RE: [FT] PBeM

Another option is to use a modified turn sequence. Start the sequence
with
firing. Then the other steps with orders written just before the fire
phase.
This is what I do for my PBeM games (it keeps me from guessing the
players
priorities or having them give me complicated contingency lists). If the
ship looses MD due to damage, it performs the movement orders up to the
new
maximum of the MD. 

This will save you a lot of programming and, in the end, make the
players
more happy because they will have greater control over the ships fire.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/	   
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: colin.plummer@theplanet.net [SMTP:colin.plummer@theplanet.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 11:37 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: [FT] PBeM
> 
> I think you've missed the point....  this is for a computer moderated
> play-by-email engine.  The player must submit -all- orders for a turn
in
> an email to the game engine - which processes those orders and
executes
> the game turn.
> 
> 
> > List of active firable weapons in a list, only those weapons
> > that can bear on a target are in the list and that have
> > firecontrol available should they need it.
> 
> This list I can calculate.. the player won't know where the enemy
ships
> are going to be when they write the orders to determine what to fire
> upon - so they ought to have some method that will allow the game
engine
> to make decisions based on their own tactical decisions.
> 
> For example .. 
>   A player has a small, expendable ship that he wants to fly deep into
the
> enemy fleet and expend all weapons at the enemies carrier.  He only
has
> one fire control, so wants all weapons to fire at the carrier if he is
in
> range, otherwise fire the beams etc.. at whatever is closest.
>   The other player has two small ships which he has detailed as close
> escort to the carrier.  They wish to fire on any ship that is in
range,
> but
> with preference to any ship that has fired on the carrier this turn
(in
> the
> hope that the enemy wont get close enough to fire at point-blank
range)
>   Elsewhere in the battle, a battlecruiser is plugging away at another
BC
> that
> has taken heavy damage.  He wants to finish it off - but it is
crippled so
> he sets it as a secondary target, after the 2 heavy cruisers that are
> bearing
> down on him( and may or may not enter range this turn )
> 
>   What do people think of the following firing orders (that will fire
> non-expendable weapons)
> 
> TARGET X, Y, Z
> 
>   Fire at those ships in that order of preference. 
> 
> DEFEND X, Y
> 
>   Fire on any ship that is in range and has fired on X or Y this turn.
> (this order makes no sense if I set the 'simultaneous fire' game
option)
> 
>   Default order for all non-expendable weapons is to fire at the
closest
> target
> in arc.
> 
>   If the ship has more valid targets than it has firecontrols it will
use
> the order of preference, then target size, then random selection to
assign
> the
> FCS.
> 
>   As a further thought, you could assign a weighting to the enemy
ships
> which
> will be applied to determine their 'value' for targetting purposes.
> 
> 
>   At the moment the turns orders are going to look something like
(with
> multiple
> ship entries) : 
> 
> ORDERS player_identifier password
> 
> SHIP ship_id
> MOVE S1+3   // turn starboard 1, accelerate by 3.
> <whatever the targetting orders end up being>
> REPAIR system, no_of_DCP, system, no_of_DCP etc...
> SEND ship_id message
> 
> 
> Comments? Suggestions?  (I'm casting out the suggestion line again
here ;)
> )
> 
> --
> Colin