Multiplayer PBEM games

[HarryInk]

I just posted this opponent request up on the BFC opp finder forum regarding 4 players in one game.

It will be my first time admin'ing a 4p PBEM. Any advice from anyone who's done it before? Pitfalls? Pluses?

[Sarge Saunders]

I've been doing some team games for almost a year now. It is not always the fastest moving game due to slightly longer turn delays. The other 3 players also play each other and myself, so that creates a regular communication between players anyway.

As long as all players understand PBEM procedure and who needs to move when....when a move file is done, the first player the play it saves their moves in a save-game file. Then they send the save-game file to their team partner to add their moves and process.

I find it easiest to cc: all PBEM TXT files (but not savegames) to all other 3 players so they know how the game is progressing and observer the usual PBEM banter.

..

Thats the low-down on procedures. Also, we have used custom maps (usually larger ones) and a 3000 point attack/defend QB setting. Teams differ in their approaches. My team splits the points into 2 groups and we command sectors or specific units/companies. Other possibilities include teams splitting up the armor and infantry commands.

It can be huge fun, a little slower than normal PBEMs, and more of a realistic challenge to coordinate commands. Good luck!

-Sarge

[HarryInk]

Thanks Sarge. Much appreciated.

While doing the freeway thing tonight I was mulling over the process. Like you say, teams can differ in their approaches, but here are a couple of ideas I came up with.

The first player in each team to receive files from the enemy ought to be the 'Officer Commanding' [OC] as they get to see the turn first. They can do their own plot and pass on the save-game to #2 with any necessary orders.

To discouraged the OC from trying to micromanage their team partner's force like they do their own, they can only give orders to the larger formal units in their subordinate's command such as infantry companies, tank troops, or combined arms 'task forces'/'kampfgruppen' that might have been defined at the start of the game. The 'subordinate' player then runs their command as they choose (supposedly) within the scope of the OC's orders. Working within the directions of another player (and one player taking responsbility for the overall shape of their side's battle) is one of the novelties of this style of multiplayer vs. our usual individual CM games.

'Course, if you don't want to do the military hierarchy gig, the approach of dividing up the battlefield ( a la Sarge and buddy) is full legit'. How many times have I read histories of battles that relate how the X Division failed to keep up with Y Division and left Y's flank hanging open for a counter-thrust? Coping with that sort of experience is another attraction of trying for a multiplayer game.

Sarge, do you use any change in your turn numbering system (presumedly 001...etc) to designate save-games from GO-turns? Would it help or be pointless?

Does anyone know of any AARs online of multiplayer games?

How to avoid crap QB maps in CMBO? One way might be to choose an excellent scenario map, delete the troops out of it using the scenario editor, load up (or have a neutral friend load up) each sides' chosen troops, and... would that 'tournament save' function (that I've never yet used) then be the way to go? Hmmm...

btw, we're 2/4 of the way to a 4 player game...

[ July 27, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: HarryInk ]

[KG_Jag]

Check out the two versions of MP rules at our KG CM web site:

http://www.freewebs.com/kampfgruppe/index.htm

[Sarge Saunders]

Yes, we've taken the equal command approach. Although I tend to micro-manage things a bit more so that adds strength to our team play. My team-mate is invaluable having played numerous PBEM battles with me and our opponents in Spain.

No matter what the manuevering, we always look for ways to put our forces together for added power in the final showdown. I've even made the occasional screenshot and draw lines on it to coordinate planning.

as far as housekeeping, save all the files under unique naming conventions. The question of who has the latest files in Team Battles has come up many times....

[HarryInk]

Can you explain that last point just a little more? It will obviously become an issue and it'd be nice to know some good habits before we start. : )

Thanks Jag'. I'll have a read of the rules pronto.

[LeeW]

One thing that we've found in our multiplayer pbem's is that all the files must be "opened" as pbem files. This eliminates the game engine from adding an extra plot sequence. They can be saved however is needed, but always opened pbem.

We've tried two ways on the plotting order. Of course with just two players on a team it doesn't make any difference. When there are more players you can use the ordered style where each goes in his turn and sends it to the next player in his group.

The other way is for the file to be sent to all the players on a team at once. The one who is ready to plot states so on a forum, which everybody on the team checks before plotting and then when he is through, renames the saved game file with his initial added and sends to all the team mates. Also he edits the forum post stating file is sent. Using the forum also is a double check for everybody in case their email messes up and they don't receive the file. It is then an easy matter to request a resend by email or stating so on the forum. The last player to plot hits the go button and sends the pbem file to all the opposing players.

lee

[HarryInk]

Thanks Lee, but can you explain that point from your first paragraph again? How do you mean the files must be 'opened' as pbem files? Do you mean that they get opened from the PBEM folder rather than SAVED GAMES folder? I didn't realise that the game engine could add an extra plot sequence.

I like the system you describe in the third paragraph as a good way around bottlenecks of a strictly sequenced player-by-player process. I can see that it would allow quite a few players to get the files turned around in a day or two rather than each single person taking a day or so. I suppose we could even use it in a 2-per-side game, had we a forum. What forum do you use? This one?

Oh, and does that system imply that you're fighting cooperatively rather than with a hierarchy of command? That is, there's no commanding player giving orders to others on their team, which would require that team leader to see movies first so that they can respond with orders to others.

[ July 31, 2004, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: HarryInk ]

[LeeW]

"All files must be opened as pbem"

Pbem files go in pbem folder and the saved game files go in the saved game folder I assume. What I'm talking about is when the second player opens the saved game file he received from his team mate, after you select the file to play, it ask what game type you want to play: hot seat, pbem, tcpi. You must choose pbem at this point, and not leave the default at "hot seat" game.

The forum used is our club one at BoB.

We do have an over all commander. He can do as much or as little as he wants, based mostly on how much time he has to put into the game. Mostly it seems that everybody does pretty much what they want under some general directions from the commander and also whatever instructions were given by the game designer. The commander then decides who will move which units ect.

The commander is usually the last one to do the turn. This way he can over see what is happening before the turn is sent out. I think it all boils down to how much time the players have to participate in the game. Usually its been my experience that everybody just struggles to get their turn done, let alone try to do any roll playing. The more roll playing the more depth to this style of play, but not always possible.

lee

[HarryInk]

Warhammer is MIA. Anyone sees him, please direct him my way...