From: mustafa+@CMU.EDU (Mustafa Unlu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Pbem games, EIA (was: EIA Naval Rules)
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:08:08 GMT
	<peters.718507301@physics.ubc.ca>
Organization: Doctoral student, Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

The problems associated with trying to depict the map itself on the
screen, let alone with units, could be too enormous to warrant any
time spent trying to program this feature. However, it is obvious that
it would be a very helpful feature for the players.

I did hear of a pbem program for 1830 where the map is emailed from
player to player, each player making changes to the map and mailing it
to the person whose turn is up. Perhaps something like this is doable.

The other feature would be to number all the areas on the map and have
the computer print out a list of forces (by country, garrisons
separate, etc..) by area #. Bland maybe but more feasible (at least to
my mind).

Playing it by pure email could take a long time. Problem with naval
interceptions has been mentioned. Chits to draw in combat, committing
the guard, deciding to fight on for another day after indecisive day
of combat, the area(s) to withdraw to are some of the choices that
need to be made "real-time". This increases the turn around time. How
many of these orders can be submitted in advance?

I don't know whether people are familiar with Flat Top, but pbem pure,
unmodified Flat Top would also be impossible, since every unit is
moved one by one and hex by hex. Imagine the following exchange:

Player- Move AF1 to BB21.

A day later, GM (or opponent if no GM)- They see nothing.

A day later, Player- Move AF1 to BB22.

GM- Enemy TF in BB24, clouds in CC24.

etc..

The way around this is to have a GM, who is in charge of moving all
the units simultaneously. All players are assumed to be in command of
a force and see things/get reports from their unit(s) only. All units
not in the same hex as the player have to be given pre-written orders,
which they will follow subject to the ability of the GM to be able to
interpret them as if he were the commander of that force. 
I stole this idea from a _General_ article and modified it slightly.

This concept *could* be applied to EIA I guess, but the question is:

Would it mess up the system of the game too much? 
Note that the presence of the GM also allows some neat tweaks hitherto
unavailable.

One could imagine it like this:

1) Every player is represented by the A leader of that country.

2) They give/receive orders to other units. Their information is
limited to what their units can see (this concept needs to be defined
further) and what other countries tell them.

3) No longer they know exactly what is happening in remote parts of
the world. 

Example: Prussia and Russia have a massive land combat near
Konisberg. The GM (via something like World News Tribune) publishes
that it was a minor Russian victory, with heavy losses on both sides.
I, as the Turkish Grand Vizier, know nothing about whether the Russian
Guard corps is one of the corps that are just across the border.
Prussian player sends me a message assuring me that it was so...

You can see where this is going.

Again, I wonder if 
1) It's doable 
2) It's the same game...

Babbling on as usual,
 
M.
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA