Am I a jerk or a cheater?

[dave123]

I’m respectful to others, and I consider myself a nice guy. But I’m getting a lot of flak from opponents in the game for “gamey” moves. Shouldn’t I use all the tools I have available to win the war? If you play me in chess and I make a stupid mistake that leaves my queen open, take it for goodness’ sake. If you jump me in the street, don’t be surprised if I kick you in the jewels. But in this game, am I supposed to be a gentleman and hope my opponent does the same?

Well, here is a few of the things I’ve done in the game, and the responses from opponents.

Curious what you think. Am I cheating?

#1 I’m axis. I bypass Luxembourg and the Netherlands (to keep US readiness down) and my opponent quit saying I was playing an unhistorical version of a historical war.

#2 I dropped a Russian paratrooper from the Sevastopol area into Budapest, causing Romania to surrender. Opponent quit.

#3 I dropped allied paratroopers in various locations in western France, Belgium, etc. Opponent said I was breaking the game and quit. By the way, I play this guy in Call of Duty, and he has no problems tossing blind grenades and shooting rockets into walls to kill me while I’m in cover – but I regress.

#4 As the allies, I’ve invaded Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Syria, Iraq, and Greece. I’ve been met with various angry responses from opponents. One guy quit and said he was reporting me to the developers. Another left a negative review of the game (on Steam) and sited my tactics in the review.

#5 My axis opponent had left his German and Italian fleets in port, so I sent pretty much the whole British fleet to Pearl Harbor just before the Japanese attacked. They, along with the US navy pretty much destroyed the entire Japanese fleet the next turn. He surrendered, saying the British fleet should not be allowed in the Pacific.

#6 I often put garrisons in transports and sail them in front of my fleets to act as buffers and scouts. Of all the things I’ve listed, this is the one that I can see might offend. But funny thing, the guy that was mad because he ran in a big British fleet in the Pacific used this tactic. So go figure.

So, am I a jerk and/or a cheater?

I’ve gotten to the point now that I ask my opponent early in the game (with the tiny chats allowed – hint, hint developers) how they feel about para-drops and invasions of neutrals because I don’t want to ruin good games. But I hate having to do this; Isn’t this war? Hasn’t the game been around long enough that if the developers wanted to stop these things, they would have done so? Hey, I can’t be the first guy to drop a paratrooper!
It would not be hard; a pop-up saying I can’t declare war on Syria, or a massive morale hit would stop me. I used to take Guadalcanal and New Guinea with the British before Pearl, but I don’t anymore as I get a giant reduction in US readiness (must have been part of a patch).

So, what should I do? Opinions and flames calling me names are all good; let them fly.

Oh, One other thing. Let’s say you agree that I’m not playing fair. Where do you draw the line? Would it be cheating for Germany to invade Russia in 1939? How about a sneak LR amphib in an unexpected place, or a sub waiting outside a port where you know the game will spawn a naval unit the next turn? Of course, this is just a few of many examples I could toss out. Tell me, I’d really like to know.

[Elessar2]

#1: people have been doing this for more than a year now, because the game engine gives a short-lived bonus to the war declaring country, and they thus use them to increase hitting power vs. the Russians the following year. Some people have house-ruled this as out of bounds, declare on one Benelux country gotta declare on all.

#'s 2-4 just sound like sour grapes w.r.t. perfectly valid tactics on your part. They can leave vital hexes open for paratroops at their own peril.

#5 should make Germany seriously consider a Sea Lion, or at least a blockade of Great Britain (which will also stop any Lend-Lease to Russia note). I would as the scenario designer tho make US readiness drop like a rock if that many British ships end up in the Pacific before the Pacific war kicks off tho.

#6, people have done this before, and also do something similar in WitP-AE. I would consider that gamey, yes, but it reduces your operational flexibility when you DO need those transports for, you know, actual invasions and shipments.

As indicated, loopholes persist; scenario designers can't possibly anticipate all nonstandard moves (and trying to do so will just drown the scenario in question with excess scripts galore).

I know you indicated that you dislike house rules but that may be your best bet.

[redrum68]

I think most of your issues would be resolved by finding players on the forum/discord and agreeing to some basic house rules. That is essentially what the ELO ladder here on the forum does which makes it so both players have an agreement on rules and are more committed to playing the game and not rage quitting.

[Tanaka]

I’m respectful to others, and I consider myself a nice guy. But I’m getting a lot of flak from opponents in the game for “gamey” moves. Shouldn’t I use all the tools I have available to win the war? If you play me in chess and I make a stupid mistake that leaves my queen open, take it for goodness’ sake. If you jump me in the street, don’t be surprised if I kick you in the jewels. But in this game, am I supposed to be a gentleman and hope my opponent does the same?

Well, here is a few of the things I’ve done in the game, and the responses from opponents.

Curious what you think. Am I cheating?

#1 I’m axis. I bypass Luxembourg and the Netherlands (to keep US readiness down) and my opponent quit saying I was playing an unhistorical version of a historical war.

#2 I dropped a Russian paratrooper from the Sevastopol area into Budapest, causing Romania to surrender. Opponent quit.

#3 I dropped allied paratroopers in various locations in western France, Belgium, etc. Opponent said I was breaking the game and quit. By the way, I play this guy in Call of Duty, and he has no problems tossing blind grenades and shooting rockets into walls to kill me while I’m in cover – but I regress.

#4 As the allies, I’ve invaded Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Syria, Iraq, and Greece. I’ve been met with various angry responses from opponents. One guy quit and said he was reporting me to the developers. Another left a negative review of the game (on Steam) and sited my tactics in the review.

#5 My axis opponent had left his German and Italian fleets in port, so I sent pretty much the whole British fleet to Pearl Harbor just before the Japanese attacked. They, along with the US navy pretty much destroyed the entire Japanese fleet the next turn. He surrendered, saying the British fleet should not be allowed in the Pacific.

#6 I often put garrisons in transports and sail them in front of my fleets to act as buffers and scouts. Of all the things I’ve listed, this is the one that I can see might offend. But funny thing, the guy that was mad because he ran in a big British fleet in the Pacific used this tactic. So go figure.

So, am I a jerk and/or a cheater?

I’ve gotten to the point now that I ask my opponent early in the game (with the tiny chats allowed – hint, hint developers) how they feel about para-drops and invasions of neutrals because I don’t want to ruin good games. But I hate having to do this; Isn’t this war? Hasn’t the game been around long enough that if the developers wanted to stop these things, they would have done so? Hey, I can’t be the first guy to drop a paratrooper!
It would not be hard; a pop-up saying I can’t declare war on Syria, or a massive morale hit would stop me. I used to take Guadalcanal and New Guinea with the British before Pearl, but I don’t anymore as I get a giant reduction in US readiness (must have been part of a patch).

So, what should I do? Opinions and flames calling me names are all good; let them fly.

Oh, One other thing. Let’s say you agree that I’m not playing fair. Where do you draw the line? Would it be cheating for Germany to invade Russia in 1939? How about a sneak LR amphib in an unexpected place, or a sub waiting outside a port where you know the game will spawn a naval unit the next turn? Of course, this is just a few of many examples I could toss out. Tell me, I’d really like to know.

This is a great list and gave me a chuckle. I've probably had all of these done to me at some point or vice versa except for maybe the transport one. Pretty much every game I've had something very different done to me or I have done to them. If you watch my game with GamingwiththeColonel you will see lots of varied moves on both sides. But who wants to play the same game every time? And isn't that what makes playing against a human more fun than against the AI? That you never know what to expect? Also you have to actually garrison your rear areas. I play for fun not competition. I think you just have to find the right opponents. None of my opponents quit on me and choose to learn for another day. And I am very picky with who I play...

[petedalby]

I think I'd only take issue with the Transports as being gamey. Everything else is fair.

I once had an opponent send US & neutral garrisons to screen Vladivostok from Japanese interference which I thought was a bit cheesy but it's easily countered.

As someone else said, come and play an ELO game. You'll find just a few sensible house rules and committed opponents.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1&t=355308

[Platoonist]

The Germans cheated in RL by going around the Maginot Line instead of through it. Jerks. That's why the French quit playing.

[petedalby]

#1 I’m axis. I bypass Luxembourg and the Netherlands (to keep US readiness down) and my opponent quit saying I was playing an unhistorical version of a historical war.

Tip: As Axis I invade the Netherlands first and Belgium then joins the Allies. So as Axis you get the bonus for NL whilst still only taking 1 hit on US & USSR readiness.

[sokulsky]

(...)Another left a negative review of the game (on Steam) and sited my tactics in the review.

#5 My axis opponent had left his German and Italian fleets in port, so I sent pretty much the whole British fleet to Pearl Harbor just before the Japanese attacked. They, along with the US navy pretty much destroyed the entire Japanese fleet the next turn. He surrendered, saying the British fleet should not be allowed in the Pacific.

This part is about me and my review me thinks

To the point: It is nothing about you mate, you are good player (also, I need to stress out, I have never "flaked" on you, If I lose I present my HQ to opponent when I quit early to stress out that I surrender and game is won by the opponent).

My issues are with SC:WatW only (I have only played 3 mp games, all with you) and I do not like its current balance so it is really not about you (I mean you have resigned 5 times in our games in SC:ACW - and I blamed game balance there as well (the single time I didn't was when you did it! ) even if I won and I will defend my opinion about that game and its current game balance as well - you said it is just my opinion)

I respectfully disagree, I say these games have balance issues even if I like some of them or if I am good at some of them) so I find that part about being flakey hopefully taken out of context and hopefully not being about me (out of our 6 SC:ACW games, you have resigned at 40-50% progress level from 4 of them, and once on turn 7 or so, therefore I have just returned the favour I guess ).

I have also mentioned to you that (me playing as AXIS) I do not like that JAP and GER is just punching and grinding through CHI and SOV most of the early 80 turns or so and ALLIED player can just watch and be minced there, putting units as blocks most of the time.

So you know SC:WatW meta well and you are a good SC:WatW player as it is - if you like this game, it is ok - I have wrote my review after playing over hundred hours in SC:WatW (probably half with you) but I have also read through the posts of more experienced players than me on this forum before I have posted it to find out whether my feelings are right (most of them stated that overall balance is in favour of ALLIES). You have admitted it too so I kind of not understand what is the problem. I mean how many times do you want me to watch my beautiful Nippon taken by hot-dog eating barbarians?

I also do not need to play single game to the death to see its issues - I play strategy games since over 20 years, if my guts tell me something is wrong with the MP balance, it usually is. Sure, no game is perfectly balanced, but some things are more off than others. My review of SC:ACW was mildly positive but stressed out that multiplayer is still fun - and people liked it. There is nothing there like hidden combined fleet move in SC:WatW that may cost Japan several thousans of MPP in single turn easily (sure, you can say "sloppy play mate", but at least once I really had not intell nor warning, even after doind scouting - also I thought this game is also about Pacific and naval battles, not about hiding in japanese ports all the time since mid 42 onward ).

You have made some good points about necessity to stick with JAP fleet to ports and launch some sneak attacks, but when I play a game with WW2 in Pacific, I want to see carrier battles mate! So SC:WatW is obviously wrong game for my needs if ALLIED player can easily combine 40+ warships including 12-14 carriers against twice smaller JAP fleet (already combined and upgunned) in early-to mid 42 - I mean it goes from spring 1942 to summer 1944 for Japs really fast in this one also Pearl Harbour is waste of time due to Captin' Hindsight, therefore my review about the game, nothing personal - game should at least glow RED LIGHT at AXIS player that UK has combined fleet with USA (by pop-up or so). NM hit for UK would be nice too (as British Isles are left with much smaller protection).

I could polish my skills in SC:WatW - I just do not see the point because I do not like it - I find single-theatre games of this series better (mostly due to lower political Sci-Fi levels as well) but they have their own issues (like using infantry units as barries in SC:ACW on rivers for river fleets, or current SC:ACW game balance I dislike (with Union power level dumped down because most of the players do not know how to play CSA efficiently - except when some of them does, Union offensives right now are going through mud).

So I say, it is about game balance! and I hope that we will play SC:WitE instead of SC:WatW

[dave123]

Thanx for the replies. I may just look into setting up games here, instead of just making games without PW’s.

How is that done? So, the advice to seek opponents here is good and I’m listening.

I’m ok with house rules. One thing, however, is I would totally lose the element of suprize on these (and other things I try to pull off) by listing them all for feedback – but I guess that beats having players rage quit and tell on me to developers.

Hey, Sokulsky! I should have, but did not, anticipate you seeing this. I almost never drop by Matrix forums, but I didn’t think this would fly as well on steam since I’m going to say that there are more advanced players here.

I was going to send you a PM to respond, but I’d like to do it here, publicly because I want the record to be straight as I respect you immensely as a gamer. First of all, you have been awesome at giving me tips at CIV, and I appreciate that. Yes, I’ve surrendered multiple times to you in Civ. Unless my opponent requests, I prefer a game to finish at the point when the outcome is no longer in debate. I wasn’t going to win any of our games at surrender point, and I have no problem with you surrendering to me when you did for the same reason. Not sure what you mean by “flake” but we are good, and I don’t mean to offend – so if I did, I apologize.

As far as play balance, I really think this game is close enough that the best player will most likely win, which is the best you can hope for in a game like this. I can generally tell how good my opponent is – and whether or not I will win – by the first or second turn. And I’m going to guess that my win/loss ratio in this game is tied almost perfectly to my opponent’s skill. Now, we absolutely disagree about CIV. You and AEMIL are the only ones that have ever beat me when I’m Union and my belief is that all but the best players will lose as the South against a competent opponent.

But the big picture is what it is. I think that (as someone here said) there is a counter to everything. If the Germans don’t use their fleet, they should not be suprized that the allies move their ships to where they can get some use. If the Japanese don’t take Guad. New Guinea, etc. I don’t think they should be suprized when the allies take them for themselves. But I don’t want this to regress into a point – counter point thread.

My initial hopes were that Herbert or Bill would respond (and perhaps they will). They must have seen these things, and haven’t made them illegal, so what do they think? As an aside, over the years, I’ve had both of them reply and help me, so I have nothing but respect for them both.

I do have one other request; should a developer drop by. PLEASE, PLEASE make the chat box bigger! These games lend themselves to discussion, and the puny box is close to useless. I used to play a lot of the original panzer corps, and that chat box allowed many very interesting conversations! I’d rather that, then try to track someone down at matrix, and start PM stuff.

So, thanx for the replies, and hopefully, I’ll get more input – from developers and players.

One last thing; I did find the old SC war in Europe on an old backup HD. I remember that there was a convoluted process to get it to work due to the security protections registering the game or something like that. Does anyone know if that still exists? Will I be able to get it working on my win 11 computer?

Thanx again.

[Bavre]

That list actually sounds super tame to me, at least compared to the dirty moves I am aware of in this game.

My advice would be the same as mentioned above: don't play random opponents. If you use the forum for matchmaking you also have the possibility to use PMs without any hassle, which solves the communications problem in game and lets you set the ground rules before turn 1.

To find an opponent, just post a request here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... hp?f=10641
or accept one of the open challenges.
You'll also find the ELO thread for the ranked matches there, which probably feature the most commited opponents. ELO games do have a set of automatic house rules (standard ELO rules).

Btw, interested in a match? Does not matter if friendly or ranked, just pm me.

[BillRunacre]

My initial hopes were that Herbert or Bill would respond (and perhaps they will). They must have seen these things, and haven’t made them illegal, so what do they think? As an aside, over the years, I’ve had both of them reply and help me, so I have nothing but respect for them both.

We have implemented changes to punish quite a few of the more exploit/gamey aspects over the years, and looking at your initial list, I'm not sure that all of them are things that should be prevented from being possible.

There is a limit to the extent this can be easily done, though if something does become a common exploit we will do what we can to fix/prevent/punish such moves.

It's also useful to see if a consensus arises on some issues, because while some people might not like some moves, they may be considered perfectly valid by others. In that spirit, I was a bit surprised to see an Allied invasion of Syria on the list, because the Allies did invade Syria in 1941. Iraq too in a way, given that the pro-Axis government was crushed by British forces.

As to the chat box, that would be great. Hopefully one day.

[Chernobyl]

No you're not a jerk or a cheater. To be extra nice in the future, you might want to agree to house rules ahead of time with your opponent regarding these "controversial" tactics.

I think some things you list just need to get nerfed, but it's not your fault. Paratrooper drop range when upgraded seems too high to me last I checked. View ranges for carriers and passive fighters should be adjusted downwards and the game should allow for a view range of 0 for certain units such as transports, dived/silent subs.

[havoc1371]

I’m respectful to others, and I consider myself a nice guy. But I’m getting a lot of flak from opponents in the game for “gamey” moves. Shouldn’t I use all the tools I have available to win the war? If you play me in chess and I make a stupid mistake that leaves my queen open, take it for goodness’ sake. If you jump me in the street, don’t be surprised if I kick you in the jewels. But in this game, am I supposed to be a gentleman and hope my opponent does the same?

Well, here is a few of the things I’ve done in the game, and the responses from opponents.

Curious what you think. Am I cheating?

#1 I’m axis. I bypass Luxembourg and the Netherlands (to keep US readiness down) and my opponent quit saying I was playing an unhistorical version of a historical war.I think this is a legitimate choice. Germans chose not to violate Netherlands neutrality in WW I, so I don't think its gamey.

#2 I dropped a Russian paratrooper from the Sevastopol area into Budapest, causing Romania to surrender. Opponent quit. This is borderline. I don't agree with suicide missions for the sole purpose of triggering a surrender because the game allows it. I think unsupported military actions should not trigger surrenders. This happened to me once when somehow my opponent's 1 point Polish mech managed to sweep around my Germans and cause Czechoslovakia to surrender. I've seen this in many games, where players try to use the knowledge of game mechanics to trigger an advantage that in reality would've not achieved the desired results. Russian troops parachuting into Budapest unsupported and deep behind the lines might have initially triggered panic, but I hardly doubt it would've triggered them to surrender. That said, almost everyone uses foreknowledge to their advantage, such as trying to inflict as much harm as possible on German forces with the Polish and French (especially the French fleet suiciding against German and Italian navel forces) rather than maintaining defensive lines, because the player knows the cause is doomed.

#3 I dropped allied paratroopers in various locations in western France, Belgium, etc. Opponent said I was breaking the game and quit. By the way, I play this guy in Call of Duty, and he has no problems tossing blind grenades and shooting rockets into walls to kill me while I’m in cover – but I regress. Once again, if these were unsupported spoilers, then its a bit of a grey area, as airborne troops were specialists and valuable; hardly something to be wasted on suicide missions. The British did conduct commando raids to harass and disrupt the Axis, so SF's landing in coastal ports is not outrageous, as they can withdraw from any coastal hex.

#4 As the allies, I’ve invaded Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Syria, Iraq, and Greece. I’ve been met with various angry responses from opponents. One guy quit and said he was reporting me to the developers. Another left a negative review of the game (on Steam) and sited my tactics in the review. This IMO is gamey. You are using foreknowledge of what Japan and Germany did int the war to preempt their actions. This is why I play with a house rule that forbids invading any country that is currently at least 1% or more pro-your side.

#5 My axis opponent had left his German and Italian fleets in port, so I sent pretty much the whole British fleet to Pearl Harbor just before the Japanese attacked. They, along with the US navy pretty much destroyed the entire Japanese fleet the next turn. He surrendered, saying the British fleet should not be allowed in the Pacific. Mega gamey.
Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" attack. The British would've never sent their whole navy to Hawaii to help the Americans defend against an attack that they didn't even know was going to happen.

#6 I often put garrisons in transports and sail them in front of my fleets to act as buffers and scouts. Of all the things I’ve listed, this is the one that I can see might offend. But funny thing, the guy that was mad because he ran in a big British fleet in the Pacific used this tactic. So go figure. Gamey. Using unmilitary tactics to gain an advantage.

So, am I a jerk and/or a cheater?

I’ve gotten to the point now that I ask my opponent early in the game (with the tiny chats allowed – hint, hint developers) how they feel about para-drops and invasions of neutrals because I don’t want to ruin good games. But I hate having to do this; Isn’t this war? Hasn’t the game been around long enough that if the developers wanted to stop these things, they would have done so? Hey, I can’t be the first guy to drop a paratrooper!
It would not be hard; a pop-up saying I can’t declare war on Syria, or a massive morale hit would stop me. I used to take Guadalcanal and New Guinea with the British before Pearl, but I don’t anymore as I get a giant reduction in US readiness (must have been part of a patch).

So, what should I do? Opinions and flames calling me names are all good; let them fly.

Oh, One other thing. Let’s say you agree that I’m not playing fair. Where do you draw the line? Would it be cheating for Germany to invade Russia in 1939? How about a sneak LR amphib in an unexpected place, or a sub waiting outside a port where you know the game will spawn a naval unit the next turn? Of course, this is just a few of many examples I could toss out. Tell me, I’d really like to know. Decide on house rules before you start a game with someone. Agree that any action taken that might seem gamey can be challenged by your opponent for you to provide historical or military precedence that backs up your action. Or simply state before you start that anything the game allows is "fair", so they are forewarned that historical accuracy is being tossed out in favor of winning at any cost, and anything goes.

[havoc1371]

My initial hopes were that Herbert or Bill would respond (and perhaps they will). They must have seen these things, and haven’t made them illegal, so what do they think? As an aside, over the years, I’ve had both of them reply and help me, so I have nothing but respect for them both.

We have implemented changes to punish quite a few of the more exploit/gamey aspects over the years, and looking at your initial list, I'm not sure that all of them are things that should be prevented from being possible.

There is a limit to the extent this can be easily done, though if something does become a common exploit we will do what we can to fix/prevent/punish such moves.

It's also useful to see if a consensus arises on some issues, because while some people might not like some moves, they may be considered perfectly valid by others. In that spirit, I was a bit surprised to see an Allied invasion of Syria on the list, because the Allies did invade Syria in 1941. Iraq too in a way, given that the pro-Axis government was crushed by British forces.

As to the chat box, that would be great. Hopefully one day.

Syria is a historical event that can be supported as an action. Invading Greece before the Italians can is gamey IMO. I like to apply the litmus test of "Did I do it because I know what will happen in history and I want to preempt history and gain an advantage?" If so, gamey. As is sailing the entire British navy to the Pacific because the German and Italian fleets won't come out to play. In no universe would the British do this and it would be logistically and politically nearly impossible to pull off; no way of doing it without U.S. knowledge and consent, nor would the German spy networks fail to notice the complete absence of the British navy. These are historical games. If someone is willing to throw history completely under the bus to win, then why bother playing historical games? Plenty of fantasy and hypothetical wargames out there.

[Feinder]

I think this conversation lends to the "Historical or Red-v-Blue" gamers.

The short version being:
There are those that play games with/because they have a historic feel.
There are those that play games for Red-v-Blue.
Those two play styles are very different, with very different agendas and constraints.
Fix one, break the other.

[Elessar2]

I am currently reading Rick Atkinson's narrative on the Italian Campaign. Found out that the Allies almost tried a big paradrop into Rome in the fall of '43, and in fact a number of the transports had already taken flight before a messenger came racing into the base in a jeep carrying the cancel orders. As I said you leave open key hexes at your peril-just spring for a garrison or three if you are that worried.

[dave123]

Appreciate all the replies. "House rules" seem to be the best advice.

I for one, play to win, and consider that if the game creators have had a chance to fix something and haven't, well I'm going to play my hand and expect my opponent to do the same.

Thanx again,and I'll see about using the resources available to set up games rather than just posting blind games with no password as I have in the past.

If anyone here joins a game with me; expect an average player (at best) that will do anything he can think of to get an advantage.

[havoc1371]

Appreciate all the replies. "House rules" seem to be the best advice.

I for one, play to win, and consider that if the game creators have had a chance to fix something and haven't, well I'm going to play my hand and expect my opponent to do the same.

Thanx again,and I'll see about using the resources available to set up games rather than just posting blind games with no password as I have in the past.

If anyone here joins a game with me; expect an average player (at best) that will do anything he can think of to get an advantage.

This is why I generally don't play people I haven't played before without laying out house rules. I play historical wargames because they are "historical" and I enjoy trying to replay events within the possibilities of that time. My opponent making unrealistic moves just because the game program allows it sours the game for me and I no longer am interested in playing it. To each their own I guess.

[Lothos]

I’m respectful to others, and I consider myself a nice guy. But I’m getting a lot of flak from opponents in the game for “gamey” moves. Shouldn’t I use all the tools I have available to win the war? If you play me in chess and I make a stupid mistake that leaves my queen open, take it for goodness’ sake. If you jump me in the street, don’t be surprised if I kick you in the jewels. But in this game, am I supposed to be a gentleman and hope my opponent does the same?

Well, here is a few of the things I’ve done in the game, and the responses from opponents.

Curious what you think. Am I cheating?

#1 I’m axis. I bypass Luxembourg and the Netherlands (to keep US readiness down) and my opponent quit saying I was playing an unhistorical version of a historical war.

#2 I dropped a Russian paratrooper from the Sevastopol area into Budapest, causing Romania to surrender. Opponent quit.

#3 I dropped allied paratroopers in various locations in western France, Belgium, etc. Opponent said I was breaking the game and quit. By the way, I play this guy in Call of Duty, and he has no problems tossing blind grenades and shooting rockets into walls to kill me while I’m in cover – but I regress.

#4 As the allies, I’ve invaded Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Syria, Iraq, and Greece. I’ve been met with various angry responses from opponents. One guy quit and said he was reporting me to the developers. Another left a negative review of the game (on Steam) and sited my tactics in the review.

#5 My axis opponent had left his German and Italian fleets in port, so I sent pretty much the whole British fleet to Pearl Harbor just before the Japanese attacked. They, along with the US navy pretty much destroyed the entire Japanese fleet the next turn. He surrendered, saying the British fleet should not be allowed in the Pacific.

#6 I often put garrisons in transports and sail them in front of my fleets to act as buffers and scouts. Of all the things I’ve listed, this is the one that I can see might offend. But funny thing, the guy that was mad because he ran in a big British fleet in the Pacific used this tactic. So go figure.

So, am I a jerk and/or a cheater?

I’ve gotten to the point now that I ask my opponent early in the game (with the tiny chats allowed – hint, hint developers) how they feel about para-drops and invasions of neutrals because I don’t want to ruin good games. But I hate having to do this; Isn’t this war? Hasn’t the game been around long enough that if the developers wanted to stop these things, they would have done so? Hey, I can’t be the first guy to drop a paratrooper!
It would not be hard; a pop-up saying I can’t declare war on Syria, or a massive morale hit would stop me. I used to take Guadalcanal and New Guinea with the British before Pearl, but I don’t anymore as I get a giant reduction in US readiness (must have been part of a patch).

So, what should I do? Opinions and flames calling me names are all good; let them fly.

Oh, One other thing. Let’s say you agree that I’m not playing fair. Where do you draw the line? Would it be cheating for Germany to invade Russia in 1939? How about a sneak LR amphib in an unexpected place, or a sub waiting outside a port where you know the game will spawn a naval unit the next turn? Of course, this is just a few of many examples I could toss out. Tell me, I’d really like to know.

Will answer by your numbers

#1 - This is not a cheat, no idea why someone would think that

#2 - Who leaves Budapest withought a garrison unit, their should always be at the start of Barb one Garrison unit in the Romanian Port and one in Budapest. This is their fault. HOWEVER, you knew the events would trigger to have them switch sides which in itself is the actual cheat/bug. Those decisions should not fire if just a single Russian unit is in range I guess. So although the move itself is not a cheat the fact you exploited an event chain is but its their silliness for not garrisoning.

#3 - Was some reasoning to dropping random paras in France? What were the after effects of it that would cause someone to act that way?

#4 - Can't think of anything here that would be an exploit.

#5 - Yes this I agree with them. You took your historical knowledge of events and used them to do something massive that would have never happened in real life. In the TRP mod I made it so that any Allied ships in that area would make USA Mobilization go backwards with a negative effect and you could in essence make sure USA is neutral forever if you did a move like you did here. In this case you knew exactly what you were doing, you got the game you played and not necessarily the one you wanted. If I was your opponent, I would have said you win and put you on my never play again list because you do not play with actual strategy but in essence abusing the game engine design. Historically what you did had 0% chance of ever happening.

#6 this is not an exploit, no clue why someone would think that

You are a jerk for #5 and that takes the complete fun out of a game with that move.

Putting troops in the Pacific before Japan is at war with the USA is another JERK move.

The TRP mode has a list of House Rules in the main thread that people should play with. I made that list so if two people playing the mod can simply say "I want to play with the TRP House Rules" and its easy to refer back to the forum for it.

One of those rules is no Allied countries can garrison the Pacific Islands (with a few exceptions that are provided)

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Well first I would simply say that its best to establish a match that has house-rules or no house-rules first before playing in Multiplayer.

No on Houserules..anything goes, including cheesy plays and extreme unhistorical moves. Some folks favor this and this is okay as long as BOTH parties understand the implications.

Yes on Houserules..well things are modified to fit the expectations of your opponent and you. This sometimes takes some discussion before hand to set things the way both parties want.

Now my opinion regarding your examples:
#1 I’m axis. I bypass Luxembourg and the Netherlands (to keep US readiness down) and my opponent quit saying I was playing an unhistorical version of a historical war.
OCB>I personally don't like seeing this but its ok as far as I am concerned. In on TRP-WiE match I started..both my opponent and I agreed that if Germany attacks one of the Low Countries..they ALL have to be Wardeced at the same time. We did this for historical flavor.

#2 I dropped a Russian paratrooper from the Sevastopol area into Budapest, causing Romania to surrender. Opponent quit.
OCB> Your opponent made a HUGE mistake not garrisoning Bucharest. You did nothing wrong.

#3 I dropped allied paratroopers in various locations in western France, Belgium, etc. Opponent said I was breaking the game and quit. By the way, I play this guy in Call of Duty, and he has no problems tossing blind grenades and shooting rockets into walls to kill me while I’m in cover – but I regress.
OCB> You did nothing wrong. If the Paras were unsupported, they would of been slaughtered. I suspect your opponent didn't garrison France enough and rage quit you.

#4 As the allies, I’ve invaded Guadalcanal, New Guinea, Syria, Iraq, and Greece. I’ve been met with various angry responses from opponents. One guy quit and said he was reporting me to the developers. Another left a negative review of the game (on Steam) and sited my tactics in the review.
OCB> Oh I think this is a HUGE eXploit and personally hate this. Makes no sense Wardecing your own colonies. (I'm talking about Solomans, New Guinea, and the other UK colonies in the Pacific.) Easy to fix with a house-rule. I have house ruled this for the last couple of years concerning the above example. The latest version however does added a malus to Allied players doing this stunt, but I think its not enough. Syria was invaded by the UK when it was Vichy..that's ok as long as it's Vichy.

#5 My axis opponent had left his German and Italian fleets in port, so I sent pretty much the whole British fleet to Pearl Harbor just before the Japanese attacked. They, along with the US navy pretty much destroyed the entire Japanese fleet the next turn. He surrendered, saying the British fleet should not be allowed in the Pacific.
OCB> Yeah this is another eXploit but easy to fix with a house-rule. I have done this by specifying only Aus/Nz naval elements allowed in the Pacific..and UK naval assets restricted to the longitude of Singapore and points west until Japan is at War.

#6 I often put garrisons in transports and sail them in front of my fleets to act as buffers and scouts. Of all the things I’ve listed, this is the one that I can see might offend. But funny thing, the guy that was mad because he ran in a big British fleet in the Pacific used this tactic. So go figure.
OCB> Total cheese in my opinion...but yeah, go figure.

Conclusion..No your not a jerk, but you are springing some play-styles on folks that don't like some of these kind of so-called 'strategies'.
Again to avoid this kind of unpleasantness..probably best to communicate via PM or some other manner what kind of MP match you want. They can take it or go away and no ones time is wasted.