The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by M60A3TTS »

I was under the impression on the server you can't save a turn in the middle and come back later. I can't often do that and need to do the turn over more than one sitting.
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Michael T »

You can save at any point on the server, take a break and come back later. Just like a PBEM. The only disadvantage is that you cannot review your situation once you end the turn. But a few screenies solve the issue. Its very reliable now as well. Only way to go for me.
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Why doesn't he just play some server games? That would allay any concerns people have. Apart from protecting myself against being cheated, playing on the server protects you from suspicion when you are successful.

Also when players such as Pelton, myself and others have had such astonishing rates of advance we were quite open about how it was acheived, whether it be muling, chaining, mega air supply or what not. If you find a bug or loophole that grants super human powers to one side or the other (as I did with the mega air fuel exploit) you should disclose it. Otherwise its just like stealing candy from a baby. What glory is there in that? Not to mention simply making a better game for all to enjoy.

I have been more then open about stuff, I post just how to do x-y and z, Its gets nerfed I bitch, but the game gets better and better over time.

Why would any new guys play if there is an insane loop hole in the system?

Why would anyone in there right mind spend 5 cents on WitW if its going to be a filled with loop holes 2by3 doesn't seem to care at all about. Does 2by3 even test this stuff out at all?

I would think 2by3 would get to the bottom of stuff like this asap, because it just makes them look really silly as far as the game engine goes.

If the system can be gamed so easly what makes poeple think witw will be any different?

Stuff like this has more to do with 2by3's reaction more then anything.

Do they care at all that someone is going east faster then before 1.06.13? Basicly 1.06.13 is usless?

I would like to get to the bottom of it asap so the game is fair to both sides, but the real question is does 2by3 care at all?

If the game engine is fine then 2by3 needs to speak up and say this shit is not possible or we really screwed up and need to fix it asap.

In the end its 2by3's coin, if they don't care.

Then don't expect poeple to run out and by witw if this is how they are going to react to something that a clear cheat or a uber exploit.

In this case silence is not golden, its just plain
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

If he's willing to post in Russian, I should be able to translate, would be interested to know what he's up to...


Thanks bro for offering to translate.

Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Peltonx »

Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
mrchuck
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:35 am
Contact:

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by mrchuck »

So...has anyone actually asked Saper what he did? And the reply was ... ?
Oops answered by previous post...don't mind me I'm mad...
User avatar
sillyflower
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Back in Blighty

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by sillyflower »

glad the mystery is solved. Well done Michael. Now if only I was playing a game as german I too would rule the world. Mwahaha
web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Peltonx »

I am not so sure this is what he was doing. tm.asp?m=3206706

M60 can check himself as he has the flyte records and old turns at to where units were and airfields and to what hex drops were made at the end of turns.

M60 does it appear he was using the exploit of not?

No more need to blindly defend him.

Looking at what you have posted I am not so sure, just checking your location of enemys and air drops

Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Saper2229
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Russia

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Saper2229 »

I am not used a bugs, cheated and ect. Germany was nice air forces - recon too. I see befor my move all line of defence M60A3TTS. He had very many troops on Leningrad area, but little in other place. Why to break the closed door - I avoid this strongest position. Not problem to supply 1-2 motorised divizion. You can see, that I reach fast my infantry a Moscow without "epic" battles and deep pocket. If you move very fast you opponent can choice how use his rail - for re-groupping forces ore move industry. M60A3TTS take two and canot stoped my troops.
Sorry, if I do some grammatical mistakes - my English is not good[:)]
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by M60A3TTS »

I can understand your points. I did use much of my rail capacity to evacuate industry and place many troops at Leningrad. In another game in the future I may shift more troops and rail capacity to defend the Moscow area.
User avatar
gingerbread
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Sweden

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by gingerbread »

Thanks for your comment, Saper.

You played very well and introduced (to me at least) a further refinement of the spearhead doctrine: The Honed Tip (fuel by air 1-2 Mot per Pz Group); you can of course re-name it, should you so want. No doubt attempts to develop countermeasures will be made.
Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Walloc »

Well about the airsupply. It was since the change to HQBU limited to 20 MP always struck me that there is a disconnect in game. Currently pz/mot getting far rom RR heads are limited in MP by having only so much fuel/supply being able to get to them per the supply system.

U can have an airbase just as far from RR heads. Still its has unlimited supply of fuel/supply to be delivered. Eh, why isnt there a limited on how much "fuel/supply" an airbase can have accumulate/distribuate. Under same or similar limitations as a pz/mot unit in exactly the same conditions. How come a unit can only get delivered X fuel/supply of amount but for an airbase its unlimited. Doesnt make much sense or seem consistant to me.
U theoritically(have tested it) can have an airbase at Ural, with railheads ar Moscow being able to deliver endless(the limitation is on the planes not the base per say) amount of supply and fuel. Its distance to railhead, tho manual states it has an impact and it has on fuel deliver by the plane. It doesnt depend on amount of the airbase actually have, or i've never seen it nor when testing it. Thats sorta funny in the not so funny category.

Possibly limiting airbased only being able to deliver supply/fuel if within 20 MPs of a railhead, would sound more like consistancy within the supply system. Not thats its going to happen and not saying it would necesarrily in this case have any impact.


Kind regards,

Rasmus
User avatar
sillyflower
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Back in Blighty

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by sillyflower »

ORIGINAL: Saper222

.
Sorry, if I do some grammatical mistakes - my English is not good[:)]

A lot better than my Russian and (dare I say it) as good as some Americans or better as your meaning is clear[;)]
web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Possibly limiting airbased only being able to deliver supply/fuel if within 20 MPs of a railhead, would sound more like consistancy within the supply system. Not thats its going to happen and not saying it would necesarrily in this case have any impact.

A better solution might be only allowing airbases to deliver fuel and supply they already have on hand, and then require them to draw/build up supplies like any other unit but give them a slight ability to stockpile more than they need.
User avatar
gingerbread
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Sweden

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by gingerbread »

One complication is that air bases can move 50 MP with whatever fuel it has, so they can be used as the HQ's were used in muling.

The air drop is just the trick to get the fuel out of the air base.
timmyab
Posts: 2047
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:48 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by timmyab »

ORIGINAL: gingerbread
The Honed Tip (fuel by air 1-2 Mot per Pz Group); you can of course re-name it, should you so want.
Or perhaps the Saper saber.
carlkay58
Posts: 8778
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by carlkay58 »

I would like to mention that I have hit the "Airbase has no fuel to fly mission" message several times as the Axis in late August - October of 41. So it is possible to run out of fuel to deliver from the airbase. I was flying supply drops in every case and I was able to bomb enemy units from the airbase later in the turn.
User avatar
mrchuck
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:35 am
Contact:

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by mrchuck »

However the airsupply bug is real. Tried it myself with an airbase shuttling between several stacks of panzer troops. It becomes the staging base and air miles effectively = 0.

Got 3 or 4 stacks all up to 80% or so with just this one air base before I ran out of patience and shut down the game. Futile really and I can't stand house rules -- the ACTUAL rules should work properly, or at least not be this grossly broken.[:-]
bednarre
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: The War for Survival - M60A3TTS vs Saper222 (no Saper)

Post by bednarre »

Airplanes don't run on diesel or car gasoline, but rather on aviation gasoline or jet fuel. What kind of an airbase would stockpile large quantities of diesel fuel to refuel tanks? The airfield has to stock and maintain its own needed fuel, and putting a fuel depot inside the airbase would not be conductive to protecting the valuable combat aircraft. I think the best approach is to have to truck diesel fuel from the Army HG/cities to the airbase during the turn that base is refueling, and not using the bases aviation gasoline. Thus even if a Panzer Division camps on the airbase, it will not help.
Reginald E. Bednar
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”