Would you play PBEM?

If PBEM were added to AATF how do you think this would impact the game?

  • Definitely decrease the number of users

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Significantly decrease the number of users

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .

WMurray

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
Issaquah, Washington
Country
llUnited States
I'm wondering to what extent others would use PBEM with AATF and ATF if it were available? Assume it were implemented in a manner you were happy with, details to be determined by Pat.
 

KEYSTONE07950

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
270
Reaction score
2
Location
FLORIDA
Country
llUnited States
I prefer to play against the AI. I believe most don't prefer solo play and PBEM would interest more gamers. Anything that brings in more players equates to more sales which equates to more AATF content.

I'd perfer to see more maps and the ability in the scenerio editor to add units from all the games, not just from the data files of the game from which the scenerio originated.
 
Last edited:

z1812

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto
Country
llCanada
Hi All,

People like PBEM. It breathes new live into existing scenarios, allows for tournaments and stimulates interest in the game.

People value PBEM more than online play simply because most don't have a large block of time to devote to online play.

What would be nice is the option for either RT or Wego that allows for PBEM.

Regards John
 

WMurray

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
Issaquah, Washington
Country
llUnited States
I like to play PBEM with my cousin in England. We play CMAK and CMBB. It affords the pleasant possibilities of Schadenfreude (I had to check my spelling) especially after he rather too much enjoyed the period when I was between jobs.

The computer in ATF or AATF, however, does not seem too bothered if I win or lose after several hours of effort on my part.

The other advantage of PBEM is playing those in different time zones or schedules. His time zone is 8 hours later, so real time play would be difficult to manage.

P.S. I confess to using what I call "ULTRA" decrypts. It allows me to look at his next WEGO move as he does not password protect his move although I protect mine. Some might call that cheating. (Imagine that!) I prefer to think of it as superior intelligence...:) and of course I only resort to it when strictly necessary :lier:. None of this was necessary before he read the CMBB strategy manual. Oh, well.
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
In games that offer it PBEM is my favorite mode of play - by far.

I like the challenge, and although I do have some time that I could devote to playing (currently don't) it is hard to predict when exactly that is. Having mails stored up is a perfect way to answer them when I got a break.

That doesn't mean I have thought about how suitable ATF would be for a PBEM mode.
 

eds

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
Location
gloucester
Country
ll
In answer to the poll, I think that PBEM would increase the amount of users. I would like to see more content for ATF/AATF and it is frustrating to know that Curts work on the Iraq scenarios has not seen the light of day yet.
However, ATF/AATF has its own unique feel as a real time game. I don't see how it could be made into a PBEM game without breaking that.
 

WMurray

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
Issaquah, Washington
Country
llUnited States
Eds,

...ATF/AATF has its own unique feel as a real time game. I don't see how it could be made into a PBEM game without breaking that.
I don't know what the answer is there either, I think some degree of innovation would be required here. I can only speculate as to some mix of...

1. Optional event triggers for turn interruptions, e.g., let me adjust my COA when <CONDITION> is true otherwise continue on my current COA. Then <CONDITION> might be some Boolean expression you construct from menus such as...when the enemy engages me OR 2 minutes have past.

2. Special shorter games balanced for PBEM.

3. Enhanced AI so units can have plans for reacting on contact.

...and simpler approaches...

4. Initially longer game turns then shorter turns once contact is reached, to skip over the "boring bits".

5. Having game speed set by mutual agreement to be 2X, 4X, whatever.

but I honestly don't know what the right approach is and wonder if there is some analogous situation that one could extrapolate from, whether a military exercise where you need to alternately speed up or slow down the action or even football (e.g., it's real time but a limited number of time outs are allowed, in the AATF analogy each player could set up triggers to call their timeouts...). I assume no other game has solved this problem, or I'd like to hear how, if they have.

It would give Pat and company another opportunity to innovate...and yes it would be hard to get right.

Bill
 

TDR

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
263
Reaction score
0
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
As for the question “Would you play PEBM?”, simply NO!

BUT That does not mean much as I would also agree that the PEBM ability would add to the number of players.

There are two drawbacks to much of this.
1. Maps, I would suspect no one wants to play for months over a big map. At present there really is not a lot of maps and the variety in maps is missing. By now most have played each map and most know each terrain ripple.
Add to that there does not seem to be many map makers hanging about throwing out their goodies. OK I fall into this as well, as I have a map still hanging about unfinished.

2. Databases. The inability of not having more than one database per game is a drawback. They just do not merge happily either.

3. How to make it PEBMable. In some ways I suspect in abstract terms it is easy. Split the current engine so it has two underlying operational option, PEBM and normal
The PEBM side would I suspect have to behave along the WEGO line. These are the underlying “control” aspects so again, assumptions, should not be more than a small nightmare vs a big nightmare of redoing it all from scratch.
OK it is not easy as I would suspect a redesign of how the whole thing is glued together would need to be done.

4. Scenarios?? Well everyone loves them but like maps they are not floating about in huge quantities.

Beside all this drivel, it would also be a huge mistake to push a game as pure PEBM.
Some of us still like beating the AI, (AI gets 1 tank, I get a whole company of them).

Anyway back to some coding for something I seem to have volunteered to do. “NEVER volunteer”, I forgot that old Army doctrine.
 

Pat Proctor

President, ProSim Company
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Messages
1,189
Reaction score
1
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Hey guys.

I voted "Have no impact on the number of users" just so I wouldn't skew the numbers and could see the poll results. Please don't read anything into my response.
 
Top