Idea for a better Game Center experience

[Croix de guerre]

Hi!

I love the Battle of the Bulge but I have yet to finish a game using Game Center, because the pace is so slow.
The alternating activation system is great for solitaire or pass-and-play but is ill-fitted for Game Center in my opinion.

I have an idea that could improve the Game Center experience tremendously, inspired by computer-refereed play-by-mail games.
Instead of alternating activations, players would register all their moves simultaneously for the entire day.
Then the computer would execute the orders by activating every area alternatively, using the exact same rules as for the normal game. The order of activation would follow the order in which commands were assigned to units.

Orders that could not be carried on would be adapted. For instance, a strategic move into an area which is now contested would end in the area just before.

Possible orders would be:
- move & attack & breakthrough
- hold (i.e. no order): stay in this area but do not attack
- take control: stay in this area and attack
- strategic move
- withdraw: exit this contested area
- move but avoid combat (i.e. only if destination is empty of enemies, a conditional move that has no equivalent yet)

I realize it is a big development effort, but it could also benefit El Alamein and other games in the series. Note that AI would not be impacted because it is for Game Center play only.

Although the rules stay the same the game would acquire new strategic depth. Players would no longer be able to react to their opponents moves. They would have to guess their opponents moves and plan accordingly.
What do you think?

[Yojimbo252]

I'm not in favour as there'd be too much guesswork. You order your units to attack a particular sector on a given impulse but your opponent orders additional units to reinforce that sector on a prior impulse making your attack a very poor move. Trying to predict your opponents moves considering all the combinations and permutations is virtually impossible.

I think it'd make the game too random and lead to a lot of frustration.

A better feature to speed up gameplay would be to incorporate an optional game timer so players have a time limit to complete their moves. Many other games offer this feature which aligns players that want to play at a similar pace.

[Croix de guerre]

I'm not in favour as there'd be too much guesswork. You order your units to attack a particular sector on a given impulse but your opponent orders additional units to reinforce that sector on a prior impulse making your attack a very poor move.

That's true. But it is not necessarily a bad thing. You can think of it as fog of war, bad intelligence, ambush... It wouldn't be unlike a game of Diplomacy.

Trying to predict your opponents moves considering all the combinations and permutations is virtually impossible.

The moves would be executed in sequence, so it would be actually quite easy to predict the first moves. Fog of war would become thicker and thicker every hour. All you have to do is plan your most important moves for the early hours of the day.

[Croix de guerre]

A better feature to speed up gameplay would be to incorporate an optional game timer so players have a time limit to complete their moves. Many other games offer this feature which aligns players that want to play at a similar pace.

It seems like a good idea but it doesn't solve the issue entirely because you would only be able to finish fast-paced games anyway - people must sleep. So it would leave us with only one setting: "fast" (at least every "X" minutes). Anything slower than "fast" would be impractical.

[Yojimbo252]

I'm not in favour as there'd be too much guesswork. You order your units to attack a particular sector on a given impulse but your opponent orders additional units to reinforce that sector on a prior impulse making your attack a very poor move.

That's true. But it is not necessarily a bad thing. You can think of it as fog of war, bad intelligence, ambush... It wouldn't be unlike a game of Diplomacy.

I'm very familiar with Diplomacy and it has a much small finite number of rational moves. Also everything is executed simultaneously whereas BotB is impulse driven which makes it much harder to predict and plan.

Like you say it would take a major overhaul of the game, playtesting, rebalancing and so on which Shenandoah are unlikely to make.

If the goal is to offer a game types that are faster paced you can achieve that much easier with game timers without having to change the actual game.

[Croix de guerre]

Also everything is executed simultaneously whereas BotB is impulse driven which makes it much harder to predict and plan.

On the contrary. The first impulse is completely deterministic. The second impulse is easy guess. Even late moves can be deterministic if they are moves from the rear into area well behind enemy lines.

Like you say it would take a major overhaul of the game, playtesting, rebalancing and so on which Shenandoah are unlikely to make.

Not necessarily. Play testing could be conducted on cardboard by the game designers team. They are not the same resources as the ones writing source code or creating artwork.

If the goal is to offer a game types that are faster paced you can achieve that much easier with game timers without having to change the actual game.

Indeed, it would be a different game experience, but using the exact same rules.
Yojimbo, I already explained why I think your idea - which is a good one by the way - doesn't fix the issue, except for fast-paced games, which is a bit too hard core to please everyone, especially old wargamers with kids such as myself.

I am also thinking about future games in the series. Not just Bulge.

[Yojimbo252]

Perhaps I've misunderstood the problem you're describing. Here's your opening post from which I interpreted the issue as the pace of the game being too slow via Game Centre because of the length of time you might wait for your opponent to take their turn...

I love the Battle of the Bulge but I have yet to finish a game using Game Center, because the pace is so slow.
The alternating activation system is great for solitaire or pass-and-play but is ill-fitted for Game Center in my opinion.

I don't believe the alternating activation system is ill-fitted for Game Centre as Game Centre supports turn based games perfectly. Where issues arise is the length of time between those turns where players expectations aren't aligned.

If you take the game Carcassone as an example which is widely regarded as one of the best board game ports to the iOS...before BotB came along that is ... there's even less decisions/action to take than BotB. You simply place a tile and that's your turn.

But to speed up the pace of the game for Carcassone via Game Centre they didn't need to change the nature of the game, they simply incorporated a timer so that it could be played 'real time' if players wished.

Now I'm not suggesting BotB should be changed so that it is timer based placing all players under pressure and that's it. If you look at Summoner Wars (another very popular port) it incorporates game timers of differing lengths so players can choose a 1 hour game, 3 day game, etc or effectively no limit so everyone is free to play at the pace that suits them and their opponent.

This aligns players that are like minded by setting expectations of the speed at which the game is to be played. This isn't a new Asynchronous gaming concept, it's pretty widely accepted.

You already mention that the game is suited for Pass and Play. I would suggest the only difference between Pass and Play and Async via Game Centre is that for Pass and Play players' expectations are aligned by default, whereas for Game Centre they are not unless an extra step is taken.

[Croix de guerre]

Perhaps I've misunderstood the problem you're describing.

My fault. I wasn't clear enough when I explained my expectations.

You're perfectly correct when you state that the pace-enforced Game Center experience that you are proposing would be like pass-and-play. That is not the experience I am looking for.

The Game Center experience I am looking for is an experience comparable to Play-by-Email with cardboard wargames. Players get to play in a casual manner, by giving some good thinking into the game every now and then, sending their moves and then going back to their business or kids, waiting for the response to arrive on the next day.

It has nothing to do with a fast-paced game like the game of Carcassonne that your describe, which is live play, not PBeM.

[s_ron42na]

I do like the idea of whoever starts a game being able to set a turn-length timer (like they do in Summoner Wars).

[s_Pointyhat]

I don't believe the alternating activation system is ill-fitted for Game Centre as Game Centre supports turn based games perfectly. Where issues arise is the length of time between those turns where players expectations aren't aligned.
.....
Now I'm not suggesting BotB should be changed so that it is timer based placing all players under pressure and that's it. If you look at Summoner Wars (another very popular port) it incorporates game timers of differing lengths so players can choose a 1 hour game, 3 day game, etc or effectively no limit so everyone is free to play at the pace that suits them and their opponent.

This aligns players that are like minded by setting expectations of the speed at which the game is to be played. This isn't a new Asynchronous gaming concept, it's pretty widely accepted.

Fully agree with this and is a development I'd like to see with BoB. Being able to play with someone whose expectations of pace of game align to yours, would greatly improve multiplayer.

[s_nkarp]

I use Game Center in two somewhat different ways:
--I'll plan with an opponent to play at a particular time; we'll even connect with Skype or Facetime. Turns go back and forth very quickly.
OR
--I have a stack of 6-8 games going simultaneously async; so I go through a batch of them when I wake up; some have been flipped by the time I get to the office; and then more at the next break; etc.

Agree that one game stretched over weeks is not best -- especially if you're passing a lot!

[Croix de guerre]

Note that there is a long tradition in wargaming of adapting game rules for Play-by-Mail. What I propose is nothing else than that.

[s_MesaDon]

Take into account time zones. If I play on the western US and my foe is in maybe England, you would need a fairly large time. I certainly do not wish to be tired to my iPad so I don't forfeit or lose a turn.

[daviddunham]

I don’t really see Game Center play as any different from play by (e)mail. You wait an arbitrary amount of time for your reply. Unless it’s moderated PBM, you simply wait until your opponent has time to play.

[rddfxx]

I think the issue is really finding players whose playing styles are compatible. It is possible to message or email opponents and negotiate things such as dedicated playing time, turn turnaround, etc. I come from a VASSAL background, in which games are played via a sophisticated PBEM system, which expedites play by providing a complete digital representation of a cardboard and paper traditional boardgame. Play can be slow and casual, or live using SKYPE, eg, while playing. I also play multiple games of BotB at the same time. That's a kick, especially when one is playing either side, and turns come up helter skelter and you have to switch your mindset back and forth from Allied to Axis and vice versa.

[currymutton]

I think I really need in game chat. Also, is it possible to show the alias rather than the "true name" on GC?

[Yojimbo252]

Take into account time zones. If I play on the western US and my foe is in maybe England, you would need a fairly large time. I certainly do not wish to be tired to my iPad so I don't forfeit or lose a turn.

The idea behind game timers are that they are optional. You select the game timer length that suits you and your opponent only joins your game if they are prepared to play at the same speed. No one would be forced to play 'real time' with 5 min turns unless that is what they selected.

For the example you use, you could quite easily select a 3 day timer so that each player has ample time to make a move but a player isn't waiting weeks for their opponent and dormant games get deleted with victory being awarded to the player that was prepared to remain active.

[Croix de guerre]

For the example you use, you could quite easily select a 3 day timer so that each player has ample time to make a move.

Seriously, who would want a 3 day timer? That's one impulse every 3 days. That's one game-day per month!
My point is: that kind of play - PBeM - requires an adaptation of the rules.

[Yojimbo252]

For the example you use, you could quite easily select a 3 day timer so that each player has ample time to make a move.

Seriously, who would want a 3 day timer? That's one impulse every 3 days. That's one game-day per month!
My point is: that kind of play - PBeM - requires an adaptation of the rules.

Perhaps I've not been clear in my previous posts. The player chooses the timer that suits them. If they want a faster experience they don't have to choose the 3 day option it could be 1 day, 1 hour or as little as 5 mins if that's want they want. The choice rests with the player and no one is forced to play at a pace that they do not wish to.

Additionally the timer is simply the maximum 'thinking time' they're allowed for that turn. If they're playing a 3 day timer there's nothing stopping the players from making a move every few hours if that's the pace they can play at during that particular period.

[Croix de guerre]

Perhaps I've not been clear in my previous posts.

You were quite clear. Now please try to understand what MesaDon and I are trying to explain: some people simply do not have the luxury - or do not want - to be committed to a fast-paced game for several hours in a row. And at the same time those people would like to see the end of a game without having to wait for months, because it is just absolutely boring.

Let's call those people the "PBeM people". They are different from the "live People" you are part of, apparently.
It is my opinion that currently the Game Center experience suits the "live People", not the "PBeM people".