ORIGINAL: Lowpe
This is simply a sad, sad thread.[:(]
I had to look at the thread title. For a minute, I thought this a spoiler for the Mandrake/Sprior AAR. [:D]
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
This is simply a sad, sad thread.[:(]
ORIGINAL: paradigmblue
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
OK, I finally understand what you're saying here... Basically, that the IJ player can run their historical first turn any number of times against a dummy password, saving a fresh copy each time prior to the Allied password setting, until they got a result they liked. Then, that file would be sent to the Allied player. This is rendered moot if you are playing with historical first turn set to off, as the Allied player would enter orders after the Japanese player last touched the turn.
This relies entirely on the seed being set when the Japan player loads the scenario for the first time, and not when the Allied player enters their password. You could be right, but I'm not so sure. From observation, the seed seems to be set either when the Allied player closes out their turn or when the Japanese player loads the turn and generates the replay after receiving the turn from the Allied player (this observation comes from lots of experience with sync bugs, and running over 1200 PBEM Japan turns thus far*). Why would the first turn be any different?
Yep, as I've said before, this could be an absolutely moot point, if the allied player is the one that sets the seed. I suppose what I need to do is a test where I run a dummy turn, record the results, then restart the computer and run a dummy turn again - haven't the devs said before that the two ways of changing the seed were a) changing orders b) restarting the computer?
I'll try that after work today.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
No matter what happens on Turn 1, in the long run it doesn't matter.
ORIGINAL: Miller
I have noticed in PBEM games with "historical" turn one the IJN always get better results at PH than if it were "non historical".
However, as the IJN I'd rather attack Manila harbour on turn one and therefore have the KB in position to dominate in that area from day 1. Those old US BB's are good for bombardments and nothing else in the game and at least half will die to subs and a/c torpedoes long before they get in range of the homeland.....
ORIGINAL: Miller
However, as the IJN I'd rather attack Manila harbour on turn one and therefore have the KB in position to dominate in that area from day 1. Those old US BB's are good for bombardments and nothing else in the game and at least half will die to subs and a/c torpedoes long before they get in range of the homeland.....
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
No matter what happens on Turn 1, in the long run it doesn't matter.
There's also this.
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Not that a lot of games make it there to begin with, but the stink of accusations like this-whether substantiated or not-likely impact the 'long run' of this game and diminish the already low probability that this game goes the distance.
I would bet really-o truly-o money that this game never sees 1945. Or 1944. Even money that 1943 never gets visited either.
ORIGINAL: jwolf
I would bet really-o truly-o money that this game never sees 1945. Or 1944. Even money that 1943 never gets visited either.
You're out of date already. [;)] From the AAR thread I believe the game was called off before it even got to 1942.
ORIGINAL: jwolf
I would bet really-o truly-o money that this game never sees 1945. Or 1944. Even money that 1943 never gets visited either.
You're out of date already. [;)] From the AAR thread I believe the game was called off before it even got to 1942.
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
The POW is alive on a Dec 8th start....
ORIGINAL: Quixote
Aurorus is correct about the potential exploit. Instead of arguing back and forth about what should happen when starting a new game with the same Japanese seed turn, try actually doing it. I did, and the result of the same Japanese seed turn, when sent to two Allied opponents with completely different passwords, was two exactly identical turns. These weren't similar results or close results factoring in fog of war, they were identical. Each Allied player lost exactly the same ships, exactly the same number of aircraft, and suffered exactly the same amount of damage to each and every ship hit. The experiment is easily repeatable if you care to try.
Note that this potential exploit only applies to Historical Dec 7th starts, and still may not mean his opponent was knowingly cheating. It's certainly possible his opponent simply re-used an already prepared first turn without knowing about the exploit (since none of the veteran players here seemed to know about it either), but Aurorus isn't crazy to have at least considered the possibility.