Schalken

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, SPR had lots of historical flaws <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, the combat sequence at the end of SPR was realistic. It was showing off the combat mission AI attacking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow, it really is so simple to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The actual coding would not be a quickie - a fundamental change like this would have sure been unreasonable after the project was initiated. However, starting from scratch, triple swapping is not required for security reasons, or for any other reason, nor is it the most efficient implementation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm going to let this one slide a bit because it is obvious that English is not your native language. However, I would advise you to choose your words a bit more carefully.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps it was there to see if anyone would decry and bitch. It is not necessarily easy to notice at a glance, sometimes not even after professional research. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if you did mean this as an insult <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are no intentional insults in my messages.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Schalken, this is really a dumb discussion. Sorry to say that, but it is <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you noticed that jolly face is nastier when inverted? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The way the game system works is that orders are stored then executed. There is no code in there to have orders stored for Turn X, executed, and then Turn Y's stored all in one file. That is what your proposed system (one that we thought of about 2 years ago I might add ) requires. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> P1 only needs position data and X-1 playback he can view. It's a clean table after exec. The following transaction will be slightly heavier, P2 receiving P1 orders, playback and position data. They say that coding for too long reduces your IQ, after which you start producing stuff that is unnecessary heavy - tripple swapping, 50% longer pbem mechs. Done for greater good afterall, hot seat and TCP/IP. I ditch the pbem alright. The game itself is damn fine though. (was that enough foul language to ban me so I don't have to continue this thread any longer, please?)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunt52: Why what you suggest won't work: turn 1 ------ Player 1 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 2] Player 2 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 1] turn 1 is executed # On whose computer? If is is executed on # both computers the results of the turn will # *not* be the same. Try it out. Save a game # and play through the same turn eight or ten # times. They will all be different. # # One computer has to execute the turns which # necessitates an e-mail bringing the total # back to the 1.5 emails per turn mark. - Bill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Man, is this REALLY so hard to comprehend? Did I say it would be executed on both computers? No? Then why are you presenting such a bizarre comment? Every and each turn would always be executed on ONE and ONLY ONE computer. On whose computer? On the *other* guys machine - as it is now. This part of the proposition is identical to current implementation and thus was not elaborated in the first msg. However, it is different in that you'd always get to plot orders after viewing the movie. This has not anything to do with turn resolution, which apparently surpasses some peoples comprehension. Read it again and you understand, hopefully, at least Fionn did. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR># Sorry - I have PERL on my brain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you have void structures on your brain. Live with me...

Fionn, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe you'll find that the onus is on you to do the basic research. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Naturally. After several hours of reading literally hundreds of messages on pbem and cheating, I'm however unable to find the info I'm looking for. Steve does not owe me anything, so he can just ignore me or ban me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FWIW of course one extra file swap isn't absolutely necessary to prevent cheating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There we finally have it. Thanks Fionn. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HOWEVER if you READ Steve's response you'll see he talks about programming issues impinging on the decision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These 'programming issues' are exactly what I'm interested in. Of course, nobody is obliged to give me a detailed answer, but I would be greateful for it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure that if this is such a major problem for you you can go get another game with a turn system u like <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'd rather not change for the worse.

Steve, Of course I keep missing your main point, because you are yet to explain it in detail. Could you please point me to the threads you're referring to? Until then, I'm not any wiser I was before. In one thread BTS (was it you) said that one extra file swap is absolutely necessary to prevent cheating. As I explained in my first message, this extra swap is NOT necessary to prevent cheating. Could you please refute this argument? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Big Time Software: We can only have ONE method for turn resolution. If you have ever made a computer game of this complexity you would understand that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would understand it simply by somebody giving a detailed answer. But thank you for your attempts to enlighten me so far. [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).]

Ok, after lots of tedious searching, amongst the dozens of messages dealing with pbem mechanism and security, only one partially covered my proposition. It was posted by Dar on 11-01-1999, but alas, was never commented by BTS. Of course each and every turn would only be resolved on one and only computer. Either alternating between Player A's and B's systems or solely on A's or B's. Thank you for your replies, but they didn't shed any light on this. If somebody has the knowledge to elaborate on exactly why my proposition would not work/prevent cheating, please indulge me. Otherwise I have to conclude BTS has made a major error on this one. No offense to anyone. [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).] [This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).]

Being new to this board, I'm sorry if this was discussed before, but the search feature is inconvenient and you guys are using rather non-descriptive subject headers anyway. In an ideal system, movies & orders would be combined into one file and swapped as follows: turn 1 ------ Player 1 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 2] Player 2 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 1] turn 1 is executed turn 2 ------ Player 1 sees turn 1 movie Player 1 issues turn 2 orders [sends to player 2] Player 2 sees turn 1 movie Player 2 issues turn 2 orders [sends to player 1] turn 2 is executed turn 3 ------ Player 1 sees turn 2 movie Player 1 issues turn 3 orders [sends to player 1] Player 2 sees turn 2 movies Player 2 issues turn 3 orders [sends to player 2] turn 3 is executed [...] Cheating is not possible because nobody sees the movie after plotting (this is identical to implementation). A 30 turn scenario would require only 60 file swaps to be completed (CM beta demo requires 90!). Not to mention my frustration after seeing the movie and not getting a chance to give orders right away. Because most gamers have other things to do besides playing CM, one swap a day is reasonable. This current system unnecessarily lengthens typical scenarios by an entire month! I can't believe how the authors have managed to overlook such a simple, user friendly solution.