E-Mail versus PitBoss

[Impalist!]

Even though I've had Civilization III and IV for a while now, I've always been playing via the internet and Direct IP, but now that my life is busier, I want to have a game where you can come and go whenever you like. But this is where my confusion begins

E-mail and PitBoss.

From what I've seen and heard (manual and various people), it seems that E-Mail and PitBoss share similar characteristics and I'm not really sure which one I should choose to host my game with my friends over, so I ask for your help/opinion on which is better to host a game on (pros/cons etc).

Thanks guys!

 

[azzaman333]

PBEM is easier to set up and run, PitBoss is much faster. Someone els should be able to give a better explaination than that though, so pay more attention to them.

 

[Herandar IV]

Nice, azz... PiTBoSs Is a Persistant Turn-Based Server. The game is always on. You log into the server and play your turn. Once everyone has played their turn, or the turn timer runs out, the next turn begins. In gameplay, it functions exactly the same. In action, the games play a lot faster because you don't have to play in order. If you have a eleven player PBEM, you have to wait for each player to forward the game to the next player. In an eleven player PTBS game, everyone can log in to the turn once it begins. All eleven players can even be logged in at the same time, and it would function like a 11 player Direct IP multiplayer game with simultaneous turns.

 

[Impalist!]

Ah now I see, thanks very much!

 

[IglooDame]

Nice, azz... PiTBoSs Is a Persistant Turn-Based Server. The game is always on. You log into the server and play your turn. Once everyone has played their turn, or the turn timer runs out, the next turn begins. In gameplay, it functions exactly the same. In action, the games play a lot faster because you don't have to play in order. If you have a eleven player PBEM, you have to wait for each player to forward the game to the next player. In an eleven player PTBS game, everyone can log in to the turn once it begins. All eleven players can even be logged in at the same time, and it would function like a 11 player Direct IP multiplayer game with simultaneous turns.

Would you happen to know if, when you uncheck the "Simultaneous Turns" block before starting a game, does that force the 11 players to play their turns in order, or is it any order (allowing whoever plays turn #36 last to play #37 first, presumably)?

 

[HitAnyKey]

I think that would effectively take away the whole purpose of PTBS. No reason to have a machine constantly running the server if you have to wait for each person to complete their turn in order anyway. That would cause it to act just like as if someone had to wait for the save file in a PBEM to be emailed to them. Only difference would be that you don't have to email the file (but you'd still get an email that your turn is ready to play). So not having Simultaneous Turns just doesn't make sense.

 

[heihojin]

I think that would effectively take away the whole purpose of PTBS. No reason to have a machine constantly running the server if you have to wait for each person to complete their turn in order anyway. That would cause it to act just like as if someone had to wait for the save file in a PBEM to be emailed to them. Only difference would be that you don't have to email the file (but you'd still get an email that your turn is ready to play). So not having Simultaneous Turns just doesn't make sense.

Actually there is some possible functionality for not having Simultaneous Turns enabled in a PTBS game, and that is to provide an experience similar, and yet superior to PBEM. The biggest problem with PBEM is reloads, and a PTBS server could (with proper design and implementation) resolve this issue either by regulating reloads or preventing them altogether.

I haven't yet had the time to play with the PTBS server, though, and so I don't know if it currently allows for any regulation of reloads. If not, then I agree that there currently would be no point in not enabling Simultaneous Turns for a PTBS game.


heihojin

 

[Mysterio10000]

The biggest problem with PBEM is reloads

I haven't yet had the time to play with the PTBS server, though, and so I don't know if it currently allows for any regulation of reloads.

With regards to PBEM reloads, the combat results remain the same no matter how many times one reloads the game; unit A will always defeat unit B by the same margin. However, I suppose a dishonest player could load the game, try a certain combat strategy (attack A with B, then attack A with C), and then reload the game to try a different combat strategy (attack A with C, then attack A with B) if the original results weren't favorable. People who play PBEM games like that are more concerned about winning than enjoying the challenge.

The person running the PB server (admin) is the only one who can reload games; once a player makes his moves, they can't be taken back. The only time the admin can cheat is to reload the game prior to any of the players taking their turns on any given turn. Otherwise, the players will notice that their previous moves have reset.

The only time I reload a PB turn is when my Internet connection is disrupted or my PC crashes/hangs. The turn that's reloaded is either the last autosave or my last forced save (due to system reboot or maintenance), whichever is most recent. On such occasions, I always notify the players afterwards.

 

[Great_Scott]

PTBS Simultaneous Turns or nothing... I say. I don't see any reason why one would prefer to play PBEM. I'm currently in a PBEM, typically moving slowly.. and it will be my last.

And of course, a game like REALPOLITIK I created, a multi-multiplayer diplomacy-style game would have been next to nothing without PTBS.

*bows to PTBS*

 

[Corossol]

So heihojin you may want to try PitBoss if you have a computer that can act as a server. I'm playing enough PBEMs as is but if this month's game #22 was a PitBoss I would join for sure.

 

[Great_Scott]

Hey Corossol, congrats on your PB win as Russia.. maybe you should re-join the REAL Russian Empire

 

[heihojin]

With regards to PBEM reloads, the combat results remain the same no matter how many times one reloads the game; unit A will always defeat unit B by the same margin. However, I suppose a dishonest player could load the game, try a certain combat strategy (attack A with B, then attack A with C), and then reload the game to try a different combat strategy (attack A with C, then attack A with B) if the original results weren't favorable. People who play PBEM games like that are more concerned about winning than enjoying the challenge.

Technically it does not memorize combat results; rather, the seed passed to the random number generator is the same. Manipulating the random number generator is only dishonest if one agrees not to do it. Because I cannot justly enforce any rules against manipulating the random number generator with multiple reloads of the game, I do not forbid reloads in my PBEM games.

However, I do recognize it as a problem that can be resolved through PTBS. I would like to see PTBS developed to the point where it becomes a viable alternative to PBEM. I know that there are many players who are already embracing PTBS over PBEM, particularly with regards to Simultaneous Turn PTBS games. I am not one of them, at least not yet.

The person running the PB server (admin) is the only one who can reload games; once a player makes his moves, they can't be taken back.

This is encouraging. It at least shows me that Firaxis has the right idea in mind, and motivates me to start experimenting with PTBS. I have planned to, I simply have not had the time as of yet to play with it.


heihojin

 

[heihojin]

PTBS Simultaneous Turns or nothing... I say. I don't see any reason why one would prefer to play PBEM. I'm currently in a PBEM, typically moving slowly.. and it will be my last.

So heihojin you may want to try PitBoss if you have a computer that can act as a server. I'm playing enough PBEMs as is but if this month's game #22 was a PitBoss I would join for sure.

I played a number of online Civ 3 games with Simultaneous Turns enabled, and I was not impressed. I understand why that mode was introduced; the majority of players do not have the time to devote to epic games of Civilization online, certainly not in the classical turn-based mode that had always been the norm. However, Simultaneous Turns always felt as a "RTS-wannabe" mode to me. Civ has always been designed as a turn-based game, and the only mode that captured the deeply analytical, grand strategic essence of the game for me was PBEM. That's why I jumped on PTW as soon as I learned that it offered PBEM.

I see Simultaneous Turn PTBS games as an even greater aberration. In such games, luck has the potential to play a much greater role in the results. How do you account for an unknown turn sequence in your strategy? Should I as a player be expected to plan for the possibility that my opponent may have the opportunity to move his units twice in succession? Should I be punished in the game for having out-of-game demands that do not permit me to jump online as soon as my turn becomes available? I am sure that Simulateous Turn PTBS fans will easily discount such objections, but that doesn't allay my concerns or those of other turn-based strategy purists.

Because I see reloads as a problem with PBEM that can be resolved with PTBS, I would like to see enough flexibility added to PTBS to allow it to become a viable alternative to PBEM. Just what flexibility it is currently lacking, of course, I don't yet know since I haven't had the opportunity to experiment with it.

Finally, there is the issue of support from the developers. Historically, Firaxis's support of multiplayer Civ in general (and PBEM in particular) has been utterly atrocious. I deeply, deeply distrust Firaxis; Civ is a great game in spite of them, not necessarily because of them. As a well-known administrator of PBEM games, I have a commitment to my players to select platforms that are suitable and that facilitate effective administration. I don't like having to cancel a game thanks to shoddy development on Firaxis's part, as I have had to do once in the past and almost had to do several times before. Therefore, you can be sure that I will be extremely wary of offering PTBS games until I have made sure that it will fulfill all of my (and my players') needs.


heihojin

 

[Gyathaar]

Pitboss does allow sequential turns..
When in this mode people whoose turn is not yet up, can still log in and set up goto orders, queue up worker actions and so on, but the moves dont happen till it is their turn.

 

[heihojin]

Pitboss does allow sequential turns..
When in this mode people whoose turn is not yet up, can still log in and set up goto orders, queue up worker actions and so on, but the moves dont happen till it is their turn.

I know that it allows sequential turns. The flexibility with which I am concerned relates to administrative functions: the ability to pause games, reset or undo turns, kick and replace players, etc..


heihojin

 

[Gyathaar]

Set pitboss to autosave every turn..

If you want to pause game, then save the game manually.. and shut down pitboss for hoever long you want.. when you want to continue, load up the save in pitboss again.

To reset or undo turns, load up a previous autosave (or manual save)

if you have take over AI turned on, you can kick players and they become an AI.. a new player can then take over that AI without needing to enter a password (and can set one when they join)

if you are running multiple games you should have a seperate dir for each game (using the /ALTROOT= command line option).. inside each dir would be an ini file so you can run the pitbosses on different ports, and also the saves/autosaves will be placed inside theses dirs.

There are some bugs in the current available pitboss thou, so you may be better off waiting till next version is available.

 

[heihojin]

Thanks, Gyathaar - I will refer to your instructions when I finally get around to experimenting with PTBS. But I am discouraged by how cumbersome it looks as though running multiple PTBS games is.


heihojin

 

[Gyathaar]

Thanks, Gyathaar - I will refer to your instructions when I finally get around to experimenting with PTBS. But I am discouraged by how cumbersome it looks as though running multiple PTBS games is.

Well.. you can run multiple pitbosses by simply starting several of them..

But then the port they listen to will depend on the order you start them in (the first listen to 2056, 2nd on port 2057 and so on)
Also all the autosaves will end up in the same directory, and may overwrite eachother.

Much cleaner to just make an empty dir for each instance you want to run, then make a pitboss shortcut for that instance which you link to the dir you want it in by adding the /ALTROOT=dir in the shortcut

It takes about 10 secs to set up per pitboss instance you want to run once you have done it once.

 

[Mysterio10000]

My big suggestion for PB:

Offer the option of converting the game to turn-based with a different turn timer when all players are logged into the server. For example, my PB game is simul turns with a 12-hour timer. So, when everyone's logged in, it remains simul turns with a 12-hour timer, which isn't what I prefer (although I don't mind simul too much).

Now, if the game switched to turn-based and, for example, a 5-minute timer (configurable by the admin) when everyone's logged in, you'd eliminate the twitch combat (which is what I dislike about simul) while maintaining the ability to manage your empire without feeling rushed.

 

[HitAnyKey]

I actually like the ability for us not to have to be on a tight turn timer when everyone is logged in. Makes for the ability to be logged in and say go afk for 15 minutes or so to grab some dinner or stuff like that.
I know you're thinking of this in regard to the half hour turns that Cor was doing when trying to manipulate every single individual unit in his empire D), but I see pros and cons with systems like that.