quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Exploit are usually fixed quite quickly once discovered.

Most game have home rules to prevent for example, too much use of air drop or naval invasion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: beender

Have recently started PvP game and it's surely much more than beating the docile AI[:D]

Yet the problem is, I started feeling concerned about using certain tactics that some may regard as "exploit." After all, I used to think "all is fair in war and wargames," and only learnt the word "gamey" on the forum... After so many years of development, you would think there is no room for such tricks in WITE but who knows. Also, I am from a country where wargame is not a tradition, and I am really not sure if there is something one is not supposed to do, even allowed by the game mechanics.

So my question is, is there a "exploit list" that contains those typical tactics frowned upon among the community? Any advice is appreciated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

quote:

ORIGINAL: beender

Have recently started PvP game and it's surely much more than beating the docile AI[:D]

Yet the problem is, I started feeling concerned about using certain tactics that some may regard as "exploit." After all, I used to think "all is fair in war and wargames," and only learnt the word "gamey" on the forum... After so many years of development, you would think there is no room for such tricks in WITE but who knows. Also, I am from a country where wargame is not a tradition, and I am really not sure if there is something one is not supposed to do, even allowed by the game mechanics.

So my question is, is there a "exploit list" that contains those typical tactics frowned upon among the community? Any advice is appreciated.

Depends on your definition of exploit.
A historical/realism minded player would cry after every second sentence in the AARs of Telemecus/MichealT/HLYA/Pelton.
If you see this more like complex chess (I count myself to this fraction) it is just smart play and I have a great deal of respect for their smart use of the game mechanics.
But there really is nothing that can't be settled down with common sense, a sportsman opponent and a clear description what kind of player/game you are looking for when seeking an opponent.

But there are always exploits and cheats (IMO there is a difference among this two words) because nothing is ever perfect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I suppose the big no no is reloading. To some extent that is unavoidable for example when your computer crashes - but should not be done intentionally to take advantage. And for me this does mean not discovering some new information and changing your moves with hindsight or repeating a battle until you win it. Others take a more expansive view but for me that really is the kernel of it. And for PBEM games that has to rely on the trust of the other player, and the desire to have a genuine game. Endless reloading to turn a low odds win into a victory is if nothing else very boring.

I do dispute the terms historical as usually used. If all games were historical then we would follow the exact war with the same front lines week by week, same units in the same places and so on. To be a game it has to allow a-historical outcomes. So what people really mean is not too unhistorical. For example the Germans could not have had jet planes during 1941 - if on the other hand you played a game starting in 1931 in which choosing research priorities was part of the game having jet planes in 1941 would have been possible and not a-historical. So it does depend on the context of the game - principally its time span.

Also I do get concerned sometimes the term ahistorical is used to mean just not how they see the game. A recent case was my use of a lot of reconnaissance to keep opponent air forces fatigued. This was termed "recon spamming" to say it was using the game mechanics. Or more specifically the game mechanics not duplicating real life, as using the historical game mechanics is unavoidable! But there are many historical parallels during the war where air commanders did use repeat air missions to areas lightly covered by an enemy air force (Malta and North France in 1942) not to cause any action but, to quote one air commander of the time, "to keep them on their toes and their nerves on edge." So to me this is perfectly historical even if others do not agree. In a ground combat context this is called "soaking attacks" - which again has historical parallels.

At least for me the term "gamey" should only apply when historical parallels cannot be constructed. Some current interesting examples are
i) Even with Fog of War on you can sometimes use the allowed movement paths of units with no CV (e.g. HQs, airbases) to see where hidden enemy units are (as they cannot move next to them) which you cannot with combat units. I see this as "gamey" recon as I cannot make any real life parallel and so do not use it intentionally, but it is also impossible to stop seeing accidentally.
ii) It is possible even while an airbase is packed up and loaded on a train to fly aircraft from it and conduct missions. I have only ever seen planes land on moving trains in cinema films - and I am absolutely sure is not realistic.
iii) The "suicide para" mission of dropping airborne units for no reason other than to break a repaired rail line. There is no case of several thousand men being dropped behind lines solely to blow up a railway line.
There are many more I could add

Personally I do not object to others using features like these. You can agree house rules on them if you wish or even be nice and ask your opponent in advance if they object. But I do post on them and they often then get removed from the game in the next version. So perhaps the real definition of gamey or exploit should be what gets removed by the next version of the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: beender



The trick i used is very plain. Surbodinating motorized division to army hq who has a lot of fuel dump, and i got two 46mp mots at pskov starting T3.

Is it gamey? I don’t know. It’s simple game mechanics. Has been there for probably the whole life of the game, yet not removed.

quote:

The trick i used is very plain. Surbodinating motorized division to army hq who has a lot of fuel dump, and i got two 46mp mots at pskov starting T3.
/quote]
I would ban this by house rule in 1.10 and not in 1.11.01.
You got lucky with admin rolls though.

The dumps are there from the beginning in infantry armies but not in panzer armies for whatever reason. Considered using them as Axis under 1.10 and did not do so but would do under 1.11.01


currently, it is difficult to get dumps into a HQ. Probably because of Bozo.
I tried out a number of things after figuring out how the supply system works, and failed miserably. But after reading through old Pelton/MichealT posts I found the ideas to do so out they were nerfed out (+some I would not have gotten in a life time)

quote:

Exploit are usually fixed quite quickly once discovered. 

Problem is to find them, once they are found them morvael does a great Job. Some stuff is still in 1.11.01 (Dennis and morvaels personal smiley: [&o] [&o] [&o] )

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

quote:

The trick i used is very plain. Surbodinating motorized division to army hq who has a lot of fuel dump, and i got two 46mp mots at pskov starting T3.
/quote]
I would ban this by house rule in 1.10 and not in 1.11.01.
You got lucky with admin rolls though.

The dumps are there from the beginning in infantry armies but not in panzer armies for whatever reason. Considered using them as Axis under 1.10 and did not do so but would do under 1.11.01


currently, it is difficult to get dumps into a HQ. Probably because of Bozo.
I tried out a number of things after figuring out how the supply system works, and failed miserably. But after reading through old Pelton/MichealT posts I found the ideas to do so out they were nerfed out (+some I would not have gotten in a life time)

quote:

Exploit are usually fixed quite quickly once discovered. 

Problem is to find them, once they are found them morvael does a great Job. Some stuff is still in 1.11.01 (Dennis and morvaels personal smiley: [&o] [&o] [&o] )

quote:

I didnt try the Bozo technique my last game. But the regular German Army HQs filling up with supplies and fuel over the turns still happen. You can get a full corps plus 1 more Divsion with over 40 MPs every few turns if done correctly. Also I noted some interesting supply situations too with Corps HQs that could be used by rotating units. Thus an offense can be sustained without spending points on HQ BUs but spending points on flipping units between corps and armies for the fuel and supply. I have done it and Im sure more of you have done it too.

quote:

Fuel dumps in army hq never get used if not supplied to mobile divisions, and you have to spend vehicles moving them around. So i figured I'd better use them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I quit playing humans whom I did not know and trust a LONG LONG time ago.
Americans especially (among whom I am counted) are notorious for winning justifying all and any means.
Human beings can justify anything; for example I own an SS cap...

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I would go far as to say starting on turn 2 to give each inf corps a pz div. (break the pz corps up)the PZs would fill up with fuel faster if done this way in current rule set. Kind of reminds me of the french doctrine of dispersing the tanks out to the inf. But Im theorizing you would get fuel much quicker than having four in 1 PZ corps. Because I noticed that most of the inf corps hqs are running around with 40-120 stockpiles in them. Then put them in the PZ corps when you want to do a hq bu for 2 turn mayhem.

quote:

]ORIGINAL: Telemecus
Also I do get concerned sometimes the term ahistorical is used to mean just not how they see the game. A recent case was my use of a lot of reconnaissance to keep opponent air forces fatigued. This was termed "recon spamming" to say it was using the game mechanics. Or more specifically the game mechanics not duplicating real life, as using the historical game mechanics is unavoidable! But there are many historical parallels during the war where air commanders did use repeat air missions to areas lightly covered by an enemy air force (Malta and North France in 1942) not to cause any action but, to quote one air commander of the time, "to keep them on their toes and their nerves on edge." So to me this is perfectly historical even if others do not agree. In a ground combat context this is called "soaking attacks" - which again has historical parallels.

quote:

Personally I do not object to others using features like these. You can agree house rules on them if you wish or even be nice and ask your opponent in advance if they object. But I do post on them and they often then get removed from the game in the next version. So perhaps the real definition of gamey or exploit should be what gets removed by the next version of the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

quote:

]ORIGINAL: Telemecus
Also I do get concerned sometimes the term ahistorical is used to mean just not how they see the game. A recent case was my use of a lot of reconnaissance to keep opponent air forces fatigued. This was termed "recon spamming" to say it was using the game mechanics. Or more specifically the game mechanics not duplicating real life, as using the historical game mechanics is unavoidable! But there are many historical parallels during the war where air commanders did use repeat air missions to areas lightly covered by an enemy air force (Malta and North France in 1942) not to cause any action but, to quote one air commander of the time, "to keep them on their toes and their nerves on edge." So to me this is perfectly historical even if others do not agree. In a ground combat context this is called "soaking attacks" - which again has historical parallels.

1. The Axis had no fuel/truck capacity to spare for recon spam flights.
2. They did not have the recon excess they have ingame. "The German Empire and the Second World War Vol. 4 (Das deutsche Reich und der zweite Weltkrieg) states that the Axis had recon shortages later in 1941, and gives this as one of the reasons why the Soviet buildup for the winter attack hasn't been detected.
3. Axis recon losses are way too low given the fact you fly them over Soviet fighter airfields. The 200mph recon planes (which are IMO a bit mistreated in the game, they were more transport planes for staff and sometimes a general used them to get an image of the frontline. But no deep recon flights AFAIK) should suffer much higher losses even from old soviet fighters.

I am fully fine if you use that in any game I am involved in, but IMO the tactic uses the failure of the game engine to simulate the historical trade offs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I quit playing humans whom I did not know and trust a LONG LONG time ago.
Americans especially (among whom I am counted) are notorious for winning justifying all and any means.
Human beings can justify anything; for example I own an SS cap...

Layman terms pleaseon exactly your point here.

Thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I quit playing humans whom I did not know and trust a LONG LONG time ago.
Americans especially (among whom I am counted) are notorious for winning justifying all and any means.
Human beings can justify anything; for example I own an SS cap...