Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary.

 
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 >> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 8/28/2013 9:34:09 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to kmitahj)
Post #: 31
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 8/30/2013 3:51:49 AM   
sealclubber

 

Posts: 345
Joined: 4/2/2013
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 32
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/2/2013 11:55:40 PM   
kmitahj

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to sealclubber)
Post #: 33
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/3/2013 7:29:42 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to kmitahj)
Post #: 34
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/3/2013 10:17:51 PM   
kmitahj

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline 		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!

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 35
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/3/2013 11:57:40 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to kmitahj)
Post #: 36
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/4/2013 7:11:48 AM   
governato

 

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 37
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/4/2013 2:34:57 PM   
Ruppich


Posts: 49
Joined: 11/2/2011
Status: offline
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...

(in reply to kmitahj)
Post #: 38
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/4/2013 4:34:42 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
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!

< Message edited by governato -- 9/4/2013 4:35:24 PM >

(in reply to Ruppich)
Post #: 39
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/4/2013 8:10:49 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Tak! Go ahead with the simple I-L fix, Kapitan Kloss!

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 40
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/4/2013 9:50:13 PM   
kmitahj

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 4/25/2011
Status: offline
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 () 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...



< Message edited by kmitahj -- 9/4/2013 9:58:59 PM >

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 41
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/5/2013 7:56:38 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 42
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/5/2013 8:32:35 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Sorry Curtis, Yes I meant: do not use the PROFICIENCY.

I confused TOAW with GWITE, my bad.

Also, what approach would you recommend?


(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 43
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/5/2013 9:50:08 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
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."

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 44
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/9/2013 11:05:27 AM   
samba_liten


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

السلام عليكم

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 45
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/9/2013 11:47:01 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to samba_liten)
Post #: 46
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/10/2013 10:12:55 AM   
samba_liten


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Currently in Kiev
Status: offline 		At least i hope my first scenario will be first quality when it's finished...

_____________________________

السلام عليكم

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 47
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/18/2013 3:28:08 PM   
Ruppich


Posts: 49
Joined: 11/2/2011
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to kmitahj)
Post #: 48
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/19/2013 11:31:21 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Ruppich)
Post #: 49
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/19/2013 1:58:00 PM   
Ruppich


Posts: 49
Joined: 11/2/2011
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 50
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/19/2013 4:00:01 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
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. ...

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 51
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/19/2013 4:40:40 PM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 52
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/20/2013 12:14:21 PM   
Ruppich


Posts: 49
Joined: 11/2/2011
Status: offline 		Doesnt really makes sense but its ok for me

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 53
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/21/2013 12:44:52 AM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline 		I see it like this .. Some high altitude bombers may be flying lower, for whatever reason.. mechanical or navigational problems

_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to Ruppich)
Post #: 54
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/21/2013 3:51:13 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 55
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/21/2013 4:42:56 AM   
Silvanski


Posts: 2506
Joined: 1/23/2005
From: Belgium, residing in TX-USA
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

The TOAW Redux Dude

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 56
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/21/2013 9:13:59 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 57
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/21/2013 9:22:55 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by SMK-at-work -- 9/21/2013 9:28:14 AM >

(in reply to Silvanski)
Post #: 58
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/21/2013 12:56:01 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
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."

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 59
RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. - 9/21/2013 6:11:51 PM   
Telumar


Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline
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."


Norm - blessed he shall be - 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..

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: AA Patch - unofficial and temporary. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
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

2.062