Hubert Cater

aka_tom_w I find that VERY regretable. Unfortunately there are some inherent limitations to the turn based system, but as I mentioned before at least the encryption of most data will help secure SC2 from some of the more popular cheating methods seen in SC1 like RAM cheats and so on. In the end, and as even stated by fischkopf, the likelyhood of a completely secure system that cannot eventually be hacked is very minimal. The sad reality is that if someone really wants to do it eventually they will figure out a way (think of all the great minds and resources a company like Microsoft must have and how many security updates have they had to produce recently ) Now I could spend a lot of time and effort constantly trying to prevent cheating with updates and security patches... but instead I've decided to at least make it slightly more difficult and concentrate more on gameplay and design as unfortunately my resources and time are more limited. Hope this helps, Hubert

fischkopf So it would be extremely difficult for someone to be able to find _both_ sets of keys (the game would query both locations before allowing a turn to be played). And even if a person did find both locations, they couldn't tell others because the files/registry keys would be different for everyone's machine. Hmmm... I could be wrong here, but the only thing you would have to do to cheat this system is edit the number assigned to the PBEM file each time you wish to reload, correct? If so, this would be just one extra step beyond what is in place now and in this case there would be no need to try and track down the hidden values in registry keys etc. as the game would consider it a new PBEM file each time.

JerseyJohn Just because you change the topic heading does not mean I'll answer everytime Hubert

A sytem to prevent replaying moves can easily be implemented. Hehe... this is always easier said than done While I won't discount that a 100% cheat prevention system is possible, if the system requires stored data in order to work I suspect even this system will eventually be cracked by someone. Realistically all it takes is one person or even the rumour that it is possible (to crack the system) and the confidence of a cheat proof PBEM game is shattered. (Read the recent posts in the SC forum about FoW sniffers etc. and current tournaments and you'll get an idea of what I am refering to). I've read your post and I've even had a similar proposal in the past and while it *could* work in theory, I feel there are just too many issues that need to be addressed before it can be truly considered *easy* SC generates a unique (say, 256-bit) number whenever a new PBEM game is created. This number is attached to all saved turns. Unique numbers are tricky as it would have to be unique across all SC systems guaranteed. For example, in order for this to work, no two systems can generate the same number otherwise Murphy's Law applies as the possibility of PBEM turns clashing is more than likely. Unique numbers (across all SC systems) may be possible with some specific manipulation, but off hand I don't know of an easy way to do this. Also attaching this number to all saved turns is another problem as anyone with a hex editor will be able to edit this value in their favour. The cache could easily be 100 or more games because the amount of data being stored is very small, 7 bytes + 1 for current turn number in the 256-bit example. I'm not sure if I understood your whole concept here, but from what I understand this might be Ok for the id and turn number but you would still need to store all the saved games which would make storage considerably larger. Again if you store these turns on the system someone will be able to track it down and manipulate/delete them as necessary in order to cheat. Keep in mind that each turn is a completely separate file, there is much more data than a single turn number stored here that makes a saved file unique from any other saved file. But something should be done, because I really enjoy PBEM (TCIP involves too much waiting), but I don't enjoy the cheating, even when it's me that's doing it.. Sure but I really think that if a good system existed it would have been done by now. Good news is that I haven't completely ignored the cheating issue and have even added some improvements/encryption that should make TCP/IP as well as PBEM games slightly more secure from basic cheats but unfortunately I still think the PBEM reloading issue will always be with us no matter what we do. Hubert

In due time

Those are directories, there should still be a file called 'SC.ini' or depending on your settings it would appear as 'SC' but not the executable file 'SC'

Hehe.. no problems at all. The SC installation directory is where Strategic Command is installed on your computer. If you use Windows Explorer or the My Computer icon (usually found on your desktop) you can navigate to this directory... if you did not specify a special directory the default installation directoy is: C:\Program Files\Strategic Command From there you can double click on the file 'SC.ini' and edit the lines I described above if that applies Hubert

Might be the sound, you can try setting the line 'sound interrupt = 0' to 'sound interrupt = 1' in your SC.ini file. This file can be found in your SC installation directory. Hope this helps, Hubert

Hubert, I see you're online posting. What about these feature requests? Too early to say right now, but I'll think about it

Great list and perhaps this just might be helpful Thanks!

With the editor you can set your limits to as high as 255 per unit type

How it presently works is there are slots for 6 majors and 22 minors with the ability to set any country Allied or Axis, as well as active with a particular leaning, fully active, or neutral. Now couple this with the ability to name countries anything you like and I imagine there will be plenty of flexibility when it comes to campaign design Hope this helps, Hubert

What I'm saying is, will countries have the ability to fight countries that in SC1 were allies? Yes

Yes, this will be possible

This is an interesting idea although I would say that it's still a little early for this at the moment, but something to consider once the game is nearer completion

JerseyJohn Anyway, hopefully Hubert will comment after you've finished the list Consider me the #1 lurker on these forums for the next little while... I'm always reading and taking notes

Shaka Assuming the above model is somewhat accurate, it appears that the only thing we can add to this, would be the Diplomatic events and when they occured. That's about as close an assumption as possible

RobRas Originally we figured that the military style unit graphics (as opposed to the 3-D looking units) would be enough, but point taken as top down is still an *option* on the table, of course depending on a few things, but at the same, in a *worst case* scenario don't be too surprised if that particular community created mod is readily available even when the demo is released Hehe... true but who said I always listened to the posts on the forum Hubert

Thanks for bringing this up KDG, forgot about this problem from SC1, but I just wanted to clarify this point here as it seems to have come up often lately... This is sort of true as I was limited by map size with SC1 but it was not really because of hexes. In SC1 I pretty much only used DirectX to safely change the resolution when playing SC (remember that small problem ), and used the generic windows graphical interface (GDI) for outputting graphics on the screen. This method was slow and because of this and because of the way I was doing things... long story short it limited the map size due to the amount of memory I could use at once. With SC2, everything is pretty much DirectX, (keep in mind SC1 was my first game) it's a heck of a lot faster and thus the optimization allows me to do things a little differently, so the map size can be a lot larger which I think everyone will agree is a good thing. Btw, another change is the new supported resolutions for SC2: 1024x768 (Default as in SC1) 1280x1024 1600x1200 Hope this clarifies things a bit, Hubert

Elmo, not to worry, the current batch of screenshots are still a work in progress, so expect some changes before the final product. Enemy units now face off against each other... well at least on my computer they do

No tech planned, but tweaking the supply distance and number of units under control could be an option. I haven't really thought of that one actually but I'll add it to my list of maybe's

I pretty much looked at the naval units this way all along. An abstraction with some character added in by adding unit names to the different naval types, something like the flag ship name for the various fleets/packs.

Plunder is going to be a little different this time around, no definitive details on that just yet... but the answer to the question about Partisans is yes

Shaka I think you should also consider taking this one step further, and allow Air units to perform the same missions (ie strategic interdiction) Yes this is an option to consider as well I'd like to offer a different approach. We know the problem is too many units being able to operate where they are needed at the time they are needed. Limit the number of operating moves a nation can perform. And tie that limit to the industrial production multiplier... This is an idea I've thought about but I think that in a sense this already exists since the number of operations you can make is tied to your overal economic situation. If your MPP's are not that great you have to balance how many operations you will perform vs. other expenditures like rebuilding/purchasing units etc. In general I've tried to get away from specific limits like these and abstract them for more flexible game play. It is perhaps an oversimplification at times, and can definitly be argued against, but playability and realism are always a delicate balance. Agreed though, your proposal is also dynamic but in a different sense.

Correct and there has been some thought put into this as well Two basic changes/ideas (well three if you include the build limits option as also having an effect) that should have an effect will be with regards to strategic bombers and operating of units. With Strategic Bombers, the change/idea here will be to allow the bombing of resources even if units are on top of them... this will in essense model the pre bombardment/disruption of infrastructure/rail lines etc., prior to an amphibious assault. So what you ask? Well since you cannot operate/build a unit to/in a city that has it's strength < 5 it should limit some of the instant reinforcement/builds that quite often occur in SC1. Another operation rule I am toying with is to only allow units to operate that are within or adjacent a city, i.e. to simulate movement only from the railheads sort of thing and not from just anywhere in the field. This would be in conjunction to the existing minimum supply rule that also applies to operating units. Some subtle changes like this might just be enough to have players rethink some of their strategies and to even consider active reserves in potential hotspots! Hubert