ROE and Automated Defense

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

I will do so with my personal set of parameters since they are saved in my Harpoon.ini file.

No, little to do with the Harpoon3.ini file. Each mission profile is saved in an INI format file such as DefaultPatrol.mps or DefaultStrike.mps (One profile per standard mission type) in the Doctrine folder. The parameters in those files would be applied to missions in scenarios files from before 3.10. That's where the limitation would be. If different authors want different defaults applied to all their pre-3.10 scenarios then they will need special treatment. Scenarios created with and after 3.10 would maintain their existing mission parameters when rebuilding.

A possible solution to the limitation would be to use the scenlist.ini to allow the editor to specify a Doctrine folder to be used for each mission or battleset. This would not be an feature available immediately and would be a nightmare to maintain. Given the nature of the default profiles, I would believe you would get all your contributors to agree on one set and apply those to everybody's scenarios created before 3.10.

So to summarize:
1. The editor will be allowed to define the default mission parameters using one profile per standard mission type. i.e. DefaultGroundStrike.mps in the Doctrine folder.
2. Scenarios from before 3.10 that are being rebuilt with 3.10 would have the default mission profiles applied to them.
3. Scenarios built in 3.10 and after will maintain their current mission profiles saved in their scenario data when rebuilt.
4. A switch or Rebuild with Scenlist setting may be in order to override point #3 so the editor can apply new default profiles to 3.10 scenario missions.

If the contributors do want to have their own set of defaults applied to their pre-3.10 scenarios then you can:
1. Set up a battleset for each of them.
2. Change the Doctrine folder option in the Harpoon3.ini to something like C:\Harpoon3\Doctrine_Ralf
3. Rebuild by Battleset.

Somewhat like what you described but the change required is one setting in Harpoon3.ini and the mission profiles saved in individual files. This is an overabundance of configuration available to the user. However, if you are happy with the GE default missions then you won't have to touch them.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

That's where the limitation would be. If different authors want different defaults applied to all their pre-3.10 scenarios then they will need special treatment. Scenarios created with and after 3.10 would maintain their existing mission parameters when rebuilding.

A possible solution to the limitation would be to use the scenlist.ini to allow the editor to specify a Doctrine folder to be used for each mission or battleset. This would not be an feature available immediately and would be a nightmare to maintain. Given the nature of the default profiles, I would believe you would get all your contributors to agree on one set and apply those to everybody's scenarios created before 3.10.

So to summarize:
1. The editor will be allowed to define the default mission parameters using one profile per standard mission type. i.e. DefaultGroundStrike.mps in the Doctrine folder.
2. Scenarios from before 3.10 that are being rebuilt with 3.10 would have the default mission profiles applied to them.
3. Scenarios built in 3.10 and after will maintain their current mission profiles saved in their scenario data when rebuilt.
4. A switch or Rebuild with Scenlist setting may be in order to override point #3 so the editor can apply new default profiles to 3.10 scenario missions.

If the contributors do want to have their own set of defaults applied to their pre-3.10 scenarios then you can:
1. Set up a battleset for each of them.
2. Change the Doctrine folder option in the Harpoon3.ini to something like C:\Harpoon3\Doctrine_Ralf
3. Rebuild by Battleset.

Somewhat like what you described but the change required is one setting in Harpoon3.ini and the mission profiles saved in individual files. This is an overabundance of configuration available to the user. However, if you are happy with the GE default missions then you won't have to touch them.

I think that you are making a very bad assumption on the number possibilities. From your description, you think that every author will use only 1 set of parameters. i.e. set them and forget about them. I think that this will definitely not be the case. While many probably will use a favourite profile, it is safer to assume that they will use different settings between battlesets and may even use different settings with different scenarios. Thus, 10 scenarios within a single battleset by a single author may have 10 different settings between them. The changes may be deliberate or simply 'accidental'. i.e. the author tinkers with his settings as he designs and doesn't realize that previous scenarios were written under different options. Therefore, the presumption that there is only going to be one "Doctrine_Ralf" is myopic. Failure to accommodate a user who just likes doing things "his own way" is not a good idea, IMO. Things should not be organized for the highest common denominator but for the lowest.

The feature has not even been officially released and some authors already appear to want different settings applied to their scenarios. For example, one thinks that the MissionPatrolRestrictedZone.opt should be applied while another does not. These are mutually exclusive choices. I do not use the ScenList.ini function because there is no documentation on its use. I only use the Re-build by Battleset function for all 300 and, currently, only have to do it once. Being forced to re-build each of our 40+ battlesets one battleset at a time kind of defeats the purpose.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

You missed the part where scenarios made prior to 3.10 will have the default mission profiles applied to their missions. Scenarios made before 3.10 can't have different mission profiles because they don't exist for scenarios until 3.10. Scenarios with mission profiles (made in 3.10 and after) will retain their set mission parameters that the authors designed them with.

If the authors want different mission profiles applied to their scenarios from previous versions then, yes, that's something you'll have to deal with. Working for the lowest common denominator limits the feature to the point where I'm not willing to put my effort into it. I'm not really worried about constantly rebuilding 3.6 scenarios in bulk. I'm aiming for a one way upgrade path and will not work to retrofit 3.6 with mission parameters.

However, I can give you tools to mitigate the trouble for such a case. For instance, I can make the editor rebuild by battleset on the command line. This would mean you could write a simple batch script (I'd be happy to start it for you) which would change doctrine folders between battleset rebuilds. So you would retain the fire and forget setup you have now. It might even be faster if the UI is not loaded.

Thanks,

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL:  rsharp@advancedgamin

A possible solution to the limitation would be to use the scenlist.ini to allow the editor to specify a Doctrine folder to be used for each mission or battleset.

Where's the documentation for this function?  I'd like to see if it can mitigate the problem.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

There is no documentation for the Rebuild by Scenlist.ini function. I took a look at what it does though. It takes a list of any number of scenarios and rebuilds them. It also allows some configuration of EMCON state and aircraft basing per unit. I believe rebuilding by battleset on the command line would be more suited for a solution.

[Anonymous]

Hello noxious,

ORIGINAL: noxious

[...]

The way it's going, you want 3.6.3 with MP. You've been told again and again, it's not going to happen.
Get over it already and let's work on the future

[...]

It is great to hear someone of the "silent majority" and speaking up for them. [:)]

You´re absolutely right about the necessity to look forwards, not backwards. You have no 3.6 thus some of these discussions are useless and bizarre for you. But the "old" ones have used 3.6 as a symbol for a working - in terms of realistic behaviour and bug ratio - game engine. "3.6" has no inner value by itself. It was the White Knight compared to the desolate first ANW releases, which came in combination with broken databases and scens.

Now, with 3.9.4beta RC13 - which probably will become 3.9.4. - there is IMO the best ANW game engine so far. Real progress. But, one should not forget that, the game engine is not better than the four years old of 3.6.X. The difference are MP and some new features like UnRep.

I promise you not to compare 3.6 and ANW any longer, since this is useless for you. I´ll just talk about ANW. [;)]

Now it would be helpful if more members, especially those new or coming back, take part in official beta testing and write scens, thus demonstrating what they want.

And it would be great if AGSI sets up an own MP server where the latest betas can be tested in MP mode.

Regards,
Ralf

[incredibletwo]

Hi

[incredibletwo]

Hi,
Playing 3.9.4. Just launched at max range. So far, so good [:)]

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Howdy,

First, thanks for the feedback.

Second, I read the post but I assumed you had caught my answer in a separate thread. The issue of auto-defence is an issue of gameplay. I do not consider it a bug but it is a major issue to many users. So in 3.10 we are going to introduce an option to allow disabling automated defence.

The second issue you reported, and thanks for posting about these issues, was a bug in that it was limiting the player issued attacks when it should have only applied to the AI. As you found, it was fixed.

Thanks,

[incredibletwo]

Sweet! Thanks for the clarification.
 

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]