Weaknesses in PBEM Hosting

[SirMaru]

There seems to be loopholes in PBEM Hosting. The Host could simply re-run the turn processing as many times as necessary until the result comes out to his liking.

The ideal way to process would be to have the old TRN and ORD files DELETED when each turn is processed. The only file left would be the new TRN files.

Are there any other safeguards built into the processing procedure?

[PBBoeye]

It's a good point and one I've always been concerned with in regards to PBEM.

[jimwinsor]

The ability of the host to re-run turns has occasionally been a blessing in my games. I've been the non-host player, and occasionally my turns I emailed in would get corrupted (I think), causing the turn to resolve with no actions taken by my side.

Usually a re-mail in plus a re-run of the turn will fix this glitch for us.

[Pocus]

Using Norton Ghost, I can cheat with any game if I wanted. So should we try to invent and invest dozens of hours in a system that can be broken, because some few individuals are dishonest with their buddies?

[Jagger]

In my current game with Kilcalvary, we just had a crash during turn execution. Without the ability to back up to the previous turn, our PBEM would be over.

[Henry D.]

Using Norton Ghost, I can cheat with any game if I wanted. So should we try to invent and invest dozens of hours in a system that can be broken, because some few individuals are dishonest with their buddies?

IMHO, no, You shouldn't.

I never got the point of cheating in any multiplayer game. For me, it would take the fun and satisfaction out of victory and make defeat even more embarrassing...

You have to trust Your fellow human to some extent in an
every matter, even in MP. If You have a feeling that You can't trust Your opponent to play it fair, You'd better stop playing him, and If You have a feeling that You can't trust anybody, You'd better not play MP at all but rather apply at the next audition for the role of "Commander Queeg" in "The Caine Mutiny" (free marbles provided)... *

*Just kidding, just kidding

[fremen]

I think is not matter of trust anyone.
It's only that if the PBEM system functions normally in most games, with passwords, etc..., why AACW not have a similar characteristic?

[Henry D.]

I think is not matter of trust anyone.
It's only that if the PBEM system functions normally in most games, with passwords, etc..., why AACW not have a similar characteristic?

I didn't mean to imply that everybody asking for some "PbEM-security" was paranoid, I'm just in a strangely playful mood today and couldn't resist making a lame reference to one of my favourite war novels. Sory, no offense...

But I still don't really see a pressing need for a password protection. I reckon most of us play for fun, not for competition, and that fun lies mostly in the playing itself, not in its outcome. And while over time one is bound to run into the occasional douchebag who NEEDS to WIN at all costs and by all means to compensate for certain shortcomings in his/her/its real life, those types betray themselves rather quickly and are usually not much fun to play with even when forced to play fair. So to me, the benefit of having an additional insurance against foul play does not quite justify the cost in time for Pocus et al. IMHO there are much more pressing matters regarding multiplayer, like designing a system for playing IP/LAN (I think the current PbEM system is somewhat cumbersome and at times a real pain in the neck, but that feeling may not be entirely rational on my part... )

[johnnycai]

Isnt this the reason for the 3rd party host/server for turn resolution mentioned by AGEOD. This was tasked to be developed by some individual. I am sure where this project lies on the schedule though.
Both sides submit their turns and the turn is run, then the players login to get their turn files.
No one likes a cheater or the thought of playing with one, and thats why this solution is the best available. It removes the cheating possibility completely.

[Infantree]

I am not sure what your actual plan is, but i certainly wish that a live Internet game be possible so that playing a person would be like playing the AI. With a timer for turns it would be exactly what I would want. I have not and probably will not pbem,

Infantree

[SirMaru]

Isnt this the reason for the 3rd party host/server for turn resolution mentioned by AGEOD. This was tasked to be developed by some individual. I am sure where this project lies on the schedule though.
Both sides submit their turns and the turn is run, then the players login to get their turn files.
No one likes a cheater or the thought of playing with one, and thats why this solution is the best available. It removes the cheating possibility completely.

It is already possible to do what you want. It would take THREE players in the same scenario. It would have to be a short scenario for practical reasons. It could be daily turns done over a few weeks with time limits for submission of turns. Failure to comply with the time limit in any game would result in forfeiture of that player in the one game. If any player dropped, they would forfeit all of their games. If a Host dropped, the surviving players could determine the winners by Victory Points held at the time the Host dropped.

One player would host for the other 2 and send the ORD turns to the other 2. They would be playing 2 games with each playing USA and CSA in just one of the games. At the same time each player would host for other games going on simultaneously.

Thus, each player would be involved playing in 4 games and hosting 4 other games where he would not play.

Since all would be playing both sides in the same scenario with independent hosting, cheating would be highly unlikely and at the end all players would be ranked on the extent of their victories. A point system could be assigned based on the extent of each victory and an overall winner would be possible.

[Omnius]

Because winning is everything cheating is prevalent in PBEM play. Allowing a host to be able to rerun turns allows cheating far too easily. The best game I saw for PBEM security had the turn processing come at the end of the second player's turn. Then when the first player opened up the already processed files to see what happened he couldn't rerun until he was happy. Since the second player didn't get to see the results until the next turnover there was no way that player could abuse the rerun cheat. Plus the host has the advantage of redoing his turn to make his moves work better for another rerun.

I've seen way too much cheating in PBEM play and that's why I just don't bother with it. It sure would be nice to have a solid cheatproof PBEM system that can't be Norton Ghosted. Until then PBEM tends to be a cheater's haven as winning is everything.
Omnius

[Pocus]

There is no first or second player when the turn based engine process simultaneously all turns.

[Omnius]

There is no first or second player when the turn based engine process simultaneously all turns.

Pocus,
And that's the biggest problem of "hosted" games and why I'll never, ever play one of those again. Hosted games give the host a massive homefield advantage that's just not fair.

Better to have players swap files and have the processing come after the second player does his move. Then the game processes the turn and the first player gets the processed turn and can't rerun until happy. The second player can't see the results while processing so he can't rerun cheat either.
Omnius

[Pocus]

Hopefully, within 6 months at most (I'm at loss to give you a real estimate), the PBWEB service will renders all these questioning moot

[SirMaru]

Hopefully, within 6 months at most (I'm at loss to give you a real estimate), the PBWEB service will renders all these questioning moot

Thanks, Pocus. Now I won't uninstall the game. I'll wait for the PBWEB service and give it a try again.

I'm reading a book, "Lee's Lieutenants" by Douglas Freeman. Your game supplies a great map to accompany the reading of the book.

I still cannot grasp the workings of the game. Plus, for some reason I cannot send emails via hotmail the last couple of days. Thus, my PBEM game is over.

I would like to see a feature whereby towns could be located by some sort of "Find" function. It would add to the use of the game as a great Civil War MAP.

In addition, maybe there should be an AI feature which the player could use to just set grand strategic objectives each turn and the AI would manipulate all the choices. Right now the game is simply too hard to manipulate all the functions at least for me.

[johnnycai]

Hopefully, within 6 months at most (I'm at loss to give you a real estimate), the PBWEB service will renders all these questioning moot

Ahhhh, Nirvana! For those who seek worry-free PBEM.