Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

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.

I play a lot of Ironman scenarios with very ahistorical starts. Sometimes for fun I roleplay the notion that first turn invasions of places like Midway, Johnston, Hilo and Coal Harbor would preclude the possibility of first turn surprise and sand box a start without it to see what the Allies might be able to do.

Mileage May Vary:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Pearl Harbor at 180,104, Range 26,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 19 destroyed
D3A1 Val: 18 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 16 destroyed

Japanese Ships
CV Kaga, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
CV Hiryu
CV Soryu
CV Shokaku, Shell hits 1
CV Zuikaku, Shell hits 1
CV Akagi
BB Hiei, Shell hits 7
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 2, on fire
BB Musashi
CA Tone
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 1
CL Abukuma
DD Akigumo, Shell hits 1
DD Kagero
DD Isokaze, Shell hits 1
DD Shiranui, Shell hits 1
DD Urakaze, Shell hits 1
DD Hamakaze, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Tanikaze
DD Arare, Shell hits 1
DD Kasumi, Shell hits 1, on fire
CA Adatara

Allied Ships
BB Maryland, Shell hits 3
BB West Virginia, Shell hits 29, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Shell hits 1
BB Pennsylvania, Shell hits 1
BB California, Shell hits 2, on fire
BB Tennessee, Shell hits 15, heavy fires
DD Bagley
DD Blue, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Helm
DD Mugford, Shell hits 3, heavy fires
DD Ralph Talbot, Shell hits 1
DD Henley, Shell hits 1
DD Patterson
DD Jarvis, Shell hits 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I want to clarify that, in a PBEM, this exploit is not possible, as stated above. To the best of my knowledge and understanding of how the PBEM file setup and replay generation works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I want to clarify that, in a PBEM, this exploit is not possible, as stated above. To the best of my knowledge and understanding of how the PBEM file setup and replay generation works.

The tests that I ran used 3 different passwords for the allies: "test1," "test2," and "test3." Test it for yourself if you think that I am wrong. Run a historical first turn as Japan; save the file; then reopen it 3 times as the allies with 3 different passwords and look at the results. You can even e-mail it to yourself if you really want to fully simulate a PBEM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


I want to clarify that, in a PBEM, this exploit is not possible, as stated above. To the best of my knowledge and understanding of how the PBEM file setup and replay generation works.

The tests that I ran used 3 different passwords for the allies: "test1," "test2," and "test3." Test it for yourself if you think that I am wrong. Run a historical first turn as Japan; save the file; then reopen it 3 times as the allies with 3 different passwords and look at the results. You can even e-mail it to yourself if you really want to fully simulate a PBEM.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Let me clarify one last time, and then I am done with this thread. I discovered an exploit in the game. I wanted to notify the WiTP community that this exploit exists. Did I use this exploit? No. Would I use this exploit? No. I am simply trying to be honest. You can shoot holes in the messenger all that you want, but it does not change the message or the facts. The exploit exists. Period. Now, I am finished discussing it.

quote:

If you did run those tests on those same settings as the game you are questioning, did you at least bother to compare the results of PH attack to those you are disputing? How do they differ? Do you understand that you are calling someone a cheater here with no shred of evidence not so ever! Even if you did discover an exploit, which is up to Matrix team to decide if it's real, there is no proof that this exploit was even used in this game or any other for that matter. You even stated yourself that you NEVER played a game with December 7 surprise on. How can you be sure that this IS NOT the usual outcome you get with those settings on? How about test this hypothesis on, let's say 10 different openings? I did it on two occasions and both were pretty brutal in terms of torpedo hits on ships in PH. As far as I'm concerned this is standard result you get with playing on those exact settings we did until someone proves me otherwise. And what I can claim with 100% certainty is that no exploit was used here and that result was 100% genuine!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

3. Open original file. Save dummy allied password (as Japanese player)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

3. Open original file. Save dummy allied password (as Japanese player)

Buy this assumes that the Allied player will accept the Japanese player setting the first password... Very sketchy... I mean I really like my 2 opponents but I would never accept this

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

If the seed is set as Bill says when the scenario is selected then you could use this to exploit/cheat turn one without the Allied players help.

1.Select scenario
2.Save japanes password and then copy the save game file
3. Open original file. Save dummy allied password (as Japanese player)
4. Open file as Japanese and run combat replay.

If you don.t like the result start from step 1. If you do like the result, use the copy of th file you saved at step 2 for all your future opponents.

I.e. This assumes the historical first turn outcome is set once the seed is set when selecting the scenario (which is what Bill implied)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

3. Open original file. Save dummy allied password (as Japanese player)

Buy this assumes that the Allied player will accept the Japanese player setting the first password... Very sketchy... I mean I really like my 2 opponents but I would never accept this

Correct.

There is no cheat here ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Process is (historical turn):

-Japanese player saves his password (turn orders already set automatically)
-Japanese player sends turn to Allied player
-Allied player saves his password (turn orders already set automatically)
-Allied player sends turn to Japanese player.
- Japanese player saves the turn results.
-Japanese player run the turn and gets access to the turn and combat replay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

But you are assuming that the turn gets resolved without the 2nd allied input.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
Still better to hear from moderators or developers

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

3. Open original file. Save dummy allied password (as Japanese player)

Buy this assumes that the Allied player will accept the Japanese player setting the first password... Very sketchy... I mean I really like my 2 opponents but I would never accept this

Correct.

There is no cheat here ...

The Allied player would never know. Aurorus is right about the issue with the Japanese player being able to game the start. I'm going to walk this back a bit: If the Historical First Turn RNG results are set by the first turn Japanese save, then I'm pretty sure that Aurorus is right and there is a way for the Japanese player to be able to game the start.

Sequence of events:

Japanese player creates game, sets password and saves file in slot "A".

Japanese player opens that save file and enters an "allied" pw, then saves it in slot "B".

Japanese player than opens save that is in slot B, and views the turn. If it's not an outcome they like, they simply go back to step 1, starting a new PBEM in slot A.

Once the Japanese player finds a 1st turn outcome they like, they then send the save in "slot A", which has not received an allied PW yet, to the allied player. Because they are saving game save "A" in a different slot whenever they created the spoof allied PW, the slot A save remains in a state where it is ready for the allied player to enter their password, and the allied player would never know that it had been viewed.

Some Caveats

One: "Historical First Turn" slots always have ahistorical outcomes, with far more damage at Pearl Harbor than with a standard, Dec. 7th surprise start. I don't find Aurorus's first turn losses to really be outside of what you usually expect with the Historical First Turn. Every time I've tested the historical turn it delivers similar results, without the need to game the system to achieve them.

Two: As such, while gaming the system is possible, as demonstrated above, the result that Aurorus saw in his game doesn't show any evidence that wrong-doing occurred, and is instead simply can be attributed to the game settings used, which always give a similar result.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quixote

Aurorus is correct about the potential exploit. Instead of arguing back and forth about what should happen when starting a new game with the same Japanese seed turn, try actually doing it. I did, and the result of the same Japanese seed turn, when sent to two Allied opponents with completely different passwords, was two exactly identical turns. These weren't similar results or close results factoring in fog of war, they were identical. Each Allied player lost exactly the same ships, exactly the same number of aircraft, and suffered exactly the same amount of damage to each and every ship hit. The experiment is easily repeatable if you care to try.

Note that this potential exploit only applies to Historical Dec 7th starts, and still may not mean his opponent was knowingly cheating. It's certainly possible his opponent simply re-used an already prepared first turn without knowing about the exploit (since none of the veteran players here seemed to know about it either), but Aurorus isn't crazy to have at least considered the possibility.