Where is 1.03 Update

[marcbarker]

I just wanted to add personilzed units to the Platoon and Weapons file. Now they are encrypted. The advantage of that is that you customize the playing experience more on a personal scale. Creating a unit to me is fun. Adding to the default Campaig.oob and various other oob's is interesting. For example you created a sea bee unit, similar to engineer but not the same, weak attack strength but a high moral. In pacific campaigns Sea Bee's were part of base defense systems to help with Japanese attacks. Lets say you created a huge scenarion with a huge map. It is a meeeting engement. You have a long way to travel with your units. You have infantry not mechanized. So you need a transportation Column that can carry 2 full Strength Platoons with leaders. You create the unit, Artwork, Notes page etc. in the Platoon.oob and weapons file and convert it. You have a Cattle Truck that hauls more then 1 platoon. Now lets take that Transportation Unit and add it to the Various OOB's. Now you have a cattle hauler for any DCG and LCG that you Generate. Now what about those LCI's, Take the same context as the hauler, Change the graphic and instead of 2 platoons you have the capability of landing a full company where you need them as reinforcements. All of this is fun for me anyway to do. Now you have to submit what you want, then wait, Get it back and see if it works, then send it back for recising. It is a huge Hinderance to developing practical units to a game that truly is fun to play. You could do this prior to 1.3. Prior to 1.3 You could still play the game but it had an extreme amount of bugs in my opinion that had to be worked out. Now that some of the real bad issues have been taken care of you cannot have the choice to add a unit except for a submittal. What if you create a unit and submit it and wait for it to come back and the reply is sorry you can't add this, but in the WEST FRONT Edition of Talonsoft you can add it and it works, what does that tell you? Like I said in my earlier posts, Jason has done an incredible job, but I am disappointed in the fact that took away choice.

[MrRoadrunner]

Sorry to say that it sounds like a lot of work for little gain.
I am sure the encryption would prevent some situation that I found myself in PBEM games.
 
One was an early desert scenario where my opponent "changed" his cruisers so that they could move two hexes off a ridge, killing and disrupting my poor little PzKwIII's at a range of seven, with two shots, and then moving back up the ridge and out of line of sight. Later I found out that he changed the Brit the cruisers to be something else while looking like the cruisers. He thought he could get away with it because I do not normally watch replays. LOL!
Encryption to prevent that? I'm for it!
 
Not related to this issue, I also did a test with someone who knew how to "code" the game. In it I played a small scenario, Red Steel at Fedorovka. My Germans were harrassed by planes every turn, even while out of LOS. Even though there were none in the game. And, I moved toward a hex that was blocking my line of sight, only to be shot at by at least 100 T-34's, in the same hex.
 
These kind of "fooling" with the game may not be prevented, but, you can see how a "programmer type" could do nefareous things in games?

[berto]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I am sure the encryption would prevent some situation that I found myself in PBEM games.

One was an early desert scenario where my opponent "changed" his cruisers...

Not related to this issue, I also did a test with someone who knew how to "code" the game...

These kind of "fooling" with the game may not be prevented, but, you can see how a "programmer type" could do nefareous things in games?

And people wonder why some of us shun PBEM and are content to play these games strictly solitaire. [8|]

(Just one of many reasons I won't go into here.)

[marcbarker]

Good point berto....PBEM is cumbersome. I would not mind playing head to head accross ip addresses. You see in the old world of talonsoft I always had 2 copies of the software. It got exensive but it saved a lot of headaches. I had one copy that I modded and updated and used on my personal machine. The other copy was a pristine install with only the legal updates etc. This version I used for net play not the modded version. How you get rid of cheating players don't play with them or block their address. Give them a sour rating and post it here in the forum with an after action report. That would clear up some of the garbage in wargaming.


Everygame is like a box of peices, you never know which piece your going to pull out with a blindfold on

[cw58]

Barker,

I'm curious about your "cattle truck". Did you actually create a truck that could transport more than one unit at a time or was that just a theoretical example? If you did, would you mind explaining how? Was it a mod to the platoon file or did you have to do something with the game code?

[marcbarker]

Actually I did. I submitted it to Craig Foster years ago. I created an LCT that Had a Platoon of tanks with infantry on the same ship. I was able to load to infantry loaded truck with artillery, loaded tank with rider for a total of 4 in the LCT. I could not get the LCI to work thoroughly, got it load and unload but it would not move and was hell when it got hit by a lets say L ATK

[cw58]

ORIGINAL: barker

Actually I did. I submitted it to Craig Foster years ago. I created an LCT that Had a Platoon of tanks with infantry on the same ship. I was able to load to infantry loaded truck with artillery, loaded tank with rider for a total of 4 in the LCT. I could not get the LCI to work thoroughly, got it load and unload but it would not move and was hell when it got hit by a lets say L ATK

Thanks for the info! [8D] Interesting....

[marcbarker]

not a problem....it is neat to try to get heavy haulers to work

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: berto

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I am sure the encryption would prevent some situation that I found myself in PBEM games.

One was an early desert scenario where my opponent "changed" his cruisers...

Not related to this issue, I also did a test with someone who knew how to "code" the game...

These kind of "fooling" with the game may not be prevented, but, you can see how a "programmer type" could do nefareous things in games?

And people wonder why some of us shun PBEM and are content to play these games strictly solitaire. [8|]

(Just one of many reasons I won't go into here.)

I've got gaming ladder reports of over 1,000 games played by e-mail. That does not include the hundreds not reported and the many test run-throughs of scenario designs. I probably have closer to 1,500 play by e-mail games under my belt.
Out of all those games I found one or two "cheaters".
For those that think PBEM is "cumbersome" or "unsafe", you are missing out on one of the most thrilling aspects of the Campaign Series that I believe kept it alive through all these years.
I won't fault anyone who likes to play just campaigns or against the computer in the privacy of their own homes. I do think that using "cheating", or PBEM being "cumbersome", as an excuse for not trying it is really quite lame.

If I even suspect a "cheater" I may just finish the game and never play them again. Believe me, I have not gone long without PBEM games. Currently I have 16 ongoing and one teamgame.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
I've got gaming ladder reports of over 1,000 games played by e-mail. That does not include the hundreds not reported and the many test run-throughs of scenario designs. I probably have closer to 1,500 play by e-mail games under my belt.
Out of all those games I found one or two "cheaters".
For those that think PBEM is "cumbersome" or "unsafe", you are missing out on one of the most thrilling aspects of the Campaign Series that I believe kept it alive through all these years.
I won't fault anyone who likes to play just campaigns or against the computer in the privacy of their own homes. I do think that using "cheating", or PBEM being "cumbersome", as an excuse for not trying it is really quite lame.

If I even suspect a "cheater" I may just finish the game and never play them again. Believe me, I have not gone long without PBEM games. Currently I have 16 ongoing and one teamgame.

Have to agree with MrRoadrunner here.

Playing against another human (PBEM or online) is where this game truly shines.

Like MrRoadrunner, I also have numerous PBEM games on the go.

Jason Petho

[berto]

Like I said, I have many reasons for preferring solitaire over PBEM (and I won't discuss them--yet again!--here). I was a confirmed, die-hard solitaire-only wargamer long before I knew of any cheating players problem.

[cw58]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

I've got gaming ladder reports of over 1,000 games played by e-mail. That does not include the hundreds not reported and the many test run-throughs of scenario designs. I probably have closer to 1,500 play by e-mail games under my belt.
Out of all those games I found one or two "cheaters".
For those that think PBEM is "cumbersome" or "unsafe", you are missing out on one of the most thrilling aspects of the Campaign Series that I believe kept it alive through all these years.
I won't fault anyone who likes to play just campaigns or against the computer in the privacy of their own homes. I do think that using "cheating", or PBEM being "cumbersome", as an excuse for not trying it is really quite lame.

If I even suspect a "cheater" I may just finish the game and never play them again. Believe me, I have not gone long without PBEM games. Currently I have 16 ongoing and one teamgame.

Wow! One or maybe even two cheaters in only 1500 games! Now I can see why we needed a new encryption system. [8|]

[:D]Sorry, I wasn't going to get sucked into that debate again (I really have gotten over it) but I just couldn't pass that one up.[;)]

BTW, MrRoadrunner, I really enjoyed your movies; helped pass the time waiting for 1.03.

[MrRoadrunner]

No worries Berto.
I got a little rankled by your term "shun" PBEM because of "cheaters". It painted a wide brush stroke that really should have been more a pinprick? [;)]
My comment about PBEM being a "hair raising experience" was more praise for it as a format for playing the game to it's best ability.
Had I slapped at those who prefer solitaire, I would deserve rebuke? And, graciously take it. [:)]
I remember the days when I unwrapped my West Front CD, loaded it up, and began to play it versus the AI. I then bought EFII and threw out all other computer games.
Nothing has kept my interest more than CS. I flirted with Squad Battles and gave up because it ate into my CS time. I tried Combat Mission and gave the disks to a friend.

If your best experience with CS is via solitaire play, more power to you. We we all enjoy a great game together but, in different ways! [&o]

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: cw58
Wow! One or maybe even two cheaters in only 1500 games! Now I can see why we needed a new encryption system. [8|]

[:D]Sorry, I wasn't going to get sucked into that debate again (I really have gotten over it) but I just couldn't pass that one up.[;)]

BTW, MrRoadrunner, I really enjoyed your movies; helped pass the time waiting for 1.03.

O.K., I will not tell you the amount of cases investigated then? [;)]

Movies will still be made but, out of respect for the feelings of a few, they will be confined to the two or three spam threads. Unless someone needs a special movie to get them back on the right track? [:D]

[cw58]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

O.K., I will not tell you the amount of cases investigated then? [;)]

Movies will still be made but, out of respect for the feelings of a few, they will be confined to the two or three spam threads. Unless someone needs a special movie to get them back on the right track? [:D]

Point taken. [:)] The last thing I want is to become a star in one of your movies. [8D]

[berto]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

No worries Berto.

No offense taken.

My comment about PBEM being a "hair raising experience" was more praise for it as a format for playing the game to it's best ability.

But there are many ways to enjoy these "games" beyond just their competitive aspects.

Just think of the many, many ways fans enjoy the "game" of baseball beyond (or short of) playing it at the professional level.

I remember the days when I unwrapped my West Front CD, loaded it up, and began to play it versus the AI. I then bought EFII and threw out all other computer games.

Although my greatest interests lie in the American Civil War (see my avatar) and Napoleonics and before, post- Civil War, my sole interest in modern war gaming is WWII Pacific Theater. So I tend to play Rising Sun exclusively. (I was a Chinese minor in college, and I've lived six years in the Philippines.) Having said that, among all the games I own and have played, turn for turn, hour by hour, in its totality, JTCS is probably the most *fun*, most satisfying war gaming experience I've ever had. More than any other game system, it gets nearly everything "right". Kudos to John Tiller for designing such a wonderful system, and hosannas to Matrix for picking up and carrying this game forward into the 21st century.

If your best experience with CS is via solitaire play, more power to you. We we all enjoy a great game together but, in different ways! [emphasis added] [&o]

I wish more people would realize that.

[MrRoadrunner]

You are one of the "good men" that "get's it" Berto!
 
Cheers to you! [8D]