Questions on running a PBEM game...

General Discussion
Post Reply
nessin
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:35 am

Questions on running a PBEM game...

Post by nessin »

Just looking for some tips as to how to manage a PBEM game from the CM perspective. Mainly I'm concerned with how to handle map status and combat.

For combat, as far as I can tell there isn't really much need for CM interaction (using the CSCR) so I'm assuming players can handle that between themselves and simply report the results to me. Is that a true statement, or should a CM be involved with combat resolution?

As for map status, I figure my first basic game will be simply without fog of war and I'll track the map status after each turn and let the players see everything in one file, but I'm wondering if there is an easy way to handle campaigns with fog of war? If we trust our players, is it an option to let them track their own progress with the CM simply filling in new system/jump lane information and when an encounter happens.

I guess it really comes down to how much can a CM depend on the players? I'm worried about being bogged down with too much work if I run a game (with Fog of War/Exploration) in having to keep track of everything for each individual player. Especially since I can't think of any way (at least that I can execute given my skills) of easily passing along map states to players electronically. In a pen & paper environment I could write out and update maps easily enough (as I've done in my own solo attempts to learn the rules) but electronically I'm stuck with spreadsheets and some sort of crude circle/line drawing in a basic graphic program.
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

For combat, as far as I can tell there isn't really much need for CM interaction (using the CSCR) so I'm assuming players can handle that between themselves and simply report the results to me. Is that a true statement, or should a CM be involved with combat resolution?
If your players are happy (and capable) to resolve battles between themselves, then by all means do it, and get them to report the results to you, but you will need to be certain that they can manage it in a timely fashion,

When I have run I have simply set the battles up myself (with some input on tactics) and reported the results back (but then, none of my regular players have sat down and read the rules cover-to-cover),

As to general pointers,
  • Make sure you have a solid deadline (each week, or however frequently you plan upon processing turns) - this is more important if you have more players. You must maintain the games momentum
  • As a corollary to that, try and get the results of their turns back to players as soon as possible so that they have time to plot, negotiate and backstab each other before sitting down to write their orders (encourage role-play and lots of communication),
  • Each turn send out a thorough pro-forma summary of the game situation, along with a pre-formatted pro-forma orders sheet - this will make it easier for you to quickly process turns (making it a pro-forma means that all of the information will be quick and easy to find - important when you are referring to half a dozen sheets),
  • That said, encourage players to ask you questions about the rules if they are having problems or include plans and sketches with their orders if it helps,
If you want a copy of the Pro-forma I have used in the past PM me an email address, and I will forward you a copy (it's in Excel format, but I can do an OpenOffice export if it helps) - it doubles as SitRep and Turnsheet, and Auto-Calculates some of the data. I've usually attached this to an email with a pro-forma summary of the turns events before emailing it out,

In my opinion the most arduous aspect of the pbem game is raiding, it's really tedious working out the chances of raids for every system - and even more of a pain if raids actually occur...

Keep a copy of the sequence of play handy, and always do each part of the turn in the same order (by faction, i.e.: Klingons, then Federation, etc, ideally write out a reminder on the sequence of play), this way you won't miss anyone out accidentally, and have to redo anything...
Gareth Lazelle
HairyHeretic
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by HairyHeretic »

As regards the fog of war, I'm doing that in my own game. I have one master map, which shows the systems and connections between them. When someone enters a system for the first time I'll randomly roll up what is in it.

Each player only gets a map showing the systems they know. Since there is a roll required to find each connection to a new system, they have to actually try and find them. What this means is that they will probably miss a few connections here and there.


I'm also trying to automate the combat to a degree. What I mean is, lay out a set of general conditions that I, as CM, will interpret in place of the fleet commander on the scene.

If we outnumber the enemy, attack aggressively
If we outnumber them by 2:1, go for maximum engagement length
Targeting order by squadron is carriers / capital ships / escorts

And so on.

Still working on that bit at present though.
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

For your first few campaigns, I would recommend ignoring fog of war and just running everything "open handed" as far as the map is concerned. I have run one PBEM with secret maps for each player, and I have to say that it was a lot of extra work to try to update 8-10 different maps every turn. The fog of war effect is nice to have, but it can mean a lot of extra work for the CM.

Gareth's recommendations are all good. The one that I have to second wholeheartedly is making sure that you give players a turn orders form that has all of the information setup in a standardized format that is easy for you to read, interpret, and update from turn to turn. In my first campaigns, I let players just send in turns willy-nilly, and this led to issues where I had to waste time trying to figure out what the player was really trying to do because their orders were all jumbled together. Having a consistent turn order form makes everything much simpler for you as a CM.

My best solution was to have an electronic turn order form (I did mine in Word, but I know others have put them together in Excel) that I could update, send to the player, and then they would fill it out and return it to me so that I could then use that same form to generate the next turn. I made sure to keep a copy of each turn order form on file so I could double check in case there were any discrepancies later on.

Speaking of that, you will save a huge amount of time during turn generation if you allow the players to rearrange their task forces/squadrons themselves rather than having to issue orders to reform squadrons. You might ask that they provide a summary of what moved where, but it is just easier for them to move the units around themselves so you don't have to try and decipher their orders and figure out where exactly they wanted to place all of the units.

As an aside, this is one of those things that we are addressing with Second Edition. First, we hope to provide a more useful turn order form with the game that will have things recorded based on the sequence of play. Also, with the decision to do away with pre-existing Task Force/Squadron assignments, it means there will be less paperwork tracking those entities in between battles (the Task Force and Squadron will only strictly exist during actual combat scenarios).

-Tyrel
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

Tyrel Lohr wrote:<snip>... I have to say that it was a lot of extra work to try to update 8-10 different maps every turn. The fog of war effect is nice to have, but it can mean a lot of extra work for the CM.
Hah,

I just let my players make their own maps,

That was fun ;)

Maybe you'd better check with them every three or four turns to make sure that they aren't completely screwing it up!

Running an open game might help first time around, although it probably works best if you run it face-to-face if so (it's a lot of data to put into a document for the players, and it's a lot of data for the players to assimilate each turn in a meaningful way)

Even with fog of war you can play with a pre-constructed and known galaxy though - which might be an easier middle-ground, as all that you are hiding is troop movements,
Speaking of that, you will save a huge amount of time during turn generation if you allow the players to rearrange their task forces/squadrons themselves rather than having to issue orders to reform squadrons. <snip>
I'll second that,

In my last game one of my players decided that he didn't believe in task forces, he just had dozens of squadrons in each system,

It was a logistical nightmare - I couldn't figure anything out, and every time I needed to check where something was it took ages to find,

Encourage as few fleets as possible (on the basis that they are easy to split up or merge if need be), and let players rearrange them as they will,

Hmm,

Maybe VBAM2 should include a penalty for multiple fleets forming a task force (confusing chain of command!),
Gareth Lazelle
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

Gareth_Perkins wrote:Even with fog of war you can play with a pre-constructed and known galaxy though - which might be an easier middle-ground, as all that you are hiding is troop movements,
In the last PBEM I ran, the map itself was public, but the stats, fleet locations, etc. were all hidden. So the only thing the players knew was when a new system was explored, a new colony established, or ownership of an existing system changed hands. That seemed to work pretty well, and it left me with just one map to worry about.
Maybe VBAM2 should include a penalty for multiple fleets forming a task force (confusing chain of command!),
In an effort to make things easier, the "task force" is only formed when battle occurs, and any units in the system can be pulled into the battle. We might end up re-instating the task force to some degree outside of combat if it becomes clear that it is easier to track, but I am thinking that it should be easier to track Fleets instead of Task Forces.

-Tyrel
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
User avatar
mwaschak
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:43 am
Location: The data mines of VBAM
Contact:

Post by mwaschak »

The last major campaign I ran had a lot of players, but each was divided in to two teams. I think we had six or seven per side, and each of those teams had a team leader (Grand Admiral, Crown Prince, and so on). I had complete fog of war, and a huge map.

But I like all those little details :) . Plus it was a carrier war, so fog of war is important. It really helped that the team leaders would help police and enforce rules, and that squadrons were pre-organized for me.

-Jay
Post Reply