Recognized exploits

[beender]

Have recently started PvP game and it's surely much more than beating the docile AI[:D]

Yet the problem is, I started feeling concerned about using certain tactics that some may regard as "exploit." After all, I used to think "all is fair in war and wargames," and only learnt the word "gamey" on the forum... After so many years of development, you would think there is no room for such tricks in WITE but who knows. Also, I am from a country where wargame is not a tradition, and I am really not sure if there is something one is not supposed to do, even allowed by the game mechanics.

So my question is, is there a "exploit list" that contains those typical tactics frowned upon among the community? Any advice is appreciated.

[Stelteck]

Exploit are usually fixed quite quickly once discovered.

Most game have home rules to prevent for example, too much use of air drop or naval invasion.

[beender]

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Exploit are usually fixed quite quickly once discovered.

Most game have home rules to prevent for example, too much use of air drop or naval invasion.

Exactly. So after so many patches and long history of playing, I can assume every tactics short of using a bug will not be unfair or even offensive?

As for air drop and amphibious landing, since AI don't do them and don't have the opportunity anyway, I am quite curious to see their effects[:)]

[EwaldvonKleist]

ORIGINAL: beender

Have recently started PvP game and it's surely much more than beating the docile AI[:D]

Yet the problem is, I started feeling concerned about using certain tactics that some may regard as "exploit." After all, I used to think "all is fair in war and wargames," and only learnt the word "gamey" on the forum... After so many years of development, you would think there is no room for such tricks in WITE but who knows. Also, I am from a country where wargame is not a tradition, and I am really not sure if there is something one is not supposed to do, even allowed by the game mechanics.

So my question is, is there a "exploit list" that contains those typical tactics frowned upon among the community? Any advice is appreciated.

Depends on your definition of exploit.
A historical/realism minded player would cry after every second sentence in the AARs of Telemecus/MichealT/HLYA/Pelton.
If you see this more like complex chess (I count myself to this fraction) it is just smart play and I have a great deal of respect for their smart use of the game mechanics.
But there really is nothing that can't be settled down with common sense, a sportsman opponent and a clear description what kind of player/game you are looking for when seeking an opponent.

But there are always exploits and cheats (IMO there is a difference among this two words) because nothing is ever perfect.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

ORIGINAL: beender

Have recently started PvP game and it's surely much more than beating the docile AI[:D]

Yet the problem is, I started feeling concerned about using certain tactics that some may regard as "exploit." After all, I used to think "all is fair in war and wargames," and only learnt the word "gamey" on the forum... After so many years of development, you would think there is no room for such tricks in WITE but who knows. Also, I am from a country where wargame is not a tradition, and I am really not sure if there is something one is not supposed to do, even allowed by the game mechanics.

So my question is, is there a "exploit list" that contains those typical tactics frowned upon among the community? Any advice is appreciated.

Depends on your definition of exploit.
A historical/realism minded player would cry after every second sentence in the AARs of Telemecus/MichealT/HLYA/Pelton.
If you see this more like complex chess (I count myself to this fraction) it is just smart play and I have a great deal of respect for their smart use of the game mechanics.
But there really is nothing that can't be settled down with common sense, a sportsman opponent and a clear description what kind of player/game you are looking for when seeking an opponent.

But there are always exploits and cheats (IMO there is a difference among this two words) because nothing is ever perfect.

1+1!!! Gets my TWO thumbs up on this post EwalvonKleist. Very well said

[Telemecus]

I suppose the big no no is reloading. To some extent that is unavoidable for example when your computer crashes - but should not be done intentionally to take advantage. And for me this does mean not discovering some new information and changing your moves with hindsight or repeating a battle until you win it. Others take a more expansive view but for me that really is the kernel of it. And for PBEM games that has to rely on the trust of the other player, and the desire to have a genuine game. Endless reloading to turn a low odds win into a victory is if nothing else very boring.

I do dispute the terms historical as usually used. If all games were historical then we would follow the exact war with the same front lines week by week, same units in the same places and so on. To be a game it has to allow a-historical outcomes. So what people really mean is not too unhistorical. For example the Germans could not have had jet planes during 1941 - if on the other hand you played a game starting in 1931 in which choosing research priorities was part of the game having jet planes in 1941 would have been possible and not a-historical. So it does depend on the context of the game - principally its time span.

Also I do get concerned sometimes the term ahistorical is used to mean just not how they see the game. A recent case was my use of a lot of reconnaissance to keep opponent air forces fatigued. This was termed "recon spamming" to say it was using the game mechanics. Or more specifically the game mechanics not duplicating real life, as using the historical game mechanics is unavoidable! But there are many historical parallels during the war where air commanders did use repeat air missions to areas lightly covered by an enemy air force (Malta and North France in 1942) not to cause any action but, to quote one air commander of the time, "to keep them on their toes and their nerves on edge." So to me this is perfectly historical even if others do not agree. In a ground combat context this is called "soaking attacks" - which again has historical parallels.

At least for me the term "gamey" should only apply when historical parallels cannot be constructed. Some current interesting examples are
i) Even with Fog of War on you can sometimes use the allowed movement paths of units with no CV (e.g. HQs, airbases) to see where hidden enemy units are (as they cannot move next to them) which you cannot with combat units. I see this as "gamey" recon as I cannot make any real life parallel and so do not use it intentionally, but it is also impossible to stop seeing accidentally.
ii) It is possible even while an airbase is packed up and loaded on a train to fly aircraft from it and conduct missions. I have only ever seen planes land on moving trains in cinema films - and I am absolutely sure is not realistic.
iii) The "suicide para" mission of dropping airborne units for no reason other than to break a repaired rail line. There is no case of several thousand men being dropped behind lines solely to blow up a railway line with no chance of rescue or connecting up to the main army.
There are many more I could add

Personally I do not object to others using features like these. You can agree house rules on them if you wish or even be nice and ask your opponent in advance if they object. But I do post on them and they often then get removed from the game in the next version. So perhaps the real definition of gamey or exploit should be what gets removed by the next version of the game?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I suppose the big no no is reloading. To some extent that is unavoidable for example when your computer crashes - but should not be done intentionally to take advantage. And for me this does mean not discovering some new information and changing your moves with hindsight or repeating a battle until you win it. Others take a more expansive view but for me that really is the kernel of it. And for PBEM games that has to rely on the trust of the other player, and the desire to have a genuine game. Endless reloading to turn a low odds win into a victory is if nothing else very boring.

I do dispute the terms historical as usually used. If all games were historical then we would follow the exact war with the same front lines week by week, same units in the same places and so on. To be a game it has to allow a-historical outcomes. So what people really mean is not too unhistorical. For example the Germans could not have had jet planes during 1941 - if on the other hand you played a game starting in 1931 in which choosing research priorities was part of the game having jet planes in 1941 would have been possible and not a-historical. So it does depend on the context of the game - principally its time span.

Also I do get concerned sometimes the term ahistorical is used to mean just not how they see the game. A recent case was my use of a lot of reconnaissance to keep opponent air forces fatigued. This was termed "recon spamming" to say it was using the game mechanics. Or more specifically the game mechanics not duplicating real life, as using the historical game mechanics is unavoidable! But there are many historical parallels during the war where air commanders did use repeat air missions to areas lightly covered by an enemy air force (Malta and North France in 1942) not to cause any action but, to quote one air commander of the time, "to keep them on their toes and their nerves on edge." So to me this is perfectly historical even if others do not agree. In a ground combat context this is called "soaking attacks" - which again has historical parallels.

At least for me the term "gamey" should only apply when historical parallels cannot be constructed. Some current interesting examples are
i) Even with Fog of War on you can sometimes use the allowed movement paths of units with no CV (e.g. HQs, airbases) to see where hidden enemy units are (as they cannot move next to them) which you cannot with combat units. I see this as "gamey" recon as I cannot make any real life parallel and so do not use it intentionally, but it is also impossible to stop seeing accidentally.
ii) It is possible even while an airbase is packed up and loaded on a train to fly aircraft from it and conduct missions. I have only ever seen planes land on moving trains in cinema films - and I am absolutely sure is not realistic.
iii) The "suicide para" mission of dropping airborne units for no reason other than to break a repaired rail line. There is no case of several thousand men being dropped behind lines solely to blow up a railway line.
There are many more I could add

Personally I do not object to others using features like these. You can agree house rules on them if you wish or even be nice and ask your opponent in advance if they object. But I do post on them and they often then get removed from the game in the next version. So perhaps the real definition of gamey or exploit should be what gets removed by the next version of the game?

DAMN!!! Two in a row excellent posts

[thedoctorking]

Having played several games now against live opponents, I would like to start new ones with the understanding that major misunderstandings of the rules/mechanics could result in one player being able to replay a turn.

For example, in a game I'm currently in, as the USSR on turn 13 or so, I built a bunch of fortified zones along the Finnish no attack line in the Leningrad region. Then, I marched my ground units down to cover the Neva river line. I didn't realize that new fortified zones were considered unready units and would just evaporate if adjacent to Finnish units in the German logistics phase. So the Finns were able to march in unopposed and capture Osinovets, whereupon the Leningrad pocket disintegrated. I didn't appeal this to the other player, and have continued the game. However, I think that good sportsmanship would include saying to your opponent in such a case, once you realized that the advantage you have gained was a result of their gross misunderstanding of the rules/game mechanics, that they could replay their turn and repair the oversight. Stalin might have ordered such a thing, but somebody on the staff would have pointed out that the units he was counting on were not able to offer any resistance. See the widely-memed moment in "Downfall" where Hitler's generals tell him that the units he was moving around on his map didn't exist in reality. The boss might be upset, but nobody would allow such a gross mistake in real life.

[beender]

@EwaldvonKleist
I am too new to read about MichealT and Pelton, but I do cry after every second sentence in the AARs of Telemecus and HLYA, because they inspired me so much[:D]

@Telemecus
Very good points, especially regarding "historical." As for reloading, i was quite disappointed to learn it's not detectable in pbem. Not only you rely on opponents honor, but also his trust when you makes a master move yet cant prove it's not a result of reloading. Now i understand why all the talk about "Reliable" players.

@thedoctorking
I agree about the sportsmanship. Since we are only playing for fun, not victory in real life or even money, gaining an edge through misunderstanding by the opponent ruins the game for both sides.


The reason i asked is that i reached the vicinity of leningrade on T3 in my current game. My opponent, who is by no means a inexperienced player, apparently did not anticipate this.

The trick i used is very plain. Surbodinating motorized division to army hq who has a lot of fuel dump, and i got two 46mp mots at pskov starting T3.

Is it gamey? I don’t know. It’s simple game mechanics. Has been there for probably the whole life of the game, yet not removed.

Is it ahistorical? I don’t think so. Having direct units under HQ and prioritized supply is more historical than many other aspects.

Is it overpowered? Again I don’t know. Only played agains ai so far.

Now I am just a little hesitating about whether to use this and certain other tactics, because the line to me is not very clear.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: beender



The trick i used is very plain. Surbodinating motorized division to army hq who has a lot of fuel dump, and i got two 46mp mots at pskov starting T3.

Is it gamey? I don’t know. It’s simple game mechanics. Has been there for probably the whole life of the game, yet not removed.

Many would consider it to be, some will not. It really needs to be taken out imho. This will keep the shifting of units around to get fuel to a minimum. You can do a lookup on the Forum of "Bozo the Clown" this is something similar but not exactly the same.

[EwaldvonKleist]

The trick i used is very plain. Surbodinating motorized division to army hq who has a lot of fuel dump, and i got two 46mp mots at pskov starting T3.
/quote]
I would ban this by house rule in 1.10 and not in 1.11.01.
You got lucky with admin rolls though.

The dumps are there from the beginning in infantry armies but not in panzer armies for whatever reason. Considered using them as Axis under 1.10 and did not do so but would do under 1.11.01


currently, it is difficult to get dumps into a HQ. Probably because of Bozo.
I tried out a number of things after figuring out how the supply system works, and failed miserably. But after reading through old Pelton/MichealT posts I found the ideas to do so out they were nerfed out (+some I would not have gotten in a life time)

Exploit are usually fixed quite quickly once discovered. 

Problem is to find them, once they are found them morvael does a great Job. Some stuff is still in 1.11.01 (Dennis and morvaels personal smiley: [&o] [&o] [&o] )

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

The trick i used is very plain. Surbodinating motorized division to army hq who has a lot of fuel dump, and i got two 46mp mots at pskov starting T3.
/quote]
I would ban this by house rule in 1.10 and not in 1.11.01.
You got lucky with admin rolls though.

The dumps are there from the beginning in infantry armies but not in panzer armies for whatever reason. Considered using them as Axis under 1.10 and did not do so but would do under 1.11.01


currently, it is difficult to get dumps into a HQ. Probably because of Bozo.
I tried out a number of things after figuring out how the supply system works, and failed miserably. But after reading through old Pelton/MichealT posts I found the ideas to do so out they were nerfed out (+some I would not have gotten in a life time)

Exploit are usually fixed quite quickly once discovered. 

Problem is to find them, once they are found them morvael does a great Job. Some stuff is still in 1.11.01 (Dennis and morvaels personal smiley: [&o] [&o] [&o] )

I didnt try the Bozo technique my last game. But the regular German Army HQs filling up with supplies and fuel over the turns still happen. You can get a full corps plus 1 more Divsion with over 40 MPs every few turns if done correctly. Also I noted some interesting supply situations too with Corps HQs that could be used by rotating units. Thus an offense can be sustained without spending points on HQ BUs but spending points on flipping units between corps and armies for the fuel and supply. I have done it and Im sure more of you have done it too.


BTW the dumps were over 350+. I had one with 436. So you have 5 Inf Army HQs and you put a PZ divsion in each of those front hqs, BAM they are ready to go the next turn. Just flip them back to a PZ corps HQ to move out. (This is just north & central. You can get 3 more in the south)

[beender]

Yeah i got lucky with that one. With two mp46 mots i could even have taken leningrade, if not lured to displace some airfields on the way.

Fuel dumps in army hq never get used if not supplied to mobile divisions, and you have to spend vehicles moving them around. So i figured I'd better use them.

A remedy i can think of is, mobile divisions have to wait one round and be switched back to pz korps, after getting refueled this way.

[beender]

i tend to attach only one mot per hq. That way you get 8 full mp motorized divs, for three rounds.

[EwaldvonKleist]

I didnt try the Bozo technique my last game. But the regular German Army HQs filling up with supplies and fuel over the turns still happen. You can get a full corps plus 1 more Divsion with over 40 MPs every few turns if done correctly. Also I noted some interesting supply situations too with Corps HQs that could be used by rotating units. Thus an offense can be sustained without spending points on HQ BUs but spending points on flipping units between corps and armies for the fuel and supply. I have done it and Im sure more of you have done it too.

Bozo way has been nerfed AFAIK.
If you get army HQs to refill with stocks I would be interested how or you should at least mail morvael to get it fixed imo.
I only know about stocks being there from the beginning (T1)

(have sone vague ideas how to stuff army HQs with fuel. Need to test them one day)

[EwaldvonKleist]

Fuel dumps in army hq never get used if not supplied to mobile divisions, and you have to spend vehicles moving them around. So i figured I'd better use them.

When playing axis under 1.10 I considered using the "I only want tosave trucks" explanation to justify using this before myself but refused in the end given the overall Situation lol.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

I would go far as to say starting on turn 2 to give each inf corps a pz div. (break the pz corps up)the PZs would fill up with fuel faster if done this way in current rule set. Kind of reminds me of the french doctrine of dispersing the tanks out to the inf. But Im theorizing you would get fuel much quicker than having four in 1 PZ corps. Because I noticed that most of the inf corps hqs are running around with 40-120 stockpiles in them. Then put them in the PZ corps when you want to do a hq bu for 2 turn mayhem.

[heliodorus04]

I quit playing humans whom I did not know and trust a LONG LONG time ago.
Americans especially (among whom I am counted) are notorious for winning justifying all and any means.
Human beings can justify anything; for example I own an SS cap...

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

I quit playing humans whom I did not know and trust a LONG LONG time ago.
Americans especially (among whom I am counted) are notorious for winning justifying all and any means.
Human beings can justify anything; for example I own an SS cap...

Layman terms pleaseon exactly your point here.

Thanks

[EwaldvonKleist]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I would go far as to say starting on turn 2 to give each inf corps a pz div. (break the pz corps up)the PZs would fill up with fuel faster if done this way in current rule set. Kind of reminds me of the french doctrine of dispersing the tanks out to the inf. But Im theorizing you would get fuel much quicker than having four in 1 PZ corps. Because I noticed that most of the inf corps hqs are running around with 40-120 stockpiles in them. Then put them in the PZ corps when you want to do a hq bu for 2 turn mayhem.

The fuel seesaw. Fuel hungry Pz. Div. sucks fuel into a corps HQ and next turn a mot. division switches places with it to benefit of the stocks if I understand you correctly. Not worth the effort when HQ BUs were cheap but with current costs it can be a workaround to get a few high MP mot. inf division.


First thought you were talking about getting some huge amounts of fuel (300+) spawning in army HQs. As already said, they sit there from the beginning of the GC 1941 and I have no idea why, but it is this way. Not sure why infantry armies have allot of fuel but panzer groups have not? IMO they should get removed altogether from the initial setup.
Just tested the vague idea using mot. support units but they seem to draw supplies differently from on map units.