Mongrel wrote: But an immediate fix for that while preserving the order stacking strategies we DO love is not clear to me.

How about associating a 'cost' or reduction in effectiveness of the units that are committed in a later turn? The cost ratio could be a board designer defined multiplier from 0 (i.e. no cost) to 1 (any attack after the first one is guaranteed ineffectual).

This preserves the turn strategising basis of BAO while punishing excessive turn strings.

I'm sure you could give it a good military name too.

tom wrote:

Mongrel wrote: But an immediate fix for that while preserving the order stacking strategies we DO love is not clear to me.

How about associating a 'cost' or reduction in effectiveness of the units that are committed in a later turn? The cost ratio could be a board designer defined multiplier from 0 (i.e. no cost) to 1 (any attack after the first one is guaranteed ineffectual).

This preserves the turn strategising basis of BAO while punishing excessive turn strings.

I'm sure you could give it a good military name too.

I thought about suggesting something like this, but backed away after deciding it might be overcomplicated. I would call it Fatigue.

I didn't want to suggest it, but one thing you could do is only have transfers as pretransfers. Then the order stacking would only be attacks. So sure you can stack orders, but you have to attack yourself.

However, this eliminates the right behind front line strategies used in bomb factory and others, and I want to keep that tactic in.

There are other problems in removing the attack transfer button, like attacking from multiple countries.

why not limit the number of time one can push the attack/transfer button?

I just need some clearification here:
Are you guys against Turn Order and The Stack because you don't want to take the time to do the things that help you win? I may be mistaken, and I am sure that I am, but it seems to me that the main point against a system of Simultaneous Play that uses Turn Order and The Stack is that there is too much planning and clicking involved and that some players just don't want to do that. If that is the arguement, fine, I just don't think it is a very good one.
Again, I don't care and just want to come to some conclusion but the ONE thing that will bug me about a Simultaneous Play format is if it is dumbed down to the point where it is turn-based play mechanics but all happening without knowing exactly what the other player is gonna do. I really don't think that would be very fun and/or interesting.
Again, I don't care if Turn Order or The Stack are involved as long as the system of play is different from Turn Based play in almost every conceivable way.

Minimizing annoying while retaining (maximizing) the benefits of BAO is what we're shooting for. I'm saying we can have, as a designer (or perhaps as a game to game) option to limit the number of intra-empire attack/transfers. I think what we should end up with a series of dials, where the BAO of old is one setting of the dials.

I totally don't see any reason to make a simpler BAO system. The issue of stacking and long processes is all solved with this simple strategy: play small boards. Problem solved. And then those of us really appreciate the agony of trying to anticipate a clever opponent and are willing to go the extra mile for an extra great strategy game can also be happy. And not have to wait years (and that is not a complaint, cuz I know things go really fast here in development!).

If someone wants to design a new system after that, then that should be fine. Just like multiple tourney styles, there can be multiple BAO styles. Designing a new system, arguing about it, theorizing, building and testing is just gonna take a lot longer that just running with the old style.

A few things were suggested here if people really want to revive the BAO talk: http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/550p1/Simultaneous_Play

I don't remember anyone saying they wanted a simpler system. Oh wait, that's right Riskyback threw up the Simpler Straw Man and proceeded to beat it to death, but otherwise nobody has proposed wanting a simpler system.

Two best ideas so far have been (IMO):

1. Implement standard BaO first and work out another system later.
2. Fatigue

I'm fine with either BaO or the start from scratch (SMTN anyone?) approach.

I don't know if I'm being misinterpreted here. All I was asking for is one extra box that allows for a cap on the number of times intra-empire attack/transfers that can occur per turn.

1
2
3
4
5
6
...
unlimited (BAO)

Simple tweak.

And I agree with Gimli's suggestion, if you want to play BAO, but don't want order padding (which is different than order stacking in my mind), play smaller boards. Out of personal preference, I only made/played smaller BAO boards as stacking 500 orders to make the last 3 or 4 count was not my thing, nor was it a punishment I chose to inflict on someone else.

For ideas, I can go as far out there of rein it in as the BAO loyal(masoch)ists want. Just let me know.

Any adjustments should start out simple and be left as designer or per game options if people don't want to use them (see above).

Look folks, it is nothing but a stinking algorithm!

At the very worst one could model using Black's Heat Equation from PDE.

I write operating systems from scratch, when needed.

If this WG is hosted on a Linux OS, I happen to be one of the CREDITS co-authors/maintainer.

Time to put up or shut up, get your keyboard and make something happen!

IRoll11s wrote: I don't remember anyone saying they wanted a simpler system. Oh wait, that's right Riskyback threw up the Simpler Straw Man and proceeded to beat it to death, but otherwise nobody has proposed wanting a simpler system.

Two best ideas so far have been (IMO):

1. Implement standard BaO first and work out another system later.
2. Fatigue

You're right, nobody but me came right out and said it.  Everybody else just talked about Fatigue of having to do what is required to be successful at a BAO game.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood the need for something to be less taxing as meaning that something should be simpler.

My Bad (not really)

Someone said play smaller boards. Fish-Tac-Toe probably had as much order padding as any i have seen. If you go watch the history for games Steven played (or Tom, I think), they basically pad with as many moves as physically possible on a 3x3 grid; and it adds up to be a lot.

Hard limits feel a little unnatural.

I like order stacking. Trying to put my moves in the right sequence is hella fun. Its my favorite part of BAO. On the other hand, loading up a thousand 1 unit transfers back and forth between my own territories to make sure my big important attack is the last one sequenced pretty much took the wind out of BAO play for me. If you purists love doing that, then fine. I don't have the energy to do 1000 page threads arguing back and forth.

I probably have no clue what I'm talking about, but if you all are considering this design either from the ground up or from a ToS model sideways, would it be possible to be thinking in terms of a system that is scalable in terms of features used and not just variable in terms of how the features are implemented.

I'm thinking in terms of the newbies and simpletons like me who don't want to start out having to learn sophisticated algorithms that are time consuming to implement, but that are necessary to maximize tactical effectiveness, yet we may take to them over time.

I have yet to take a look at the Simultaneous thread that Yertle pointed to, so this may be a redundant exercise but can someone post a real basic outline of how a super simple BaO system with minimal features might work?  Something that anyone could play right out of the box without undue frustration from a "I don't understand this" point of view.

Of course you can see where I'm going with this.  Might it be possible to scale it from there, with many of those features being optional?

Cramchakle wrote: Someone said play smaller boards. Fish-Tac-Toe probably had as much order padding as any i have seen. If you go watch the history for games Steven played (or Tom, I think), they basically pad with as many moves as physically possible on a 3x3 grid; and it adds up to be a lot.

Hard limits feel a little unnatural.

I like order stacking. Trying to put my moves in the right sequence is hella fun. Its my favorite part of BAO. On the other hand, loading up a thousand 1 unit transfers back and forth between my own territories to make sure my big important attack is the last one sequenced pretty much took the wind out of BAO play for me. If you purists love doing that, then fine. I don't have the energy to do 1000 page threads arguing back and forth.

What moobs said.

what about a diplomacy type machinery where there are no dice? everything could truly be resolved simultaneously. for those who don't know the game, all units have equal strength defending or attacking... you win battles by outnumbering the enemy, requiring lots of PMing to secure alliances so you have the units free to attack someone and win.

course that would be a new game mechanic that would have limited use... not sure the payoff would be there, but it could be interesting and unique!

as for my simplifying comment, maybe I over extrapolated from comments... but it sounded like people wanted a shorter, simpler game without needing complicated/tedious maneuvers and strategies. Didn't want to offend, just make the point that the smaller board would solve a lot. The dragging out of orders on Tic Tac Toe does not compare to AnA or My Kingdom though... not even close!

Mongrels idea on a move cap sounds good. There is still wiggle room on order setting, but the annoyingness is capped. All things are still equal, so no one can really complain!

Tom said it would be a while before BAO was implemented, figured we could have a discussion until that time, a la http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/550p1/Simultaneous_Play.

Besides, I'm still having fun tinkering with the tools Tom gave us that I'm in no real rush to get BAO in place. (Coming soon: a game with one attack and one transfer per turn that (I think) isn't terrible! And Nygma's currently working on a board that could be over in three turns, and lasts no longer than three turns, though he has the option to do it another way.) I think there's still plenty of unexplored avenues in the limited-attack arena, M57's doing some creative stuff at the moment, though I won't mind getting to some BAO designs once it's available.

Gimli wrote: Mongrels idea on a move cap sounds good. There is still wiggle room on order setting, but the annoyingness is capped. All things are still equal, so no one can really complain!

Agreed.  Turn limits can be a feature in turn-based games - order limits can be one in Simultaneous play.  Designer chooses.

I also like the later turn cost idea as an option (not as the default mode).  It would be like an entirely new form of play, adding something like economic factors into war.

First questions on execution:

What SCM is desired, SVN, CVS, GIT, ... ?

Where will the SCM be hosted?

What will be the process of code review and sign off?

Do we have a use case of a baseline board to model the desired behaviors?

Can there be a http://beta.wargear.net/ for BOA testing and future code tests before going live in prime time?

Will their be a WG simulator option to allow off network coding and models, as not to disturb the primary servers of WG?

CiscoKid