should we provide battle logs?

conmcb25 · February 27, 2004, 14:47

Ok this is related to the rules discussion.

In order to deter or be able to check for cheating the question is should we keep and forward battlelogs during war only and forward them, as well as who to forward them to.

Related thread at UN

Rhothaerill · February 27, 2004, 14:56

It would add a small bit of extra time to each turn to make sure the log is exact, but I think it's a worthy idea.

Togas · February 27, 2004, 15:41

I believe battle logs should only be required IF the Admins request them. I'm not in favor of sending them to the other teams. Civ3 PBEM doesn't work like that. Only the Multiplayer allows that sort of feedback when you're playing in simul mode. I think keeping with the original system gives us an edge as we've all become used to the pbem way of doing battle. I'd like to keep the edge.

--Togas

asleepathewheel · February 27, 2004, 15:43

How detailed would these be, exactly?

I like something like: we attacked and killed 4 pikes using 10 knights. I'm not sure I would like it if we had to reveal things like how many wounded and killed of our 10 attackers, and wounded to what extent.

Hot_Enamel · February 27, 2004, 17:42

No logs to the other team.

conmcb25 · February 27, 2004, 17:45

Everytime there is a battle we send a log if we vote for a log.

Some inbetween system is NOT being polled.

Stick with the poll. If we dont want to log everytime then vote NO.

If you want fetails on this discussion visit the UN thread link.

conmcb25 · February 27, 2004, 17:46

Everytime there is a battle we send a log if we vote for a log.

Some inbetween system is NOT being polled.

Stick with the poll. If we dont want to log everytime then vote NO.

If you want details on this discussion visit the UN thread link.

Kloreep · February 27, 2004, 18:02

I voted for sending to the admins.

I agree with Togas. This is just how PBEM works. Besides which, if we have to send to the other teams, it will either be A) Incomplete (a list of combats but not of moves) or B) A pain in the ass to write (because we will have to figure out what moves they could and could not have seen at the time if it were MP).

asleepathewheel · February 27, 2004, 18:07

oh alright.

I vote send it to the admins only.

Kloreep · February 27, 2004, 18:26

? From the

I assume you have not been truly convinced to change your vote. I didn't mean to attack anyone; please don't change your vote just because I or others happen to have a strong opinion.

BigFree · February 27, 2004, 20:57

I think it is a flaw and not a feature of PBEM that hides the action form an opponent. Firaxis has in fact said that a 'replay' function was going to be added, but they ran out of time. Trip first reported this to me.

I think it's only fair to report what happened in a battle. It doesn't lend itself to greater strategies, only to figure out ways to 'trick' your opponent.

asleepathewheel · February 27, 2004, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Kloreep
? From the

I assume you have not been truly convinced to change your vote. I didn't mean to attack anyone; please don't change your vote just because I or others happen to have a strong opinion.

don't be silly Kloreep, I didn't think you were attacking me.

I was responding to the comment by conmcb:

Quote:

Some inbetween system is NOT being polled.
Stick with the poll. If we dont want to log everytime then vote NO.
If you want details on this discussion visit the UN thread link.

OF course, in all honesty I haven't gone to the un thread, so i was just talking out of my ass, soo....maybe I should check that out.

conmcb25 · February 27, 2004, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFree
I think it is a flaw and not a feature of PBEM that hides the action form an opponent. Firaxis has in fact said that a 'replay' function was going to be added, but they ran out of time. Trip first reported this to me.

I think it's only fair to report what happened in a battle. It doesn't lend itself to greater strategies, only to figure out ways to 'trick' your opponent.

BF you seem to have the most coherent knowledge of this, which one did you vote for?

Inverse Icarus · February 27, 2004, 23:36

i vote for battle logs if all teams provide them to all other teams.

there should be some HARSH penalities for "cooking the books".

Octavian X · February 27, 2004, 23:47

I'm sorry, but does someone care to tell me extactly what purpose these will serve?

Oh, it's said it'll prevent cheating and whatnot. But, I already know that when one team suspects reloading by the other, the team accused of such cheating will simply claim pure luck. The best such logs can do is make something look suspicious at best - they won't prove a thing.

asleepathewheel · February 27, 2004, 23:50

isn't the purpose to make the game more realistic? In RL, you would probably have a decent idea of the forces that sacked you, in the game you have no clue.

I don't seriously think it would deter cheating by reloads or what have you either.

Kloreep · February 28, 2004, 00:24

I imagine verifying combat results is the reason to send to the admin; if they already have a) the combat results from the playing team, and b) the original save the team before them sent are both in the admin's hands as a matter of course (and I imagine it will be requested everyone CC the save to the admin), then it will be easy for the admin to check combat results when asked; and possibly to perform the occassional test on his own if he wants.

As for sending it to the other team involved, asleepathewheel said it; it's to make it more like SP where you can see where and with what another civ attacks you.

Donegeal · February 28, 2004, 01:51

I have already voted to send to the admin, but I would support sending to CGA... er, ah, the other team (

) ONLY the battle results. I.E.: What unit attacked which unit with the number of HP starting and the resulting HP left after the battle.

Unit moves that *could* have been seen in SP should be disregarded as it would be far to difficult to determine what would have been seen and even more difficult to determine if this rule was indeed violated blantly.

GodKing · February 28, 2004, 10:17

No log. Lot of work for little if no real benifit IMHO.

Donegeal · February 28, 2004, 12:37

Actually, it wouldn't be much more work. In the PTW ISDG we already make a post that lists all the information a log would require. It would be a matter of copy and paste.

joncnunn · February 28, 2004, 13:49

Voted for logs for oppoents attacked and for admins.

This should make it more obvious if someone is trying to maniuplate the RNG.

BigFree · February 28, 2004, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by conmcb25

BF you seem to have the most coherent knowledge of this, which one did you vote for?

I voted for the third option.

donegeal: Only the actual attack would have to be reported; not the moves of a unit before it attacked.

OctX: I think we are looking at this as making it a bit more realistic. Units don't simply disapear from one turn to the next. An explanation/"Battle Log" is provided to clear away the mistake Firaxis made of not implementing a 're-play' function for PBEM as they has intended.

I wonder if they would be willing to put one in the upcoming patches for C3C....Any one still working with Firaxis on testing?

Octavian X · February 29, 2004, 01:00

BigFree: Then call me one of those old-fashioned 'purists' who likes the challange of not knowing what happened over the turn. Believe it or not, but I do like the challange of not knowing what the combat was like. It's just one of those things that makes the game a little more interesting.

BigFree · February 29, 2004, 02:32

Purist! Purist! PURIST!

It almost sounds like a bad word if you say it with the right tone.

joncnunn · March 1, 2004, 19:01

I'd like the report to include the order in which the attacks occured as part of this. (Including the order of bombardment.)