Do not send end of turn

[Shazman]

Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?

Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.

[ralphtricky]

Not until the next version.

[L`zard]

ORIGINAL: Shazman
Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?
Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.

Read Ralph's blog, eh?

Meanwhile, is there any REAL reason to expect your opponents to cheat? Not like we're in this for the MONEY, or that there's that many of us, eh?

To paraphrase 'Lennon':

"All we are saying, is give TRUST a chance..."

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: L`zard

ORIGINAL: Shazman
Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?
Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.

Read Ralph's blog, eh?

Meanwhile, is there any REAL reason to expect your opponents to cheat? Not like we're in this for the MONEY, or that there's that many of us, eh?

To paraphrase 'Lennon':

"All we are saying, is give TRUST a chance..."

I prefer the "Trust but verify" approach.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: L`zard

ORIGINAL: Shazman
Has the bug involving this file been squashed yet or will opening this after sending the turn to your opponent still generate a reload message?
Did a search and found nothing about it's being fixed.

Read Ralph's blog, eh?

Meanwhile, is there any REAL reason to expect your opponents to cheat? Not like we're in this for the MONEY, or that there's that many of us, eh?

To paraphrase 'Lennon':

"All we are saying, is give TRUST a chance..."

I prefer the "Trust but verify" approach.

My own philosophy has always been that (a) you can't prevent cheating, and (b) if you make cheating difficult, you're just obscuring the moral issue for the cheater.

He was just cheating. Now he's being clever.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
My own philosophy has always been that (a) you can't prevent cheating, and (b) if you make cheating difficult, you're just obscuring the moral issue for the cheater.

He was just cheating. Now he's being clever.

I like to think of it as enough to keep honest people honest. The same reason that undo never works after it's revealed enemy territory, even though you really, really didn't mean to send your HQ there where he's going to be absolute toast.

If it was simple to reload a turn file to get a favorable set of events, some people might be tempted to do it and figure some way to justify it, like it was due or they'd had several bad rolls recently.

You obviously can't stop the dedicated cheater, and I don't plan to try.

Games like GalCiv use something aggressive like a secure mode connecting to a central server, but unless sales are phenomal, the effort to do that isn't worth it.

[Shazman]

The real problem arises when someone sends you turns with a reloaded once or twice message. That alone will plant a seed of doubt in my mind and make me wonder why I'm wasting my time playing a scenario. I want to be able to keep the riff raff out and not wonder if the turn was reloaded or if the DO NOT SEND file was played. Right now I'll go the 'must have ran the previous turn' option. I would like to be able to know that was indeed what happened.

My time is an unrenewable resource and I'm running out of resources. [:D]

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Shazman

The real problem arises when someone sends you turns with a reloaded once or twice message. That alone will plant a seed of doubt in my mind and make me wonder why I'm wasting my time playing a scenario. I want to be able to keep the riff raff out and not wonder if the turn was reloaded or if the DO NOT SEND file was played. Right now I'll go the 'must have ran the previous turn' option. I would like to be able to know that was indeed what happened.

My time is an unrenewable resource and I'm running out of resources. [:D]

My understanding is that the 'reload' message will be generated if you save the turn and go back to it.

The thing is, both I and apparently my customary opponent play somewhat as follows.


1. Load the turn and see what that arch-fiend has gotten up to.

2. THINK about what to to do BEFORE moving anything.

3. Make the moves that clearly should be made. Look at things again.

4. Continue until quandary arises. At this point, often save and go do something else for a while.

5. Come back to it and reload turn. Take a fresh look. Continue play. Repeat steps 2-5 as needed.


I imagine all this generates reload messages. I don't see that I'm doing anything wrong. I CERTAINLY am not going to continue play when I'm tired or when I'm not sure about what to do. Still less am I going to blow off work or that appointment on the grounds that I just have got to finish my turn first.

[Shazman]

*sigh*

This has nothing to do with saving turns. That triggers nothing but a brain refresh. [;)]

Sometimes it can be beneficial to see what things looked like the turn before. The replay doesn't quite do it. So some folks like to look at the 'do not send' file which, i believe, was intended for just that purpose. However, it was found out loading that file from the previous turn would trigger an improper reload message.

I was merely trying to find out if the opening of the 'do not send' file was still triggering a reload or if the problem had been fixed, that's all.

The question was answered with a 'no it has not been fixed until next go round'.

[mike1984]

Why did the game engineers decide to do this:

When an airborne/landing unit is destroyed, you cannot use the reconstituted unit for airborne operations ever again.

It's the only reconstitution that directly affects how that unit is used. And quite frankly, I'm not sure what that reason is for. If one regiment of the 82nd Airborne is destroyed, but the rest of the division is ok, only a portion of that division can be used in later airborne operations. Units during the war frequently were whittled down to nothing, then filled back up with replacements, and used in air-drops again.

[larryfulkerson]

Hey Mike1984:  I'd like to know the answer to that as well.  In my game with Curt Chambers when playing Campaign for South Vietnam, when I was playing as the Allies, if I ever had one of my Vietnamese Airborne destroyed that regiment couldn't air drop anymore for the rest of the game when it reconstituted.  It was a big pain in the ass.

On a side note:  one time Curt sent me his END-OF-TURN-DO-NOT-SEND file.  I didn't open it to look at it or try to "play" it or anything.  I just sent him an email signalling the need for the "real" file.  Maybe the password entry routine could be applied to this end of turn file opening to avoid my being able to open it?  Just a thought.

[rhinobones]

My guess would be that Norm never intended the “operational” time scale to encompass the time scales that we, the designers, have used to build scenarios into such grand scales. Instead of years I would surmise that Norm thought in terms of months for his operational scenarios. I would think that it takes quite a bit of training and time to rebuild an effective airborne unit and therefore Norm did not want those units to be reformed within the time that an operational scenario would be played. But then, that is just my guess.

Also, rather than a blanket approach that certain types of units can, or can not be reform, I would like to empower the designers to designate which units can be reformed and the length of time required (training, rearming, etc). This would then give the player an option of which units to reform based on the available replacements, equipment, immediate and long term need.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

My guess would be that Norm never intended the “operational” time scale to encompass the time scales that we, the designers, have used to build scenarios into such grand scales. Instead of years I would surmise that Norm thought in terms of months for his operational scenarios. I would think that it takes quite a bit of training and time to rebuild an effective airborne unit and therefore Norm did not want those units to be reformed within the time that an operational scenario would be played. But then, that is just my guess.

Also, rather than a blanket approach that certain types of units can, or can not be reform, I would like to empower the designers to designate which units can be reformed and the length of time required (training, rearming, etc). This would then give the player an option of which units to reform based on the available replacements, equipment, immediate and long term need.

Regards, RhinoBones

Yeah. The game would probably be improved if the special case for airborne units was just eliminated. If the designer doesn't want them coming back and dropping again, then he can simply set them to 'don't reconstitute.' It seems to me that is going to meet the case more often than the current mechanism. After all, if an airborne unit is pounded after a drop, it's usually withdrawn entirely for a while -- not just sent off to fight as line infantry. It's not like 1st Airborne was in the line three weeks after Arnhem but without parachute ability. Similarly, 7 Flieger didn't reenter combat for about six months after Crete. In fact, I can't think of any airborne unit that would serve as an illustration of the existing TOAW mechanism. The German airborne forces did morph into mostly conventional infantry -- but it was a process of expansion rather than replacement, and it extended over years. I'd guess that there never was a parachute unit that in the time-scale of a typical TOAW scenario went from being an actual airborne-capable unit to one that could participate in ground combat but that couldn't drop.

Moreover, note that to some extent, as the designer you already do have the mechanism you advocate. For each unit, you can specify whether it can reconstitute, and by setting its replacement priority, you have some control over how fast it reconstitutes. Then too, simply adjusting the airlift capacity will keep airborne units on the ground if you don't want them flying.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Moreover, note that to some extent, as the designer you already do have . . .

Yes, the designer does have a certain amount of control. But, what I’m really looking for is a design feature that allows the player to select where, and how many, replacements are assigned to the various available units. This capability would be programmed by the designer.

Maybe there needs to be a new category of replacements called “recruits”. Except for Civilians and Porters, the existing replacement categories would be considered hardware, (manufacturing production) and this new category would be the troops that actually man the equipment. The player could then decide what equipment received manning priority.

Regards, RhinoBones