Ageod American Civil War 2!

[Ace]

In that case, maybe previous suggestion from aryaman can be implemented.

I wonder if a proper PBEM system will be added. I mean one in which you can send a single file to your opponent. It would be a cheat prove system if the system is made so that, in the first turn you plot your movements, then send the file. Your opponent plot his movements, then send the file, I open the file and then the turn is executed, then I plot my movements and send the second turn...

[Captain_Orso]

You don't need to implement anything to do this. You just do it. And it's already been tested and suggested by Aphrodite Mae .... ..... .... *huh* sorry

and that rascal Hobbes [URL=http://s658.photobucket.com/user/Der_Ami_At_Bucket/media/Smileys/hobbesdance.gif.html][/URL] ompom:



Have a look here: A method to speed up your PBEM games

[Ace]

That is double hosting, one player is hosting odd and other even turns. That speeds up play and it is nice to double host, but it doesn't prevent cheating.
I'm not sure that was being suggested by aryaman. I understood he was looking for a save game which, once received and loaded, runs the turn on your computer automatically with your and your opponent orders, with your orders previously sent to your opponent . If possible, that would prevent cheating.

[Captain_Orso]

Okay, I understand now. It would be a contextual automation of running the turn. It would unfortunately be the exact same situation, only kicked-off in a different way.

There are only 2 solutions of which I can think; both of them require an online system to facilitate.

1. Have an independent server record when a game turn is run. Players would register a game and receive a game-number. The number would be entered by both players into the game. The game would code this number into the game files. Each game file would always use the coding of this number to identify the file as belonging to this game.

When a game turn is run by either player using this code it will contact the game registration sever, which will record that a turn is being run and for which game.

This would allow the players to check which turn was run and when and by which player by logging into the game server and checking the status of the game.

It would not in itself prevent a player from re-running a turn, which in certain circumstances may be necessary and agreed upon by the players. It would however allow each player to check if a turn was run more than once.

Advantages: Very little processing power and storage would be necessary to implement this.

Disadvantages: The player running the turn would have to have an online connection when running the turn. A server is needed to run the registration engine and record the game turns.

2. Have an independent server run each game turn. The game would be registered by both players. Each time he/she is ready with their orders--this could be completely independent from the other player--he/she sends them to the game server. When the orders from both players are received, the game turn is run by the server and the results returned to the players.

Advantages: Using Open Source PGP the orders files could be sent by email to the game server, which could then also send them back per email.

Disadvantages: A server would be needed to run the turns and it would require much more processor power and storage to run the game, although whether it took 30 seconds to run a turn or 2 minutes would not matter for the players as they would not be sitting in front of their monitors and watching.

If a turn had to be re-run, a mechanism would be required to allow for the game server to turn back a turn. A lot more coding would have to be done to realize this solution compared to solution 1.

The players would be restricted to playing at the exact same patch level as the server was running. No customized settings not built into the game could be made, eg changing the limit to the number of division each faction my build in the current game.

--

At any rate, as long as the game is being hosted by one of the players there will never be a way to prevent the hosting player from manipulating the results in one way or another.

[DrPostman]

I don't think that AGEod will want to pay for a server just to counter cheating. Is cheating really that big of
a problem? I have yet to delve into PBEM gaming so I don't have a clue how bad it might be.

[Ace]

I don't think that AGEod will want to pay for a server just to counter cheating. Is cheating really that big of
a problem? I have yet to delve into PBEM gaming so I don't have a clue how bad it might be.

No it is not a big problem. Most of the time the players develop a sense of mutual understanding since PBEM takes a long time. And mutual trust is often achieved. But, I thought it would require just implementing a password to improve the current system to prevent that 1% which might feel tempted to cheat.
I didn't know it would be so complicated.

[John Schilling]

No it is not a big problem. Most of the time the players develop a sense of mutual understanding since PBEM takes a long time. And mutual trust is often achieved. But, I thought it would require just implementing a password to improve the current system to prevent that 1% which might feel tempted to cheat.
I didn't know it would be so complicated.

Creating a system that seems like it should be proof against cheating would be easy. Creating a system that really is proof against cheating, is really hard. Of the schemes proposed here, the only one I couldn't immediately see how to defeat was the one where AGEod (or some trusted third party) runs a proprietary ACW2 server.

And if you don't actually make the system secure, you've made the problem worse. On the one hand, people who see that they aren't trusted tend to act like they shouldn't be trusted. On the other hand, people who see flashy "security" technology protecting them, tend not to recognize when they are being cheated because they assume they can't be cheated. Meanwhile, you've just made "hack the system" an implicit, and probably moderately challenging, part of the game, in front of a crowd of technically literate master gamers.

Doing this right would require the services of professional information security experts, or at least very dedicated and competent amateurs. I think the better strategy might be to accept that this is just a game, and play it with people we trust.

[Ace]

I think the better strategy might be to accept that this is just a game, and play it with people we trust.

Excellent post. You are absolutely right. I am sorry I hijacked this thread with something not as important as other aspects of the game.

[DrPostman]

Excellent post. You are absolutely right. I am sorry I hijacked this thread with something not as important as other aspects of the game.

You didn't really hijack it since this is a thread about potential improvements to
the next game.

[Erik Springelkamp]

The Combat Mission WEGO Email system is secure, but you cannot plot at the same time.

1) Player A: receive file, see result of previous move, plot moves, resolve turn, don't see result, send file (protected by password B).
2) Player B: receive file, see result, plot moves, send file (protected by password A).

So if plotting takes a lot of time, this slows the game down. If plotting is not the major time factor but rather waiting for the opponent having an opportunity to plot, this slowing down may be negligible.

[Captain_Orso]

Creating a system that seems like it should be proof against cheating would be easy. Creating a system that really is proof against cheating, is really hard. Of the schemes proposed here, the only one I couldn't immediately see how to defeat was the one where AGEod (or some trusted third party) runs a proprietary ACW2 server.

And if you don't actually make the system secure, you've made the problem worse. On the one hand, people who see that they aren't trusted tend to act like they shouldn't be trusted. On the other hand, people who see flashy "security" technology protecting them, tend not to recognize when they are being cheated because they assume they can't be cheated. Meanwhile, you've just made "hack the system" an implicit, and probably moderately challenging, part of the game, in front of a crowd of technically literate master gamers.

Doing this right would require the services of professional information security experts, or at least very dedicated and competent amateurs. I think the better strategy might be to accept that this is just a game, and play it with people we trust.

It's true. Simply setting up a 'secure' system amounts to the clarion call for some hackers; and to paraphrase, "some people just want to see the world burn". A good hoster provides the infrastructure security and a secure protocol will go a long way in preventing break-ins. The rest is standard data-security procedures.

But regardless, for the minimal need, the investment in time and money would be great.

---

I've got one more solution to suggest. It's not perfect, but it would be free and require relatively little to implement other than a bit of organizational work and some good souls to support it.

Third-Party-Hoster: If, like in a tournament, a third person collected the orders, ran the game turn and distributed the results--.trn and .rpl files--aside from conspiratory actions, there would be no way to cheat.

If enough people see the need, we could think about doing this.

[Pocus]

People can host for a game they don't take part, and get the favor returned later. In the end, you did not produce more effort than doing it by yourself, but you secured the system.

[Ace]

Perhaps, when searching for a PBEM opponent by posting on this forum, a search for host can also be put inside the post. I would be honored to host a game to some of the more experienced players. A lot can be learned that way. I hope some of the newbies would feel the same about hosting average- to above experience players...

[Leibst]

Is AACW2 going to be player in tunrs of 15 days or weekly?

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Is AACW2 going to be player in tunrs of 15 days or weekly?

While I'm sure the grand campaign will still be 15 day turns, it would be interesting to experiment on a smaller scenario with weekly turns.

[Ace]

While I'm sure the grand campaign will still be 15 day turns, it would be interesting to experiment on a smaller scenario with weekly turns.

+1

[DrPostman]

I wonder if it would be too much to code for options of 1 week, 15 days, or one month turns? A month might be too long though.

[Leibst]

If the game is designed for turns of 15 days, it is possible to make scenaries of 7 days/turn but imo this suposse a lot of work with events, options, RGDs...

[Jerzul]

Ok, so no brigade builder/individual regiment construction option. So how about this:

1. Can you build forts anywhere now? I never understood the need to build them only in regions with original structures.
2. Can the building of a fort at least leave you a battery of fort guns? I still don't know what happens to all of the cannons (four batteries worth!) after you build a fort
3. I would also like to see the ability to raise union troops in southern states. Most notably eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, Northern Alabama, etc. Especially African-American troops after the Emancipation Proclamation has been passed!

Thanks

[Captain_Orso]

Ok, so no brigade builder/individual regiment construction option. So how about this:

1. Can you build forts anywhere now? I never understood the need to build them only in regions with original structures.

No. Forts were built in locations where there was already an infrastructure to provide for resource transportation. Building a fort in the middle of the wilderness, although it might be technically possible, would require extraordinary measures to support not only the building, but also the garrisoning and maintenance. More practical locations would therefor win out.

2. Can the building of a fort at least leave you a battery of fort guns? I still don't know what happens to all of the cannons (four batteries worth!) after you build a fort

The 4 artillery and supply elements needed to build a fort are only a measure of the cost of building a fort. Once the building of the fort has started these units are returned to the unit-build-pool and can be rebuilt.

[INDENT]Tip: Use the cheapest artillery possible to build your forts.[/INDENT]

3. I would also like to see the ability to raise union troops in southern states. Most notably eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, Northern Alabama, etc. Especially African-American troops after the Emancipation Proclamation has been passed!

Thanks

[Wraith]

No. Forts were built in locations where there was already an infrastructure to provide for resource transportation. Building a fort in the middle of the wilderness, although it might be technically possible, would require extraordinary measures to support not only the building, but also the garrisoning and maintenance. More practical locations would therefor win out.

Practical locations are not always where the desired line is. I might want a line of forts behind the Rappahannock river... there is only one town on that particular river at Fredricksburg. Why is that limiting me from building forts down the line?

Perhaps a rule of needing to be within X slots of a town/city of level 2 or above, which would allow for greater operational flexibility rather than "No."

The 4 artillery and supply elements needed to build a fort are only a measure of the cost of building a fort. Once the building of the fort has started these units are returned to the unit-build-pool and can be rebuilt.

Why even have this step then? If I hit the "Build Fort" button, it could take the cost, war supply, etc, right out of my stockpile. Not to mention that as it stands now, the process is:

- Decide to build a fort.
- Build four cheap arty units (for CSA, only options are TX, LA, SC) and possibly either a river transport group or a support unit.
- Wait for those units to form up.
- Move units to desired location, along with leader.
- Start construction (if the leader is even active, else I'm waiting again).
- Wait.

And then end result is just a fort, with nothing inside it, which may or may not still even be relevant. I still have to coordinate to get units to the fort to actually garrison it. Furthermore, I've expended conscripts that I will never get back that might have been used elsewhere. I actually just lost a fort in New Orleans (which had literally just finished building) because the units that were to occupy the fort had not yet arrived. Why? Because it was JULY 1861 and I didn't think he'd have actually made it down there with enough forces.

[DrPostman]

And then end result is just a fort, with nothing inside it, which may or may not still even be relevant. I still have to coordinate to get units to the fort to actually garrison it. Furthermore, I've expended conscripts that I will never get back that might have been used elsewhere. I actually just lost a fort in New Orleans (which had literally just finished building) because the units that were to occupy the fort had not yet arrived. Why? Because it was JULY 1861 and I didn't think he'd have actually made it down there with enough forces.

That's always bugged me about forts. You totally lose the artillery instead of an inherent defense force (I think that when built they ought to come with
at least a small garrison force that includes a small artillery unit. Keep in mind that Forts Henry-Heiman/Donlalson didn't have anything there before they
were built at the start of the war, only 8 months before they were besieged (especially when it came to Henry-Heiman, there was nothing there while
for Donalson there was the small town of Dover nearby. They took 8 months to build because the Mississippi river forts took precedence.

[Captain_Orso]

Practical locations are not always where the desired line is. I might want a line of forts behind the Rappahannock river... there is only one town on that particular river at Fredricksburg. Why is that limiting me from building forts down the line?

Perhaps a rule of needing to be within X slots of a town/city of level 2 or above, which would allow for greater operational flexibility rather than "No."

Maybe because historically 'forts' built during the war were actually fortifications built around towns which were of strategic importance, with a couple of exceptions. Building a Civil War Maginot Line would be rather unhistorical.

Why even have this step then? If I hit the "Build Fort" button, it could take the cost, war supply, etc, right out of my stockpile. Not to mention that as it stands now, the process is:

- Decide to build a fort.
- Build four cheap arty units (for CSA, only options are TX, LA, SC) and possibly either a river transport group or a support unit.
- Wait for those units to form up.
- Move units to desired location, along with leader.
- Start construction (if the leader is even active, else I'm waiting again).
- Wait.

And then end result is just a fort, with nothing inside it, which may or may not still even be relevant. I still have to coordinate to get units to the fort to actually garrison it. Furthermore, I've expended conscripts that I will never get back that might have been used elsewhere. I actually just lost a fort in New Orleans (which had literally just finished building) because the units that were to occupy the fort had not yet arrived. Why? Because it was JULY 1861 and I didn't think he'd have actually made it down there with enough forces.

But you know that once you start building the fort that the artillery and supply unit will be returned to the build-pool. Why did you not put up a garrison in New Orleans first and then build the fort?

That's always bugged me about forts. You totally lose the artillery instead of an inherent defense force (I think that when built they ought to come with at least a small garrison force that includes a small artillery unit. Keep in mind that Forts Henry-Heiman/Donlalson didn't have anything there before they were built at the start of the war, only 8 months before they were besieged (especially when it came to Henry-Heiman, there was nothing there while for Donalson there was the small town of Dover nearby. They took 8 months to build because the Mississippi river forts took precedence.

You do not lose the artillery. The artillery is the abstract cost of building the fort. The issue you have is only perception.

If instead of building 4 batteries and a supply unit, what if you built a 'fort-building-unit' that cost the same, but had little military value; the situation might be more obvious. Of course you would still have to build a garrison parallel to the fort-building-unit and move them to the fort.

If that's not user-friendly enough you could integrate the cost of an artillery and infantry garrison into the cost of the fort-building-unit. But I know what would come after that. Players would complain that they already have a garrison in the location where they want to build the fort, "why can't I just build the fort and garrison it with the units I want to? I just makes no sense". Yeah, right.

[DrPostman]

If instead of building 4 batteries and a supply unit, what if you built a 'fort-building-unit' that cost the same, but had little military value; the situation might be more obvious. Of course you would still have to build a garrison parallel to the fort-building-unit and move them to the fort.

I very much like that idea, a kind of engineer type unit. But what about an even more expensive unit to upgrade a fort to
a fortress? You could also require the build time to be at least a year.

[Ace]

Building forts was a mayor undertaking, just hitting the button and deducting from your stockpile wouldn't simulate time and effort for building it. Building supply wagons and artillery and moving it to the location somewhat simulates it.
I think, forts outside towns should be enabled, as they were historically built almost exclusively out of towns. Island No 10 was built in the middle of nowhere, at least I think so.

[Wraith]

Maybe because historically 'forts' built during the war were actually fortifications built around towns which were of strategic importance, with a couple of exceptions. Building a Civil War Maginot Line would be rather unhistorical.

Like Richmond, Vicksburg, or Petersburg? Those aren't "forts", that's "field works". Then maybe forts should be completely done away with, and when units dig in around towns, their "fortifications" remain even after the units leave. But that raises a whole other specter of programming that is a pain. Specific forts are built to control strategically important crossings, terrain features or choke points, this is not an army digging in. But hey, it's "unhistorical". Maybe the game should just have a button for the Union player that says, "I WIN", because that's the only historical option.

But you know that once you start building the fort that the artillery and supply unit will be returned to the build-pool. Why did you not put up a garrison in New Orleans first and then build the fort?

Hmm, I wonder... might it have been because I could only build two light arty in NOLA, and had to wait on another pair from Texas, at which point I had completely expended my money? I think that might have been the reason. Not to mention the travel time it took for them to get there.

You do not lose the artillery. The artillery is the abstract cost of building the fort. The issue you have is only perception.

No, it's not an "abstract" cost of building a fort. It's a real cost because at best, I'm waiting three to four turns for the units and two turns for the fort, and then I'd have to wait again for those units that I just built to get back into the field, if I so chose, not to mention that I've just burned through three conscript companies and however much war supply to build them. I don't get any of that value back. Not to mention that paying for those units takes a crap-ton of money away from building other units... the "opportunity cost".

If instead of building 4 batteries and a supply unit, what if you built a 'fort-building-unit' that cost the same, but had little military value; the situation might be more obvious. Of course you would still have to build a garrison parallel to the fort-building-unit and move them to the fort.

If that's not user-friendly enough you could integrate the cost of an artillery and infantry garrison into the cost of the fort-building-unit. But I know what would come after that. Players would complain that they already have a garrison in the location where they want to build the fort, "why can't I just build the fort and garrison it with the units I want to? I just makes no sense". Yeah, right.

That's silly. The garrison of whatever fort I'd be building is an operational or tactical concern, generally, though sometimes it is strategic. I just want the artillery that I expend in building the damn thing to at least give me some sort of reward in combat power for the fort itself, and the supply units to lend the "staying power" for forts under siege.

Building forts was a mayor undertaking, just hitting the button and deducting from your stockpile wouldn't simulate time and effort for building it. Building supply wagons and artillery and moving it to the location somewhat simulates it.
I think, forts outside towns should be enabled, as they were historically built almost exclusively out of towns. Island No 10 was built in the middle of nowhere, at least I think so.

Of course there would be a time factor involved, and, by tying it to the number of troops in the region, they would make those major undertakings either easier or harder. So a massive army can quickly build a fort at Fredricksburg or Norfolk or New Orleans, but a single regiment of militia is going to take a while longer.

[John Schilling]

Building forts was a mayor undertaking, just hitting the button and deducting from your stockpile wouldn't simulate time and effort for building it. Building supply wagons and artillery and moving it to the location somewhat simulates it.
I think, forts outside towns should be enabled, as they were historically built almost exclusively out of towns. Island No 10 was built in the middle of nowhere, at least I think so.

Likewise Forts Henry and Donelson. But take a look at what sort of forts they were. Fort Henry, in particular, would have fallen with absolutely no effort at all if the Union had waited another week. Island No. 10 was little more than a set of entrenched shore batteries, with no set defenses against land attack (except for the swampy terrain, which was not inconsiderable but is already accounted for in the game). Only Donelson was really worthy of the name "Fort", and not by much.

For an example of a serious fort built in the North American wilderness, consider Ticonderoga. Even by ACW standards, that ancient structure would probably merit "Level 1 Fortress" status. And it took better than two years to construct. Building a real fortress in a place where there are no roads, quarries, stonemasons, or laborers, is not something that can be done in a month.

Granted, military engineering had improved a bit since 1758, and logistics even more so - at least in places reached by rail or river. Since the game already has provisions for "Level 1" and "Level 2" forts, it might be appropriate to allow for player-constructed Level 2 forts on top of existing structures, and Level 1 forts in any region accessible by rail or river. At the same cost as the Level 2 fort built near a town, and with no real possibility of further upgrade.

I don't think this would add greatly to the game - you can already entrench infantry and guns to your heart's content in the wilderness, and those are almost as good as Level 1 Forts - but it might be of some benefit and it might not be too difficult to implement. If it turns out it is too difficult to implement, no great loss.


A dedicated, consumable "fortress construction unit" replacing the wagons+guns, as has already been suggested, would also be a small benefit to realism that we can do without if it is too hard. The things you need to build a fort are not in fact things that can be used to feed troops or rain shot on the enemy if you change your mind about wanting a fortress, or vice versa, but the approximate magnitude of the cost and commitment is the same and it is IMO rare for someone to actually change their mind at the last minute.

[Ace]

Give us some teasers. What will be mayor changes in AACW2.

[DrPostman]

Give us some teasers. What will be mayor changes in AACW2.

Have you looked at the map at the beginning of this thread yet? It's huge!

[H Gilmer3]

It takes a really poor person to cheat in a game like this. Learn how to play better!!! I have played a few PBEM games and I think I lost every one of them! I enjoyed them and the only reason I didn't play more was because they took longer and I was very impatient.