Cheating and Historical Turn 1

[SheperdN7]

Its a fair and interesting argument on both sides, however I will say that I have (in my whole year and a half on this forum) that I have NEVER seen a case of 1st turn cheating, and certainly undoubtedly not when a historical first turn option was used. I have however seen some great Pearl Harbour attacks and this certainly ranks up there but I attribute it to other PH strikes. Luck and chance.

[Alpha77]

Started game with historical "ON" and it shows 6 BBs and 2 CLs + some DDs sunk at PH... so guess this historic option somehow sinks more (even if Iknow 2-3 of these BBs can be FOW of course)

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Started game with historical "ON" and it shows 6 BBs and 2 CLs + some DDs sunk at PH... so guess this historic option somehow sinks more (even if Iknow 2-3 of these BBs can be FOW of course)

Well, we all know that the computer cheats like a mother-******. Nothing new there. [;)]

[Alpha77]

So if they used this historic option in their game (agreed on I guess, or did the IJ player force it with gun to head on the allied?) where is the problem that the OP sees [&:][>:]

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Started game with historical "ON" and it shows 6 BBs and 2 CLs + some DDs sunk at PH... so guess this historic option somehow sinks more (even if Iknow 2-3 of these BBs can be FOW of course)

Results aren't usually that bad, probably FOW. If you're playing the AI just look, I usually do just to see the degree of FOW.