Neat QB Discovery, but also a cheat :(

[Smoker1]

Your first opportunity to save a QB is just BEFORE you choose Axis or Allies. At this point the map and weather are generated.

This means you can play a QB with an opponent and switch sides using the same exact map! I've tried it. It works.

This also means that it is possible for the player who generates a QB to look at the exact map BEFORE he chooses his units.

All he has to do is save before choosing his side then run through the procedure until he sees the map. He then goes to the real game (saved before choosing sides) and selects his troops. He could even open two instances of CM and switch between the map and his unit selection screen. He could go so far as to play the bogus game awhile and determine prime LOS spots that are not in his setup area, completely scouting out the map.

I love the fact that I've found a way to play QBs using the same exact map, but the cheat potential is definitely there.

Smoker.

[JediJobu]

This doesn't exactly sound like a cheat to me. although I see the "advantage point" that you are referring to. But son't really see that much of an advatange in this. actually sound more like a pain to do for very limited info. plus, what the fun in doing that?????

[Speedy]

send a mail to BTS outlining this.

------------------

Work is the curse of the drinking class.

[Chupacabra]

I don't think that it's possible to do this in a PBEM game, is it?

My feeling is, if a player wants, for whatever reason, to do this against the AI, then they should by all means be able to do so. It harms no one.

If it could be done in a PBEM game, however, then yes, I think it should be looked into.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[jshandorf]

I have always wondered why you can't see the map BEFORE you choose your units. It just makes sense to me that if I was a General and I could request certain units for an attack I was assigned I would at least have an idea of the terrain and the limiting, or beneficial factors it would impose.

It just seems silly that for example.. You go with a mechanized attack and then discover that your map is heavily wooded.

I suppose this problem can be cleared up by QB creators telling the other side ALL the map creation info they selected..but still...

Rant over.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Smoker1]

I always tell my opponent the parameters that I used in generating the map. That is only fair since I know the information. The same goes for weather.

By doing this both players have a general feel for the map, know the weather, and can choose units with these things in mind.

When one player can study the ACTUAL map it is almost equivalent to having played the scenario before unless you let the computer pick the units. He can actually preplay it if he desires. Smoker

[coralsaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf:

I have always wondered why you can't see the map BEFORE you choose your units.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeap, agree completely Jeff.

Check out this thread.

CoralSaw

------------------

My soldiers are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[This message has been edited by coralsaw (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Diceman]

I use this "Feature" quite a bit. It's great for creating "mirrored" games.

------------------

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[KiwiJoe]

This is a major cheat. It means you can keep generating qb's till you get a map with the VL's closer to you side with lots of cover leading up to them, nice big hills at the rear with good los for your foo's/mortors, and sparse cover on your enemy's side. Sure it might take hours but once you have the map you can keep playing different people using that same map and having a wicked advantage.

[Smoker1]

I'm with you Kiwi Joe. BTS made it so you have to pick your units before you get to see the map. I like this. Saving before choosing sides allows you to get around that fact. I must say I like the mirrored battles aspect of the deal though.

Smoker

A way to handle this problem to a certain extent is to reserve the right to reject a map once you see it if you think it is too one sided. Some people do this already. This does not fix the problem of a guy preplaying a QB to determine excellent positions that are out of his original setup area. The map may be fair, but one guy has scouted it out for the best LOS positions. It's like having a cumbersome point to point LOS tool not depending on unit location.

[This message has been edited by Smoker1 (edited 10-11-2000).]

[GriffinCheng+]

Does this enable your opponent to view the map before picking his force?

I would rather let the bot do all the purchases.

Griffin.

------------------

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[Smoker1]

Griffin Cheng,

Once you send the first PBEM file your opponent will see the map (if forces are chosen by the computer). The problem is that the guy who sets up the battle can generate several maps until one comes up that favors him. He can also preplay the scenario to find good positions. Unless he sends the "raw" QB file (that is saved BEFORE he chose his side) to his opponent, his opponent can do none of these things.

Smoker

[Mr. Clark]

I would hope that just because certain "loopholes/cheats" exist, the vast majority of CM players out there would not be using them in PBeM games.

I guess part of my hope lies in the fact that I just cannot understand WHY you would want to gain victory by cheating... isn't a game purchased to give you enjoyment? Where is the fun in cheating?

Also, as a side note, I think it's VERY easy to call someone a cheater just because they are good. When playing Starcraft way back when, I remember 2 distinct times I was ranted at because the other (defeated) player thought/accused me of cheating. The fact was, I was simply one of the few people who actually used simple tactics instead of gamey tricks. I also placed hidden scouts (a single infantry) all over the map to alert me of enemy plans. Because of this, one guy accused me of cheating and somehow lifting the FOW, because there was no way I could have "seen his attacks coming."

[Guest wwb_99]

While this feature is a 'cheat' to some extent, it is also a bonus. Now one can play a truly mirrored (same map & weather) PBEM QB.

WWB

[Pham911]

If you play a QB PBEM with the computer picking the forces, it seems that the person setting up the game gets to see the map before sending any emails to his opponent(and without saving it and loading it as a mirrored game). This leads to the same problem, i.e. one person can dictate the terrain and get a major advantage over the other without the opponent knowing it.

Is it a big problem? Yep. Any time you can see the map and then decide if you want to fight on it or not you're tipping the balance majorly in your favor.

[Mr. Clark]

Hmmmm... even though (as just stated) I'm at a loss to understand cheating to win, I guess I can understand the temptation to regenerate a map if you happen to see that you have vast open wastelands to run your troops across towards a defending enemy.

Once again, I just hope most CM players are honest enough to play a fair game. Personally, I'd just see it as a challenge.

I haven't been here long, but I honestly can't see any of the regulars here cheating... everyone seems way too concerned with accuracy, etc. Why worry about whether or not a tanks turret is turning at the exact right speed, and then cheat to win?

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Hmmmm... even though (as just stated) I'm at a loss to understand cheating to win, I guess I can understand the temptation to regenerate a map if you happen to see that you have vast open wastelands to run your troops across towards a defending enemy.

Once again, I just hope most CM players are honest enough to play a fair game. Personally, I'd just see it as a challenge.

I haven't been here long, but I honestly can't see any of the regulars here cheating... everyone seems way too concerned with accuracy, etc. Why worry about whether or not a tanks turret is turning at the exact right speed, and then cheat to win?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. I can't see any of the regulars cheating either... However, in ladder games or other contests, it would be a sore temptation to not get your ass kicked(like I'm getting in a couple of PBEM's at the moment) and look like some kind of PBEM god.

Personally, I wouldn't do it, but the real issue is there's no way of knowing if your opponent would or did.

The only 'fix' at the moment is for you(in general, not you as in you, Mr. Clark) to control the setup if the other player trusts you to not re-generate maps. Really, though, the game should dis-allow map viewing by not allowing unit placement until after your opponent gets to place his and by not allowing you to save the QB and play it as a seperate test game to see if the map is good or not.

[tss]

jshandorf wrote:

It just makes sense to me that if I was a General and I could request certain units for an attack I was assigned I would at least have an idea of the terrain and the limiting, or beneficial factors it would impose.

On the other hand, if you were a batallion commander and your regimental commander ordered you to take a hill or a village with your current troops, you would say "yes sir", and start planning the attack, even if you had only a bunch of a meter-tall pygmies armed with grass and sharpened mangoes (courtesy to Black Adder).

My point? Sure, a commanding general would like to assign right troops to right places at the right moment. Whether that happened in practice or not, depended pretty much on the situation.

- Tommi

[Mr. Clark]

True, it does suck that there is NO way of actually knowing if your opponent is cheating.

I think the "right to reject" rule is a good one. The opponent should have the right to reject a map... if you are playing against someone you do not know.

This would of course slow things down... but it seems the best "fix" for now.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I agree with you Mr. Clark. I think the "Right To Reject" rule is a good one and not only because of this loophole we just found. Someone can always make their own scenarios with exactly the same plan in mind--to have a territorial advantage over his opponent. He could always have two pet maps at his disposal, one to play Allies on and one for the Germs.

If you are the type of person who sees this as a challenge being the non-host, possibly being at a disadvantage to an opponent who wants to gain his own advantage, than you don't really have a problem here.

For those of us who want an equal playing field, well, the (ROR) "Right of Refusal" or (RTR) "Right To Reject" should be implemented. Pick your favorite acronym and use it.

------------------

Yeah, but in Close Combat...

[Guest Big Time Software]

We'll take care of this

Steve

[Mr. Clark]

Thanks Steve!

[pford]

I have to say I am not particularly fond of the current quick game PBEM format. Probably because I am or at least think I am inadequate at it. A fair option would be the following:

Player A: Chooses map, objective, conditions, etc

Player B: determines force type, engagement, attacker/defender and Points allocated for each side.

Player A: chooses a side or rejects.

If accepted then

a & B buy their units and start;

else B step repeated;

While this gets rid of some of the fog-of-war, both sides will know the map and a rought idea of what they are facing.

Right now this can be done on the honor system, but I would like to see it "hard-wired" where one would not have to absolutely trust the bastard you are trying to kill.

Any one else interested in seeing this implemented?

pford

[This message has been edited by pford (edited 10-12-2000).]