Apoc

Doug: I sent email to your mail box listed in your profile.

Tiger, finding out someone is a cheater and ignoring them is not immature. It's the most mature thing to do, since I assume everyone I play is a grown adult. People are asking me to tell them how I know he cheated and expected me to answer! This does nothing other than give players information on how to cheat! No thanks, I'll pass the information on to Battlefront.com if asked. Otherwise I'll assume they already know the entire weight my issue.

Doug Beman: I re-read your previous post as suggested. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If two players set up to PBEM a QB, agreeing on the conditions list, and the creator deviates from that, then it should be immediatly apparent to the second party (different weather, ground conditions, etc) upon start of the game. At that point the second party says "hey, we agreed on -these- conditions, and you've set it up differently. What gives?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this. The problem in this situation is clearly obvious the creator messed up the settings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If the creator puts in "random" instead of the agreed-upon conditions, then BOTH players are going to get random stuff. The creator won't know the weather (or other random parameters) until after the setup has begun, at the same time the second party knows. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The flaw lies in the above statement. If the creator puts in Purchase Units: Automatically, for his opponent, he can select Purchase Units: Allow Human, without the remote knowing. Now you're going to say, "This is not so!" And here lies the partial flaw: TCP/IP games do not duplicate the process of PBEM games. A TCP/IP creator enjoys more flexibility and less saved game file swapping. PBEM games force the host to mail his opponent prior to the setup phase if Purchase Units: Allow Human, is selected. The TCP/IP creator can, if he wishes, select Purchase Units: Allow Human for himself and force the remote into Purchase Units: Automatically. This is a smooth, undetectable process. PBEM games do indeed have a flaw of their own. If Purchase Units: Automatically is selected, the host gets to see the setup phase and his force layout. The host can then immediately dispense the game if it's not to his liking. With Purchase Units: Human, the host never gets to see the time/weather before the setup phase. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If the two sides agree on what force type (infantry, armor, etc) and the creator changes it, it will probably become quickly apparent to the second party. There's a big difference between being attacked by an infantry force and being attacked by an armored force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this observation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would really honestly have BTS work on CM2 (where, Steve has said, he anticipates some form of "battle preview") than get into the messy job of policing its players. It should be up to players to police themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's my belief that with sufficient game code (information), we will be able to aptly police ourselves. As I noted above in my statement, there exists two partial flaws with the current step/method procedures. When players insist on more pre-determined settings it'll reduce the opportunity for foul play. The information inputted by the host can only benefit the remote. One information screen at the start of any scenario for the remote player will prevent accidents from occurring. (i.e. In your example). The TCP/IP code is still in beta testing and my attempt at getting a problematic portion of it fixed is being met with stiff resistance. Der Unbekannta Jager: This cheating is not code related, but player related. It deals with a player supplying false information to his opponent prior to the game commencing. This game itself is never in jeopardy. It's the host side of the game who can break the faith of prior-agreed upon, random settings.

Pheonix: The situation needs to be rectified concerning randomness. If you communicate to your opponent every setting including the option to purchase units, then you greatly reduce the possibility of running into a problem. After my first 10 to 12 opponents, I noticed a sour trend of player's purchasing the same sort of units. Most 500-1k Battles turned into similar looking OOB with a random map. As a direct result I've sided with random games to make the battles more appealing. Kingfish: Your point is well taken. I do have several concrete PBEM players (those are the ones who play from start to finish or concede the game instead of fading into the night). The beta TCP/IP patch has opened up a whole new spectrum of players. These types of players are, what I consider to be, "play on demand". As a whole I'm finding TCP/IP more to my liking, thus my divergence from PBEM. There's an active list on ICQ with over 80 CM players. The opportunity to fight new players "on demand" is quite exhilarating.

ACTOR: I didn't curse at him or say anything else rude. I simply told him, "Thanks for the game" then proceeded to ICQ and placed him on my ignore list. Croda: Your skepticism is admirable. I find no fault in it. As soon as Battlefront.com releases a fix/solution, I'll disclose my information. Lindan: <-- worthy opponent! Don't close assault his Stugs with infantry, though [This message has been edited by Apoc (edited 12-19-2000).]

Croda: There is one constant that hasn't changed. I'm not at liberty to state what it is, since I don't want any outside of Battlefront.com to know. This is my ace to catch cheaters. It can be manipulated to appear 'constant.' So if I divulge it, my self-check loses credibility.

Doug Beman: Knowing the settings for the QB is guaranteed for the Host and non-existent to the remote. With this, the host should know what he punched in. If he messes up, then that's life. Otherwise, he _solely_ knows the constraints of the QB. All this wrapped up into one bundle is a problem when you run into that 1 in 1,000,000th player of CM who cheats knowing he can get away with it. Of the 60 (or so) players I have battled in CM, there have been two who lied about the settings. It takes a lot of time to play a single game. Do you honestly want to know at the conclusion of a fight, your opponent cheated/lied for an advantage? I encountered my 2nd distasteful opponent today. MikeE: Non-issue? This problem has been around Ladders for a long time. Just because you've never caught someone doing it, doesn't mean it's any less important to fix. Battlefront.com expounds itself on their ability to prevent PBEM cheating. This was a great achievement and a strong attraction for Combat Mission. It's an important issue. Steve's comment merits another look. Battlefront.com is aware of the problem and they expect to fix it. It's important enough for them to give it attention instead of shutting down this thread. Chupacabra: Boy, you should learn to read. There's another poster in this thread that supports my insinuation of your brown-nosing. Get a dictionary and look up the following phrase: Nasal sphincter probing. You were brown-nosing. You were telling another member of this board an obvious statement to back-up an official response from Battlefront.com. Now suck it up like a good boy. Or you trying to squash this civil discussion because you're afraid of them fixing it? Re-read your first post and, perhaps, you'll see yourself in a new light. Rune: I've had the pleasure of playing double blind game using one of your scenarios off of the CMHQ-Irc. It was a great experience. Keep up the good work.

Kingfish: Thanks. I'm more into TCP/IP than PBEM these days. My opponents' forces were in violation of the current code with automatic computer selection. The computer generates a specific constant result (which I am not going to disclose since it's my ace in the hole to prevent playing other liars/cheaters). So I know for an absolute fact he cheated. No thinking required. That brings me to. Chupacabra: It's taken me years to perfect my straight, to the point, no-bull**** attitude. I'm not going to give it up now. It's a pity you result to childish remarks, when I was being to the point. Never asked for your help and I would kindly ask you never to offer me your help. Unless, of course, you were making your post to brown nose Battlefront.com? No need to answer this. [This message has been edited by Apoc (edited 12-19-2000).]

Chupacabra: Please learn how to read the time of post. You will see my post was made three minutes after Steve's. Common sense would dictate I was in the PROCESS of writing my post when Steve made his post. I'm not new to this board. Good day

Thank you Steve. The addition of a preview screen will greatly limit the current woes being experienced while playing new opponents. I hope the addition can be retrograded to CM1. As it stands now, every piece of QB information must be communicated prior to a scenario. The remote can only hope the host inputted the exact foliage, hilliness, and map type as per agreed upon. I get this sour taste in my mouth when playing opponents who obviously cheated while creating a scenario.... for which I had an unpleasant epiphany today against a new opponent.

Berlichtingen: This is a game, not history. 99% of all games use/enforce rules of fair play. Or do you enjoy playing someone who cheats at Poker? My time has worth to me. Bruno Weiss: Those rules are abstract. The game allows random force, random weather, random time. Instructing customers to purchase units, instead of using built-in game code, because it's not important enough to make a code alterations to circumvent cheating is less than acceptable. Your post stresses communication with the opponent. I'm pro-communication and agree with your statement concerning this. Players who want Random weather/time, would see Random weather/time selected. Players deserve the right to check if the basis of the game is correct. There are no checks. There should be absolutely no objections to players getting QB information as selected by the host. The LACK of information is a safe haven for unscrupulous actions, which are being performed against unsuspecting players. I want all information inputted for the QB to be accessible to the non-host. This is fair. Everything else is an excuse or feint against truth.

Playing a game of Combat Mission may take several hours. When playing new opponents, we have to HOPE they set up the scenario as per instructed. I'm going to cut to the chase. You have absolutely NO idea if your opponent is trustworthy. Battlefront.com made a stance about their method of PBEM makes cheating extremely hard, if not impossible. That means nothing if a cheater does their dirty work BEFORE the scenario gets started. You have absolutely no idea if your opponent is creditable. You don't know if your opponent is a fair player. This is a glaring problem with what is otherwise a great game. Selecting your own forces is not the solution, since the Point value for units are not necessarily correct (Night + Dense Fog == Flamethrower dream; lessens the value of Artillery, etc...). Perhaps if your opponent, who set up the QB, fingers in Night + Dense Fog and takes a platoon of engineers.... You get my point. The fabric of integrity can lack when dealing with unknowns on the internet. We the players cannot enforce fair play(other than insisting on generating every scenario, which looks extremely suspicious) Please address this deficiency by permitting players to view the QB settings during the Setup phase.

Fionn, aren't you failing to address the real problem? The truth of the matter is you have (at least on one occasion) received a monetary award/fee for work in the gaming community. As to ASK someone if they have an illegal copy of the game is just like me asking you, "Did receive compensation for work done on Combat Mission?" In honesty, it's none of my damn business. You appear to be a little too self serving in a personal crusade to vanquish copyright infringements on the web. If you are indeed an employee or a contractor of Battlefront.com, then I can see your point. Yet, this is not apparent from the Literature I received with the game. Public awareness is one issue, but sticking your nose into other people's business (even if you think your nose should be there) is abrasive and down right rude.

An observation of MG's firing at a perpendicular target allowed me observe what this thread is all about. It's true, MG's are not very effective when rotating on a target. I have an opinion as to why. 1-Target starts to move, MG fires a burst. 2-Target does not go to ground and keeps moving perpendicular to the MG 3-The MG has to rotate! (I think this might be the key) 4-The MG rotation (shifting a few degrees) takes up a portion of time. 5-The MG fires, repeat. Whereas a target coming straight at an MG position does not force the MG to rotate, thus allowing more opportunity to be mowed down.

I know this might come as a surprise, but Combat Mission runs on my E-Machine without problems. E-Machine Celeron 566 (Built in Video card and sound card) - No fog graphics - 192 Megs My old celery (home built) blew up when my APC UPS fried itself. I'm in the process of building a new box. One of my family members needs a new machine (nothing fancy) so I bought an entire E-Machine setup for $150/US. To my utter shock, the system runs clean.