Hey,
I saw a new release came out. Any chance this game can be played on the PBEM servers that Matrix/Slitherine have up now to avoid people replaying their turn? Or has any other anti-cheat method been added to the game?
Thanks for the answer.
Cheers
JJ
PBEM cheating fixed for GS 2.0?
Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core
I'm afraid adding in BA type severer play was well beyond the scope of the "fan-based" design team. With respect to enhanced security checks,
In terms of playing PBEM against opponents who don't replay their turn there are several of us around. In fact, I would think most of us regulars don't replay turns.Added more robust checksum functionality that will now check the general.txt, unit.txt, technology.txt and research_progress.txt files for any changes. If there are any changes which files have changed and which have not will be identified.
you can generally tell if someone does this, all the 'close' ones go their way
I am in a bloodbath of a game with Plaid and its entirely infuriating as as everything seems to be going against me:
1. Tobruk holds at 1 step
2. Tigers impervious to Air attack survive at 1 step
3. twice encirclements have failed when the odds were better than 75%
4. a para drop into an empty Brussels arrives at 1 step, 1 step!
unfortunantly I can't blame him for any of it - its all in my turn!
(no suggestion at all that he is replaying turns is intended here)
I am in a bloodbath of a game with Plaid and its entirely infuriating as as everything seems to be going against me:
1. Tobruk holds at 1 step
2. Tigers impervious to Air attack survive at 1 step
3. twice encirclements have failed when the odds were better than 75%
4. a para drop into an empty Brussels arrives at 1 step, 1 step!
unfortunantly I can't blame him for any of it - its all in my turn!
(no suggestion at all that he is replaying turns is intended here)
Hi
For the scenarios the Axis player initiates 39',40'41'and 42' scenarios. The Allies initiate the 43' and 44' scenarios.
When a PBEM file is created the file name is saved within the file.
On a Mac I can use an application that I can view all of logs of the system. I can look at the log of the game file when launched and compare
the original name and the file name opened. If they match then I can say that the player at least used an original file.
I usually ask my opponents if I am the Allied player to use a unique game name that I request. If they match then we play.
If a get a different file name then I request to start the game over or at least send the correct file with the correct name if not then they will run out of players. We also put in means for checksum events. If you get checksum errors with the general.txt, technology.txt, unit.txt, research_progress.txt then that means those files are being altered.
Any two players may decide to tweak the game to there liking by altering the values in the general.txt That is how we provided modification of the expansion. If have to remember to save the original in a save place. And alter a copy to share with your opponent.
You must swap out the file if you have games that use the original general.txt .
We would like to get the expansion on the PBEM server, but that was beyond the scope of the current release.
Now if you know someone that knows java and can code to make that work then we would welcome the help.
For the scenarios the Axis player initiates 39',40'41'and 42' scenarios. The Allies initiate the 43' and 44' scenarios.
When a PBEM file is created the file name is saved within the file.
On a Mac I can use an application that I can view all of logs of the system. I can look at the log of the game file when launched and compare
the original name and the file name opened. If they match then I can say that the player at least used an original file.
I usually ask my opponents if I am the Allied player to use a unique game name that I request. If they match then we play.
If a get a different file name then I request to start the game over or at least send the correct file with the correct name if not then they will run out of players. We also put in means for checksum events. If you get checksum errors with the general.txt, technology.txt, unit.txt, research_progress.txt then that means those files are being altered.
Any two players may decide to tweak the game to there liking by altering the values in the general.txt That is how we provided modification of the expansion. If have to remember to save the original in a save place. And alter a copy to share with your opponent.
You must swap out the file if you have games that use the original general.txt .
We would like to get the expansion on the PBEM server, but that was beyond the scope of the current release.
Now if you know someone that knows java and can code to make that work then we would welcome the help.
Just a few considerations over this question, keeping in mind how GS has improved the security in PBEM with checksum tests and recognizing that finally in the future a PBEM security system will have to be implemented.
A question that has not been mentioned here is that GS 2.00 has introduced averaged combat results which IMO can help to reduce people replaying turns. With this new addition replaying turns is less profitable than before: you will get similar results no matter how many times you replay a turn.
Despite of having introduced averaged results, there´s still some randomness in combat results that could invite to some CEAW players to reload their turns when combat result is very different from the showed in combat odds. This way a player could think that when the odds are showing a favourable 4:2, then this is the result that it should be. But this isn´t so since combat odds only shows a PROBABILITY so rarely the combat results match with the odds (5-10%?). The problem here with the combat odds is that some players could think that reloading turns until getting the same (or very similar) combat result than predicted would be a "legal" way of cheating. They would think that the odds give them the right to get those results so they would have the "right" to reload the turn until getting them. But, what would be the fun of the game if we would always get the same combat results than predicted?
Another IMO important factor regarding this question is that to play a single turn in CEAW does not take you much time so reloading a turn it is an easy thing to do specially in the first phase of the game. Later in the game when there are much more units, the things are different since you would have to repeat ALL your turn moves. There are some other wargames out there (TOAW 3, War in the East, etc) in which to prepare a single turn can take you 1-2 hours so reloading turns in such games would be a crazy thing.
A question that has not been mentioned here is that GS 2.00 has introduced averaged combat results which IMO can help to reduce people replaying turns. With this new addition replaying turns is less profitable than before: you will get similar results no matter how many times you replay a turn.
Despite of having introduced averaged results, there´s still some randomness in combat results that could invite to some CEAW players to reload their turns when combat result is very different from the showed in combat odds. This way a player could think that when the odds are showing a favourable 4:2, then this is the result that it should be. But this isn´t so since combat odds only shows a PROBABILITY so rarely the combat results match with the odds (5-10%?). The problem here with the combat odds is that some players could think that reloading turns until getting the same (or very similar) combat result than predicted would be a "legal" way of cheating. They would think that the odds give them the right to get those results so they would have the "right" to reload the turn until getting them. But, what would be the fun of the game if we would always get the same combat results than predicted?
Another IMO important factor regarding this question is that to play a single turn in CEAW does not take you much time so reloading a turn it is an easy thing to do specially in the first phase of the game. Later in the game when there are much more units, the things are different since you would have to repeat ALL your turn moves. There are some other wargames out there (TOAW 3, War in the East, etc) in which to prepare a single turn can take you 1-2 hours so reloading turns in such games would be a crazy thing.
I must say that I really do like the way Battlefield Academy multiplayer's server works and I agree it would nice to have such a thing for GS but I'm afraid that that's beyond the scope of the fan based GS team. All our effort went to increasing the historical realism of the expansion while trying to maintain play balance.vveedd wrote:Any chance to adjust multiplayer to Slitherine PBEM++ system?
Of course what it means to be historial realistic is a matter of opinion and was the subject of much discussion and debate among the GS team. The definition generally adopted was based on equally matched and experienced players winning strategies. And that definition was that all winning strategies that did followed an alternate timeline would be believable, or at least arguable, with most military historians and that the actual historical timeline would be as attractive as these belivable alternate timelines (e.g., Sea Lion or Close the Med). That's why won't (or shouldn't) see in GSv2.00 an axis player being able to invaded and conquer the USA or Canada. From a military historian point of view the prospects of these alternate histories are just plain silly.
I sure how historical the GS expansion is will continue to be the subject of more discussion and debate as more players are exposed to it.
In terms of maintain play balance ... only time will tell how well that objective was met.