Version 4.6?

Fabs · Post by **Fabs** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:48 am

With all the references to version 4.6 I'm now thoroughly confused.

I've been to the download centre and it's not there.

Is it available or is it being worked on?

------------------
Fabs

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 2:31 am

Fabs, sorry that was my fault, I jumped the gun a little. I was told that the oob's were needed for the patch, so I sent them, and sent them to Fabio and Tankhead also, in the meantime David called me, and gave me an extension to try and get the oob's ship-shape, the date set is most likely no after the 21st of this month, sorry for all the confusion

------------------
Mike Amos
Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

Fuerte · Post by **Fuerte** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 3:07 am

I just returned from holiday trip. So I still have to wait until I can start the PBEM games... how about an option to ignore the executable and OOB check in secure PBEM games?

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:12 am

Just use "head to head" instead of PBEM and save teh game after your turn. The game can be secure and go through the rigamorole, or unsecure. You either trust your opponent not to cheat, or you don't. We offer a solution for each category. Half measures open a pandora's box...

There will aslo be a subastantial upgrade to teh armor comabt model in 4.6. APCR performace has been greatly ehanced, depicting its performance much more accurately. T/D effects have been revised based on better curve fitting and a couple new data sets from Combat Leader research.

A new ricochet tweak improves the depiction of the "critical angle" so ricochet probability will be low below critical angle and ramp up quickly. all this assumes lots of things, but less things are generalized than before! You should get fewer "945,395mm armor" results now and small T/D ratios will now ricchet much less often (so 88 hitting at grazing angles wil act like an iceberg on the Titanic more than a stone on the water)

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited January 09, 2001).]

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 6:36 am

oooooooohhhh yummy

Fuerte2 · Post by **Fuerte2** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 7:33 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Just use "head to head" instead of PBEM and save teh game after your turn. The game can be secure and go through the rigamorole, or unsecure. You either trust your opponent not to cheat, or you don't. We offer a solution for each category. Half measures open a pandora's box...

Yes, BUT the secure PBEM could be better. If it just asked if you accept that the other player has a different exe/oob when you load a PBEM turn, then it would be possible to upgrade to newer version. It should be trivial to implement...

Combat Mission, for example, has secure PBEM with password and encryption, but it still is possible to PBEM with different versions, if only the PBEM save format has not changed.

I trust my opponent, but I just want to make sure that neither of us loads an incorrect turn by accident.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jan 10, 2001 9:34 pm

NOTHING is ever "trivial to implement"...

Combat Leader will have a better system but there is only so much we can do with SP:WaW...

orc4hire · Post by **orc4hire** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 12:11 am

"_Everything_ takes longer and costs more than planned."

Don't recall who said that first, but it was probably a project manager c.4000 b.c.

Fuerte · Post by **Fuerte** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 2:46 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
NOTHING is ever "trivial to implement"...

It would be trivial compared to what you have already done for 4.6 (substantial upgrade to the armor combat model etc).

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 3:29 am

That may be, but it still is not inconsequential... We are rapidly coming to the point where we can spend time adding new features to SP:WaW, make no money, and go out of business. Or work on new games will kep us viable. Many of the things SP'ers want will only be realized in a new game for reasons both related to SP's architecture and the realities of economics.

Right now the Combat Leader boards are very Close Combat oriented. We want to make sure you SP'ers have your say too as the game will be standing on the shoulders of both games in many ways.

Success of our new games will ensure will have the opportunity to revisit the free games every so often and fixes bugs or tweak things.

But the time is nigh for us to get off the old tired horse and continue on a fresh one.

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited January 11, 2001).]

BlitzSS · Post by **BlitzSS** » Thu Jan 11, 2001 3:34 am

Can't fault a guy for making a buck!