Low security in PBEM

[gerones]

I know that this has been discussed before here but just to know that two guys that I was used to play with have stopped to play CEAW because of low security in CEAW makes me think if finally something should have done to increase PBEM security in some way. We all like much this game and we would not like more and more people just stopping playing CEAW because of this.

I have TOAW 3 wargame and this game has by far more PBEM security than CEAW. Almost any wargame out there has much more PBEM security than CEAW.

We all have seen here many AAR´s stopped in strange circumstances and some people might think why these games have been closed...

Cheating for obtaining the best possible combat results is so easy in CEAW that is really annoying. To make things worst combat results system is excessively random so this is like a vicious cycle: people are more tempted to cheat because of the bad combat results they have got in a single turn and so on. Or people just cheat because they think their opponent is also cheating. Or people just can cheat for "reconnaissance" purposes. Or even more, for "ASW" missions: you just run into a sub so you know where the sub is so you can repeat again and again until you inflict the more possible damage to the sub.

It has been said here that you have to trust your opponent but I begin to think that something should be done against this flawed CEAW PBEM system.

[shawkhan]

Nothing much to be gained by accusing people. Some of these guys could make a good living gambling in Las Vegas if they are really as lucky as they appear in these games. Cheating like lying says a lot about a person. You can look up cheat codes on most computer games if you wish and some people I suppose derive pleasure from the ego boost they get from 'winning' a game in this way. I do know that one can get more opponents if you don't have a 'good' win/loss record, so in a very real way, it is counter-productive.
I too have read some of the AARs around here in amazement, finding it about impossible to duplicate some of the attacks made by the Axis in 1939/40. The one-turn conquests of Belgium and Holland are something in particular I have never been able to duplicate myself along with the spectacular weather luck. The size of this game makes this kind of thing more and more unlikely as the war goes on however. By 1942 the war is simply too large for this kind of cheating and things will even out.
I would like to see some kind of security that only allows one 'go' at a turn before warning your opponent that it has been re-loaded. This could stop 99% of this kind of thing, but might lead to problems of its own, particularly a scarcity of opponents, hoho!

[ferokapo]

The type of protection you want will be difficult to implement, and will lead to other problems. To give you an example: What if you mistakenly click somewhere, sending an important unit into the woods, ruining a critical attack? Unless you have a Cancel-Button (potentially undermining trust much more), this is a serious problem. I hereby confess: Yes, I have reloaded because of this! When I once sent my tanks accidentally in the wrong direction, I reloaded, made sure that I repeated exactly the same moves as in the first try, but I got much better combat results, so I reloaded again! I don't think my opponent would mind, because I assume he would not want to win because I accidentally messed up a crucial attack completely. Of course, I would never reload if I simply forgot to move some unit or had a better idea during the course of my turn. And I expect my opponent to not reload because of such minor mistakes, too.

As for the weather: You can't influence this by reloading, I think it is determined at the end of your opponent's move.

As for spectacular combat results: Believe me, many are not the result of luck, but of very careful planning. When I toyed around in hotseat mode with different attack scenarios, I was amazed how much difference a slightly altered sequence of attacks can have. Before crucial offensives, I send in the STRs to look for enemy fighters, I note all the possible targets, their stats and their strategic importance, the movement ranges of all involved units, then assign attack priorities and finally write down who attacks who in what order, before finally commencing the offensive. If you go for overkill, i.e. make sure that only very bad luck will prevent the initial part of attack from succeding, then the rest of the attack usually goes through well, too. With this method (reconnaissance, careful planning and overkill on the initial attack wave), I have been quite successful so far.

Of course, if your opponent repeatly wins haphazard offensives, and always find your subs, then you should become suspicious.

But I would rather stick to the honour-bound trust among gamers. If I think someone cheats, I will not play with him, easy as that. Sooner or later, that someone will run out of opponents.

[schwerpunkt]

As for spectacular combat results: Believe me, many are not the result of luck, but of very careful planning. When I toyed around in hotseat mode with different attack scenarios, I was amazed how much difference a slightly altered sequence of attacks can have. Before crucial offensives, I send in the STRs to look for enemy fighters, I note all the possible targets, their stats and their strategic importance, the movement ranges of all involved units, then assign attack priorities and finally write down who attacks who in what order, before finally commencing the offensive. If you go for overkill, i.e. make sure that only very bad luck will prevent the initial part of attack from succeding, then the rest of the attack usually goes through well, too. With this method (reconnaissance, careful planning and overkill on the initial attack wave), I have been quite successful so far.

I'm glad to see there are others as anal as I am Its the main reason why I prefer PBEM to TCP.... (I'd bore the pants off the person at the other end).

Do you maintain a spreadsheet to track and plan your production and research too?

[pk867]

No wonder you are hard to beat...

[ferokapo]

As for spectacular combat results: Believe me, many are not the result of luck, but of very careful planning. When I toyed around in hotseat mode with different attack scenarios, I was amazed how much difference a slightly altered sequence of attacks can have. Before crucial offensives, I send in the STRs to look for enemy fighters, I note all the possible targets, their stats and their strategic importance, the movement ranges of all involved units, then assign attack priorities and finally write down who attacks who in what order, before finally commencing the offensive. If you go for overkill, i.e. make sure that only very bad luck will prevent the initial part of attack from succeding, then the rest of the attack usually goes through well, too. With this method (reconnaissance, careful planning and overkill on the initial attack wave), I have been quite successful so far.

I'm glad to see there are others as anal as I am Its the main reason why I prefer PBEM to TCP.... (I'd bore the pants off the person at the other end).

Do you maintain a spreadsheet to track and plan your production and research too?

Not a real spreadsheet, just some notes, and only until I launch Barbarossa. It's not that I wouldn't want to, I'm just a bit too lazy...

[rkr1958]

As for spectacular combat results: Believe me, many are not the result of luck, but of very careful planning. When I toyed around in hotseat mode with different attack scenarios, I was amazed how much difference a slightly altered sequence of attacks can have. Before crucial offensives, I send in the STRs to look for enemy fighters, I note all the possible targets, their stats and their strategic importance, the movement ranges of all involved units, then assign attack priorities and finally write down who attacks who in what order, before finally commencing the offensive. If you go for overkill, i.e. make sure that only very bad luck will prevent the initial part of attack from succeding, then the rest of the attack usually goes through well, too. With this method (reconnaissance, careful planning and overkill on the initial attack wave), I have been quite successful so far.

Do you maintain a spreadsheet to track and plan your production and research too? Very Happy

You two are serious players. You both inspire me.

[Aryaman]

The thing that bothers me most about how wasy is to cheat in PBEM games is that whenever my opponent gets very lucky I think he is cheating, I would prefer a system in which accidental moves can´t be undone but in which cheating is much harder. I know some people would find cheating ways no matter what, but 99% of wargamers would be happy to play a game in which you receive a warning that your opponent has reloaded, as in TOAW3

[gerones]

Nothing much to be gained by accusing people.

I haven´t accused anyone! Just wanted to make people know here that I have emailed two guys for starting a CEAW game with them and they rejected because of reloading and excessively random combat system problem.

I too have read some of the AARs around here in amazement, finding it about impossible to duplicate some of the attacks made by the Axis in 1939/40. The one-turn conquests of Belgium and Holland are something in particular I have never been able to duplicate myself along with the spectacular weather luck.

About AAR´s my main concern is: why some people have just stopped playing an AAR´s game? might be because one of them thought his opponent was cheating and he just stopped playing the game?

The size of this game makes this kind of thing more and more unlikely as the war goes on however. By 1942 the war is simply too large for this kind of cheating and things will even out.

You can always make a "specialized" cheating: e.g. as to repeat the whole turn would be annoying in late game you can cheat only at the begining of the turn for good air combat results or for "ASW" missions, etc. even in late game.

As for spectacular combat results: Believe me, many are not the result of luck, but of very careful planning

Even with a very careful plan, the excessively random combat system in CEAW might always cause crazy combat results: people could be more tempted to cheat because of this. So the problem here is not only that cheating is very easy in CEAW but also the excessively random combat system.

[rkr1958]

I too have read some of the AARs around here in amazement, finding it about impossible to duplicate some of the attacks made by the Axis in 1939/40. The one-turn conquests of Belgium and Holland are something in particular I have never been able to duplicate myself along with the spectacular weather luck.

If you mean a one turn conquest of Belgium AND Holland on the same turn then I've never seen that. But, if you're referring to a one turn conquest on these countries on SEPARATE turns then that's not difficult. I have to admit that against Holland I usually take two, three or even four turns because I tend to invade it in October 1939. However; if I were to wait to fair weather in 1940 then I would accomplish a 1-turn conquest about 80 to 90% of the time. My standard strategy with respect to Belgium and France is Sietzkrieg and a one turn conquest of Belgium is almost certain. In fact, since we've added the 20 point DOW morale loss I have not failed to take Belgium out in one turn using Sietzkrieg.

With respect to weather the weather "roll" is made by the allied player for the next turn when he ends his turn. There is no way for the axis player through hook or crook to influence the weather. The only way for the allied player to "reasonable" do this would only be if he had the axis player's password to load his ended turn to see if he got the weather he wanted. If not, then he'd have to replay his turn, end it and then load it again with the axis password. When possible this seems very unlikely.

The players that consistently get very good attack results; but occasionally they don't, against me are the elite players. Players like Borger, Neil, Joe Rock and Max. They get them because they are very good players and do a through job of planning their attacks. These players don't rely on luck, and any other method, to achieve their results but on VERY GOOD play. Furthermore, they even execute their attacks in a way that can accommodate or adapt to bad "rolls". They never end their turn in an exposed position no mater. If they get an average or good sequence of rolls then they can roll up a defensive line like I wish I could. If they get a bad sequence of rolls or bad rolls for a critical attack then they scale back their objectives for the turn and wait for the next turn to go after them.

[rkr1958]

About AAR´s my main concern is: why some people have just stopped playing an AAR´s game? might be because one of them thought his opponent was cheating and he just stopped playing the game?

Let's be careful here. I and others have stopped several AARs before NOT because we thought someone was cheating but because we updated the game to a version that invalidated existing games. I suspect that other AARs have been stopped because one or both players lost interest or abandoned the game. Simple as that. So let's be careful about throwing "cheating" around as a reason unless one of the players in the AAR is willing to explicitly state that this was the reason they stopped.

Even with a very careful plan, the excessively random combat system in CEAW might always cause crazy combat results: people could be more tempted to cheat because of this. So the problem here is not only that cheating is very easy in CEAW but also the excessively random combat system.

Extreme results are part of the game and are historical. Off hand I can easily think of one real world example, which was the Battle of Midway. I would consider this an extreme and fortunate result. The argument for removing extreme combat results to reduce the incentive for cheating is not logical to me.

[joerock22]

About AAR´s my main concern is: why some people have just stopped playing an AAR´s game? might be because one of them thought his opponent was cheating and he just stopped playing the game?

One of the stopped AARs was my recent game with Borger. I can assure you that game was not stopped because either of us thought the other was cheating. It was solely because of the breakdown of our relationship in the context of the GS modding. I didn't think they should make any more changes after 1.06, and took issue with some of the proposed 2.0 changes, so I refused to help beta-test. So Borger broke off our game for that reason. Looking back on it now, I probably should have just realized I was outvoted and gone with the flow. Ah, well...

I wouldn't mind seeing more security in pbem games, but I think it would also be nice to implement an undo move button for the above-stated reasons. You could undo a move (not an attack) only if it didn't reveal any more enemy units or hexes from the fog of war. Naval units shouldn't be able to undo at all, because all naval moves tell you that a sub is not where you moved. That's intelligence a cunning player could exploit.

There are a couple situations where I feel there is no problem with replaying turns.
1. Game crashes. This one is obvious, but a problem for me. My game loves to crash, particularly at the end of turns where all my moves are almost complete. Then I often have to replay the turn multiple times to approximate the previous combat results. I don't want my opponent to get shafted, but I don't want to get shafted either.
2. Movement turns. Many turns in CEAW are consumed basically by movement and very little combat. For example, the Axis retreating in the east in 1944, or the Russians retreating in 1941. I freely admit that I have replayed turns like this. I’ll make my moves and say to myself, “Ick, I could have done that a lot better.” So I do. It really causes no harm because I’m not gaining extra intelligence or better combat results. Sure, I could have planned every move properly from the start, but that would take even longer and my turn-starved pbem opponents would get turns from me even less frequently than they already do.

[gerones]

So let's be careful about throwing "cheating" around as a reason unless one of the players in the AAR is willing to explicitly state that this was the reason they stopped.

Let´s be serious: nobody is going to post in his AAR that the game has been stopped because he suspects his opponent is cheating.

[rkr1958]

So let's be careful about throwing "cheating" around as a reason unless one of the players in the AAR is willing to explicitly state that this was the reason they stopped.

Let´s be serious: nobody is going to post in his AAR that the game has been stopped because he suspects his opponent is cheating.

If a player involved in an AAR is not willing to state this as the reason he stopped it then it's inappropriate for someone not involved in the AAR to state that as the reason.

This thread is fine and I encourage the discussion to continue as long as people wish; BUT in my official role as a moderator I want to caution EVERYONE about accusing anyone of cheating. I'm even reconsidering my statement above, that is;

So let's be careful about throwing "cheating" around as a reason unless one of the players in the AAR is willing to explicitly state that this was the reason they stopped.

as not appropriate. The bottom line for me is that if you suspect a player of cheating then stop playing him. Even if you have strong suspicions that an opponent MIGHT be cheating it's INAPPROPRIATE to discuss that in public on this forum. You need to communicate and keep such suspicions privately.

Now back out my moderate role ... do people feel that the issues being discussed in this thread are problems?

[gerones]

So let's be careful about throwing "cheating" around as a reason unless one of the players in the AAR is willing to explicitly state that this was the reason they stopped.

Let´s be serious: nobody is going to post in his AAR that the game has been stopped because he suspects his opponent is cheating.

If a player involved in an AAR is not willing to state this as the reason he stopped it then it's inappropriate for someone not involved in the AAR to state that as the reason.

I meant that a player who post an AAR will never state "officially" that a concrete game has been stopped for cheating because he can suspect it but he can´t prove it.
Someone not involved in the AAR might think that cheating (among others) could be one of the reasons for stopping unexpectedly the game but cannot prove it. So nobody is going to accuse anyone because nobody can prove it.

[gerones]

... do people feel that the issues being discussed in this thread are problems?

IMHO it could be really a problem if there are people (as the guys mentioned) out there that, knowing this issue, find less attractive the game for this only reason.

[shawkhan]

Wow! This is almost a record for quick posts here. Obviously this is a concern for many people. Too bad a simple notification of reloading such as in many other games, can't be incorporated.
I would appreciate the idea of being able to take back moves that don't uncover enemy units, as playing with the map size reduced, I have made errors in about every game where I send a unit to the hex next to the one I meant to move to.(old eyes)

[gerones]

Too bad a simple notification of reloading such as in many other games, can't be incorporated.

Are you 100% sure that this kind of notifications or any other cheating prevent system could not be implemented? Are you a wargamer?...

[rkr1958]

Too bad a simple notification of reloading such as in many other games, can't be incorporated.

I can't see how this is possible unless your play and host the saved game on a server. Maybe if someone could describe an approach, or better yet an algorithm, on how to do this with the current PBEM system then maybe ... but I just don't see a way that this can be reliably done for PBEM games.

Are you 100% sure that this kind of notifications or any other cheating prevent system could not be implemented? Are you a wargamer?...

Do you have a specific algorithm in mind that would work with the current system?

[gerones]

Do you have a specific algorithm in mind that would work with the current system?

I´m not actually aware of any specific algorithm for this but may be it could be implemented a file key that is checked for reloads.