NOT PLAY'N PBEM until a REPLAY works

[johnnycai]

Jagger-

Perhaps I did get a little over excited there since as you point out two players can agree to share the info on men and money - it is just easier and more accurate if drafts/volunteers/taxes/bonds would appear on both players logs.

Pocus- I am essentially a computer moron so manipulating files is not something I would look forward to. In the final analysis I am not particuarlly a fan of using the replay anyway, like others have said it takes a while and I can get most of what I want from the message log. The reason it is an issue for me is that my opponent quit due to his inability to see what was going on. Now whether he would have seen my indians and partisans scurrying around behind his lines is with a replay is another matter.

But regardless of the replay issue,the web based multiplayer feature looked wonderful and hopefully it will all work out in the end. Part of the reason I joined into the ruckas is than I do not want Multiplayer to become a minor subset to be ignored by the developer (I am refering to all developers, not particuarlly Ageod). Multiplayer is so much more engaging and challenging- once you try it, you will never go back (hint, hint to everyone) Kinda like dating real girls versus inflatable ones.

Amen brother, well said and a good argument that I have also posted about. Until the multiplayer is free from abuse from dishonest hosts and the non-host doesnt suffer playability penalties such as replay, then this game is truly not been presented as advertised. Multiplayer is a much greater challenge and is vastly favoured by most players who have tried it.
I eagerly await the play-by-webportal mp and then AGEOD will have truly developed an awesome product and game!!

[Pocus]

You always have the option to have the host be another player also. And you return the favor by hosting one of his game, etc.

[Guru80]

Well once I get this game done I am playing now I will play anyone as the non host...if you need the advantage to win so be it but I am going to start playing some multiplayer this week and couldn't careless if I have the Replay option, it will still be fun.

Web portal is the way to go though, so get on it ;-)

[AP514]

You always have the option to have the host be another player also. And you return the favor by hosting one of his game, etc.

Well, that is not the point now is it? To do a work-around as stated above.
And have both players take turns being in the DARK??

The real point here is that a Replay was Posted to be in the works for Multiplay..So Both sides could see what was going on during the resolution.
One of the Main Reasons I purchased the game


AP514

Still love the GAME. BTW

[Jagger]

There is a work-around (as in 'you can have the replay for both, but it involves a bit of files manipulations).

You are the host. Before processing the new turn, send it to your partner (the 5 files in a ZIP).
Process the turn as usual, watch the game turn. Send the TRN to the partner.

The partner get your 'package' and host in a temp directory, for replay purpose only. The new 'stand-alone' TRN he also get is the one to be used, and not the TRN he generated on his side.

Let me make sure I understand this properly.

1. Host receives the "ord" file from non-host player.
2. Host immediately sends all 5 files, including both the host's and non-host's "plotted turn", back to the non-host. (VERY IMPORANT-the host include his completed plotted host turn without executing the turn.)
3. The non-host downloads all 5 files, including both the host and non-host plotted orders, into a backup folder---say, titled--"GameReplay".
4. Then the non-host can open the game from the "GameReplay" folder, hit execute and see a replay of the turn.
5. Meanwhile, the host executes the standard turn. Then he returns, in a second email, the non-host "turn" file as is now the current process.
6. The non-host downloads the second email with the attached "turn" file into the regular "game" folder, rather than the "GameReplay" folder, and then plots his turn as usual.
7. Repeat process

Is this correct?

Are the replays viewed by both players exactly the same, considering the turns are executed on different computers?

This is very nice. If I understand correctly, I think it may solve several problems simultaneously with this one solution. In particular if the replay and battle results are identical.

[Pocus]

yes this is that. In fact the replay is not really a replay, but the processing of the turn by the non-host. This processing should be 99% identical to the host processing, even if the 2 computers are different. But to be sure, the non-host should use the TRN send by the host.

[Jagger]

yes this is that. In fact the replay is not really a replay, but the processing of the turn by the non-host. This processing should be 99% identical to the host processing, even if the 2 computers are different. But to be sure, the non-host should use the TRN send by the host.

It definitely works! I tested as the non-host in an ACW game and as host in a BOA game. It worked in both situations. I checked the battle results as well in my non-host ACW game. 5 of 6 battles produced exactly the same number of casualties between the non-host replay file and the plot file. The first battle had a very slight difference in battle casualties. It is close enough for government work.

This non-host replay process should be added into the manual and the wiki. I know a lot of PBEM people would like to see the replay as non-host.

[runyan99]

I'm suprised there isn't more of a random element to the battles which would make this kind of technique unusable.

[Pocus]

No this derive from how a computer can generate a random number. This start from a seeding number, a standard random function given by Windows, and the rest is rather deterministic. I'm fixing the seed number at the start of each turn for this purpose (well for the purpose of having the same result as the player reporting a bug).

[pepe4158]

Until the multiplayer is free from abuse from dishonest hosts and the non-host doesnt suffer playability penalties such as replay, then this game is truly not been presented as advertised. Multiplayer is a much greater challenge and is vastly favoured by most players who have tried it.

Well I cant help but wonder, just to what great extent that can possibly be?...I mean if the AI is on it wont actually affect the combat resolution will it? I mean there is no way concievably that can be done?

Cant help but wonder cuz I have occassionaly had the strangest bad luck
resolutions in PvP
1. Playing as the south, till recently, went a wopping 0-5 on the traditional move of Win-Harpers.
2. My Cav actually lost to partisans
3 My blockade flottilas and capital ships lost to brigands

These were only some of the strange resolutions i saw, i cant compile a list, just was quessing none of you want to bet on the shooter if I am throwing dice at Vegas?

Sorry I cant give more details about the battles as I know sooo many factors affect resolution, so clearly you have no real way of knowing what went on if it was indeed kosher, just wondering if there are any ways resolution can be tampered with?

[GShock]

I agree, the inexplainable happened to me too, and many times. I don't think it's a cheating issue but still without understanding what happened and how it happened it's impossible to make a judgement at all. The resolution phase appearing only on the host's computer is an issue to be solved in top priority for pbem players imo.

[barkhorn45]

in realty how would either side know how much the other side is spending or how many troops they were drafting/recruiting?imo McClellan failed on the peninsula because he believed pinkerton's estimates of the csa's troop strength.of course it apparently suited him to think he was out-numbered 2-1,if he lost a battle he would say he was vastly out-numbered and the gov.hamstrung him by not suppling him with the reinforcments he was alway's demanding.and if he won a battle it would be against a vastly superior enemy numbers wise.i believe this feature IS ahistorical

[Pocus]

For people which were there some months ago, it has been a big nice surprise to see we added encryptation support for PBEMs.

Now we know that Replay is also missing. But it will comes too. It will first appears in BOA2 and then ported back to AACW.

The point is that our games progresses in features, but it takes time.

[johnnycai]

Well I cant help but wonder, just to what great extent that can possibly be?...I mean if the AI is on it wont actually affect the combat resolution will it? I mean there is no way concievably that can be done?

Cant help but wonder cuz I have occassionaly had the strangest bad luck
resolutions in PvP
1. Playing as the south, till recently, went a wopping 0-5 on the traditional move of Win-Harpers.
2. My Cav actually lost to partisans
3 My blockade flottilas and capital ships lost to brigands

These were only some of the strange resolutions i saw, i cant compile a list, just was quessing none of you want to bet on the shooter if I am throwing dice at Vegas?

Sorry I cant give more details about the battles as I know sooo many factors affect resolution, so clearly you have no real way of knowing what went on if it was indeed kosher, just wondering if there are any ways resolution can be tampered with?

Pepe,
This thread was mostly about the non-host being unable to see the turn resolution, and the non-host missing sometimes valuable insight about turn events and also addressing the potential for abuse/cheating in PBEM games.
The newly added features of password enabling have gone a long way to addressing the latter issue and Pocus has just now mentioned that the turn events resolution is also in progress.
I think your post is more dealing with weird results or the unexplainable.

[GShock]

As an issue, the fact you don't see the replay is not that terrible.

The point is that more than one player has claimed weird things happening, such as units not following orders. The replay feature helps understand this and how the planned tactics work (if they work) but i myself only saw weird things happening a few times. Since i'm sure my opponents didn't cheat, i assumed i had made a mistake.

I have so many games and so many scenarios running at the same time with different people that basically it *is* possible that i was thinking of a move in a game where actually i made it in another game.

That's one of the things the replay would help me with

[soundoff]

[quote="johnnycai"]Pepe,
and also addressing the potential for abuse/cheating in PBEM games.
The newly added features of password enabling have gone a long way to addressing the latter issue QUOTE]

Not strictly true. I was somewhat disappointed, having believed that the password protection feature stopped the host from viewing opponents files to discover that this only applies to not being able to manipulate non-hosts moves.

After processing a turn, even with password protection activated the host can freely, if they so desire, look at all of the opponents positions. prior to making their next move. This makes the value of password protection severely limited IMHO. Better than nowt but not really very good.

Regards

[Banks6060]

I think a simple agreement between players....NOT...to watch the replay at all is good enough to remedy this problem. However it would probably still cause players to remain timid and very defensive. Which might slow down the whole game.

So perhaps having both players able to view the replay would be good