Slitherine

Hey guys,

In a game against a dude I got my april 3rd 1941 turn and London was taken with 2 german paradrops with weirds names (not the names of the usual para units). He basically landed the 2 paras on an impossible time for them to be there, they landed both with no casualities at all and he was successeful taking out the entrenched GAr in the city LOL...

Almost incredibly I also destroyed another german Para on DEC 4th turn 1940 (hed landed again in England). That para would have been at earliest available for reinforcement on the first turn of april...

I hotseated a game with myself, and the earliest time I can get the second german para is on the second turn of april and that's as reinforcement...

I for myself cant do it with the game itself, unless there is something I don't understand?

Also other things is that the game now freezes when I use my planes to bomb or attack, I just cannot play anyway anymore its like this particular game is broken. Ive got 5 other games running and they all work fine except this one.

Anyone could help me identify how hes done this or whats the problem?

a twin para attack can certainly take a city in 41 (with TAC support) - not sure about April, must be very close tho

very unusual for them both to lose no casualties, sometimes I get one that loses none, usually 4-6 steps, sometimes 10

I can quickly check the date

My opponent responded with little details on my challenge of the logicality of this.

He said there was a trick...

Stay tuned for the trick. I think it involves changing the names of the units in some way?...

nice trick,you don;t get the second para till 23 April deploymentso no chance at all to jump in April

you can change the names no problem, but they have to stay para's

do you have para corps option on?

no its not on.

I wonder if changing the names somehow effects rebuild and maxnumber counters?

still you cannot within the rules have two para'sjump into England in April, any 'trick' is clearly against the rules and therefore -well insert word ______

Any checksum errors?

no no checksum.

dude says its " just a trick and i dont need to worry"

basically he claims that you put a para into a transport and the system lets you build another para...

i havent verified his claim, but if yes it would be an important plughole to close, given other possibilities like going aroung the maximum build rule...

I checked the code and the codes checks transports, build queues etc. when counting the number of para, SS and Guards units.

I started the 1941 scenario, built a para with the Germans and was not able to build another either by upgrading or renaming. When the para unit I built originally was ready I placed it in a port city and the turn after put it on a transport. Still I was not able to make another para since I had already 2.

I therefore suspect something else is going on here. Since you experience game crashes in this game only, but not other games, then it could be that your opponent has doctored the game.class file. By using a Java decompiler you can edit the source code to add units to your side. If you don't do it properly you can get the unit, but you can create corruptions in the save game.

Obviously you are playing a person looking for game loopholes to get an advantage. He as even admitted to that despite his suggestion doesn't seen to hold water. At least not with GS v3.0 or higher. I wouldn't play against such a player.

You can never prevent clever players from doctoring the game code as long as the game engine is made in Java. It was a blessing for us that it was since it allowed us to decompile the class files and do modifications. However it can be misused. Having said that it's not easy to do it without making any kind of corruptions. You need to know how the game is built to create code following the limits. I've had my share of code changes creating corruptions that I had to work around. E. g. when making a paradrop you actually remove the source unit and create a new one in the drop place. I didn't realize that the game engine actually didn't remove the unit from the database when I used the remove command. Instead it moved the unit outside the game area by setting the coordinates to -1, -1. So I had to rewrite the code since it counted these units when checking the numbers. Sequencing got messed up etc. when removing units.

So every time I see unexpected game behavior I either think it's a bug or there is some kind of corruption going on. E. g. created by players using different versions of some files.

Checksum in game.class is used to check the date we set within the file so people don't run different versions against each other by mistake. But if you for example doctor and older version of game.class or create your own an set the date used in the official latest version then the checksum won't detect a difference. Maybe we could use a deeper checksum method by going after file size etc. For txt files it's easy to check differences since the files are in clear text. game.class is encrypted so it's a bit harder to check.

Why doesn't it surprise me that there are still players out there who don't think they are doing anything wrong by exploiting loopholes or weaknesses to beat your opponent. MMO's have this problem all the time and they ban people they find abusing an exploit.

Taking an entrenched capital with just 2 paradrops and maybe some air support is virtually impossible. Either the player has reloaded hundreds of times or he has doctored the class files to give his units super strength. If the capital defender had been bombarded for many turns and very low on morale then MAYBE it could have been possible with 2 tac bombers supporting.

Seeing paradrops adjacent to a capital with no losses also seems fishy to me. You can lose up to 3 steps jumping into a clear hex + 1 per adjacent enemy + the air defense factor inside the hex. So at the least each para could get up to 4 steps damage from jumping adjacent to a capital. So each para has only 20% chance not getting any damage at all. You only have 4% chance neither of the 2 paras not getting any damage. Friendly fighter units can intercept paradrops.

So going after a defended London is just suicide, unless you have an ace up your sleeve like doctoring unit strengths or doing lots of rerolls. I would never attempt a paradrop to capture London unless it was made empty or defended by an air unit that can retreat even from cities.

Going after London without following up with Sealion seems like a bad idea. So I have a feeling it has been planned for a long time using the first fair weather turn of 1941 to make a surprise attacking.

This is the problem with cheating, i. e. you can't really tell what went on since you didn't see how the moves were actually played and you can't inspect the other player's game files. Usually cheaters are caught because they become too greedy. Taking London with just 2 paras seems like too greedy to me to get away with. But there is still a small percentage the player was just super lucky. However, getting 2 paras before it was possible hints at using methods not possible within the game, as least not GS v3.0+.

I just checked the code and the test for paras on transports or production queues were added to GS v2.00w. SO these should have been implemented in GS v2.1 or higher. I can't image you are running a version older than GS v2.1

all of this make sense borger. the game did freeze the minute i used a plane to bombard something, and i could not end it, so had to control alt delete the thing. so i am pretty sure some changes were made to the file as you say.

he said he was pretty new to the game but honestly he didnt behave like a newbie. i am pretty sure its someone else with a new nickname.

i have stopped the game with that player the minute i spotted something.

just wanted to get the community aware of this player and issue.

for those who wonder who he is, his nick is rollo. just beware of him somethig is fishy for sure.

All units 'disappear' when in transport loops. I did, cough, flag this bug up in beta testing for 3.0

GogTheMild wrote:When units are in a transportation loop they disappear. Quite apart from the owner forgetting what he has sent – or even that he has sent anything; yes, I have done this – it means that they don’t show up on the force tables and that they don’t count against build or oil use limits. So if TACs, say, are in the Atlantic-Red Sea loop, they may enable the owner to ‘overbuild’ without paying the 5% penalty. Would it be possible to have some sort of ‘box’ where the owner can check what units are in each transportation loop and for those units to remain ‘active’?

I hot seated this using the 1940 scenario and got a second Para in the build queue for March 1940 by sending the first through the Kiel Canal.




This to me is a bit over the line of acceptable play; although I suppose that we have all saved PPs by overbuilding whilst supposedly qualifying units were in transport loops, possibly without even being aware of it, and this is just a logical extension of that. I imagine that one could overbuild SS units in a similar way. The rest sounds a bit dodgy though.

OK. I will check if transport loops are checked too. It could be that's the way he "cheated" getting the chance to build a new para.

I was able to recreate the bug and it has now been fixed. It will be available in GS v3.20.

Great news .

Cybvep wrote:Great news .

indeed - but still cheating in a big way in my book

the game clearly tells you the limit, finding a bug and exploiting it is plain enough in my mind

I agree. It's clearly a bug, so exploiting it deliberately is a big no-no IMO.

I just can't understand why some people will exploit a bug in such a way it was done in this game. When you have more para units than your opponent knows is possible then you have brought the cheating to his attention and you get caught.

I think the problem is that Supermax'es opponent doesn't think he was cheating. I believe he feels he's entitled to exploit all possibilities within the game. That's why he called it a trick. Some people believe it's the game's fault if they are allowed to do things clearly not intended.