PBL to SCE

[golden delicious]

Am I right in thinking that it is not possible to convert a saved game from a PBEM match in TOAW III to a new scenario?

This is possible under COW but as I recall the capability was taken away for III to prevent it being exploited by unscrupulous players.

It so happens that this functionality is essential for my ongoing multiplayer campaign game- but I would really like to use some of the new features coming up in 3.4. So if possible I want to be able to switch to TOAW III.

[Menschenfresser]

I second that motion.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Am I right in thinking that it is not possible to convert a saved game from a PBEM match in TOAW III to a new scenario?

This is possible under COW but as I recall the capability was taken away for III to prevent it being exploited by unscrupulous players.

It so happens that this functionality is essential for my ongoing multiplayer campaign game- but I would really like to use some of the new features coming up in 3.4. So if possible I want to be able to switch to TOAW III.

I'm pretty sure that hasn't been addressed yet.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm pretty sure that hasn't been addressed yet.

Annoying. Most of my time with TOAW revolves around being able to convert a saved PBM game to a scenario. So I am stuck with COW. This was fine- but it's clear from the version notes that 3.4 is a real step forward.

It would presumably be simple enough to devise an option for both player passwords to be entered to open the scenario in the editor.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm pretty sure that hasn't been addressed yet.

Annoying. Most of my time with TOAW revolves around being able to convert a saved PBM game to a scenario. So I am stuck with COW. This was fine- but it's clear from the version notes that 3.4 is a real step forward.

Ralph might be able to convert a PBL to SCE from time to time. Or show you how to do it. (That's just a guess, though).

It would presumably be simple enough to devise an option for both player passwords to be entered to open the scenario in the editor.

The cheat code was both poorly understood and broken. We need to get it working right before it's safe to try to add embelishments.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I'm pretty sure that hasn't been addressed yet.

Annoying. Most of my time with TOAW revolves around being able to convert a saved PBM game to a scenario. So I am stuck with COW. This was fine- but it's clear from the version notes that 3.4 is a real step forward.

Ralph might be able to convert a PBL to SCE from time to time. Or show you how to do it. (That's just a guess, though).

It would presumably be simple enough to devise an option for both player passwords to be entered to open the scenario in the editor.

The cheat code was both poorly understood and broken. We need to get it working right before it's safe to try to add embelishments.

Remine me after the patch is out. I know I can do it, and it may be possible with the current build, but it's going to involve a number of steps. I believe you could export the basic scenario into XML, then I think (I'm not sure) that you can export your units and the other side's units into XML, then merge them with notepad back into the base scenario file. I'm not sure if there are any holes with doing that or not.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Remine me after the patch is out. I know I can do it, and it may be possible with the current build, but it's going to involve a number of steps. I believe you could export the basic scenario into XML, then I think (I'm not sure) that you can export your units and the other side's units into XML, then merge them with notepad back into the base scenario file. I'm not sure if there are any holes with doing that or not.

Perhaps it's fixed in III- but in COW, importing notepad into the editor crashes the game above a certain size.

In any case in COW I can bring the scenario in wholesale. The same should be possible in III. Failing anything else, what about a startup option for PBM? Turn cheat prevention on/off?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I believe you could export the basic scenario into XML, then I think (I'm not sure) that you can export your units and the other side's units into XML, then merge them with notepad back into the base scenario file. I'm not sure if there are any holes with doing that or not.

So each side can export their own units into XML and then send them to the game administrator who combines them into a whole. That preserves cheat prevention (since each side only has access to their own unit data), but allows the whole to be generated if the two files are in one person's hands.

The combination may prove difficult, but since it's in XML, any user can edit it to eventually get it right. This is something that can be done now, as the code currently stands.

I don't see why anthing else is necessary. If there truely are unsurmountable impediments encountered, solving those should be the issue, not some new feature.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So each side can export their own units into XML and then send them to the game administrator who combines them into a whole. That preserves cheat prevention (since each side only has access to their own unit data), but allows the whole to be generated if the two files are in one person's hands.

What about unit deployments? Changes to the map (destroyed rails, bridges, towns)? As to cheat prevention- as soon as you are providing a new scenario, you give up on information security, since the players can just boot it up in the editor. Of course, since I've known most of my players for about eight years, this is not an issue for me.

This process has to be quick and easy or I'm not going to bother and will just stick with COW.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

What about unit deployments? Changes to the map (destroyed rails, bridges, towns)?

I think all that will be in the separate XML dumps.

As to cheat prevention- as soon as you are providing a new scenario, you give up on information security, since the players can just boot it up in the editor. Of course, since I've known most of my players for about eight years, this is not an issue for me.

My point was that there is nothing in the XML dumps that breaks cheat prevention during the PBEM game.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

So each side can export their own units into XML and then send them to the game administrator who combines them into a whole. That preserves cheat prevention (since each side only has access to their own unit data), but allows the whole to be generated if the two files are in one person's hands.

What about unit deployments? Changes to the map (destroyed rails, bridges, towns)? As to cheat prevention- as soon as you are providing a new scenario, you give up on information security, since the players can just boot it up in the editor. Of course, since I've known most of my players for about eight years, this is not an issue for me.

This process has to be quick and easy or I'm not going to bother and will just stick with COW.

Another possible option would be hot seat. If you set the games up as hot seat, there shouldn't be any restrictions.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Another possible option would be hot seat. If you set the games up as hot seat, there shouldn't be any restrictions.

That's a possibility. Can I turn off the variable initiative in hotseat play? That really screws up the game.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Another possible option would be hot seat. If you set the games up as hot seat, there shouldn't be any restrictions.

That's a possibility. Can I turn off the variable initiative in hotseat play? That really screws up the game.

It's off. I think I did that a while ago when I tightened down the security for PBEM so that designers could test their scenarios using hot seat instead of PBEM.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

It's off. I think I did that a while ago when I tightened down the security for PBEM so that designers could test their scenarios using hot seat instead of PBEM.

Nice- thanks.