Idea for a better Game Center experience

[s_Mylo]

Yoj,

I have used the undo button when my hand has inadvertantly touched the ipad screen, sending my selected units moving...it was a move that I had absolutely no intention on making and so I justify using it.

....but in sticking to my previous arguement, if there was no undo button, I would live with the fact that I sent my reinforcements to the rear instead of holding down.....Malmedy. I should have been paying more attention to where my hand was I guess. If there is an undo, sure, I'll use it in an instance that I describe above, but I don't want to be ** WARNED ** that I should, or ** WARNED ** that I shouldn't or.....now I lost my train of thought ??

Warnings...I don't want them, but that's me. Next thing you know I'll have to be clicking way too many buttons repeatedly....."Yes, that's my move, yes I'm sure, yes, yes....click, click....yes already, Awe screw it, I'll play something else."

I wouldn't suggest for a minute that a bunch of code be written, a bunch of time and resources be spent to change the BotB multiplayer game. I would prefer those resources be spent elsewhere. I'm just saying that the multiplayer type of PBEM game that CROIX suggested would be fun for me, but I agree with you, not reasonable, and not likely.

Thanks for keeping me in check Yoj.

Mylo

[Croix de guerre]

Oh, almost forgot, on Croix's original PBEM comments, I love the idea of pre-determining the day's moves in order of completion and having the AI determine results based on my opponents moves.

I'd suggest it would require a pretty major re-write of the game and therefore it's very unlikely to happen considering SS want to be able to start focusing their attention on other projects.

Can that PBeM feature be considered for future games, then?

The cost is reasonable:
- same game rules - no need for extensive playtests
- no need to change the AI - it is player vs player only
- very similar UI

The benefits are immense:
- appeal to a new range of players
- satisfying Game Center experience (no, the current one is NOT satisfying)

As a side note, historically, the first forms of wargaming used simultaneous play using a referee and secret orders (and also hidden information). That's because it was seen by the military as the most accurate way of simulating the battle experience. That experience was impractical before computers and the Internet: finding two people to play with was difficult, the referee role is no fun at all, writing orders on paper takes time and is error prone. That's why the first hobby wargames were 2-player games, with alternating moves. Impulse systems were probably designed to approximate simultaneous play in non-refereed 2-player games, while avoiding boredom for the out-of-turn player. In the context of Game Center, which is already a kind of referee that collects and interprets orders, impulse systems seem completely irrelevant to me.

CALL FOR PBeM AFICIONADOS:

While game design is not meant to be a democratic process, and in the end Shenandoah will do as they see fit, they have shown to take our feedback into consideration. So if you think - like Mylo and I - that a PBeM feature would be nice for future games, then post to this thread to let them know!

[Yojimbo252]

The cost is reasonable:
- same game rules - no need for extensive playtests

Whilst the game rules may be the same it would require pretty extensive playtesting to make sure the app can handle all the situations arising from order conflicts.

For instance I order my unit to make a strategic move of 3 regions in impulse 3. But in impulse 2 the enemy has ordered a unit into one of those regions that my unit is strategically moving through, therefore making my move illegal. However I have a combat in impulse 1 that if I win and achieve a breakthrough, could result in my armour moving into the above enemy units region making their move in impulse 2 illegal, etc etc.

So that would require some not so insignificant algorithms to be able to unravel all the various possibilities.

Not to mention rebalancing the game because when you're having to plot orders that far in advance and predict what may happen, someone is going to be disadvantaged.

[Croix de guerre]

For instance I order my unit to make a strategic move of 3 regions in impulse 3. But in impulse 2 the enemy has ordered a unit into one of those regions that my unit is strategically moving through, therefore making my move illegal. However I have a combat in impulse 1 that if I win and achieve a breakthrough, could result in my armour moving into the above enemy units region making their move in impulse 2 illegal, etc etc.

Indulge me and just consider the moves in-order instead of out-of-order. You are making it unnecessarily complicated.

[Yojimbo252]

For instance I order my unit to make a strategic move of 3 regions in impulse 3. But in impulse 2 the enemy has ordered a unit into one of those regions that my unit is strategically moving through, therefore making my move illegal. However I have a combat in impulse 1 that if I win and achieve a breakthrough, could result in my armour moving into the above enemy units region making their move in impulse 2 illegal, etc etc.

Indulge me and just consider the moves in-order instead of out-of-order. You are making it unnecessarily complicated.

I'm not trying to make it unnecessarily complicated, I'm just stating the additional aspects that need to be considered.

The app wouldn't normally permit you to make an illegal move but because you are now plotting orders in advance, illegal moves are very likely to occur. The app now has to be able to handle that. Take my 3 region strategic move situation for example. If the destination region is enemy occupied by the time the unit 'gets there', do you allow the unit to move the 2 friendly controlled spaces and then it stops or none at all? What if it's the first region that's occupied? Do you allow the unit to still move but then an attack occurs? I'm just describing a few examples of added complexities that aren't normally catered for.

It also must be able to convey enough information at the end of the day as a review to both players so they can see what actually happened. Who ordered which units to which regions and in what order, which were blocked moves due to being illegal, how to handle decisions like breakthroughs that may occur in the middle of impulses being played out which could influence other moves of later impulses, etc.

[Croix de guerre]

I wrote about that earlier in the first post of this thread.
You have done all the hard work already by enumerating pretty much all the possible issues. The solutions are trivial in every case.

[daviddunham]

The cost is reasonable:
- same game rules - no need for extensive playtests
- no need to change the AI - it is player vs player only
- very similar UI

I don’t see any of this as true.

Lots of new rules to deal with conflicts (what if a proposed turn was valid but no longer is, because now you have been pinned into a contested space?). Conceivably, balance is shifted radically (since you would have to be more conservative with your moves so that they would all work without being blocked).

Because the rules are different, the AI will need to be adjusted, since it needs to deal with what will be in a different way, not just what is. (At the very least reworked to make multiple moves in a row.)

There needs to be new UI to deal with this mode. You would need to have a way to activate new spaces, committing the move but not your mega-turn. And, since order of combat resolution is critical (now not only determining retreats, but move validity), you need a way to specify this.

All of this needs to be coded and tested, so it costs.

Whether it’s worth it is a different discussion. But I believe it would be a significant cost.

[Croix de guerre]

Hello David! Thanks for joining the thread.

I probably got carried away and didn't see all the consequences. I see now that it would probably be a different game, and it is probably a bad idea to ship two different games into the same package.

Furthermore now that you have invested effort and money into the impulse system, I suppose it is impossible to backtrack anyway, even for future games.

Anyway you need to think of a way to improve the replay value. My feeling is that Bulge is too expensive for its actual replay value (I am convinced it is totally worth its price if you consider the quality and effort put into it but it is a different matter): the AI is just meant to teach the game, the Game Center experience is NOT satisfying for people like myself, looking for the PBeM experience (i.e. playing once a day at breakfast like Mylo described above).

Would a PBeM style of play be implemented for a new game, with the same level of quality and craftsmanship as Bulge, it would be the best board game on the App Store.

I don't know if my feeling about the perceived replay value is widely shared. You should probably investigate, for instance by querying the Game Center stats and looking for the trend for the number of moves submitted per week. If you do it and find that it is increasing then I am probably an isolated use-case and you can safely ignore my point of view. On the other hand if you find that it is decreasing then maybe it is worth improving the Game Center experience.

I know there is a tournament going on at the moment. It would be interesting to see how long it takes to be completed (one month? two months? I bet more than three months). If it happens to take much longer than you expected then maybe it is worth improving the Game Center experience.

[Yojimbo252]

Have you had the opportunity to play against an opponent in 'real time'?

ie. You're both online at the same time and agree to play right through to completion in a single sitting?

It sounds to me as though your main complaint is the time is takes to complete a game playing asynchronously where each player is only making 1 move per day.

It doesn't have to be that way and that's not a fault of game centre. Game centre will accommodate whatever pace both players agree to play at.

[Croix de guerre]

Have you had the opportunity to play against an opponent in 'real time'?

That is simply not the experience I am looking for. Furthermore it would require some form of out-of-game communication that I am not willing to engage in, otherwise I would be playing Vassal or ZunTzu with my friends instead of playing Bulge.

[Yojimbo252]

Have you had the opportunity to play against an opponent in 'real time'?

That is simply not the experience I am looking for. Furthermore it would require some form of out-of-game communication that I am not willing to engage in, otherwise I would be playing Vassal or ZunTzu with my friends instead of playing Bulge.

Well it doesn't necessarily require out-of-game communication. With the new message feature you can message each other to see if you want to play the game through to completion (but I do accept it means joining a game first and there is always the chance the other player may not want to). A lobby or game timer would resolve that (hint hint).

But in any case I think I understand what you're looking for, essentially a game that requires less 'visits' to complete if I can use that term.

Coincidentally I was actually thinking of how SS could use this system for say The Russian Campaign. Obviously any campaign on such a large scale would take forever if you only allow one region to be activated per impulse and to do the Campaign justice you would need a lot of impulses to give players the opportunity to employ so many units.

An option is to allow a player to activate more than one region per impulse. Perhaps have a command point system where each unit activated consumes a certain amount of command points and once they are fully used up, that's the end of that players impulse.

That way each player gets to perform more per 'visit' before having to wait for the opponent to take their turn (as I do agree, sometimes it can be a little boring having to wait 24 hours just to pass) and the command point system can be tweaked such that during certain periods one side may have more command points at their disposal during a major offensive and at other times less where resources or weather becomes restrictive.

[Croix de guerre]

Yes, that would work too. But why stop there? I would rather have each player send a whole day worth of orders. Simultaneously.