The "permanent" text on the Federation 9th Fleet counter can be removed. It must be removed by using the cbdesign program.

Load the gamebox from cbdesign then find the Federation 9th Fleet under the Playing Pieces Groups. Double Click the 9th Fleet counter. Erase the text. Hit the OK button. Save the gamebox. Everything will then be good to go.

There are several other counters where you find this happening. Use the same method as above to remove the offending text.

NOTE: Some units have that text as a friendly reminder that you can only have so many of a given unit, or as a reminder as to where you can find more if you need more, e.g. APT has text telling you that more APTs can be used using the Markers as opposed to the counters. Markers cannot be put in the Various Playing Pieces Groups, e.g. 9th Fleet.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, October 06, 2019 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Ted, at this time Lar and I have a plan to recover several thousand counters. However, my current estimate is that atleast five thousand of the recovered counters will be used for missing units from various Captain's Log SITs as well as more units to make scenarios such as (659.0) The Klingon Eastern Marches and (6ES.0) Eye of the Storm playable via Cyberboard. These 2 scenarios have the potential to use even more counters for the Klingons and Federation respectively than the various EB scenarios that the gamebox currently supports.

Just as a hint, The Federation currently has 200 FF counters in the gamebox. In an unrealistic look the Federation can use a maximum of 273 FFs in the GW scenarios if they build every FF on their schedule as a standard FF, plus minor shipyards and assuming they go to war on turn 7 and the war ends at the end of turn 35.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 07, 2019 - 09:54 am: Edit

Thomas, good to know.

Suggestion: Use more "squadron counters" to support scenarios where large numbers of ships are expected. The Feds often overbuild FFs, so it makes sense to have perhaps half a dozen 6*FF counters, along with some 3*FF counters, kind of like the cardboard version of the game. Should help you recover additional counters.

It might even be worth having a couple of 12*FF or 12*D5/NCL counters.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 07, 2019 - 08:19 pm: Edit

So this might be a dumb question, but I keep sort of perusing this discussion, and am confused by the need to control the number of counters that are used. Does Cyberboard have limits on the numbers of counters? And if so, why?

In Vassal, you just add new counters to the map when you need new counters. As, ya know, computer. If you want to put down a 3FF counter, you just add a 3FF counter.

Like, I'm not trying to be agitational in any way, but it seems weird that a computer program has (what I might be misunderstanding) a counter mix issue.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, October 07, 2019 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Peter, the limit is on the "Box" size of the game module. The more counters that are added the larger the box gets.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 07, 2019 - 08:47 pm: Edit

I guess I don't understand what that means.

Like, can't you just add and delete counters as needed?

(Like, I have never used Cyberboard, as I'm a Mac guy, and it doesn't work on Mac. But mostly I'm just confused here :-)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, October 07, 2019 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Cyberboard does have a limit on the number of counters it can handle. Currently, that count is somewhere close to 50,000. Given that I still have to count the Seltorians, Tholians, WYN, Vudar and Kzintis, I'm going to guess that actual limit is around 75,000 counters total.

I suspect that part of the limit on counters is that Cyberboard was written for 32 bit OS systems. Unfortunately, it will not be modified and recompiled for 64 bit systems. I asked way back when I first converted my computers from 32 bit OSs to 64bit OSs if the developer was going to make a 64 bit version of Cyberboard. Thus while Cyberboard runs fine on most 64 bit Windows OS's, it most likely uses the memory only in the first 3 GB range.

For comparison the current F&E gamebox under development is 8,335 KB in size. The gamebox for Scenario #5 from Gulf Strike is 163 KB. The gamebox for Jutland is 722 KB. So you can see how problematic the number of counters is. The F&E gamebox also includes more maps and charts than the others listed above. We have 7 different LSM maps for various scenarios. There are maps for (659.0) The Klingon Eastern Marches, (655.0) No Tholians, (6WA.0) Winds Aloft (Paravians), (6HW.0) Howling Winds (Carnivons), A combined (6WA.0) and (6HW.0) map for the scenario Bill and I are currently playtesting, which has also been submitted to Chuck.

A part of the counter limit problem stems from 2 competing issues. One provide enough of each counter for use on the map during the length of the General War. 35 Turns is a very long time for a game to last. Providing the proper mix of counters so that no one runs out of crucial counters in the middle of the game. You can see from earlier notes from myself and Pete that during the setup of the ISC War scenario (625.0) we actually ran out of certain counters. So those numbers have to be readjusted to we have enough for the scenario to be built, and then more so that additional units can be built that require those specific counters.

As I stated above to Ted about the Federation having 200 FF Counters and can use a maximum of 273. The truth is they could easily build more than 400 if they downsubbed almost everything eligible to a FF and didn't lose any in combat. Granted that is an extreme case.

I haven't even looked at some of the requirements to make sure the Klingons have enough counters for (659.0) The Eastern Marches. Yes, they will have to use the Romulan counters for certain units like Prime Teams, Diplomats, Engineers and other certain specific counters to differentiate between to two Klingon Empires. The Federation counters for (6ES.0) Eye of the Storm, is both easier and harder. Easier, in that I have to make reasonable assumptions of 3x/4x/5x the number of existing counters for a given unit. Harder in that the permutations of a given player's idea is not the same as mine.

Above all before I can even worry about specific scenarios and having enough counters for them, I have to make sure that all the empires represented in the gamebox have a reasonable number of each unit represented so as to not require text boxes and other unusual work arounds.

Each new ship added to F&E via Captain's Log and future products will make the decisions even harder. For example, the Federation Corvette (VT) that SVC posted in SFB will have 45 counters. Why? 28 are needed if all 28 are available in a given MY scenario that hasn't been written yet. One of those possible scenarios is (682.0) The Second Fed-Kzinti War. So is 45 enough? Until someone playtests it or some other likely scenario we won't know.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 08:30 am: Edit

Huh. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

It is weird that there is a fixed limit to the number of counters, even if it is a big limit. I'd think that just adding and subtracting counters as needed would circumvent that (which is how Vassal works--you just add and subtract ship counters as you need them), but, well, Cyberboard is what it is, and apparently works well enough, so I'll stop kibitzing now :-)

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 08:57 am: Edit

It's worth remembering too that Cyberboard was coded and designed during the late Windows 98 days. So there were also OS limitations on the size of the files at the time as well.

I'd be willing to bet the limit on the total number of counters is a hard coded value, as 75k is just way too low to be a 32 bit limitation.

You really can't compare it to something like Vassal, which has been updated and runs now on a 64 bit OS. It's basically been fed and cared for over the years, while Cyberboard hasn't been updated since the Windows XP days, and looks like it never will be again. The only way to update it would be to get the code from the original developer and do it oursevles. Or maybe switch over to something like Tabletop Simulator, but that would also be a mountain of work.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 10:54 am: Edit

A mountain of work that Richard Eitzen is undertaking, but for his eyesight issues.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 01:19 pm: Edit

Ted, it's a mountain of never-ending work to boot. It's not just as simple as porting it over to a newer 64 bit OS (which is hard to begin with). Say a coder does all that work and updates it for Win 10. Every. Single. Time. an update comes out, it can break one or more of your OS procedure calls, meaning you now get to go back and figure out how to "fix it". And with the amount of "updates" that comes out for just Windows anymore, that can be needing to do a new rev every update cycle. NOT FUN.

And if you want it to run on an Apple, or maybe an Android tablet/phone/whatever you just multiply your work by the amount of platforms.

Honestly, it's a miracle that the current Cyberboard still works. If Microsoft ever dumps compatibility mode, it'll sop working for sure. You can already see issues with it if you run it on certain Windows platforms, like Surface for example. Silly stuff like the trays getting lost, the pointer always being an inch off or so, and so on. Most of those issues are touch screen related, but when they pop up, the only way to "fix" them is to close out and restart CB.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 01:27 pm: Edit

That's Microsuck for you. Always fixing what ain't broke.

There's a reason why container services like Docker have become so popular!

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 01:39 pm: Edit

I'll just point out that Vassal works just fine, has no counter limit, and works cross platform :-)

(I'll duck and see myself out now...)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Vassal works fine, but I don't like it's "look and feel". The board can also get messy.

"po-TA-to" versus "po-TAW-to".

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 03:36 pm: Edit

The main benefit of CB is it's portability. You do not need a persistent internet connection to use it. It's all self contained. And also it looks prettier

But yeah you really can't compare the two, they were developed at different times. I'd be willing to bet the creator of CB would have made a product a lot more like Vassal had they done the work later. Remember, Vassal was just a clumsy child when CB was in full swing! And not it has the benefit of continued work by what I can only assume is a team of engineers. CB was literally one guy and a PC. I'm not surprised Vassal can do a lot of things better than CB now a days.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Not that I'm trying to convince anyone to use Vassal over Cyberboard if you like Cyberboard, but:

"You do not need a persistent internet connection to use it."

Isn't something that affects Vassal. I have never used Vassal over a persistent internet connection. My opponent and I just e-mail maps back and forth (so if by "persistent internet connection" you mean "reliable e-mail", then yeah, but I don't think that is what you mean :-)

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 11:13 pm: Edit

LOL Maybe I can talk my kid who is a Comp Science major at UofA to reach out to the CB Developer and see if he can make it a class project.

I don't bash Vassal as it also serves the purpose of keeping the game alive despite life. Things like...friends moving away to far away places, people getting tired of their cats ruining games, games being postponed so long that spouses tired of looking at the dusty game in the middle of their {insert name of 'unused' room} start 'accidentally' clearing the deck...

Plus I think James lives somewhere around here {bay area}...and eventually we will meet and take over the world.

Plus after I post this new CB Update it will be his turn to update Vassal. Friendly competition is a good thing...

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, October 08, 2019 - 11:20 pm: Edit

I remember discovering CB in 1999 and was like WTF...AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!

There were so many other games available at the time for it.

The F&E file was primitive but workable. Once I got a hold I couldn't help myself but tweak what Phil LeBas had started. 20 years and a marriage {probably} later it is still workable but a little prettier to look at.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, October 09, 2019 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Lar, you have done a terrific job on the CB module. It is gorgeous.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 09, 2019 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Peter,

I've never used Vassal, but I always thought that the main draw of it was the ability to play online at the same time as someone else. Guess it can do that and PbEM? Or maybe it could never do that? I dunno.

My main point still stands, CB is super portable. Just slap it on a flash drive with your game file and you're good to go. You can literally plug it into any windows PC and it just works. No setup, no install, no security rules at work that will block the install or it from running. I'll be sad the day it just stops working...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, October 10, 2019 - 06:57 am: Edit

Ted, to be fair in the case of Microsux, 64 bit processors came out a good 18 to 24 months before the first version of a 64 bit WIN XP.

I'm not sure which hardware change is going to happen next in terms of being mainstream computing, breaking 5GHz on the current processors or a 128 bit processor. I suspect it will be the 128 bit processor. In either case the issue is heat management. The classic CPU heatsink and fan didn't change much between the 286s and the first generation Pentium chips. Now days you have liquid cooling or much larger heatsinks and fans to keep a given processor cool.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, October 10, 2019 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Rob wrote:
>>I've never used Vassal, but I always thought that the main draw of it was the ability to play online at the same time as someone else. >>

I think it *can* do that, yeah, but I have never used that function, and it doesn't seem particularly necessary.

>>Guess it can do that and PbEM? Or maybe it could never do that? I dunno. >>

I think so? Like, I have only ever used it for PBEM games, so I'm not actually sure. In any case, you certainly don't *need* a persistent internet connection to play :-)

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, October 10, 2019 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Thanks Alan.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, October 11, 2019 - 08:43 pm: Edit

So the counter limit is approximately 65000. There is a little wiggle room over 65000 based on a discussion I had with Lar about when the number of counters added caused his computer to crash cyberboard.

Of the approximately 6770 counters recovered. Some are going to go to new units added recently.Some are going to go to balance out counts of certain units common to every empire that have a specific limit. Auxiliaries are going to be roughly equal in terms of numbers and types for each empire. Obvious Auxiliary exceptions include the Drone Auxiliaries for the Kzintis and F-111 Auxiliaries for the Federation. The remainder will be saved for new units in forthcoming Captain's Logs and New F&E products.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Saturday, October 12, 2019 - 01:30 am: Edit

It's likely 65,536 using a 16-bit field for identifiers. (I used to run into 16-bit limits a lot a few jobs back so it's a familiar number.)