RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

Oberst_Klink -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (8/28/2013 9:34:09 PM)

Kapitan Kloss,

It's Telumar's Grey GUI WW2 mod; I really like it, gives it a new style and revived my spirits to design more scenarios :)

Klink, Oberst



sealclubber -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (8/30/2013 3:51:49 AM)

Sadly I'm not around this weekend, but whenever you're done and need testing, let me know I'll lend a hand if I can.



kmitahj -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/2/2013 11:55:40 PM)

Hi seaclubber,
appreciate the offer and sorry for beeing late with the answer. During the weekend I got the working version of exe using modified ScenarioLevel numbers. As planned original opart 3.4 is apparently not able to open game save/scenario files creted by that modified version although that would be yet subject of testing for possible loopholes.
Despite that it seem to be working as intended I'm afraid it may be not the solution for PBEM safety I was aiming for. The reason is - no matter how funny or confusing it may sound - the solution in current form is too simple. Too simple means it can be rather easily circumvented and as such won't provide real PBEM security. Let me know if you interested and want to see it for yourself - if so can send you via email modified exe file toghether with some more details about what I mean by "beeing too simple" to be real security measure.




Oberst_Klink -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/3/2013 7:29:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kmitahj

Hi seaclubber,
appreciate the offer and sorry for beeing late with the answer. During the weekend I got the working version of exe using modified ScenarioLevel numbers. As planned original opart 3.4 is apparently not able to open game save/scenario files creted by that modified version although that would be yet subject of testing for possible loopholes.
Despite that it seem to be working as intended I'm afraid it may be not the solution for PBEM safety I was aiming for. The reason is - no matter how funny or confusing it may sound - the solution in current form is too simple. Too simple means it can be rather easily circumvented and as such won't provide real PBEM security. Let me know if you interested and want to see it for yourself - if so can send you via email modified exe file toghether with some more details about what I mean by "beeing too simple" to be real security measure.



Kapitan Kloss!

Could you drop all your latest developments in Fabio's and my D/B? Can't wait to see you fix the Ignore Losses issue or tweaking the game to make it even more enjoyable and realistic!

Yours,

Klink, Oberst



kmitahj -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/3/2013 10:17:51 PM)

Hello Herr Oberst,
sure I will put the file at the dropbox folder. However the file by itself does not deliver any new game feature or fix. Whole idea of that file was to test a way to provide PBEM security before releasing planned RFC patch (aka Fortified@IgnoreLosses patch as these are conditions where the problem seems to manifest itself most). Though many players are pbem-ing mostly seeking for higher fun factor of games against another human and/or they enjoy the benefit of having well-known and well-trusted opponents there are also many players which approach PBEM games in more competitive way, some may even be involved in various ladder/league rankings. So overall I think PBEM consistency is important factor for toaw community as a whole and release of RFC patch compromising such consistency may for many not be welcomed event.
I was hoping to preserve PBEM consistency by bumping up ScenarioLevel number in game save files stored by RFC-patched exe file. It is mechanics used currently for example to quickly differentiate between save files stored by versions 3.2 and 3.4. Intended goal of the pached file mentioned above was to test effectiveness of that method. It seems to be working well with its save files declared uncompatible by original version 3.4 (though that would be yet to be tested for possible loopholes) nevertheless it is unlikely to provide real PBEM safety. It is because it is simple change (just another couple of bytes flipped) and beeing simple means beeing easily reversible - re-reverse-engineerable so to say by anybody determined enough. Looks like there is kind of Catch-22 here: any solution simple enough to be acceptable is unlikely to provide real PBEM safety, whereas any solution providing reasonable PBEM safety will be likely too complex to be acceptable from untrusted source. C'est la vie! [:o]



Lobster -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/3/2013 11:57:40 PM)

Being a moron I am not completely clear about what you are saying. Pro: You have a way to heal the Fortified Ignore Losses problem? Con: There might be a PBEM security problem with it?

If that is what you are saying then I think most people would be ok with not so much security if you can fix the ignore loss problem.

Then also you are saying it looks like someone has started working on 3.5 again. I see Ralph has been checking in lately. If 3.5 has risen from the ashes like the phoenix bird then just fixing the fortify/ignore loss problem would be the way to go and not so much worry about PBEM security. No reason to knock your head on a wall if it's temporary for 3.4. But then what is temporary time in Matrix mind might be same as geological time. lol.



governato -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/4/2013 7:11:48 AM)

quote:

* T/D factors can be scaled down linearly for units in low supply condition. For example once unit supply drops below given threshold (e.g. 33%) its effective T/D factor used in RFC check (if any) is going to go down; so unit with only 16% of supply will enjoy effective T/D factor value of only half of the nominal one.


I am finally catching up with this thread! The above is my favorite solution. A unit can be as fortified as it can be, but with no food or ammos it should find it very difficult to hold ground.

I'd not use morale as a modifier because morale tends to 'drift up' in long scenarios.



Ruppich -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/4/2013 2:34:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kmitahj
any solution simple enough to be acceptable is unlikely to provide real PBEM safety

if i dont trust my pbem opponent then i dont play him...



governato -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/4/2013 4:34:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruppich

quote:

ORIGINAL: kmitahj
any solution simple enough to be acceptable is unlikely to provide real PBEM safety

if i dont trust my pbem opponent then i dont play him...



A simple solution should be enough for 99% of the cases, which is good enough for me. If a hacker is that good they should go somewhere else to fry bigger fish. It's a game afterall!



Oberst_Klink -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/4/2013 8:10:49 PM)

Tak! Go ahead with the simple I-L fix, Kapitan Kloss!

Klink, Oberst



kmitahj -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/4/2013 9:50:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Pro: You have a way to heal the Fortified Ignore Losses problem? Con: There might be a PBEM security problem with it?

True. Maybe except I would not claim it beeing healing but rather adjusting/moderating RFC (Retreat From Combat) check in a way which gives more acceptable combat results and hopefully avoids or at least mitigates the feeling that something is wrong with Fortified@IgnoreLosses units. The simple way to do it is by adjusting down Terrain/Deployment factors used within RFC procedure to values somewhere between these used in versions 3.2 and 3.4



quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
If that is what you are saying then I think most people would be ok with not so much security if you can fix the ignore loss problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruppich
if i dont trust my pbem opponent then i dont play him...

Well hopefully many/most players would think the same. Still some may see it differently. And releasing a patch changing combat logic without providing adequate PBEM safety will affect all players. Don't feel like I have the right at my whim to take decision which may result in disruption of other people games. On the other hand it may be that incoming version 3.5 will soon make it moot point anyway. So maybe it is indeed just hair-splitting on my part - I dunno.



quote:

ORIGINAL: governato
A unit can be as fortified as it can be, but with no food or ammos it should find it very difficult to hold ground.

Hi Fabio, glad to hear from you too. I like the idea of making T/D factors more variable, more dependable on unit's internal state. And agree that without sufficient supply even best terrain/deployment should not help much. Another idea with modulating T/D factor by unit quality also has some appeal to me. However at the end what matters is - as Seaclubber pointed out above - players feelings about combat results beeing right or wrong (on average). Making changes according to such ideas - without first testing them through - can easily detune combat results to the level they will look worser/stranger despite sound basic concept behind them. Anyway when I will have some time later I will try to implement both versions - just out of curiosity to see how they would really work. For now I just finished simple version of the patch with Deployment factors moved down a notch and terrain factors taking much bigger cut. For this particular version numbers I choosed to test are:
Fortified depl. - 65 (84, 50 - for comparision numbers used in 3.4-original and 3.2 )
Entrenched depl. - 50 (65, 33)
"Fortified Line"-terrain - 33 (84, -)
Defensive depl. - 20 (26, 20)
dense urban, badlands terrain - 20 (65, -)
mountains terrain - 20 (50, -)

No idea yet if these numbers are too low or maybe too high still so I'm just about to test it on the southern part of DNO frontline ([:D]) where large part of soviet line is using fortified terrain/deployment. Assuming it will work reasonably I will next put the file into Dropbox folder so if you will later have time to take a look and test it a bit I would be glad to get your comments.

EDIT: Hi, Herr Oberst! The file should be in the dropbox ready for testing tomorrow so if you will have some time to spend... [:)]




Curtis Lemay -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/5/2013 7:56:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

quote:

* T/D factors can be scaled down linearly for units in low supply condition. For example once unit supply drops below given threshold (e.g. 33%) its effective T/D factor used in RFC check (if any) is going to go down; so unit with only 16% of supply will enjoy effective T/D factor value of only half of the nominal one.


I am finally catching up with this thread! The above is my favorite solution. A unit can be as fortified as it can be, but with no food or ammos it should find it very difficult to hold ground.

I'd not use morale as a modifier because morale tends to 'drift up' in long scenarios.


You may be confusing morale with proficiency. Morale is a combination of proficiency, supply, & readiness.



governato -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/5/2013 8:32:35 PM)

Sorry Curtis, Yes I meant: do not use the PROFICIENCY.

I confused TOAW with GWITE, my bad.

Also, what approach would you recommend?




Curtis Lemay -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/5/2013 9:50:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

Sorry Curtis, Yes I meant: do not use the PROFICIENCY.

I confused TOAW with GWITE, my bad.

Also, what approach would you recommend?


What ever the numbers tried, I think the terrain values should be on par with comparable deployment values.

So, if Fortified deployment is to be 65, then Fortified terrain should be 65.
If Entrenched deployment is to be 50, then Dense Urban, Mountains, and Bocage should be 50.
And if Defending deployment is to be 20, then hills, forest, etc. should be 20.

And, I would borrow a quote from the movie "Contact": "Small moves, Ellie, small moves."



samba_liten -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/9/2013 11:05:27 AM)

Sorry to step away from the main topic here, but would it be possible to increase the map size and number of names on the map in this way? I've got a scenario stuck due to these factors.[:(]



Oberst_Klink -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/9/2013 11:47:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper

Sorry to step away from the main topic here, but would it be possible to increase the map size and number of names on the map in this way? I've got a scenario stuck due to these factors.[:(]

Apply for 3.5 beta tester, I am sure Bob will be able to convince the head-honchos; after all you're producing 1st quality scenarios.

Klink, Oberst



samba_liten -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/10/2013 10:12:55 AM)

At least i hope my first scenario will be first quality when it's finished...[:o]



Ruppich -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/18/2013 3:28:08 PM)

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?



Oberst_Klink -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/19/2013 11:31:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruppich

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?

Sometimes even a Tommy Bomber flies low... I've done some tests, too. There are incidents where it happens, just like in real life. Could have been bird-strike, too ;) No, seriously... Which scenario are you playing/testing at the moment?

Klink, Oberst



Ruppich -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/19/2013 1:58:00 PM)

Om only playing third reich at the moment
messing around with a good strat bomber campaign...
lets do some tests in the "german" forum..
i will open up a thread there.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/19/2013 4:00:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruppich

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?

Sometimes even a Tommy Bomber flies low... I've done some tests, too. There are incidents where it happens, just like in real life. Could have been bird-strike, too ;) No, seriously... Which scenario are you playing/testing at the moment?

Klink, Oberst


From the "What's New.doc", v.3.0.0.12 (initial release):

22. High Altitude bombers are now subjected to anti-aircraft fire. Equipment which fires at Low Altitude only, also lends a small proportion of its strength to High Altitude fire. ...



Oberst_Klink -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/19/2013 4:40:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruppich

Does somebody tested out how AAA works with high altitude bombers?
My tests are showing that 20mm AA can shoot down Lancaster bombers... [:-]
WWII scenario
the lancaster is declared as high altitude bomber and the 20mm flak does not has air defence high(?) and low only 1.

do we have a problem here?

Sometimes even a Tommy Bomber flies low... I've done some tests, too. There are incidents where it happens, just like in real life. Could have been bird-strike, too ;) No, seriously... Which scenario are you playing/testing at the moment?

Klink, Oberst


From the "What's New.doc", v.3.0.0.12 (initial release):

22. High Altitude bombers are now subjected to anti-aircraft fire. Equipment which fires at Low Altitude only, also lends a small proportion of its strength to High Altitude fire. ...

So, basically WAD :D Thanks Bob!

Klink, Oberst



Ruppich -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/20/2013 12:14:21 PM)

Doesnt really makes sense but its ok for me [:D]



Silvanski -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/21/2013 12:44:52 AM)

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems



Curtis Lemay -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/21/2013 3:51:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems


Or for tactical purposes - such as ground support, for example. Just because it's a high-altitude bomber doesn't mean it always operates at high altitude. I've seen film of Buffs dropping nap at ground level.



Silvanski -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/21/2013 4:42:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Or for tactical purposes - such as ground support, for example. Just because it's a high-altitude bomber doesn't mean it always operates at high altitude. I've seen film of Buffs dropping nap at ground level.


or the low level Ploesti raid by B-24 Liberators



Oberst_Klink -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/21/2013 9:13:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Or for tactical purposes - such as ground support, for example. Just because it's a high-altitude bomber doesn't mean it always operates at high altitude. I've seen film of Buffs dropping nap at ground level.


or the low level Ploesti raid by B-24 Liberators


+1 good one.



SMK-at-work -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/21/2013 9:22:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems


Any stray damaged heavy bombers at low level are already casualties.

Ploesti and an alleged vido of B-52's droping napalm at low level are situations TOAW probably can't simulate and not a reason for low level flak killing heavy bombers as a matter of course.



Lobster -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/21/2013 12:56:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems


Any stray damaged heavy bombers at low level are already casualties.

Ploesti and an alleged vido of B-52's droping napalm at low level are situations TOAW probably can't simulate and not a reason for low level flak killing heavy bombers as a matter of course.


Not every run anyway. Why would this be made part of the routine? Seems kinda arbitrary. "Hey, let's code low level AA into high level bombing runs too. Pass me another beer." [sm=00000436.gif]



Telumar -> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. (9/21/2013 6:11:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems


Any stray damaged heavy bombers at low level are already casualties.

Ploesti and an alleged vido of B-52's droping napalm at low level are situations TOAW probably can't simulate and not a reason for low level flak killing heavy bombers as a matter of course.


Not every run anyway. Why would this be made part of the routine? Seems kinda arbitrary. "Hey, let's code low level AA into high level bombing runs too. Pass me another beer." [sm=00000436.gif]


Norm - blessed he shall be [&o] - did this. For whatever reason.. wasn't he an airforce man?

That doesn't prevent this from change.. Plans have already been drafted to revise this completely. Which however doesn't mean anytime soon..



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.939453