View Full Version : Submitted for your approval: Cheating & Ethics
CyberGeneral
12 May 03, 20:04
With the Tournament for TOAW coming up, (I plan on being in) I believe a discussion is in order for tournament rules which I believe are lax and not at all understood in the general TOAW wargame club community. With regards to Rules of Play in FAQ within the Administration tab, the one in question is under "No Cheating".
Beefs:
No.1......Rules of Play are found in FAQ????? (Frequently Asked Questions)
EXAMPLE: Perhaps a better place for such an IMPORTANT part of a gaming club community, would be a special list of specific rules of play for TOAW within the "TOAW Section" tab for all players (rookies AND veterans) to see.
COMMENTARY: I started competitive internet wargaming by joining Blitzkrieg wargame club, (thank you Guy Hawk (Great Player)) Jan. of 2002. Never knowing about replay moves, cracking open games to see your opponent's side, etc., I was overwhelmed to find opponents who shared an interest (I, hooked at an early age of 7 playing TACTICS II in the 1960s). When soon after I played an opponent who miraculously could play EVERY impulse (1 through 10) without every having the turn end early on him, or seeming to know how to deal with units that should have been hidden. (some may say this is common)~Cough~. After joining my first tournament some 6 months latter I saw a tournament rule for cheating. Franticly looking everywhere within the two game clubs (Warfare & Blitzkrieg), I found "RULES OF PLAY" in FAQ???. (Warfare) and "CHEATING" under "Rules of Engagement" #14????? (should this have been #1?) (Blitzkrieg).
No.2.....Specific rules pertaining to cheating are IMPOSSIBLE to enforce.
EXAMPLE: Replaying moves, doing a little recon, replaying moves...Who knows for sure if your opponent isn't just brilliant or lucky.
COMMENTARY: A person driving through an expansive and desolate desert road comes up to a stop sign, and with no one around in sight, drives through it at 80 miles an hour. 2 minutes latter he comes up to a PERSON..... HOLDING a stop sign and decides to stop........Awhile ago I have added this to every opponent I email a 1st game file turn response to: "I Do Not replay my turn multiple times in an attempt to engineer a desired result, and should a player be first, the first file opened will be the one played (not to be opened again and again to gain an advantage)...........Both of the players playing by the same rules (Warfare HQ & Blitkrieg) makes for an excellent game..........I would like you as an opponent to confirm your acceptance of the same"........I believe a personal note is mightier than the somewhat "hidden" rules of cheating.
Which brings me to:
No.3.......NO where within the rules of Warfare & Blitzkrieg is there a rule pertaining to: "...should a player be first, the first file opened will be the one played (not to be opened again and again to gain an advantage)......
EXAMPLE: I play a game where my opponent has Air Superiority. As the second player, I read that the weather for the next turn is overcast & rainy. Counting my lucky stars that his units will be knee deep in mud and that his air units will be somewhat nullified, I find out that the next turn he sent is sunny & dry. Anyone can open up the file and find out that: a:... the weather sucks b:....too many of his divisions are reorganizing c:.....his reinforcements which may or may not show up, didn't, etc. and (why not) keep opening the file again, and again, and again until it's perfect.
COMMENTARY: This rule should be explained more in the "Rules of Play" (within a special list of specific rules of play for TOAW within the "TOAW Section" tab for all players (rookies AND veterans) to see). I myself (being a FIRST player) enjoy the thrill of "fingers crossed" as the supply & reinforcements boxes scale up as I load a file. If things don't go my way, (weather,reorganizing,reinforcement) I should have to figure out how best to cope and not see if reloading the file will better my stance. FIRST file opened SHOULD be the FIRST file played!
For those who think I'm an angel: My continuation on COMMENTARY #1 would be:....... I found out the benefits to REplaying turns and REopening 1st files. At first I thought it was accepted within the gaming clubs till the first tournament where I saw it in writing. (I never knew where to look/ or had it as an acceptance clause to join the club) To those that understand these (REplaying turns and REopening 1st files) as cheating, and wish to throw stones, you could only know this as first hand yourself. To know these is to have used these. (cheat against the computer player?......Dah!) Anyway, I found out that this sucked as there was NO fun in looking over the game and making true strategic decisions as I could simply erase any mistakes and correct what I had to make the most of the move.
AGAIN, MY PROPOSAL:
#1 Making a special and complete list of specific rules of play for TOAW within the "TOAW Section" tab for (forcing) all players (rookies AND veterans) to see. All rules regarding courtesy, not finishing the game etc., as well need to be within the "Rules of Play".
#2 A personal note is mightier than the somewhat "hidden" rules of cheating. Send an Email to your opponents letting them know: "Do Not replay turn multiple times in an attempt to engineer a desired result, and should a player be first, the first file opened will be the one played (not to be opened again and again to gain an advantage)...........Both of the players playing by the same rules (Warfare HQ & Blitkrieg) makes for an excellent game..........I would like you as an opponent to confirm your acceptance of the same"
#3 Addition to "Rules of Play": Should a player be first, the first file opened will be the one played (not to be opened again and again to gain an advantage)
#4 An acceptance clause pertaining to "Rules of Play" to join the club should be looked at. (Extreme?)
Submitted for your approval. The BEST games played are rules understood, hidden enemy units & with surprises. Comments?
I totally agree with your assessment, but not necessarily the implementation. I think it's a rare person indeed that is doing something like that and doesn't know that he's cheating.
I also know from my time here that alot of players don't know all the cheats. There was a cheat thread awhile back, and I don't think there was a member here that didn't learn at least one new trick or two... My feeling is that since it's impossible to catch a cheater (unless he's an idiot), shoving all this in a person's face is redundant. Everyone knows you're not allowed to cheat...
To avoid these hassles, it's best to play people that have good reputations, and frequent a board/forum with which you are affiliated with. Listing all the cheats will only arm some people who weren't aware of them all. I agree that this information should be available, but not necessarily put right up in front of people's faces. Since there's no way to uphold these rules, if a person feels that it's important to discuss them with an opponent, they should do so in the pre-game conversation where all the houserules are discussed; ala fortifications, bridgebombing, supply drain attacks, etc.
A quick clarification - a FAQ on this subject, available from the TOAW main page, would be an ideal solution, and it's good that you brought this subject to light. Thanks!
Mentioning this to every opponent prior to a game, however, would (imnsho) be a player's personal choice. I've not felt the need to say to my opponents "Ok, glad we got the bridgebombing question solved, and yes, I agree to only 2 supply drain attacks per round... Oh, by the way, don't cheat, ok?"
:D
Ok, sorry for being a smartass, I don't mean it like that. ;) I'm just using a spot of humor to illustrate my point, though. I know almost everyone I play here, as per my 'opponent choosing' section from my last post, so I don't feel the need to bring this up.
CyberGeneral
12 May 03, 20:53
Your replies to this would best be put as to what to do with proposal #1, #2, #3 or #4. Redundant is only for the ones that are exposed to the rules over and over(Redundant....that means.....yea......Dah). My suggestion is for rockies and a refresher coarse for intermediates that have yet to find the rules hidden in the FAQs.
CyberGeneral
12 May 03, 21:03
By the way...........whats a supply drain attack?
Since my last post, I've added this to my desktop 'to DO' list.
Ok, #1 - the FAQ itself. When we have something updated, you can count on it being available throught he TOAW main page.
#2 is something that would better be placed under the New Player FAQ, as it's your own choice what you discuss with your opponents. The New Player FAQ is already a work in progress.
#3 should be included in a rules FAQ. Agreed.
#4. An acceptance clause for joining the ladder, not the site, should be in place. I'll have to look into this one.
HEAT -> It's been ages since I joined, I have no idea what it says anymore. Can you look into #4, and see what's up, please? I'll make a note in my to do list to check this for when we have an updated FAQ in place.
Originally posted by CyberGeneral
By the way...........whats a supply drain attack?
Take a peek at this post I made from a thread in the Europe Aflame forum:
Standard EA rules: (Or should I say my standard EA rules)
No moving neutral minor reinforcements until that country is active. (ie: Norway gets some small reinforcements, etc).
No fortifying every hex, everywhere. (ie: turning all of the UK into a giant fort... ) Standard policy for allowable fortification is any urban/adjacent-to-urban area, any area behind a river, any border with a soon-to-be enemy, any hex within 2 of an enemy line, vital road/rail junctions, any objective, any airfield/anchorage/supply source, and anywhere you honestly intend to set up a line. In other words, if you have a good reason to fortify, go for it; but forts for the sake of forts are forbidden.
Neutral majors may move their forces, but are not allowed to 'scout' with their navies. Navies & embarked land units must be offshore of 'home' terrain at all times, or demonstratably en route to home terrain. (ie: Italian units crossing the Med to enter Africa) Neutral air must always be set to rest.
No disembarking land units anywhere but at an anchorage.
No dropping paras into locations strictly to raise hell with map weaknesses, etc. For example, the very east map edge in Russia, the rail line connecting Ethiopia and Egypt, etc. If it's not a 'valid' drop, don't do it.
**********************************************
The above are standard. The following are rules that are specific to individuals; people's opinions on these will vary, but the issue itself is common. Discuss these with your opponent and find a comfortable middle ground that works for you both!
**********************************************
Bridge Bombing
Modelled very poorly. A Brit player that wouldn't dare send a bomber on combat support (because he knows his bomber will evap in a turn or two) can bomb bridges with impunity.
Solutions:
Limit BBing for the side that does NOT have air superiority/air parity.
(Credit to Kraut for refining my restrictions with this solution) Make the side with air superiority keep a fighter on patrol in each region (France, Germany, Balkans, etc) to enfore the 'no bombing' rule for the other side. If they don't have the patrol, bombing is now allowed.
Supply Drain Attacks, & Tiny Attacks With Massive Arty/Air Support
These are almost the same thing, with one vital difference. I'll start with the first one.
Even the tiniest attack eats up 10% supply. If you hit a stack of 9 corps with 1/3 of a brigade set on limited attack/minimize losses, you'll most likely survive, and you'll eat 10% supply off every one of those 9 corps! Doesn't sound all that bad? Do it 7 times a turn... The second is exactly the same, with one vital addition - with massed arty (and to a lesser extent, air) support, you will not only eat that 10% supply, you'll also cause extreme losses to the enemy, far out of proportion with what would be expected in 'real life'. I've seen stacks of units that were at 100% retreat and even evap when they are victims of this tactic.
Solutions:
Allow only one such attack per hex per turn.
Allow this tactic unrestricted. Warning!! If your opponent is markedly better at this, or at getting more combat rounds consistently, you'll lose, regardless of whether you outthink, outplay, or outmaneuver him!
(Credit to Tiberius for refining my ratio idea to this elegent solution) Require a 1:3 ratio for all attacks after the first; a brigade can attack a division, a division can attack a corp, etc. So if you have a hex that has 7 enemy corps, an armor division, and an HQ (HQs count as brigades) in it, you'd need 2 corps, 1 division & 2 brigades to launch a 2nd (or 3rd, etc) attack. (Always round up).
I'm sure there are a mess more of these than I can remember off the top of my head, but I think I got most of them.
Hope it helps!
CyberGeneral
12 May 03, 21:23
And here I thought that burning up the 10% supply per impulse by using a single unit from a 3way split divided unit was common and acceptted practice. Wow!
It's not the little minor manipulations that should be listed, but the major cheats (in General). And yes, in front of someone. Rules placed properly will wear on someone who cheats but sees it in writing daily.
Originally posted by CyberGeneral
And here I thought that burning up the 10% supply per impulse by using a single unit from a 3way split divided unit was common and acceptted practice. Wow!
This question is still up in the air. I agree with much of what Mantis has for rules but this is not accepted by the public at large.
If you'll notice, my 'standard rules' section was broken up into two parts, CG, and this was in the bottom half, where I stated:
**********************************************
The above are standard. The following are rules that are specific to individuals; people's opinions on these will vary, but the issue itself is common. Discuss these with your opponent and find a comfortable middle ground that works for you both!
**********************************************
RhinoBones
12 May 03, 21:42
[i]No.3.......NO where within the rules of Warfare & Blitzkrieg is there a rule pertaining to: "...should a player be first, the first file opened will be the one played (not to be opened again and again to gain an advantage)...... [/B]
As a suggestion, you might have the person running the tournament be the one to open/start the scenarios and mail the pass word with SCE file to the Force 1, turn 1 player. It certainly would not stop a hard core cheater, but like bicycle locks, it would keep an honest person honest.
Regards, RhinoBones
In the 'New Tourney Format' thread, I posted the new rule that in a tourney, people will be assigned to a slot, and that slot will have it's own preassigned PW. This isn't exactly what you were talking about, but it's all part of the plan to make the tourney a better experience for all the committed players by closing several loopholes, and ensuring that all games can be completed.
CyberGeneral
12 May 03, 21:49
I did noticed the 2 parts.
But, once again, the minor stuff is minor. I believe it's the basic rules that need to be laid out as a CLUB rule. Playing out a turn to find hidden units, only to replay that turn knowing where your opponent is is major. But wearing out a units supply, with the possibility of the turn ending early on you, is a minor, as long as a turn ending prematurely on you isn't discarded to play it out again before sending your file on.
One is a form of cheating, while one might better be considered a questionable tactic. But again, there's no sense in beating a dead horse. If people want to cheat, nothing we're talking about here will discourage them, and there's still no way to catch them at it. That being the case, I don't want to come down as too much of a heavy, for something that's an 'intangible' in any case. Say it once, and let it lie, is my philosophy. I'm not going to waste my breath on something that is totally out of my power.
Cheaters are aware of what will happen to them if they're busted...
Another point - aside from saying 'no cheating', there are no hard and fast rules. Everything is open to interpretation, and players are encouraged to find their own middle ground in these situations. If two people agree, they can play the game in any manner they choose.
I feel that we're 'facilitators', not law makers.
CyberGeneral
12 May 03, 22:05
Hopefully this will close out for me.
I myself do not care if I play against someone who cheats.
But the main thing is to let them know in writing that the wargame club states these as wrong & that (in writing) they can count on me to play by these rules. If they win they can be proud of a great & fair played scenario. Or at the other end, will live with themselves knowing they played with the cards stacked all in their favor.
If anyone is in contact with Norm, it would probably be a relatively simple matter for him to make cheating extremely frustrating in a future patch. For example, if TOAW were to take force proficiency at the start of a given turn (or even in the previous turn which would be even better) and generate a sizable list of proficiency checks all at once for each possible tactical round (90/80/70/60/etc - would be necessary due to shock to have multiple checks for each round) - then store and use them as each tactical round goes by - a cheater could still circumvent that if they REALLY wanted but think of how annoying it would be for them to be 6 rounds into a DNO turn only to find that the turn ends prematurely and the only way around it is to start the entire turn over to re-seed the numbers.
Weather events and so on could be read a turn in advance and generated one turn earlier, etc. It would outright eliminate many of the problems listed in the first post and greatly discourage the others.
I mean honestly now, if someone wants to spend 6 hours replaying a turn of Aracourt 44 until he gets it perfect, then by all means he can go right ahead as the jokes on him.
And if these numbers are generated a turn earlier, then there's absolutely nothing they can do about it but accept it.
Siberian HEAT
13 May 03, 00:09
There has to be a balance between outlining 10 ways to cheat vs. saying nothing at all. I myself cringe whenever there are threads on cheating because it is just a blueprint for someone who wants to cheat. Honest folks don't really care.
That being said, I don't think there is any harm in OUTLINING some things that are prohibited by all decent players (replaying any part of your turn, playing on after the turn end, and so on). There is really no benefit to detailing exactly what cheating is possible - with the intent of stopping someone from doing it.
In the years I have played this game only one person to my knowlege has been caught and prosecuted for cheating. If there are others cheating out there they are doing it without any real possibility of getting caught - we all know that. If anyone honestly believes that putting a spotlight on what a cheater can do is going to help the rest of us or prevent that cheater from contuing...I am all ears. Otherwise, I would agree to limited information, just enough to show that we are watching for shady people.
It is hard for me to believe that someone who cheats in this game will last for very long (wouldn't it get boring after a while?)...so as was said earlier choose your opponents carefully and you should be OK.
Heat,
I also have only seen one cheater caught. I had played several games with him and not picked it up. He appeared to be cracking the turns and changing the other players units settings
One VERY observant player picked up in turn replay that a unit that was not divided in the previous turn was split into three BEFORE combat results were announced in the turn replay
I often watch turn replays- but it has been well over a year since I watched them one step at a time- and I still may not pick up something like that
It didn't surprise me (huh- 20/20 hindsight!) when I was told of this player- he got very good results but didn't appear to play the game that well- he made some very odd decisions for a guy who won almost every game OV
Ce la vie
He was kicked off a couple of ladders- and I would not play him if I met him again
Back to the main point- it is almost impossible to tell if someone is cheating- but I have seen games that pre roll results (Bloody CIV 3 for instance- only ever played it against the computer- so occaisonally cheated) so replaying turns and reopening turns is ineffective. These would be excellent suggestions for a future patch
Cheers
Richard
Siberian HEAT
13 May 03, 11:15
If only one person has ever been caught...is it because the rest of us don't have enough information to know when our opponent *might* be cheating?
Does giving everyone details on how this cheating can occur benefit us or does it help those cheaters cheat better?
An interesting dilemma.
:hmmm:
Originally posted by Richard
Back to the main point- it is almost impossible to tell if someone is cheating- but I have seen games that pre roll results (Bloody CIV 3 for instance- only ever played it against the computer- so occaisonally cheated) so replaying turns and reopening turns is ineffective. These would be excellent suggestions for a future patch
Cheers
Richard
There is an option - preserve random map seed, and I think it needs to be unchecked. That way, if a goody hut contains 8 barbarians, a simple reload will often change the 'roll'. Sometimes even this can be stubborn, and the thing to do then is move to a different adjacent space.
ER_Chaser
13 May 03, 12:01
interesting to see so many discussion on this.... sometimes regarded as, "most annoying" topic about games.. :)
well, I "believe" I had run across several "cheaters" when playing here --- include the CS ladder ---- nevertheless, I have no way, nor did I ever try to catch them. In short, their laughable "cheating" did not bother me at all ---- the lack of strategy seems like the common weakness of the "cheaters". Well, it is also very natural to understand --- they spend all their time and energy to forge the "cheats", they do not have enough resource for the more important things.
For me, my straight-forward strategy against "cheaters" is simple": beat the hell out of them. It is rather easy to defeat a cheater by their very nature --- cheat them by a strategy in depth. That was what I used often and successfully. Believe me, it far easier to beat a cheater in that way than fighting against James :D
The reason behind this is that "cheaters" (either by replaying the turn to get favorable TACTICAL results or reload the turn to get better setup...etc..) focused only on LOCAL scopes. They could only optimize for their local (i.e. short-term) gains. They lack the vision for the overall strategy and thus usually easily got lured into traps by you set intentionally to set the favor for him LOCALLY. They would want to regret, but usually after 2 turns, which is too late. And at that point, their natural weakness--- the anxiety will push them into another trap, by "cheating to their favor" again. And you just use this trick again and again (and as he enjoys his "cheating" again and again... :D), and finally, and usually, he'd run away and do not reply to you. LoL (as a sidenote, I have over 10 unfinished games due to this kind :D) Sometimes, this is a more entertaining thing for me to do than simply playing one game :devious: :hog: ;)
Dan Neely
13 May 03, 14:26
yow! I've never seen anything as flagrant as what Richard has, and doubt I'd notice it either. The only cheating I've busted was a cretin who undid everytime he failed a ZOC check. I suspect he was save/reloading too because the assualt he made afterwards was highly unlikely to've succeeded IMO.
CyberGeneral
13 May 03, 15:29
It seems everyone gets caught up in the "let's not give detailed info on how to cheat".
To state: NO replaying your turns to achieve more favorable results could easily have numerous detailed reasons why (and rule violations) listed. But truely NO replaying your turns to achieve more favorable results is enough.
To state: First file opened will be the one played could easily have numerous detailed reasons why (and rule violations) listed. But truely First file opened will be the one played is enough.
Where I still stand, is that, to believe to hide these rules for fear someone might use them, could easily give someone who has yet to find these rules, believing they might not exist. Therefore who cares.
One other point I saw written out a few times is that you should only play against opponents you trust. This kind of takes away from the tournaments as it seams the same veterans will always play against veteran opponents they have played before in the past, refusing to take on a new, worthy and (if well informed of the rules) honest opponent.
Not so; new members here are given the benefit of the doubt, and through active contribution, they become the trusted vets.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.