Power Turn Submission Problems

I thought I would start a new thread for the POWER game, just to discuss ways to speed up the turn submissions. Not to taunt my opponents or rant on the NT split situation. Everyone who sends emails to my group’s yahoo page has expressed the same frustration that our opponents have expressed on the message board.

First I will be somewhat candid in stating that one of the FP players speaks seldom if at all, but does seem to coordinate with his nearest neighbor. Of the remaining players, 3 or 4 of us seem to be far more “vocal” than the other 5. It is too early to say how the former neutrals will be with communication, but past posts on the message board seem to indicate they both place their orders quickly.

Here are the problems I see with submitting turns in the current POWER format:

  1. Turn 0 pdf’s indicated the game would start in 2 weeks.
    In reality the game started in 1 week. This is probably the easiest problem to solve.

  2. Neutral declarations actually held up turns.
    Given the current NT flips, I think it now safe to discuss how the timing of their decisions may have affected everyone else.
    While my allegiance objectively benefited from the NTs(DU/RH) declaring they would flip before the turn was run, this courtesy actually held up the game. The NTs declaration the flip to our opponents, stated 2 or 3 days before the turn deadline, caused my allegiance to take an extra 1 or 2 days to “re-adjust” our plans. The HA/CO were equally open/courteous about their decision to flip, and I wonder if this has not caused my opponent’s to take some extra time to “re-adjust” as well.

  3. Shadow turns.
    My allegiance has run several shadow orders, and generally benefitted from this. However, on at least one turn when the shadow orders were submitted days in advance of the deadline, HQ still ran the turn on the last possible day. I suspect but do not know, that HQ waited for the deadline to pass before they “accepted” the shadow orders. Perhaps this is a standard HQ policy?

  4. Diplomacy with other nations.
    Again, not wanting to raise the details of my particular diplomacy or any of the frustration on the other POWER thread, I would point out that in T3 of the POWER game I held back my orders until the last day, hoping to hear from another player who for whatever reason did not reply to me before the submission deadline.

So perhaps there are other problems out there that might be added to this list? Here are my proposed solutions to the 4 problems above.

Regarding problem #1, I think that the fix is for HQ to announce with the T0 pdfs, exatly when the turn submission is due. I assume that it is too time consuming to modify all 25 T0 pdfs.

Regarding problem #2, maybe future POWER games would better fit the 12 v 12 format.

Regarding problem #3, HQ could simply decline to accept shadow orders in POWER games. That would incentivise players to “find a way” to submit their own orders. However, that would not speed up any turn in which a player is “unable to find away” and then his nation is ss’d. If on the other hand HQ has a policy of waiting to accept shadow orders only after the submission deadline has passed, maybe HQ could alter the policy for the POWER format. If a shadow turn(s) are received, they will be accepted by HQ when the last set of orders from all currently-active nations has been received. The last set of orders received, even if it is a shadow set, would be subject to the fee I describe below.

Regarding problem #4, perhaps there should be an additional “fee” assigned each turn to whomever is the last player to submit orders. Here is an example:

The fee could kick in only if the 25th order was received after 24 hours HQ sending out the turn report, and the fee could become progressively larger as the week goes by. I opine that the fee would not have to be so large to be truely punitive nor financially lucrative to HQ, just large enough to give value to the principal of submitting turns quickly. In my wallet a fee that added $1 US/day after the first day would be my incentive to move quickly, and perhaps move even if I wanted to wait “one more day” to wait for incoming diplomacy. If I feel it is worth the cash to wait longer in order to communicate with other players, then I risk paying the fee.

If for example I wait in 3 consecutive turns for the same player who is uncommunicative, but who also gets his orders in before me (I would know this because in the preceding turns the fee would have been assigned to me instead of him), my wallet will tell me it is no longer feasible for me to wait for the other player to respond to my communication.

Likewise, if for several subsequent turns I am again the last player to submit orders, but lets say that I did submit my orders between 24 and 48 hours, then I am paying relatively little for my turn and the POWER format is still a faster and cheaper way to play the game.

Food for thought, as it appears this turn’s orders are again going to run somewhat late.

All good thoughts, Pearly. My comments:

I thought they did this in the email containing the turn 0 files. Perhaps its just a matter of putting it front and center so players notice it.

Regarding problem #2, maybe future POWER games would better fit the 12 v 12 format.

I would definitely prefers the 12 v 12 format, but others may not agree.

Regarding problem #3, HQ could simply decline to accept shadow orders in POWER games.

I’m not sure if this would help a whole lot.

Regarding problem #4, perhaps there should be an additional “fee” assigned each turn to whomever is the last player to submit orders.

I like this line of thinking. Perhaps also have a report identifying the nations who submitted their orders on the day before the turn was run (e.g. email for a turn run on Wed would identify the nations who submitted orders on Tues). This would allow us to use a little peer pressure to motivate the slowpokes.

Some other considerations:

  1. Sometimes people may be on vacation. (Thanksgiving just happened in the U.S. and Christmas is about to happen). I suspect we’ll see one-week turnaround over these kind of holidays as people may be travelling.
  2. Turns 1 & 2 had no economic incentive associated with making them happen fast. Thus, there is likely never going to be fast turn-around on those turns.
  3. There is big economic incentive for turns 3+. Thus, I don’t think we need to adopt Pearly’s suggestion of a penalty on the last player as there already is a penalty and it isn’t modifying behavior.
  4. There may be turns where critical things are happening and it takes a bit to sort things out.
  5. RL happens… enough said…

I agree personally that I hope turns go faster from now on. If I’m not travelling, I’ll do my best to make Harad’s turns quick (and i’ll save $$$)…
But getting a turn on Friday after U.S. Thanksgiving was a surprise for me. I was travelling and couldn’t get time to submit orders until monday PM.

cheers,
Dave

“3) Shadow turns.
My allegiance has run several shadow orders, and generally benefitted from this. However, on at least one turn when the shadow orders were submitted days in advance of the deadline, HQ still ran the turn on the last possible day. I suspect but do not know, that HQ waited for the deadline to pass before they “accepted” the shadow orders. Perhaps this is a standard HQ policy?”

Nope - we run the turns when they are ALL in. So if they’re not then we don’t run the game. I think you’ve only got half the picture here. :slight_smile:

Clint

I was probably the last person to submit orders this turn (did so last night)
I am not ashamed of that and will do late orders again if that will help me assure that my nation is played properly.

I think this game is progressing at a nice pace and getting turnaround down to 3-4 days is in my opinion not something that can be done.
I think having 25 players agree on a very short turnaround is bound to fail.

Grudge games or special games could probably be coordinated where it was allowed to play several nations.
A grudge game where each team consisted of 4 players playing 3 nations each could be affordable if turnaround was 1-2 days.

regards
Jesper

I guess you all signed up for this game on the understanding that it would be quick, frenetic and exciting as a result and if I had the time at present the format would be very appealing.

I would assume if you all made that assumption then implicit in that is two things (a) the pace is relentless and your own personal difficulties in submitting a turn should not impact on everyone else playing, that is if you don’t get your turn in you ss. and (b) that the fun of the game is going to be because it is impossible to talk to everyone, co-ordinate & communicate fully and therefore waiting for responses and neutrals to make decisions is also not a reason to delay the turn. Ss’ing and miscommunication would all be natural parts of the game and should be seen as adding to the game rather then detracting from it.

To ensure the momentum is unstoppable and not slowed to the pace of the most plodding player you may consider in future fixing the rule to run turns Monday, Wednesday and Friday, if turns are not in by 9.00 GMT then they ss.

This obviously keeps the pace going but has the disadvantage that family, work, holidays and sickness may decide the outcome of the game. You may get around this by allowing shadow turns. How do you decide which shadow turn is accepted? Either appoint a team captain, although this would put a lot of strain on them, or you could allow each player to appoint a buddy up with another.

We all took this game on the premis 'the faster the better" but with the time differences with allies (You bloody Europeans and Yanks are always a bloody half a day behind!) this tends to drag it out a little bit. I still think we can get this down to about 5 days for a turnaround. Remember it is saving us money!!!

Regards Herman (Antipodean Ice King)

You just want a 3turns pr week game. That ok with me, but I find it unlikely that you will find 25 players that agree with you.

It was hard enough to get 25 players to sign up for this game as it was. If you look back at the mails before this game started, you will find me urging players to join up, to get us started.

Personally I would not want to play a game that had such a high pace as I would find myself ss too often resulting in a poor experience for me.

My dream would be a single player mepbm game where an AI made decisions for all other players. This would provide you with the good old days where you did not know what your allies would do and insure that you could submit turns when you wanted.
But I guess that creating such an AI would be next to impossible.

3 turns per week will never happen, but 3 turns per 2 weeks, that would be cool! :smiley:

Regards Herman

Yeah,

I think 3 turns per 2 weeks is what we are going to end up with at best. Ideally I had hoped for 2 turns per week.

Also when I signed up I anticipated making decisions without necessarily coordinating, but still being able to see the relevant pdf’s before I submitted turns. Kind of niave in hindsight, because I am playing a nation in a manner that requires support from my teammates. Although I do not begrudge any of my teammates their silence or their subjective slow pace when posting their pdfs.

I am still happy with the pace of the game, but I would be willing to create additional incentives to get the orders in more quickly. If an additional fee isn’t an acceptable choice, I do like the idea of seeing which nations sent in orders first and which sent in orders last, in any given turn.

So I assume tht the turn did not run, or else I must owe HQ more money…
:confused:

Do all the Free have their turns in? If so, I’ll check to see if there are any DS stragglers…

It doesn’t matter at this point. The game runs tomorrow regardless of what people do…

sigh why oh why can’t we get this game running faster???

I know, let’s blame it on the Easterlings. <just kidding>

Dave

Waiting on one player. (T5)

One way forward for future versions might be to have a diplo day. So you wouldn’t be allowed to contact each other except for one day when you can send diplos to your team. Penalises DS but…

Clint

One of the DS players was transferred to Iraq they day we got T0. He ran the first turn and we have had sporatic (if any) contact with him. We have been preparing shadow orders for him each turn in case they were needed. On one case we had to wait until the day the orders were due. This was NOT the case this turn. His orders were submitted last night so the game could have been run today. I guess it is hard to get 25 players on the same sheet of music.

Scavenger

Give it some time, its a new format. DW was MIA, then we had the WK issues, then you have neutral issues. Let’s see how things iron out from here forth.

That’s a different idea entirely. It would be interesting, but I’d personally have a lot of problems as my travel is unpredictable, and a “required” rapid turn-around would be tough. Though in game 2, i’ve managed 1 or 2-day turnaround each turn so far…

I agree that a one day limit on diplos would disadvantage the DS – For all the reasons we’ve discussed on the GB threads.

Note you could have a TC on each side gather the turns (get everyone to send to that player) and then you’d be aware of who’s missing on your side and can taunt them appropriately.

Clint

I am certainly willing to experiment to solve this probelm (slow turn arounds). I feel very strongly that the POWER format is a good variant for me, and MEPBM can count on me signing up for it again.

If Clint’s idea of a 24-hour diplo window is too small for DS, then lengthen it to 48 hours. I would add that the neutrals are not well served by 24 hours either. If the turns are currently running slow because players are waiting on communication, then this will definitely help.

One problem that will remain: some delay comes in waiting for the uncommunicative teammate to post his pdf on the group site.

I guess Im missing something here, I know it is set up for example at 3.00 + 50 cents a turn for example…is this additional per diem based on the individual getting their turn in or their team or the entire game members?

I dont think people who are quick with the turn around should be penalized for stragglers or people dragging their feet…so some clarification would be nice