Loading Games in PBEM

[toawplayer8]

What exactly does it mean in PBEM when a message appears that 'your opponent may have loaded the game [x] times'? I don't see anything wrong with saving a PBEM turn to resume it later, especially for big scenarios?

[JAMiAM]

While there have been a few cases of false positives, this message is supposed to be generated whenever your opponent reloads earlier saves and replays a portion of his turn.

For an example of what is acceptable, is not cheating, and should not generate warnings, is this: Play some, save version 1, game exits. Load 1, play some more, save version 2, game exits. Load 2, play some more, save version 3, game exits. Load 3, play some more, save version 4, game exits.... Load (N-1), play some more, save version N, game exits.

For an example of what is NOT acceptable, is cheating, and should generate warnings, is this: Play some, save version 1, game exits. Load 1, play some more, save version 2, game exits. Load 2, play some more, save version 3, game exits. Load 3, play some more, save version 4, game exits.... Load (N-1), play some more, save version N, game exits. At any point, if a player loads (N-2), (N-3),...(N-N), instead of (N-1), then the game flags the player as having reloaded, since he went back to a save that he had previously already played on from.

Now, if you simply go with the default naming of the save file, then TOAW III is supposed to keep an internal count of where this save lies on the sequence, so it should not be necessary to physically change the names of your save files to keep track of which one you should be playing. However, for those players who like to write AAR's, reloading earlier played turns to review the battlefield situations may be a culprit. Discuss the issue with your opponent, in a mature fashion, if you begin receiving these warnings.

No system is perfect, and there may be some occasional false positives generated, but if you get a situation where suddenly out of the blue a player has reloaded 5 times, it's a pretty strong indication that something is amiss...

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

While there have been a few cases of false positives, this message is supposed to be generated whenever your opponent reloads earlier saves and replays a portion of his turn.

For an example of what is acceptable, is not cheating, and should not generate warnings, is this: Play some, save version 1, game exits. Load 1, play some more, save version 2, game exits. Load 2, play some more, save version 3, game exits. Load 3, play some more, save version 4, game exits.... Load (N-1), play some more, save version N, game exits.

For an example of what is NOT acceptable, is cheating, and should generate warnings, is this: Play some, save version 1, game exits. Load 1, play some more, save version 2, game exits. Load 2, play some more, save version 3, game exits. Load 3, play some more, save version 4, game exits.... Load (N-1), play some more, save version N, game exits. At any point, if a player loads (N-2), (N-3),...(N-N), instead of (N-1), then the game flags the player as having reloaded, since he went back to a save that he had previously already played on from.

Now, if you simply go with the default naming of the save file, then TOAW III is supposed to keep an internal count of where this save lies on the sequence, so it should not be necessary to physically change the names of your save files to keep track of which one you should be playing. However, for those players who like to write AAR's, reloading earlier played turns to review the battlefield situations may be a culprit. Discuss the issue with your opponent, in a mature fashion, if you begin receiving these warnings.

No system is perfect, and there may be some occasional false positives generated, but if you get a situation where suddenly out of the blue a player has reloaded 5 times, it's a pretty strong indication that something is amiss...

Now explain to me why that info couldn't have been included in the manual, if you can post it on the public board? (I'm airing some dirty laundry here.)

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now explain to me why that info couldn't have been included in the manual, if you can post it on the public board? (I'm airing some dirty laundry here.)

At the time the manual was being put together, we thought the system was a little more robust, and fool-proof, than it turned out to be. Thus, the explanation would have been a waste of space. As it turned out, we were apparently wrong...

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Now explain to me why that info couldn't have been included in the manual, if you can post it on the public board? (I'm airing some dirty laundry here.)

At the time the manual was being put together, we thought the system was a little more robust, and fool-proof, than it turned out to be. Thus, the explanation would have been a waste of space. As it turned out, we were apparently wrong...

Renaming files, etc. shouldn't make a difference. i go by the internal name within the file. The problem I'm having is that I haven't been able to reproduce, it, and nobody has been able to give me steps that are likely to reproduce the problem.

Thanks,
Ralph