I've read many times on this forum that the game is designed with email games in mind. I've read all of the original game manual and I am up to page 335 in the GS manual and I haven't seen much description of how email games are executed. I am wondering, what features are there to prevent cheating? For instance, reloading of turns if things do not go well. I understand everyone's enthusiasm for playing against humans, I have a long history of pbem wargaming, and this may be why I have the concern for security.
Even when I play golf with my own brother I have caught him trying to move his ball away from a tree when he thought I wasn't looking. Everyone is capable of it.
Is TCPIP play the only secure method?
pbem security
Moderators: firepowerjohan, Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
Re: pbem security
As long as you send your moves via email it's hard to prevent a user from reloading. You simply have to trust your opponent. Cheaters usually get caught in the end because they become too greedy. If the results of your opponent's moves always seem to be more spectacular than you thought was possible, then he might be cheating.
GS doesn't necessarily work with TCP/IP play. We haven't tested that during development. I tried a bit with the vanilla game, but found it awkward to use so I preferred PBEM instead. One reason is that you can make a move when you have time instead of having to wait for your opponent to be available too.
If you had some kind of game ladder when you work towards a server then cheating would be much harder. It's quite a bit of effort making such a system and we haven't had the capacity to do that. If someone would want to do that for Slitherine then I'm sure they would not say no to having GS v3.0 support a game ladder system.
One reason it's very hard to detect replaying of turns is that a player can always download the old save file from his email so we can't use a method to store the number to file openings into the save file. One could consider writing data directly into the registry about how many times a game is loaded and store the number when the game is finally saved. Then the opponent can see how many times the game was loaded. One problem is that data writing into registry can be found and altered to hide cheating. Players don't like programs who mess up their registry since bad coding can make their entire computer unstable. So it's probably best to avoid that.
The conclusion is that GS v3.0 players can cheat and it's very hard to detect reloading of a turn. However, there are mechanisms to detect users changing key files used by the game. So you can't "doctor" e. g. the unit attributes to get an advantage
GS doesn't necessarily work with TCP/IP play. We haven't tested that during development. I tried a bit with the vanilla game, but found it awkward to use so I preferred PBEM instead. One reason is that you can make a move when you have time instead of having to wait for your opponent to be available too.
If you had some kind of game ladder when you work towards a server then cheating would be much harder. It's quite a bit of effort making such a system and we haven't had the capacity to do that. If someone would want to do that for Slitherine then I'm sure they would not say no to having GS v3.0 support a game ladder system.
One reason it's very hard to detect replaying of turns is that a player can always download the old save file from his email so we can't use a method to store the number to file openings into the save file. One could consider writing data directly into the registry about how many times a game is loaded and store the number when the game is finally saved. Then the opponent can see how many times the game was loaded. One problem is that data writing into registry can be found and altered to hide cheating. Players don't like programs who mess up their registry since bad coding can make their entire computer unstable. So it's probably best to avoid that.
The conclusion is that GS v3.0 players can cheat and it's very hard to detect reloading of a turn. However, there are mechanisms to detect users changing key files used by the game. So you can't "doctor" e. g. the unit attributes to get an advantage
Re: pbem security
Thanks, this is pretty much the answer that I expected, and I understand that it is very difficult if not impossible to improve this type of pbem security. This has discouraged me from being the avid pbem player that I once was, especially with games like this one that require a sizable time investment in playing.
Really all I was looking for when buying this game was an update to my tired old copy of "Rise and Fall of The Third Reich" and CEaW fills that roll very nicely. Not saying I will never play a human but if I do it will probably be hot seat or TCPIP or email with someone I know well.
Really all I was looking for when buying this game was an update to my tired old copy of "Rise and Fall of The Third Reich" and CEaW fills that roll very nicely. Not saying I will never play a human but if I do it will probably be hot seat or TCPIP or email with someone I know well.
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
Re: pbem security
There are a lot of good players here you can find in the AAR's that won't cheat. So I think you can just give it a try.
Re: pbem security
the game can throw up the odd outlier result so don't be to hasty in your judgement (happily its a lot better in the GS mod than it was)Stauffenberg wrote:There are a lot of good players here you can find in the AAR's that won't cheat. So I think you can just give it a try.
two quick examples:
1. Gog the Mild can tell you about his STR losing 4 steps from bombing a GAR (I think it was a GAR?)
2. the last turn I played moving the Canadian's to the UK, somehow I managed to get 3 transports out without hitting the SUB offshore (because of the Transport in Port they were loaded to an adjacent hex) only the last transport ran into the SUB - very odd to look at, and annoying as it was the MECH!
-
GogTheMild
- Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:44 pm
- Location: Derby, UK
Re: pbem security
Yes - an unentrenched GAR at that. In the AAR with Kragdob. I still wouldn't believe it if I didn't have the screenshots.richardsd wrote:1. Gog the Mild can tell you about his STR losing 4 steps from bombing a GAR (I think it was a GAR?)
As the Allies I once attacked Tobruk in 1940: both FTRs and my BB got better results than predicted; as did EACH of my 4 land units. Tobruk fell in one turn. It was embarrassing. I was strongly tempted to reload to get a worse result
.We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
Re: pbem security
Actually , the best way to avoid cheating is hotseat ! It will absolutely be a fair game ! 
Re: pbem security
Hotseat can be reloaded aswell. Or you mean you are going to watch how your opponent actually making his turns?
This way it will be fair, but it is effectively playing with FoW OFF.
This way it will be fair, but it is effectively playing with FoW OFF.
Re: pbem security
Yes , I mean just face to face play a mirror hotseat !Plaid wrote:Hotseat can be reloaded aswell. Or you mean you are going to watch how your opponent actually making his turns?
This way it will be fair, but it is effectively playing with FoW OFF.
excuse me , what is " Fow OFF" ?
Re: pbem security
Fog Of WarMorris wrote:Yes , I mean just face to face play a mirror hotseat !Plaid wrote:Hotseat can be reloaded aswell. Or you mean you are going to watch how your opponent actually making his turns?
This way it will be fair, but it is effectively playing with FoW OFF.
excuse me , what is " Fow OFF" ?
Re: pbem security
the program TeamViewer allows you to see or opponents without repetitions
players must install this program.then during the turn of the opponent will be able to see as the player spends attack
players must install this program.then during the turn of the opponent will be able to see as the player spends attack
Re: pbem security - A Pragmatic View ?
Please don't be too critical of me. But, what follows below is my response to my very first PBEM CEAW opponent (Doug Snurri) regarding his question about "do overs", aka "cheating".
I think the fact that one can.......probably means that most people do. This is only my second game against a human.......and can see a certain amount of “better than expected results” from my opponent. Thus, I think of things this way.
I have to work (aka a day job) and have to try and fit in a few game turns when I can. Thus, endless “do overs” trying to achieve the perfect result is impractical. But, also receiving an absolutely “disastrous” result is not palatable. Even in the real world we (the military, companies etc) run many “simulations”, many “intelligence” activities and see many instances where the use of “reserves” are deployed to make up for early set backs, occur. Thus, I think we can all “rationalise” some “do over” mentality.
So, I would be happy to put together a gentlemen’s agreement that we limit any and all “do overs” to a maximum of 3 per turn in order to satisfy the “rationalities” I described. I think any more than 3 is impractical (especially when the games starts to get big). That way we are on a level playing field and the game doesn’t turn into a farce.
Does that work for you ?
Some variation of the above, written in the form of an agreed code of conduct, displayed in the PBEM, AAR and Opponent forums might help 'deal' with the problem, pragmatically ?
I think the fact that one can.......probably means that most people do. This is only my second game against a human.......and can see a certain amount of “better than expected results” from my opponent. Thus, I think of things this way.
I have to work (aka a day job) and have to try and fit in a few game turns when I can. Thus, endless “do overs” trying to achieve the perfect result is impractical. But, also receiving an absolutely “disastrous” result is not palatable. Even in the real world we (the military, companies etc) run many “simulations”, many “intelligence” activities and see many instances where the use of “reserves” are deployed to make up for early set backs, occur. Thus, I think we can all “rationalise” some “do over” mentality.
So, I would be happy to put together a gentlemen’s agreement that we limit any and all “do overs” to a maximum of 3 per turn in order to satisfy the “rationalities” I described. I think any more than 3 is impractical (especially when the games starts to get big). That way we are on a level playing field and the game doesn’t turn into a farce.
Does that work for you ?
Some variation of the above, written in the form of an agreed code of conduct, displayed in the PBEM, AAR and Opponent forums might help 'deal' with the problem, pragmatically ?
Re: pbem security
everyone here is 50 times before trying to get a nice result.only this program http://www.teamviewer.com/en/products/r ... ntrol.aspx
guarantees would not repeats
guarantees would not repeats
Re: pbem security
I wonder: how widespread is the "problem" of reloading a file to get better results? I suppose there is no way really to know. For all or most of us, I hope, the point of playing this game is to learn legitimate tricks, tactics and strategies to improve our play and overcome challenges. Reloading to change combat results undermines these goals.