Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Do not send end of turn

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> Do not send end of turn Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Do not send end of turn - 3/4/2009 4:56:11 PM   
Shazman

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline 		Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?

Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.
Post #: 1
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/10/2009 3:30:34 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline 		Not until the next version.

_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 2
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/10/2009 3:40:11 AM   
L`zard


Posts: 362
Joined: 6/3/2005
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman
Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?
Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.


Read Ralph's blog, eh?

Meanwhile, is there any REAL reason to expect your opponents to cheat? Not like we're in this for the MONEY, or that there's that many of us, eh?

To paraphrase 'Lennon':

"All we are saying, is give TRUST a chance..."






_____________________________

"I have the brain of a genius, and the heart of a little child! I keep them in a jar under my bed."


(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 3
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/10/2009 4:00:06 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman
Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?
Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.


Read Ralph's blog, eh?

Meanwhile, is there any REAL reason to expect your opponents to cheat? Not like we're in this for the MONEY, or that there's that many of us, eh?

To paraphrase 'Lennon':

"All we are saying, is give TRUST a chance..."






I prefer the "Trust but verify" approach.


_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to L`zard)
Post #: 4
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/11/2009 6:30:21 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick


quote:

ORIGINAL: L`zard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman
Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?
Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.


Read Ralph's blog, eh?

Meanwhile, is there any REAL reason to expect your opponents to cheat? Not like we're in this for the MONEY, or that there's that many of us, eh?

To paraphrase 'Lennon':

"All we are saying, is give TRUST a chance..."






I prefer the "Trust but verify" approach.



My own philosophy has always been that (a) you can't prevent cheating, and (b) if you make cheating difficult, you're just obscuring the moral issue for the cheater.

He was just cheating. Now he's being clever.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 5
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/12/2009 4:28:06 AM   
ralphtricky


Posts: 6685
Joined: 7/27/2003
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
My own philosophy has always been that (a) you can't prevent cheating, and (b) if you make cheating difficult, you're just obscuring the moral issue for the cheater.

He was just cheating. Now he's being clever.

I like to think of it as enough to keep honest people honest. The same reason that undo never works after it's revealed enemy territory, even though you really, really didn't mean to send your HQ there where he's going to be absolute toast.

If it was simple to reload a turn file to get a favorable set of events, some people might be tempted to do it and figure some way to justify it, like it was due or they'd had several bad rolls recently.

You obviously can't stop the dedicated cheater, and I don't plan to try.

Games like GalCiv use something aggressive like a secure mode connecting to a central server, but unless sales are phenomal, the effort to do that isn't worth it.



_____________________________

Ralph Trickey
TOAW IV Programmer
Blog: http://operationalwarfare.com
---
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of any other person or entity. Nothing that I say should be construed in any way as a promise of anything.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 6
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/12/2009 3:03:45 PM   
Shazman

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline 		The real problem arises when someone sends you turns with a reloaded once or twice message. That alone will plant a seed of doubt in my mind and make me wonder why I'm wasting my time playing a scenario. I want to be able to keep the riff raff out and not wonder if the turn was reloaded or if the DO NOT SEND file was played. Right now I'll go the 'must have ran the previous turn' option. I would like to be able to know that was indeed what happened.

My time is an unrenewable resource and I'm running out of resources.

(in reply to ralphtricky)
Post #: 7
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/12/2009 5:34:49 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shazman

The real problem arises when someone sends you turns with a reloaded once or twice message. That alone will plant a seed of doubt in my mind and make me wonder why I'm wasting my time playing a scenario. I want to be able to keep the riff raff out and not wonder if the turn was reloaded or if the DO NOT SEND file was played. Right now I'll go the 'must have ran the previous turn' option. I would like to be able to know that was indeed what happened.

My time is an unrenewable resource and I'm running out of resources.


My understanding is that the 'reload' message will be generated if you save the turn and go back to it.

The thing is, both I and apparently my customary opponent play somewhat as follows.


1. Load the turn and see what that arch-fiend has gotten up to.

2. THINK about what to to do BEFORE moving anything.

3. Make the moves that clearly should be made. Look at things again.

4. Continue until quandary arises. At this point, often save and go do something else for a while.

5. Come back to it and reload turn. Take a fresh look. Continue play. Repeat steps 2-5 as needed.


I imagine all this generates reload messages. I don't see that I'm doing anything wrong. I CERTAINLY am not going to continue play when I'm tired or when I'm not sure about what to do. Still less am I going to blow off work or that appointment on the grounds that I just have got to finish my turn first.



_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 8
RE: Do not send end of turn - 4/13/2009 12:34:51 PM   
Shazman

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline 		*sigh*

This has nothing to do with saving turns. That triggers nothing but a brain refresh.

Sometimes it can be beneficial to see what things looked like the turn before. The replay doesn't quite do it. So some folks like to look at the 'do not send' file which, i believe, was intended for just that purpose. However, it was found out loading that file from the previous turn would trigger an improper reload message.

I was merely trying to find out if the opening of the 'do not send' file was still triggering a reload or if the problem had been fixed, that's all.

The question was answered with a 'no it has not been fixed until next go round'.

< Message edited by Shazman -- 4/13/2009 12:36:26 PM >

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 9
Airborne units - 6/23/2009 6:48:56 PM   
mike1984

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 4/6/2009
Status: offline 		Why did the game engineers decide to do this:

When an airborne/landing unit is destroyed, you cannot use the reconstituted unit for airborne operations ever again.

It's the only reconstitution that directly affects how that unit is used. And quite frankly, I'm not sure what that reason is for. If one regiment of the 82nd Airborne is destroyed, but the rest of the division is ok, only a portion of that division can be used in later airborne operations. Units during the war frequently were whittled down to nothing, then filled back up with replacements, and used in air-drops again.

(in reply to Shazman)
Post #: 10
RE: Airborne units - 6/27/2009 11:29:07 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Hey Mike1984:  I'd like to know the answer to that as well.  In my game with Curt Chambers when playing Campaign for South Vietnam, when I was playing as the Allies, if I ever had one of my Vietnamese Airborne destroyed that regiment couldn't air drop anymore for the rest of the game when it reconstituted.  It was a big pain in the ass.

On a side note:  one time Curt sent me his END-OF-TURN-DO-NOT-SEND file.  I didn't open it to look at it or try to "play" it or anything.  I just sent him an email signalling the need for the "real" file.  Maybe the password entry routine could be applied to this end of turn file opening to avoid my being able to open it?  Just a thought.

(in reply to mike1984)
Post #: 11
RE: Airborne units - 6/28/2009 12:02:39 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline 		My guess would be that Norm never intended the “operational” time scale to encompass the time scales that we, the designers, have used to build scenarios into such grand scales. Instead of years I would surmise that Norm thought in terms of months for his operational scenarios. I would think that it takes quite a bit of training and time to rebuild an effective airborne unit and therefore Norm did not want those units to be reformed within the time that an operational scenario would be played. But then, that is just my guess.

Also, rather than a blanket approach that certain types of units can, or can not be reform, I would like to empower the designers to designate which units can be reformed and the length of time required (training, rearming, etc). This would then give the player an option of which units to reform based on the available replacements, equipment, immediate and long term need.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to mike1984)
Post #: 12
RE: Airborne units - 7/12/2009 5:12:22 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

My guess would be that Norm never intended the “operational” time scale to encompass the time scales that we, the designers, have used to build scenarios into such grand scales. Instead of years I would surmise that Norm thought in terms of months for his operational scenarios. I would think that it takes quite a bit of training and time to rebuild an effective airborne unit and therefore Norm did not want those units to be reformed within the time that an operational scenario would be played. But then, that is just my guess.

Also, rather than a blanket approach that certain types of units can, or can not be reform, I would like to empower the designers to designate which units can be reformed and the length of time required (training, rearming, etc). This would then give the player an option of which units to reform based on the available replacements, equipment, immediate and long term need.

Regards, RhinoBones



Yeah. The game would probably be improved if the special case for airborne units was just eliminated. If the designer doesn't want them coming back and dropping again, then he can simply set them to 'don't reconstitute.' It seems to me that is going to meet the case more often than the current mechanism. After all, if an airborne unit is pounded after a drop, it's usually withdrawn entirely for a while -- not just sent off to fight as line infantry. It's not like 1st Airborne was in the line three weeks after Arnhem but without parachute ability. Similarly, 7 Flieger didn't reenter combat for about six months after Crete. In fact, I can't think of any airborne unit that would serve as an illustration of the existing TOAW mechanism. The German airborne forces did morph into mostly conventional infantry -- but it was a process of expansion rather than replacement, and it extended over years. I'd guess that there never was a parachute unit that in the time-scale of a typical TOAW scenario went from being an actual airborne-capable unit to one that could participate in ground combat but that couldn't drop.

Moreover, note that to some extent, as the designer you already do have the mechanism you advocate. For each unit, you can specify whether it can reconstitute, and by setting its replacement priority, you have some control over how fast it reconstitutes. Then too, simply adjusting the airlift capacity will keep airborne units on the ground if you don't want them flying.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/12/2009 5:23:35 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to rhinobones)
Post #: 13
RE: Airborne units - 7/14/2009 12:44:58 AM   
rhinobones

 

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Moreover, note that to some extent, as the designer you already do have . . .


Yes, the designer does have a certain amount of control. But, what I’m really looking for is a design feature that allows the player to select where, and how many, replacements are assigned to the various available units. This capability would be programmed by the designer.

Maybe there needs to be a new category of replacements called “recruits”. Except for Civilians and Porters, the existing replacement categories would be considered hardware, (manufacturing production) and this new category would be the troops that actually man the equipment. The player could then decide what equipment received manning priority.

Regards, RhinoBones

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> Do not send end of turn Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.797