air Fleets if we are close enough to land-mass) BUT we will have to GUESS AT the opponent's strategy and intentions -- did they buy (or repair) more naval units? Are they now concerned with clearing the freighter lanes, and why? Is an invasion on the way? What nefarious plans are afoot?

To watch a replay -- as if an omniscient God, seems a little unfair, in this sense -- gathering intelligence takes time -- the post mortems and second guessings take time. Here we must immediately react to LIMITED information, which is truer to heat of battle and FoW.

[ May 31, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

To watch a replay -- as if an omniscient God, seems a little unfair, in this sense -- gathering intelligence takes time -- the post mortems and second guessings take time. Here we must immediately react to LIMITED information, which is truer to heat of battle and FoW.

Look we are not talking about tactical level engagements here. These are week long battles between major formations. Do you think that England could lose an entire army or corps without knowing how it happened? Who attacked them? FOW already exists but when a unit is adjacent to and attacking one of your, it is not omniscient to know what happened! High Command might not know what happens any minute, but they sure know what happened with a weeks worth of battle.

PBEM playback is needed in the game and does not detract from FOW.

-Sarge

[ May 31, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

To watch a replay -- as if an omniscient God, seems a little unfair, in this sense -- gathering intelligence takes time -- the post mortems and second guessings take time. Here we must immediately react to LIMITED information, which is truer to heat of battle and FoW.

Look we are not talking about tactical level engagements here. These are week long battles between major formations. Do you think that England could lose an entire army or corps without knowing how it happened? Who attacked them? FOW already exists but when a unit is adjacent to and attacking one of your, it is not omniscient to know what happened! High Command might not know what happens any minute, but they sure know what happened with a weeks worth of battle.

PBEM playback adds to the game and does not detract from FOW.

-Sarge</font>

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I disagree, PBEM replay doesn't add to the game PBEM replay is a requirement for credible PBEM!

Playback is needed. Note I just edited my original post.

Cheers,

Sarge

[ May 31, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I also find the idea that replay is some kind of demand for omniscience a little silly. Does ANYONE close their eyes when they play against the AI while it moves?

Well Jeff, the commander at the cutting edge of battle must rely on reports from subordinates and civilians (... and deliberately skewed propaganda). These will rarely be very accurate. In a month or so, sure, much more reliable.

But there is no commander (except grognards hovering over the table-top-map)who sees and knows everything -- all at once.

Therefore, I re-state my advocacy (the Devil involved or not): it is God-like to know all immediately. It is human to try and piece together disparate facts arriving at disjointed moments.

I can fairly easily tell what happened from the previous turn -- not completely, and not entirely accurately, which is in alignment with real tactical life. What do you not recognize from the missing play-by-play? Does this not more resemble the indecision and then -- the risky daring of real commanders on the ground?

Sure the scale is large, but if, as a gamer, we can appreciate those kinds of difficult decisions, then it only ADDS to the enjoyment and that tension which Hubert mentioned. :eek: