RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

seille -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:06:14 PM)

Any special reason why you play around with this cheating tool, Frank ?



Smeulders -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:07:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

I just found a method to change the supplies via a cheating tool.
Shall I post the way to do to michalm or shall I inform everybody here?



I would recommend a PM to michaelm first. If he can address it, that would be best.

If he can't close that hole, then maybe making it common knowledge would be best. I don't know....

+1


Isn't it enough to know the hole exists ? Unless knowledge also leads to simple tests to see if your opponent is abusing it, I don't see the point of telling everyone how to best cheat.



frank1970 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:09:18 PM)

found a way to change the number of devices in the reserve pools.

I am quite sure, I found out, how cheating WITPAE might work.
Mail was sent to michaelm.

I donīt know whether it is possible to prevent the cheat in a easy way.



frank1970 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:10:54 PM)

yes, i want to help the guys here to find out how the cheater was doing this stuff.
And to make you feel better, I donīt play pbem [;)]


And just to make everyone feel easy, I will NOT make the way to do public.

PS I do no longer think, ROY used any exploits. It was cheating. If I, a semi illiterate can do it, everyone could do it.



Historiker -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:17:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

yes, i want to help the guys here to find out how the cheater was doing this stuff.
And to make you feel better, I donīt play pbem [;)]


And just to make everyone feel easy, I will NOT make the way to do public.

PS I do no longer think, ROY used any exploits. It was cheating. If I, a semi illiterate can do it, everyone could do it.

Thank you for finding that. Hopefully this can be fixed, now!



CT Grognard -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:22:54 PM)

Since the save game files are encrypted, I can only imagine that it has to do with manipulations of game data intra-game, i.e. while the player is entering his orders for the turn.



frank1970 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:24:58 PM)

No, I wonīt tell you [:'(]



CT Grognard -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:27:42 PM)

Kein Problem, ist mir egal!

Ich bin doch kein Betruger. Ich hasse Betrueger!



Historiker -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:29:32 PM)

I am amazed again how many speak and understand German in this forum. :)

But let's see the positive side. His opponents surely have learned a lot just by facing the pressure of the cheater. As a sideeffect, this backdoors will hopefully be closed, soon.



frank1970 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:29:53 PM)

Um Himmelswillen, war nur Spaß!
Ich bin mir ganz sicher, dass es hier nur einen cheater gegeben hat!

oh, I was just making fun of you!
I am absolutely sure that there was only one cheater!

Sorry,

Frank



seille -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:31:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

Kein Problem, ist mir egal!

Ich bin doch kein Betruger. Ich hasse Betrueger!



Me, too !!



Chickenboy -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:39:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

I just found a method to change the supplies via a cheating tool.
Shall I post the way to do to michalm or shall I inform everybody here?



I would recommend a PM to michaelm first. If he can address it, that would be best.

If he can't close that hole, then maybe making it common knowledge would be best. I don't know....


Agreed.



CT Grognard -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:42:27 PM)

And we would be very grateful for any assistance you can provide in identifying loopholes in the game mechanics so that (hopefully) they can be closed. [8D]



frank1970 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:53:45 PM)

I did my very best. I had an idea, I tried and found a way to do it, at last I mailed michael, so there isnīt too much I can do imho.



witpqs -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 4:58:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

I did my very best. I had an idea, I tried and found a way to do it, at last I mailed michael, so there isnīt too much I can do imho.


I guess he means that if you see or think of any others ways. After all, you were able to find at least one way.

And a whole bunch of us are grateful to you for that! [&o]

I totally trust the opponents I have. Heck, I put plenty of current stuff in my AARs. The point is that even those of us lucky enough to have good and honorable opponents would see the community overall decline if a few vermin were screwing people here and there, especially new guys/gals who are trying to learn the game.



CT Grognard -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:03:35 PM)

Agreed.

You put so much time and effort into a PBEM as it is.



btbw -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:08:38 PM)

I can watch LCU exp/morale/AV of your enemy if someone need it. Send me your save with password. Note: working with only LCU in city hex and shown as LCU icons as result of detection by recon.
For example - You see in Changsha 26 LCUs. IF you think enemy convert it into 99 exp/morale LCU with 600 AV each - send me your save turn and i will check it.
This exploit reported to michaelm and waiting fix.



janh -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:08:39 PM)

That was my first experience when I moved to Boston... we were standing on a T and joking about G.B. junior with a few friends, and suddenly an older guy chimed in. I really was surprised that a good many people there spoke some German. I just can't figure why anybody would voluntarily want to learn it? ;)

quote:


I would recommend a PM to michaelm first. If he can address it, that would be best.

If he can't close that hole, then maybe making it common knowledge would be best. I don't know....


+1
Seems like it would be best to chose opponents that are not all about winning, but about "enjoying the journey". It takes almost 2-3 years for a match, so why spoil your own fun and that of your opponent by bending rules or engine to the implausible, or even worse, "reverse engineer" your chances like this? What motivation is left? Isn't it much more exciting and fun when the game hangs in a balance, where every day could bring decisive engagements?

Good thing that AI faithfully obeys rules even when cheating! As much as I dislike hacking saves, or assembler hacking, such "tools", or any other manipulation, I must say that for AI games a "save game editor" would be a handy thing. I can't say how many time I had to reload the game a few turns back and play both sides to correct AI mistakes before disaster befalls it. Would be nice if one could just edit the position of a CV TF out of harms way, or manually add supply at some AI locs.




mdiehl -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:09:05 PM)

quote:

An "interesting" example from his ironman game:

12. Dezember 1941

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 184

Allied aircraft
P-35A x 8
P-40B Warhawk x 15
P-40E Warhawk x 51

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 13 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 2 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 4 destroyed


The "kill ratio" is reasonable for the time period. Anyone fielding 75 operational P-40s on 12 December, not so much. Presumedly 184 Zekes are flying from CVs, which is reasonable. Otherwise, the idea of the Japanese flying 184 Zekes anywhere outside of Japan, not so much.

As to 90EXP for units with no combat experience, it's realistic, but only after three years of constant training, IMO. In WW2, few units had that kind of training experience, although the USN attempted to achieve that sort of thing using the precursor to the Top Gun school (advanced training and tactics schools). That sort of thing wasn't conceivable prior to 1944. The only USAAF unit to have that sort of ability were the Red Tails.

Can't see the point in cheating. If the game is so borked in one's POV that cheating is necessary, don't play it. Especially a game with the time commitment required of WitP.




CT Grognard -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:12:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

The only USAAF unit to have that sort of ability were the Red Tails.



I am sorry but I can no longer take you serious.



mdiehl -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:14:49 PM)

A South African finds it implausible that a USAAF unit that trained for three years and had one of the best operational records of any squadron in the war can't take me seriously. Is that because the Red Tails pilots were black?



frank1970 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:24:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

A South African finds it implausible that a USAAF unit that trained for three years and had one of the best operational records of any squadron in the war can't take me seriously. Is that because the Red Tails pilots were black?


Now, that is low! [:o]



Andy Mac -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:35:40 PM)

Really slly question but we are all sure this isnt as simple as a game started as PBEM under ironman ?

i.e. a Japanese player playing a player using the allied ironman scenario (in that scen a lot of allied units start at far higher xp as do LCU's ?)

Has someone checked its not simply a wrong scenario ??



frank1970 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:37:24 PM)

I am afraid, that the Allies were much better than they should. Therefore ironman would improve the wrong side of the equation.



Andy Mac -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:38:51 PM)

There is an allied ironman variant (I know because I am in proces of updating it) Scen 23 which will have a lot of 90xp pilots and high xp LCU's in it



Historiker -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:43:16 PM)

No, this happened in serveral games, both Ironman, Scen 1 and 2.



Wolfpack1 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 5:58:33 PM)

Frank,
In my opinion you are at 99,9% right, Roy cheated.
I do not want to explain in detail but it is possible.
Found it out when I tried to add database changes to a
running game.
To avoid any misunderstandings I did not and will not
play any PBEM, too much RL.
Donīt know what you detected, maybe you can mail me
and we can compare our findings.
Maybe I can add something for MichelM, too.
All the best
Olli




Empire101 -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 6:05:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

yes, i want to help the guys here to find out how the cheater was doing this stuff.
And to make you feel better, I donīt play pbem [;)]


And just to make everyone feel easy, I will NOT make the way to do public.

PS I do no longer think, ROY used any exploits. It was cheating. If I, a semi illiterate can do it, everyone could do it.

Thank you for finding that. Hopefully this can be fixed, now!


+1 to that!!



Cap Mandrake -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 6:13:27 PM)

Why is it the German players are able to poke holes in the database and diagnose the vulnerabilities and we anglophones are running around like headless chickens in a P-26?


I hope you guys aren't still mad about the whole Enigma thing.



CT Grognard -> RE: I was sent this WARNING..... (3/19/2012 6:13:33 PM)

Ah, a lovely ad hominem logical fallacy.

Again, I can not take you seriously.

You claim the Red Tails trained for three years - please provide proof.

Because as far as I am aware, the 99th Flying Pursuit Squadron was activated in March 1941. The Tuskegee Flight School was only established in June 1941 and Pre-Flight stage training (mechanics, physics of flights, aeronautics, deflection shooting, thinking in 3D) only commenced in July 1941.

Primary Pilot Training started in September 41, while Basic Pilot Training started in November 1941, with Advanced Pilot Training starting in January 1942. The first class graduated on 6 March 1942 - after being in training for 9 months (the standard USAAF training period, with each stage - Pre Flight, Primary Pilot (65 hrs), Basic Pilot (70 hrs) and Advanced Pilot Training (80 hours) lasting 9 weeks each, for a total of 36 months). Please note that these aviation cadets graduated with around 215 hours' flight experience (the USAAF required at least 200 hours' flight time to graduate).

Contrast this with Imperial Japanese naval aviators who graduated with 500 hours' flight experience. Not a single one of the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor had logged less than 600 hours' flying time, some flight leaders had logged 1500 hours.

The 99th Flying Pursuit Squadron was only at full strength in August 1942 as they waited for more pilots to graduate. The 90th FPS was declared combat-ready on 15 September 1942 - they then, after a struggle to get a combat posting, was deployed to North Africa in April 1943.

Now, July 1941 to April 1943 (assuming the first graduates - of whom there weren't enough to fill a squadron - trained consistently from graduation in March 1942 to April 1943, which is unlikely given the general lack of resources the Tuskegee training centre suffered from - they had almost 2,000 men on base with only two training squadrons) I make as 21 months.

Also bear in mind that during their deployment in North Africa, and later Sicily, they were utilised exclusively in a ground attack capacity. Not sure they had much chance to brush up on their air-to-air skill?

I am not trying to diminish the great gallantry of the Tuskegee Airmen, who were an inspiration for surmounting the incredible obstacles that were placed in front of them at all times.

What I am trying to diminish is the credibility of your argument, firstly, that they had three years' training (please prove this) and, secondly, that they were the finest squadron in the USAAF (again, please prove this).



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5