playBunny: Well, I imagine a programmer could implement autoplay in such away that if players A and B are playing, both have one man out, and A likes to mindlessly push buttons while B is a real player, one each turn, A pushes a button, B move is played automatically, and it's A's turn again. Repeat until B has two men out.

Of course, in the case of Ludo, it may be that the computer plays an entire tournament, never encountering a play where a player actually has a choice.

AbigailII: Well, I imagine a programmer could implement autoplay in such away that if players A and B are playing, both have one man out, and A likes to mindlessly push buttons while B is a real player, one each turn, A pushes a button, B move is played automatically, and it's A's turn again. Repeat until B has two men out.

That would be pointless. There are unlikely to be enough player A's to make it worth the effort enabling play for mindless moves and some of the player B's, being real players, would want to make their own moves and wouldn't care for automation.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your judgementalism?

For those that want to thoughtfully make the moves that are forced, the thinking being in terms of the game not the move, something which you don't seem to appreciate, it is of course the case that autoplay options would be per player. That's exactly how I implemented autoplay in my own version of Ludo.

Of course, in the case of Ludo, it may be that the computer plays an entire tournament, never encountering a play where a player actually has a choice.

It would be rare for a single game to be completely forced but it's certainly possible. An entirely forced tournament, lol, that would be something!

playBunny: I would agree. I would not like Auto Move in Ludo. I could see it if I found playing games to be "work", but like you, I enjoy the process.

Also, I find it to be pretty rare that I only have one man on the field for much of the game. Of course it happens, but I find that through much (most?) of the game I have multiple men on the board.

I also would not like auto pass in Ludo, because of the same reason you gave, the board would potentially look MUCH different from the last time I saw it. I don't mind auto pass in backgammon, because I think it is pretty rare that as many moves would be passed, as could happen in Ludo.

Hmm.. this isn't the Ludo discussion board is it?

rod03801: The solution is simple... add a button to the move page "Pass and autopass until I can move"

That way the player has a choice in the game. This could be used in cube backgammon games when a double is possible... i should be able to essentially say "I'm not doubling so please start autopass now"

grenv: The solution is actually simpler than that. In a way, a game that encounters an auto-pass move would live in two states. The two states would be the last states viewed by each player. One of these would be the current state of the game. The other would be an old state that the other player simply hasn't viewed yet. Also, add a 'skip ahead to the current state of the game' for players who don't want to scroll thru every auto-passed move. That solves the problem of players who like to view all their moves vs. players who do not. It would be better, in fact, because I could look at one or two forced moves, then skip to the end. ;-)

Thad: Workable solution, but I'd hardly call it simpler. Hands up who had to read that twice to fully understand it ;)

Thad: No such button is needed. Currently you have the option to have the move list displayed next to the game. Every move is clickable. It's already possible to view a game move by move (ply by ply even).