Page 6 of 6
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:35 pm
by 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.
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 7:49 am
by 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)
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:31 am
by 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. [;)]
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1
Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 11:04 am
by 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 [&:][>:]
RE: Cheating and Historical Turn 1
Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 7:23 pm
by 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.