Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:04:17 AM

incbob

Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline

Hi.

I am playing a PBEM and have found a "legal cheat."

I sent a single unescorted ML to lay some mines around Siapan and Guam in scenario #6. I thought I had enough time to get him in and out before the Americans came. However, this single ML was attacked by nearly half of the Carrier planes available to the Americans, thus unintentionally saving my airfields from attacks.

Since most player will rightly leave their CV planes on Naval attack this leads to a possible cheat by sending lone "cheap" ships out to be hit.

Can the AI be made to judge on "how much force" to send? If not this could be exploited.

Post #: 1

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:11:05 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

there's really no way to counter the single unit TF "tactic" other than to prohibit it via house rule, whether its being used as a decoy tactic or as a means to difuse airpower effects if your trying to escape mass merchants

_____________________________

(in reply to incbob)

Post #: 2

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:20:20 AM

general billy

Posts: 915
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: London UK
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/10/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Saipan at 63,64

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zeke x 8

Allied aircraft
FM-2 Wildcat x 38
F6F Hellcat x 192
F4U-1 Corsair x 8
SBD Dauntless x 19
SB2C Helldiver x 120
TBF Avenger x 32
TBM Avenger x 111

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zeke: 14 destroyed

Japanese Ships
ML Tsubame, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
3 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
2 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
2 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
2 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
1 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SBD Dauntless bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBF Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SB2C Helldiver bombing at 2000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
4 x TBM Avenger bombing at 5000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully all those guys didnt use all their bombs, because they wont have any for more important targets

They just went for the show, huh??

< Message edited by general billy -- 7/15/2004 11:22:08 PM >

_____________________________

WITP Games
Scen 16 as Allied = Lost
Scen 13 as Jap = Won
Scen 15 as Allied = Won
Scen 16 as Jap = NA
WPO Games
Scen 6 as Allied = Won
Scen 6 as Japs = NA

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 3

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:21:53 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

there's really no way to counter the single unit TF "tactic" other than to prohibit it via house rule, whether its being used as a decoy tactic or as a means to difuse airpower effects if your trying to escape mass merchants

_____________________________

I would have an objection to this. In a game, where you are trying to escape massed merchants from a threatened base, say Manila, it would be foolhardy to create a huge, essentially unescorted, merchant task force, to be savaged by air strikes, sea intercept (yes they will fix that) and subs.
In real life, and what any sane ship's captain would do, would be to escape in single ship TFs, hoping to distract and diffuse the opposition.
Yes the whole enemy airforce may be directed to a single ML, but this needs to be addressed as a code issue, the AI (game or PBEM) needs to prioritize its attacks somehow, but to force large unescorted merchant TFs is IMHO ridiculous.

Also, the idea of trying to mine a hex, "sneaking" in a minelayer, is IMHO not gamey, but something that the underdog may very well try.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 4

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:24:50 AM

general billy

Posts: 915
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: London UK
Status: offline

I thought this would have been solved, i knew it was the same for UV,
I mean why have so many planes, why didnt the required amount be used to do the job,

and let the others do somthing else.

_____________________________

WITP Games
Scen 16 as Allied = Lost
Scen 13 as Jap = Won
Scen 15 as Allied = Won
Scen 16 as Jap = NA
WPO Games
Scen 6 as Allied = Won
Scen 6 as Japs = NA

(in reply to kaleun)

Post #: 5

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:29:40 AM

neuromancer

Posts: 627
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline

But how do you tell a 'decoy' or 'cheat' from doing something legitimate (not to say decoys aren't legit)?

The single ML running off to drop some mines before the enemy arrives seems legit. I've sent single transports (in UV) to deliver small units or supplies in 'secure' areas (and occassionally found out they weren't). Then of course there are the lone cripples limping home after an attack. And it was a legitimate tactic in the real world (although one of questionable success) to break up transport convoys into groups of only one or two freighters (dispersing the convoy) and hoping that some slip through.

Now the reason why this wasn't so successful was because planes, ships, and subs could still find many of these units out of these dispersed convoys and shoot the snot out of them.

Although if unescorted, it was probably better to disperse them over keeping them all in one spot.

But in UV and WitP (apparently) the computer will sometimes hideously over-react to a single ship being spotted.

Aboard the USS Hornet.
"Sir! Recon planes report spotting a single transport 120 miles to the north-east!"
"My God! A single transport? Signal Enterprise and Yorktown! Scramble everything and destroy that ship!"

3 squadrons of fighters, 6 squadrons of dive bombers, and 3 squadrons of torpedo bombers zip off and blast the living crap out of a lone AK.

The game tree really should have a little proportionality programming. If the recon only reports one transport, then perhaps they shouldn't throw everything and the kitchen sink at it. If nothing else it tires crews and wates ammo. One bomber squadron and some escorting fighters should probably be adequate. If the attack reveals more units in the area, then more attack waves can be launched, or a larger force sent in the next phase.

A single large combat vessel sighting (CA, BB, CV), sure, it probably has escorts and should be sunk. After all, that is more or less what the Japanese did to Yorktown at Midway.

But a single DD or transport? You want to sink it sure, but don't need to over kill it.

The bigger sin though is when the recon spots several of these small forces, and instead of reasonably dividing things up among them, just pastes one of them with everything. Or ignores a larger more important target (a large transport group, surface combat group, or carrier group) in favour of hitting the one lone ship off by itself.

"By the way sir. We've also spotted a major Japanese carrier force, and a group of troop transports. It looks like the lone ship was split off due to engone trouble."
"I don't care about that other stuff! I want that transport DEAD!"

I'm not sure if it can be fixed now, but I'm very surprised - and not a little disappointed - that they didn't correct it while re-designing the 'AI' for WitP.

< Message edited by neuromancer -- 7/15/2004 4:38:53 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 6

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:31:50 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Usually it will ignore the enemy CV force bearing down on you, and blow the bejeesus out of the two oilers, farther away. Hmmm, Wasn't that what happened at Coral Sea?

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to neuromancer)

Post #: 7

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:31:59 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

wasn't suggesting the player form only huge TF's. The point i was making is that the game can only handle search and (air) attack in a set way therefore there will always be ways to "game" the system in an attempt to confuse it. To me, there is little difference between forming 20 x 1 DD TF's and putting them out in front of your CV or BB TF in the hopes of drawing off some/all air attacks and forming say, 50 x 1 merchant TF's in order to evacuate a port.

But in the end it all comes down to player preferences. If your opponent has no problem with such moves then more power to you. Myself....i wouldn't. I'd still break up my merchants into smaller TF's, i just wouldn't go to that extreme knowing what i know about the air attack phases and that only so many search/attacks are going to be instituted in each major phase (AM/PM)

I"m looking for a historical experience. You could argue (as you are) that its possible for each merchant captain to do a "every man for himself" plan therefore that "justifies" the tactic. But in the end your pitting a potential real life strategy against a more limited system for search and attack. Therefore it could also qualify as an exploit.

Exploits defeat the purpose of wargaming IMO. But again, thats just my view. In the end its the players who decide these things before starting a long PBEM. Given the length of this game, its even MORE important to set up and discuss such boundries before beginning

_____________________________

(in reply to kaleun)

Post #: 8

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:35:08 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

Exploits defeat the purpose of wargaming IMO. But again, thats just my view. In the end its the players who decide these things before starting a long PBEM. Given the length of this game, its even MORE important to set up and discuss such boundries before beginning

Agree. So how wouldl you address this? Set a lower limit for fleeing AKs? as in at least 2 AKs per TF or something of the sort? What other "house rules" have you considered?

As far as the single ML, or single AK trying to sneak in supply or mines, I'm not sure that can/should be avoided.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 9

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:36:15 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

But how do you tell a 'decoy' or 'cheat' from doing something legitimate?

Thats the tricky part

A single minelayer or transport trying to run a blockade for example, i would not call an exploit. However if i have 20 merchants, all trying to get to the same base, and instead of convoying in one format or another i instead form 20 x 1 AP TF's and set them to the same destination at the same time in the hopes of creating a mass "under the radar effect" then that could count as an exploit.

One thing for sure...people will indeed have different definitions. Thats why PBEM is so tricky to begin with. How many times have we heard players advertising where they mention past negative experiences?

_____________________________

(in reply to neuromancer)

Post #: 10

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 1:53:40 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Agree. So how wouldl you address this? Set a lower limit for fleeing AKs? as in at least 2 AKs per TF or something of the sort? What other "house rules" have you considered?

As far as the single ML, or single AK trying to sneak in supply or mines, I'm not sure that can/should be avoided.

the best way is by finding someone as like minded to your own pref. as possible. that way u dont have to create a swath of house rules to police. baring that, its a learn by doing thing and often it will be a judgement call.

myself? on general principle i'd prob not break down manila to more than a half dozen TF's id pay more attn to the weather and try to sortie during inclement periods.

mines - like PT's i think these weapons & their employment are going to generate some intense discussions in the near future

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 7/15/2004 11:54:25 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to kaleun)

Post #: 11

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 2:02:22 AM

incbob

Posts: 727
Joined: 6/23/2004
From: Columbia, Missouri
Status: offline

1) I do feel that this was not "gamey" that is just my opinion though.

2) I think we could see the difference between cheating and not. I think this is something that no singe "house rule" could encompass because it is a situation by situation call.

3) Even though I think the number of planes sent was ridiculous I could see it. I happened many times during WWII where a ship was miss identified. Maybe the pilot radioed back that it was a BB? Yes, that is crazy, but then again the japanese bombed an oiler and destoryer thinking they were a CV TF.

4) It would be nice however if there was a way to make the AI a little smarter than this.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 12

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 2:03:41 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I have not been looking at weather, (too many details to think about in the game, gets overwhelming)
Mines, I have observed the high efficiency of the enemy (i.e. Japanese) minesweepers in disposing of my minefields. Even the PG locate the mines without even breaking a sweat!
One transport did hit a mine at Kusching, but I don't think anything happened to it.
Warspite you there? Did anything happen to that transport?

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 13

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 2:13:05 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

the code has been tweaked to reduce the degree of 'overkill' against small TF's. that emphasises my point. the developers can only do so much. in a game where players have such a large degree of control, control far more absolute and detailed than their historical counterparts, the players have to exercise restraint & set their own boundries as well.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 7/16/2004 12:14:03 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to incbob)

Post #: 14

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 2:31:15 AM

myros

Posts: 289
Joined: 7/1/2004
Status: offline

LOL I must not be devious enough, I never even thought of sending out 20 single TFs.

I agree it would be a pretty questionable tactic in PBEM. In the real world the attacking planes would pound them all wether it was 1 or 20 TFs ... not "Sorry lads 1 TF per attack, thats the rule ..we cant touch those others" ..uh hu :) So using a limitation of the game engine to 'exploit' the situation is essentialy cheating in a 2 player game IMO.

Myros

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 15

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 2:46:12 AM

moses

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

During my one big carrier battle so far at one point my carrier group(I'm playing as japan) found itself in the middle of four different task forces. Each one was 2 to 4 hexes away in different dirrections. My carriers launched attacks against all 4 TF's and split the strikes up quite reasonably. I was very pleased.

(in reply to myros)

Post #: 16

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 3:04:32 AM

Arnir

Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline

When deciding if something is gamey or not, I like to use what I call the Churchill rule:

Would Churchill have done this in real life? If so, it is not gamey.

Of course, Churchill, if playing games instead of fighting the war, would have been considered the king of gamey. What do you mean you are sending a destroyer and some commandos to blow up a harbour? That's gamey!

_____________________________

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 17

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 3:17:38 AM

general billy

Posts: 915
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: London UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

During my one big carrier battle so far at one point my carrier group(I'm playing as japan) found itself in the middle of four different task forces. Each one was 2 to 4 hexes away in different dirrections. My carriers launched attacks against all 4 TF's and split the strikes up quite reasonably. I was very pleased.

That wounldn't have been nice if one of those task forces was a CV taskforce, it would be 'ouch'

_____________________________

WITP Games
Scen 16 as Allied = Lost
Scen 13 as Jap = Won
Scen 15 as Allied = Won
Scen 16 as Jap = NA
WPO Games
Scen 6 as Allied = Won
Scen 6 as Japs = NA

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 18

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 3:27:19 AM

Caltone

Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

the code has been tweaked to reduce the degree of 'overkill' against small TF's. that emphasises my point. the developers can only do so much. in a game where players have such a large degree of control, control far more absolute and detailed than their historical counterparts, the players have to exercise restraint & set their own boundries as well.

I totally agree with this point. I don't think its unsportsmanlike at all to work out any nuances before starting a game. The ant trails of transports are one example, there are others. The things these eyes have seen in UV

If someone did this in a game in was playing , I would just not play PBEM with them anymore. Just find a new partner and start over, there's tons of great fans here to game with.

< Message edited by Caltone -- 7/16/2004 1:27:47 AM >

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 19

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 3:37:02 AM

maddog0606

Posts: 19
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: incbob
I sent a single unescorted ML to lay some mines around Siapan and Guam in scenario #6. I thought I had enough time to get him in and out before the Americans came. However, this single ML was attacked by nearly half of the Carrier planes available to the Americans, thus unintentionally saving my airfields from attacks.

I truly do not think this is a cheat. Read some of the books concerning Navy battles in the Pacific that happened in WW2. There are descriptions in there where untrained recon pilots (and bomber pilots) would report oilers has carriers and destroyers has cruisers and crusiers has battleships. And since Carrier TFs would err on the side of caution stikes would go out. But enough CAP would aways be left behind.

It is very hard to ID ships from 10000 feet up. Particularly for an untrained pilot. Of course has the war progressed and recon pilots were trained better bad reports did not happen has much.

(in reply to incbob)

Post #: 20

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 3:38:31 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

If you scatter a TF by breaking it up into many smaller ones, the AI will send out many different strikes and get most of them. I've seen this happen over and over again. I think the original problem was that one TF with a single ship was sent out and it was the only target available so the AI pounced on it without making a strike on the airfield. Well the code is working exactly as designed. When you set the primary target as Naval and there is a naval target, it will be attacked. There is no option that says only attack with 10% of my force if the TF only contains one ship.

Its up to the player to make a choice as to what his primary target is. If hitting the airfield is that important, then some of the bombers should have that as the primary target.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Caltone)

Post #: 21

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 4:55:36 AM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

How many SBD's turned to pursue a single Japanese DD in the Battle of Midway...hmmm? Of course they found 4 Jap carriers..but they didn't KNOW that when they turned.

What happened to the Neosho and Sims in the Battle of the Coral Sea? Hmmm.

What was that chaps name who purposely sent in the CVL Shoho in a small single carrier decoy TF only to consume an entire wave of TBD's and SBD's from the two US carriers in Coral Sea? Hmmmm.

What happened to one flight of Swordfish bombers when they went out to attack the Bismark? Hmmm

**** happens.

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 22

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 6:57:11 AM

kaleun

Posts: 5145
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline

Right Mandrake. It is very hard to decide what is a gamey tactic versus legit. That's my problem with this. It did happen, but it also can be exploited. Hmmm.

_____________________________

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you.
Sun Tzu

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 23

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 7:37:12 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

In WiTP I have tried to make things harder for my IJN PBEM player (Luskan) by trying the tactic of breaking up a convoy into single ship convoys. They all got hammered.

The AI simply sent smaller groups of planes to each target rather then one large goup of planes to one target. Therefore it is not a cheat.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to kaleun)

Post #: 24

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 7:43:07 AM

myros

Posts: 289
Joined: 7/1/2004
Status: offline

Its good to know the good folks at Matrix already got this covered. (the splitting into smaller TFs).

As far as the use of decoys I dont see any problem there, decoys and feints have been used in just about every type of war since we were throwiing rocks at each other probably. Just makes sense to use every means available to get the odds in your favor ... hopefully any program quirks which can allow this to be abused a bit will be squashed, and so far it looks like their on the right track.

Cheers

< Message edited by myros -- 7/16/2004 5:39:50 AM >

_____________________________

http://www.neuralstudios.com

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 25

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 7:57:48 AM

brisd

Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

In WiTP I have tried to make things harder for my IJN PBEM player (Luskan) by trying the tactic of breaking up a convoy into single ship convoys. They all got hammered. The AI simply sent smaller groups of planes to each target rather then one large goup of planes to one target. Therefore it is not a cheat.

Yes, I recall you doing that and the system handled it fine. So I don't see a need for setting any limits. I intend to use every trick and tactic available, just as the real life commanders did. There are advantages to both tactics, large tf's have massed AAA and single ships are harder to spot. And then there is the sheer craziness of keeping track of so many individual tf's. If you (and your staff) are so devoted to this part of the game, then somewhere else, such as the land campaign, you might neglect. We are not computers and fatigue is a factor. So it all balances out in the end, IMHO.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 26

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 8:11:59 AM

Jack Shelak

Posts: 29
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Status: offline

quote:

http://www.neuralstudios.com

HOT BABE!

MY mind's drifting a bit...

_____________________________

(in reply to myros)

Post #: 27

RE: Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug? - 7/16/2004 8:36:17 AM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

I agree that sending a lone ML to mine a hex.. or a lone MSW to sweep a hex is not gamey.. I have sent lone MSW off to battle subs for 2 reasons...

1. They carry depth charges when half my IJN DDs do not...
2. They are very expendable.. And if they die, I get a new one thrown into the cue... Its the only
expendable ship japan has so I use it for a lot of things... Plus, why risk 1 or 2 DD with a lone ML or
whatever when if they get caught they all will die anyways... 1 or 2 DDs escorting a ship will not
provide any kind of protection against air attack - unless a lone CVE is attacking you.. Even a CVL
carries enough firepower to kill 2 DDs and more... especially Japanese CVLs loaded with Kates...

I do consider it gamey to send a bunch of small TFs in front of your important TFs to act as shields and bomb / torpedoe magnets knowing the computer will pick one or two of the TFs in the area to pound and the more targets the lesser chance for the important ones to be hit - THAT IS GAMEY... Using the lack of the AI (no insult to the designers / programmers) to cheat the enemy - if given a choice, you KNOW every CV commander will ignore harmless ships and go for the Heavies... Almost every time... Especially if the heavies are a threat to them....

Xargun

(in reply to Jack Shelak)

Post #: 28

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Legal cheating with Decoys. Bug?

Page: [1]