Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Cheating and Historical Turn 1

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Cheating and Historical Turn 1 Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 6:38:47 AM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
I started a new game recently with a new opponent, who wanted a historical turn 1. I thought that this was a little odd, but I have never played with a historical turn 1, so I agreed. As I was watching the combat replay, I was amazed. It was the most incredible Pearl Harbor attack that I had ever seen in WiTP, and I have seen many of them, because I have played the AI numerous times and sandboxed opening moves for Japan many, many times. The allies scored 60 torpedo hits and 64 bomb hits on ships; sunk 7 of the 8 BBs; 6 DDs; 3 CLS; and heavily damaged all of the CAs. It was an almost impossible attack with hit rates of 85% on both bombs and torpedos, which is nigh impossible to achieve. The typical hit rate is about 50% or slightly less. I know, because I have seen the game simulate many Pearl strikes.

When I posted about this attack on the forum and how astonished I was at its success, my opponent replied that this was not as good as his previous attack on a different opponent. I know that these results are nearly impossible to achieve, so I became suspicious, when someone told me that they had achieved these results twice in a row. So, I set up a test. I saved a file as a historical first turn Japan that contained a very good Pearl Harbor result. Then I opened it several times, saved it again as 3 different allied players, and "returned" it to myself as the Japanese player. Then I ran the combat report for the three different games. What I found was this. The results were the exact same for each game. Since there was no input by the allied player, the combat result was predetermined based off the Japanese save. What this means is that a Japanese player, in a PBEM, with a "historical first turn" can start a game time and again, until he achieves results that he wants. Then send this file to any number of opponents and get the exact same first turn results in each game.

I have no "hard" evidence that my opponent cheated on this first turn. I have no doubt, however, that he did. I post this simply to advise everyone of this exploit. Below are the results of my first two tests. Remember these are two different games, both based off the same original Japanese save with a historical first turn.


Here is Test 1 of the Pearl Harbor Attack

BB Nevada, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Detroit, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB California, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
SS Tautog, Bomb hits 1
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
PT-29, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Helm, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AV Curtiss, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
SS Cachalot, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage
AV Tangier, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 2, on fire
PT-23, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DM Preble, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Monaghan, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DMS Perry, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Dewey, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Chew, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Raleigh, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Ralph Talbot, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Cummings, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
xAP St. Mihel, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 3, on fire
DD Dale, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Shaw, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Aylwin, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1
DM Tracy, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL St. Louis, Torpedo hits 1
DD Farragut, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Dolphin, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage


Here is Test 2


BB Nevada, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Detroit, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB California, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 7, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
SS Tautog, Bomb hits 1
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
PT-29, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Helm, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AV Curtiss, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
SS Cachalot, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage
AV Tangier, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 2, on fire
PT-23, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DM Preble, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Monaghan, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DMS Perry, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Dewey, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Chew, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Raleigh, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Ralph Talbot, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Cummings, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
xAP St. Mihel, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 3, on fire
DD Dale, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Shaw, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Aylwin, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1
DM Tracy, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL St. Louis, Torpedo hits 1
DD Farragut, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Dolphin, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage


Remember, these are from 2 completely different games, with 2 different allied "players," both based upon the same original Japanese save. The combat reports are identical in every detail. Anyone can verify my results for themselves. Simply save a game, with historical first turn "on" as Japan, and then open the file under 3 different saves as the allies. Reopen each allied file as the Japanese player and view the results. They will be identical.
Post #: 1
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 7:40:51 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

If the something was changed with the set up for turn 1 that changed how combat played out, the results would be different, but the same set up will generate the same results for the same game start. If you start over from the scenario menu, the seed for the game's randoms will be different and you will get different results.

This is necessary for PBEM games to stay synced. AI games do the randoms a bit differently.

Bill



_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 2
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 7:47:24 AM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


If the something was changed with the set up for turn 1 that changed how combat played out, the results would be different, but the same set up will generate the same results for the same game start. If you start over from the scenario menu, the seed for the game's randoms will be different and you will get different results.

This is necessary for PBEM games to stay synced. AI games do the randoms a bit differently.

Bill





Thank you for that confirmation. Therefore, a Japanese player can run "historical" first turns until he gets the results that he desires, indeed nearly impossible results, and then send this save to his his opponent and be guaranteed to get these results. Of course, none of this is possible without a "historical" first turn.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 4/21/2017 7:48:02 AM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 8:04:38 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

I honestly don't know, but that might be true. I never looked at that part of the code.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 4
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 12:46:59 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
I have no "hard" evidence that my opponent cheated on this first turn. I have no doubt, however, that he did.


I'm counting two BBs sunk and several others severely damaged. A 'good' outcome, no doubt, for the Japanese player. I've seen worse. Just out of curiosity, what happened to POW and Repulse? Also, what was the damage to the airfields on Hawaii? Did he send DBs against the fleet or to take out the airfield? This may explain the crushing damage there if the airfields were 'spared'.

I was not aware that the turn could be recycled in this fashion. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

I don't know that I'd resort to allegations of cheating based upon this scant evidence. I would hope that your opponent would come clean with you regarding where he got the 'start' from, whether it had been reused or not and so forth.

But your options at this point seem to be whether to disregard anything and treat everything he says with suspicion and circumspection for the next several years or drop the game like a hot rock. I think I know which way you're going to go. Would be nice to hear the other side of the tale, however.

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 5
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:38:58 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Historical first turn will normally kill way too many Japanese pilots for my liking



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/22/2017 11:14:11 AM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 6
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:43:49 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Yeah, at the very least he's lost some very good fighter pilots strafing at 100 feet.



_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 7
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:45:10 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline
quote:

Did he send DBs against the fleet or to take out the airfield?


With historical first turn all that is set automatically, correct?

My one PBEM experience in this game was the same set up, historical first turn, and the Japanese results were very similar to what you have. I lost 7 of the 8 BBs at Pearl and very high losses overall, but I don't recall more detail than that. I assumed at the time this was at the high end but I really don't think there was any cheating. IMHO you need really hard evidence before you can make that accusation, though I admit it is a possibility.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 8
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:45:39 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Yeah, at the very least he's lost some very good fighter pilots strafing at 100 feet.




What part of the combat report were you seeing such information, Encircled? I saw no evidence of any airfield attack or strafing provided in the CR or the commentary. Am I missing something?

_____________________________


(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 9
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:48:18 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Yeah, at the very least he's lost some very good fighter pilots strafing at 100 feet.




What part of the combat report were you seeing such information, Encircled? I saw no evidence of any airfield attack or strafing provided in the CR or the commentary. Am I missing something?


I would imagine this is part of the historical orders, that is, automatically set when you run a historical first turn.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 10
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:51:35 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
I don't know why it is not in the combat report, but during historical 1st turn the fighter planes will strafe, that is a given in standard scenarios,

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 11
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:52:03 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

quote:

Did he send DBs against the fleet or to take out the airfield?


With historical first turn all that is set automatically, correct?

My one PBEM experience in this game was the same set up, historical first turn, and the Japanese results were very similar to what you have. I lost 7 of the 8 BBs at Pearl and very high losses overall, but I don't recall more detail than that. I assumed at the time this was at the high end but I really don't think there was any cheating. IMHO you need really hard evidence before you can make that accusation, though I admit it is a possibility.


Ah. What we have here may be a misunderstanding of the meaning of 'historic turn'.

I'm thinking of scenario 1 (or 2) wherein the Japanese player acts like historically in striking at Pearl Harbor with Kido Butai. Indeed that's what the OP cites. There is no 'automatic' setting for the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor with scenario 1. Bits and pieces can be changed, including where the DBs and fighters strike.

Perhaps you (jwolf) are thinking of a different scenario-the so-called December 8 scenario (scenario 6)? In *that* scenario, everything is pre-ordained at the start.

_____________________________


(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 12
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 1:57:58 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline
My understanding (?? maybe misunderstanding) is that "historical first turn" means the Dec 7 orders are pre-set and the only variation is how the dice roll. Then both sides deal with the fallout with normal orders and operations beginning Dec 8.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 13
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 2:03:28 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
we have:

Scenario start --> December 7th or December 8th
December 7th is before PH, you have a chance to rewrite "day of infamy" history, attack Manila/ Singapore/ Los Angeles, go hunt the US carriers, etc
December 8th starts afterwards, and the damage to the US fleet is as it was historically

Historical first turn --> Yes or No
Assuming a December 7th start (December 8th start will make these irrelevant)
Yes will run the 1st turn with no inputs from the Japanese player, simply whatever were the orders as defined in the scenario will play. This normally includes KB's fighters at 100 feet, thus forcing strafe attacks
No will give the Japanese player the chance to change order for the 1st turn, and rewrite history as already mentioned

December 7th surprise --> Yes or No
Assuming a December 7th start (December 8th start will make these irrelevant)
Yes will severely impair the Allied response, and increase the damage to the fleet
No will run the turn using the standard rules, and therefore the Allies will perform a lot better and probably make PH attack a costly mistake

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/21/2017 2:08:59 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 14
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 2:08:23 PM   
821Bobo


Posts: 2311
Joined: 2/8/2011
From: Slovakia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus
I have no "hard" evidence that my opponent cheated on this first turn. I have no doubt, however, that he did.


I'm counting two BBs sunk and several others severely damaged. A 'good' outcome, no doubt, for the Japanese player. I've seen worse. Just out of curiosity, what happened to POW and Repulse? Also, what was the damage to the airfields on Hawaii? Did he send DBs against the fleet or to take out the airfield? This may explain the crushing damage there if the airfields were 'spared'.

I was not aware that the turn could be recycled in this fashion. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

I don't know that I'd resort to allegations of cheating based upon this scant evidence. I would hope that your opponent would come clean with you regarding where he got the 'start' from, whether it had been reused or not and so forth.

But your options at this point seem to be whether to disregard anything and treat everything he says with suspicion and circumspection for the next several years or drop the game like a hot rock. I think I know which way you're going to go. Would be nice to hear the other side of the tale, however.


David posted in this topic only results of hist test. The PH strike from actual PBEM game is here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4271957
and the result is indeed suspicious.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 15
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 2:19:29 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
A very good PH outcome, one time against the AI I managed to sink all 8 BBs... happened once

Problem is that talking about cheating or suspicious results will put the game on a downward spiral and it will be hard to recover from there... I mean this is a game that will take years to finish.

And as far as the results, they are really not a big deal, the game will be won with carriers and 4-E bombers. Battleships, especially the old BBs are not critical, sure they are nice to have and they can do an amazing job on naval bombardment, but you can live without them

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 4/21/2017 2:21:25 PM >

(in reply to 821Bobo)
Post #: 16
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 2:29:31 PM   
821Bobo


Posts: 2311
Joined: 2/8/2011
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
Yes, such an outcome is possible, but it will happen once in X games. But when someone gets such results continuously doubts will rise.

quote:

When I posted about this attack on the forum and how astonished I was at its success, my opponent replied that this was not as good as his previous attack on a different opponent.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 17
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 2:33:18 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Ah, apologies for misunderstanding the term "historical" start.

Regarding the cheating bit, you really need a lot more info before you can accuse people of that kind of thing.





_____________________________


(in reply to 821Bobo)
Post #: 18
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 2:58:26 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

we have:

Scenario start --> December 7th or December 8th
December 7th is before PH, you have a chance to rewrite "day of infamy" history, attack Manila/ Singapore/ Los Angeles, go hunt the US carriers, etc
December 8th starts afterwards, and the damage to the US fleet is as it was historically

Historical first turn --> Yes or No
Assuming a December 7th start (December 8th start will make these irrelevant)
Yes will run the 1st turn with no inputs from the Japanese player, simply whatever were the orders as defined in the scenario will play. This normally includes KB's fighters at 100 feet, thus forcing strafe attacks
No will give the Japanese player the chance to change order for the 1st turn, and rewrite history as already mentioned

December 7th surprise --> Yes or No
Assuming a December 7th start (December 8th start will make these irrelevant)
Yes will severely impair the Allied response, and increase the damage to the fleet
No will run the turn using the standard rules, and therefore the Allies will perform a lot better and probably make PH attack a costly mistake



It's a little different in AI games.

Using First Turn Surprise in a game against the Japanese AI the Allied paler does not get to issue any orders for December 7th.
First turn surprise off allows Allied player to issue orders for December 7th.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 19
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 3:27:33 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
UM, how can one be cheat - is the historical setting not entirely played by the AI, I mean pre-planned by the scen designer and IJ can not give orders ?

Also makes no big difference if 1 or 2 more slow BBs are bit more damaged or even 1 more sunk (seldom seen)

I agree that the historic turn might kill some good IJN pilots (the Zero ones at airfield attack!), but it speeds up early turns a bit right? Escept you want to plan out in hours another evil attack scheme eg. to San Fran or Colombo etc.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/21/2017 3:28:12 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 20
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 3:34:06 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Regardless of whether you're playing against the AI or PBEM the first turn seemingly always causes more damage to the Allies than historically.

80-85% bomb and torpedo hits at Pearl Harbor are anything but rare in the game. IJN a/c losses are significantly reduced from reality (29 shot down over Hawaii and 77 damaged beyond rapid repair in the actual raid). The number of torpedo carrying bomber squadrons is nearly always greater than in real life, IJN carriers also start will a full load of fuel in addition to having the oilers from which they had refueled just prior to the raid start with full tanks.

The Prince of Wales and Repulse are offered up as ripe targets and are almost always sunk by the very same bombers which cause the damage to Singapore's port (that prevents the Brits from starting fortifications there).

Wake gets invaded and is usually captured by the inadequate forces which clearly demonstrated their inadequacy in real life. Japanese assault landing technique was so poor (SNLF troops were in no way the equivalent of the USMC)that in real life the reinforced second invasion force lost (KIA) the the entire force landed on one of Wake's islets.

Meanwhile the game demonstrates that the only thing needed to break the IJA's 3-year stalemate in China was to add some more enemies to their dance card.

Historically Churchill rejoiced when he heard about Japan's attack and said; "I knew we were saved" (or something similar). Without all the above extras the Japanese Player would never want to play the game.

< Message edited by spence -- 4/21/2017 3:37:37 PM >

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 21
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 3:40:42 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
The Prince of Wales and Repulse are offered up as ripe targets and are almost always sunk by the very same bombers which cause the damage to Singapore's port (that prevents the Brits from starting fortifications there)

- No, in my AI historic game , POW survived

Wake gets invaded and is usually captured by the inadequate forces which clearly demonstrated their inadequacy in real life. Japanese assault landing technique was so poor (SNLF troops were in no way the equivalent of the USMC)that in real life the reinforced second invasion force lost (KIA) the the entire force landed on one of Wake's islets.

- I held them them off for a while (in IJ PBM I was not able to take it and also did not send a 2nd invasion just thought not worthwhile enough island, Allied still had in 9/42)

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 22
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 4:36:02 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

No will run the turn using the standard rules, and therefore the Allies will perform a lot better and probably make PH attack a costly mistake


quote:

First turn surprise off allows Allied player to issue orders for December 7th.


I've run this against the AI a couple of times near PH just to see what would happen (didn't check out the rest of the map). I issued orders such that every unit pounced on the KB: submarines, LBA (with escorts), SBDs with escorts (can't remember whether I could get TBDs in range), and 2 TFs with BBs included.

Except for the fact that the KB beat the b-jessus out of the poor USCGC Tiger and a few friends the Allies managed only about 3 or 4 shell hits and a couple of bomb hits disabling 1 carrier (max) meanwhile losing about half the bombers involved. The results for the Allies are anything but inspiring resulting from low experience and morale.


(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 23
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 5:01:06 PM   
gmtello

 

Posts: 350
Joined: 12/23/2014
Status: offline

Néxt patch should take this In consideration

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 24
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 7:29:02 PM   
woods

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline
46 torpedo hits! What are the odds of that happening? 1 in 10,000?

_____________________________


Art by Rougeusmc

(in reply to gmtello)
Post #: 25
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 7:48:50 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: woods

46 torpedo hits! What are the odds of that happening? 1 in 10,000?



About 1 in 5. Above 30 hits is good. Above 40 is exceptional. The results above are from my test. As 821Bobo stated above, this was not the actual attack in this game. The actual attack scored 64 torpedo hits, from 70 Kates carrying torpedos. How often does this happen? How often do you win a coin flip 64 out of 70 times? About 1 in a million.

(in reply to woods)
Post #: 26
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 7:54:37 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Regardless of whether you're playing against the AI or PBEM the first turn seemingly always causes more damage to the Allies than historically.

80-85% bomb and torpedo hits at Pearl Harbor are anything but rare in the game. IJN a/c losses are significantly reduced from reality (29 shot down over Hawaii and 77 damaged beyond rapid repair in the actual raid). The number of torpedo carrying bomber squadrons is nearly always greater than in real life, IJN carriers also start will a full load of fuel in addition to having the oilers from which they had refueled just prior to the raid start with full tanks.



I can tell you from a test sample of about 70 Pearl Harbor simulations, about 50 from sandboxing first turns as Japan, that 50% hits is about the expected result. Can Japan achieve better? Certainly. What are the odds of Japan scoring 85% or better hits with 2 consecutive Pearl Harbor attacks? What are the odds of getting a Royal Flush on consecutive five-card hands in poker? Nigh impossible. Can it happen? Sure... but unless the deck is stacked...you will never see it happen in your lifetime no matter how many hands of poker you play.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 27
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 7:57:50 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

A very good PH outcome, one time against the AI I managed to sink all 8 BBs... happened once

Problem is that talking about cheating or suspicious results will put the game on a downward spiral and it will be hard to recover from there... I mean this is a game that will take years to finish.

And as far as the results, they are really not a big deal, the game will be won with carriers and 4-E bombers. Battleships, especially the old BBs are not critical, sure they are nice to have and they can do an amazing job on naval bombardment, but you can live without them


I agree completely, and the Pearl result were more a curiosity to me than anything else, until my opponent stated that he had achieved similar results in a previous game. Then I became suspicious and discovered the exploit.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 28
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 8:16:05 PM   
tomamars


Posts: 270
Joined: 11/28/2016
From: Croatia
Status: offline
OK, a guy who had that "suspicious" 1-st turn PH result here.
What we are talking about here are following settings:
Scen01
Historical first turn YES
December 7th surprise YES
Whether Kates will launch torpedoes or 800 kg bombs is up to a dice roll.
Results of day one were actually not so brutal as combat results might indicate because NOT ONE BB was actually sunk. Not even PoW or Repulse. Most of bomb hits on BBs in Pearl were actually Val 250 kg bombs that bounced of BBs deck. I'd prefer them hitting some subs or DDs or even better P40s and B17s and closing the airfield. Now, how is this result a cheater would frame is beyond me. It's a good result for Japan, no doubt about that, but not the best I ever had. Full combat report can be seen in my AAR.
PS: if you have any doubts about legitimacy of this first turn, just create those exact same settings and try several first turns with some of your buddies - not AI but actual human opponent - and ONLY if results are way different than this you could MAYBE have some doubts of some foul play involved. Also since this game is around 10 years old, wouldn't someone point out the possibility of framing results like this by now?!

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 29
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1 - 4/21/2017 8:16:30 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
I also want to clarify that this exploit is for "Historical December 7th: On" only, in which neither side enters orders. If Historical Dec. 7th is off, any change in orders by either player, even the smallest change, will produce a new and different combat report. I can verify that this is so, because I specifically remember one sandbox opening move that I did for Japan where I had Boise and Houston plotted to move to Tarakan, because I wanted to see if they would intercept an invasion fleet that I had magic moved to Davao. They did not, but I ran the same turn again, and changed the Boise and Houston to "full speed," rather than "mission speed." This was the only change in orders from one sandbox to another, and the combat report was completely different. I remember this because at "full speed" Houston intercepted the group, and I decided not to invade Mindanao on the first turn and stopped the TF just outside the Phillipine Sea to wait for the Chokai to cover the group.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 4/21/2017 8:17:08 PM >

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Cheating and Historical Turn 1 Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875