RE: Monroe - AAR (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> After Action Reports



Message

ess1 -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/14/2008 6:50:57 PM)

Oh dear, there was I looking forward to playing pbem. Now the ugly thought of cheating has surfaced.

We in the NWC (Napoleonic Wargames Club) play mostly by pbem. The Campaign games are not password protected but we implicitly trust one another. No point otherwise, surely?

On another point: I would very much appreciate someone explaining what the chits represent as my old brain could not get around the manual (in many repects[&:]) Thanks.



Thresh -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/14/2008 7:18:58 PM)

You know, the only thing I hate worse than a cheater is a person who claims someone is cheating and has no evidence to back it up.

So you got out picked. So the die rolls didn't go your way. Its the game, it happens.

Todd



Sandeman -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/14/2008 10:57:26 PM)

quote:

Of course any intelligent French player isn't going to pick outflank with one corps, so the defender had a disadvantage of an idiot AI where-as the attacker did not.


Impossible to outflank with one corps, the AI should know this and almost never pick cordon in that situation. But it happened twice so far.

quote:

You know, the only thing I hate worse than a cheater is a person who claims someone is cheating and has no evidence to back it up.


Replaying turns until you get a great result is obviously unprovable, so go ahead and hate. One time I was playing the boardgame EiA and we had a guy who just always seemed to get a great chit pick at critical times. Then one day he attacked someone in a large fight who revealed a cordon, and he yelled out ESCALATED ASSAULT. Only problem is that the chit in his hand was Echelon. He had one chit in each hand and let his opponent reveal first...so maybe I am a bit paranoid to cheating due to personal experience. All I know is that it's fairly easy to replay turns if you want to, and someone is getting near perfect results to all of his major battles.




Murat -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/14/2008 11:39:51 PM)

[1] You quit this game. That's your choice.
[2] I am sorry you had a bad play experience with some guy FtF.
[3] You picked your chit, I picked mine. It is not the AI that messed you up. I was actually expecting a counterattack because that is what I would have picked in your shoes.
[4] You outrolled me. I had a +1 modifier for tactical that we both neglected to mention, so you actually got a 1,4,5 to my 1,3,4.
[5] Those results are below average, even with the 6 in pursuit it is dead on average.
[6] Yes the AI picked Russia's defense to be cordon and I would argue it was reasonable on the morale issue but again, since we both had +1 modifiers, he rolled a 2,4 I rolled a 2,5 dead average for me but overall below average.
[7] Other battle may have been across a river (I do not know which one you are referring to) making cordon a great pick by the AI or at the very least a reasonable one to break my percieved high morale.
[8] Most people in this game, let alone on the board, were unaware of the ability to copy and paste a game and cheat, myself included. I am glad you discovered it. It has lead some some constructive discussions on how to fix this. But to imply that I used an exploit that you knew about and seem to have known about for a while, especially when, as Thresh was kind enough to point out, the evidence is actually to the contrary, is unfair.



Lord Wolsey -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/15/2008 7:54:36 AM)

I think France should now go lose some huge battles against Prussia at long odds just to prove things equal out. 

Murat, I'm ready when you are.  Meet me in Paris and I'll pick Assualt and you pick Cordon.  Please leave Nappy and his crew in Italy.



Soapy Frog -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/15/2008 4:41:26 PM)

Sometimes the chits just fall your way consistently, even in the boardgames I had times when I simply couldn't pick for crap, and other where I was outpicking continually.

However the REAL problem here is perception. If you know your opponent CAN cheat, and he keeps beating the crap out of you (even if the sample size is small, like 3 or 4 battles in a row), it's sure going to feel like he is cheating. And the fact is he could be! In this game currently it is unprovable and unpreventable. So therefore the PRECEPTION that someone is cheating will ruin a game as surely as the FACT of someone cheating.

The sad fact is that people are not to be trusted. We have had people cheat numerous times in face to face EiA, where you can actually call them on it; so it is 100% sure that SOME people are going to cheat when it is undetectable.

This is absolutely critical to fix, and restore confidence to the PBEM process.



Murat -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/15/2008 8:13:13 PM)

I agree. There are at least 2 good threads going on with ideas for better security although some of the technical stuff is over my head.



Thresh -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/16/2008 12:19:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sandeman
quote:

You know, the only thing I hate worse than a cheater is a person who claims someone is cheating and has no evidence to back it up.


Replaying turns until you get a great result is obviously unprovable, so go ahead and hate.


Hey, if your comfortable calling someone a cheat without having any proof to back it up, more power to you.

I just know when I start getting into PbEM games, I'll avoid any that your a part of. If things start going bad, you'll get into a snit and leave, and I have enough of that happening in my other PbEM games.








oldtimer -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/16/2008 3:09:46 AM)

It has been my experience with EiA that one bad war does not kill a nation although it may take one or two at most game years to recover. It does not gain the other nations to much to keep beating down a nation because what happens then is the player getting jumped on by everyone else just surrenders at the beginning of a war. Keeps his factors in garrison and takes the PP hit. He/She may not win the game but people will only net 2pp off the player every 18 months.

It is critical especially for France not to kill a nation because they want to keep a nation viable enough so that they are willing to fight for several months so that France or any nation really can gain PP from the land/sea battles. THAT is where the game is won or lost. Too many players have this desire to cripple the other nations and all that does is make it that much harder for the winning player to keep a war going and gaining PP's in land battles.

I have also noticed people are to quick to think that they will never win the game if they have a bad war. This is far from the truth. Also the other players will tend to help the nation that got stomp because they don't feel threatened by that nation and can use its help for them to win. Here is where a person can be a helper or spoiler to other nations plans. Exploit that aspect of the game. This is not the tpe game that a person must always play to be the ultimate winner but try different strategies. Your biggest enemy in this game is your own ego. Sort of like real life an egotistical leader can really hurt a country if they don't have the forces to back it up.

With all that said it is important for France to try and split Austria and Prussia so that he can have a time period of enforced peace between them so that France can choose when to start a war with one or the other.

Now with all that said, I have played a FTF game where I was Austria fighting France in 1805 ALL BY MYSELF. I out rolled and out picked France in every battle and actually destroyed 83 factors while losing only like 12 or 15 factors myself. Needless to say everyone was shocked and as amazed as I was. While it is not a common occurrence it can happen.

In my experience I have seen France destroy armies more often then not because of their superior leadership and corp. It is usually beaten by attrition rather than individual battles.



Morgan60 -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/16/2008 4:50:49 AM)

I read with interest the posts here about cheating within the game.   I know that some will always cheat, and there are some who will shave things to give themselves the best chance and some people consider this cheating.  If it is within the rules IMHO it isn't.   The beauty of EiA is that there is a logical process involved in combat resolution and if applied and applied well will see you win the greater proportion of battles.  Cheats are nearly always found out.

My friends and I played a game and I went through a streak where I outpicked them everytime .... it got to the stage where I would have to right down my choice rather than picking a chit.   Sometimes it was good planning sometimes just blind luck.   They were convinced I was somehow cheating or possess some superpower that allowed me to read their minds (I wish)!

The question for me at least is whether or not it is the game designers role to write the programming to prevent cheating or whether it should be the moral compass of the individuals playing? 



Monadman -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/16/2008 8:08:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Morgan60

The question for me at least is whether or not it is the game designers role to write the programming to prevent cheating or whether it should be the moral compass of the individuals playing? 


I think game designers should make it as difficult as possible for players to cheat, but to do so also creates a double edge sword that empowers the unscrupulous and enterprising mind, as they now have more incentive to cheat knowing that the majority of the players think that they are well protected.

Richard



isandlwana -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/16/2008 8:17:50 PM)

I realize there is room for cheating--when I played EIA as a board game we caught a few friends cheating--to the point we required writing down chits and other key choices on paper before beginning each phase.  That said I can't imagine too many people taking advantage of this issue.  Maybe I am naive or too trusting...like that time I played GB and Spain and Turkey back stabbed me.....life sucks and then you pick up the pieces.  I am amazed that Marshall and others are willing to play arbiter as above.  This makes me more willing to commit to the computer version as soon as the 1.01 patch is out. 



Soapy Frog -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/16/2008 8:51:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: isandlwana

Maybe I am naive or too trusting...like that time I played GB and Spain and Turkey back stabbed me..... 

Backstabs and cheating are two completely seperate issues. Backstabs are a legal part of the game, and you can actually counter it with your own political/starategic abilities. Cheating is someone breaking the game in a way you cannot counter except by not playing.

Even if you think FEW people will cheat (which I would hope is true) it will be enough to ruin most games pretty thoroughly, either through actual cheating or suspicion thereof. THEREFORE the ONLY answer is to have a cheat-proof system.

Stop apologizing for this lack in the game. It need to be implemented, and fast.



Grognot -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/16/2008 11:22:16 PM)

There's definitely a point of diminishing returns.  Asking for absolute cheat-proof is probably a bit far.

Making it entirely *proof* and still PBEM might require a switch in architecture to having a trusted server tracking data, changing the turn files to only include instructions (which the server may reject if illegal, so clients can't edit their files and reinforce their corps), and ensuring that the server does -not- transmit information to players that they shouldn't have.

In a ring-of-clients-without-a-server PBEM setup, it could be made considerably more difficult to use out-of-game methods to cheat (for instance, using cryptographic signatures to detect tampering; not sharing data other than on a need-to-know basis to prevent informational cheats) but it's theoretically possible to figure out how the program signs (all the code and data must be on the signing machine, for instance) and to do so.  And any data used for more detailed verification by the recipient's client (like, say, knowing how many total factors an opponent claims to have and whether or not this is possible) must in theory also be accessible to the player whose machine is doing the verification as all the crypto keys (if any) and algorithms are on his machine.

I'd agree that it shouldn't be *easy* to cheat, especially to get re-rolls and undos in land battles by using only cut-paste and in-game functionality, but my inclination would be that it's going to be more important to improve things like PP handling in combined movement / loaned-corps versus e.g. absolutely preventing out-of-game hacks... at least until somebody actually bothers to break out disassemblers and debuggers and so forth, and writes saved-game editors, decoders and the like.  And with this being a pretty niche wargame not presently being used in tournaments (AFAIK), the odds of that happening anytime soon are probably quite low.


...

Side note -- one classic example of trusted-server, untrusted-clients is Netrek.  Real-time, up to 16 players.   Most servers refused connections from non-official Netrek clients.   A "borg" server allowing even non-blessed clients might let you get away with a custom client that had a far more efficient interface and even automated "reflexes" and aim-bots, but there were still unbreakable rules from the clients' perspective -- the server tracked and updated all game state, would throw away commands that violated rules, and there was stuff it simply wouldn't send you if you weren't allowed to know.



Sandeman -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/18/2008 3:20:00 AM)

quote:

I just know when I start getting into PbEM games, I'll avoid any that your a part of. If things start going bad, you'll get into a snit and leave


Well that just breaks my heart. If you didn't notice, and I'm guessing you didn't based on that ridiculous comment, the only problem I have is with QUICK COMBAT resolution being not only exploitable but totally ruins the game balance with the AI making decisions for you. I certainly won't be playing in any games with QC turned on, unless they modify it somewhat to allow at least major combats to be playable.



isandlwana -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/23/2008 9:06:43 PM)

No recent updates--what happened in London?  [>:]



Lord Wolsey -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/26/2008 7:13:56 AM)

London bridge fell down[:(]



Alex Gilbert -> RE: Monroe - AAR (1/27/2008 5:35:55 AM)

We are currently stuck due to a bug with surrendering. Those interested can see the details in the tech support area. Unfortunately, the bug is not letting us out of GB Diplomacy for June, so here we sit.



Murat -> RE: Monroe - AAR (2/12/2008 5:56:03 PM)

It is July and we have gotten around the bug current diplomatic status is:


[image]local://upfiles/10128/AD386A80D76B49AA983AEDF850E2CC80.jpg[/image]



Murat -> RE: Monroe - AAR (2/12/2008 5:57:52 PM)

France has gotten Scotland from England, but England is now free of invaders and her Russian allies are getting ready to go home:


[image]local://upfiles/10128/EA2B4141DB14467F96B635BCE9325C38.jpg[/image]



Murat -> RE: Monroe - AAR (2/12/2008 6:00:31 PM)

Austria is a different matter. The Capital has been moved to the Imperial Winter Resort while the French have brought their political style to most of central Austria. Austrian troops are defecting in droves. It should be noted that Prussia worked out an early surrender providing it security of rseveral months and allowing him to have gained a few minors in the process.


[image]local://upfiles/10128/BE0911081BFA4C7DA47F6048C28A2AA5.jpg[/image]



Murat -> RE: Monroe - AAR (2/12/2008 6:04:44 PM)

Finally we see the VP status and the Turks being held off by the Egyptians still in Cairo if you look in the corner. Their skills have greatly impressed the Emperor and he has announced a new corps - the French Foreign Legion to be based in Corsica and comprised of North Africans wishing to flee their war torn states.



[image]local://upfiles/10128/24B630FE0825443FB4B83308E3AC3FC7.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.220703