All the fuel you ever want - For free!

[Michael T]

I just want to make it clear, that I reported this as soon as *I* discovered it. I never used it in a game and never would.

If other people knew of it then I think that they should have reported it. But I am not them.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I find it amazing that something thats a rule is seen as a bug or that its some kind of revelation.

This is an exploit, not a bug. Something that is working as designed, but not being used as designed or intended (looping air bases through the national reserve as extra supply depots).
In the little bit I've dabbled in software testing (not games, mind you) most of the effort goes into making sure things work the way they're supposed to.
'Misuse' has almost infinite variables.
The bosses want a 'fool proof' system and I always tried to explain one can easily underestimate the ingenuity of fools.
In this case players want a 'gamey proof' system, but the ingenuity of players can be underestimated.
Folks interested in a good game will bring these issues to the attention of developers.
Folks more interested in win/loss records will keep them to themselves.

As we know all poeple have thier "personal options".

Was "gamey" 1v1=2v1? Russian players thought it was not and exploited the rule to death as has been posted on thread after thread before it was findly nerfed.

Was gamey muling? I came forward with that long before it was finaly nerfed in AAR after AAR. I even play tested it vs Flaviusx long before it was nerfed.

Was gamey spam bombing air bases Seminole or is spam bombing a single hex over and over before conducting a ground assault or is using the LW's bombers as transports instead of bombers for 95% of the game "gamey"?

Is gamey the Lvov pocket? Is gamey running for the hills as russian player? Is gamey railing forward some russian factories so they can be captured by germans to save on supplies gamey(Flaviusx)? Is gamey building wall after wall of forts? I am and others can go on and on with gamey tactics, loopholes ect ect.

If these things are gamey then I guess Seminole everyone is a fool guilty of being only conserned with winning and losing.

I have come forward with allot of things in the past only to be ignored or scorned by "one side" when this game came out long ago and most of these things have been nerfed now.

Coming forward with something thats in the rules is not a discovery, was the misuse of 1v1=2v1 a discovery? No and No.

If something is printed in black and white its hardly a revelation, its there by design.

Static mode is there by design is it not?

Anyways I not going to claim I am a saint like some others and claim some poeple are being gamey while I use gamey tactics.

I think most are guilty of being gamey.

We just like to think we are not as bad as the other guy, because we are less gamey Saint Seminole.

Pelton

[swkuh]

If its in the rules, then its part of the game. This policy doesn't mean the rules can't be improved. A good discussion of "gamey" moves is instructive to me at least, and I can always adjust my gaming to use or not use the feature.

Always good to improve one's approach to playing.

[Seminole]

Was "gamey" 1v1=2v1? Russian players thought it was not and exploited the rule to death as has been posted on thread after thread before it was findly nerfed.

CV is an abstraction. Go to a nearby army base and ask a division commander what his 'CV' is.
The idea that 2v1 is enough to dislodge someone is just a rule set decision (why not 3v1?) to try and create play balance.
1v1 was instituted because in order to facilitate the Barbarossa blitzkrieg the Soviets were weak as kittens. To try and play balance their ability to mass and strike back, but still permit the blitzkrieg, the 1v1 rule was created. When it was discovered, through play testing, to be an overcompensation it was limited, again to improve play balance.
There's nothing sacred about 2v1 or 1v1 or 1000v1. These are just game rules intended to produce a desired (and plausible) outcome.

Was gamey muling? I came forward with that long before it was finaly nerfed in AAR after AAR. I even play tested it vs Flaviusx long before it was nerfed.

Is "muling" switching units between HQs to chain HQBUs? If HQBUs are limited by rule, and you look for a way to circumvent that rule, that strikes me as a text book example of an exploit. I hold the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. If you're devoting your energy to getting around the spirit of the rules instead of playing within the spirit of the rules, why have rules? To see who is the best lawyer?

Was gamey spam bombing air bases

I don't know enough about its efficacy to comment accurately. Is spam bombing exploiting an aspect of the air war game engine to achieve a specific result. Tell me what you think 'spam bombing' is, what is accomplishes, and why it accomplishes this and I can better answer your question (if you're looking for an answer).

Seminole or is spam bombing a single hex over and over before conducting a ground assault

Perhaps in the same sense that the prelude to Operation Cobra was gamey. But really neither side in the east could mount a similar air campaign. I think the marginal utility of additional air attacks should be lessened. In my view the shock and disruption of the 2nd or 3rd airstrike should be more than the 28th, 29th, etc.

or is using the LW's bombers as transports instead of bombers for 95% of the game "gamey"?

To what extent was this accomplished in the war?
I know in Desert Storm the U.S. airlifted a large fuel depot in behind Iraqi lines to refuel the 'left hook', but did the LW do things like this in the war? Could they? My thought is the air supply was meant to allow for situations like the resupply of the Stalingrad pocket, not to create an aerial Red Ball Express. I grok flying supplies in to surrounded troops (and agree with those who think the game engine is too harsh on the CV of pocketed units), but could Goering's LW actually do what some German players do with the game engine?

Is gamey the Lvov pocket?

I think so. It's really just exploiting the IgoUgo aspect of the game engine. The whole notion of a 'scripted' first turn for the Germans is kind of farcical. They had done a lot of recon, but even they were surprised how many Russians they kept running into. The 20/20 foresight Germans players enter the first turn with amplifies the IgoUgo issue.
Road to Moscow was a game design to try and ameliorate this, but it never hit the shelves.
The 'Rumanian Activation' aspect is part of why Lvov is gamey.
For me at this point the game doesn't really start until after turn 2 when the soviets can finally move whatever is left of the Red Army. The German player is essentially playing the AI before that.

Is gamey running for the hills as russian player?

If Barclay was a gamey Scot, then yes. Otherwise it is a strategy, not new to Russia, that a player operating with the hindsight of history is utilizing. No more or less gamey than redistributing Pz Corps to emphasize AGN or AGS. I think the game was created for people to try different strategies than those historically employed.

Is gamey railing forward some russian factories so they can be captured by germans to save on supplies gamey(Flaviusx)?

Yeah, I think it is. It's really people trying to tweak the production system when the designers explicitly didn't include that feature in the game. I try to move back every factory that I reasonably can, and that's why I don't 'run for the hills'.

Is gamey building wall after wall of forts? I am and others can go on and on with gamey tactics, loopholes ect ect.

I don't think that is gamey. Rules have been tweaked to try and play balance them, but I don't mind players exploring different strategies in this regard. Hitler was always annoyed his generals in the East seemed to constantly be looking over their shoulder at a shorter line just behind them, but his WWI experience also caused him to rely to greatly on fortifications with such lines in the West. You should read Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East, I think you'd enjoy his take on the 'Bunker Fuhrer', and wasted opportunities.

I have come forward with allot of things in the past only to be ignored or scorned by "one side" when this game came out long ago and most of these things have been nerfed now.
Coming forward with something thats in the rules is not a discovery, was the misuse of 1v1=2v1 a discovery? No and No.
If something is printed in black and white its hardly a revelation, its there by design.

The issue isn't whether it is there, it is whether it is being used as envisioned, or being exploited in a manner not initially conceived to confer an advantage not considered. I think a reasonable person can tell the difference.
I think you can tell the difference.
I think that is why it touched a nerve.
I'm interested in making a better game. MichaelT is obviously interested in making a better game.
What are you interested in?

[Peltonx]

The issue isn't whether it is there, it is whether it is being used as envisioned, or being exploited in a manner not initially conceived to confer an advantage not considered. I think a reasonable person can tell the difference.

Your option differs from mine on what is considered gamey, withen the rules and grey areas. Which I am sure other poeple option's will be different. I respect other poeple options. I might strongly disagree, but thats there option. We will all have different options on what is envisioned or what is an exploit or what was is or might be concieved to confer an advantage.

See that our option as players. What one person considers "reasonable" might be considered extreme by the next.

Thats why the burden is 100% on the designers and not the players to write the rules so that their product(The Game) doesn't have exploits and is played as they initially conceived.

I think how one person "tells the difference" is very different from one person to the next to the next to the next. Thats why games have rules. The players play withen the rules by design.

I think that is why it touched a nerve.

The key word being you think, again thats your option, but just a guess. I can respect that, but I disagree.

I'm interested in making a better game.

So aren't we all, but each players option on what would make a better game is different from one player to the next. Thats why the rules that are spelled out in the game manual are so important. Agian the burden is on the designers not the players to make the rules. The players simply play withen the rule sets.

MichaelT is obviously interested in making a better game.

I am thinking this is not a revelation, but that my option.

What are you interested in?

I am interested in a better game. It has become better and better with each patch. Thats why I have been posting info on issues in my option that are exploits for over a year.

[Seminole]

We will all have different options on what is envisioned or what is an exploit or what was is or might be concieved to confer an advantage.

The word you're looking for is opinion.
And there is an arbiter, his name is in the title of the game. The quick response to this exploit indicates to me this was unintended.
Do you think this was actually meant as a way for players to fuel dump HQs?
In your first post you wrote: "This is an exploit not a bug. An over looked loop hole in the rules"

Thats why the burden is 100% on the designers and not the players to write the rules so that their product(The Game) doesn't have exploits and is played as they initially conceived.

You're giving short shrift to just how complex a system this game is, and how the misuse of a single aspect can have unintended consequences. As I said before, iterations of misuse are practically limitless (you even acknowledged that increasing complexity means more likelihood for an exploit) in even a moderately complex system. Most testing focuses on making sure things work like they should.
The burden is on them to fix it, while the burden is on players to point out exploits.

So aren't we all

I wonder when I read:

A discovery? Hehehehe
An 18th month old discovery to me and a few others.
I find it amazing that something thats a rule is seen as a bug or that its some kind of revelation.

It's not the rule that is a revelation, it is the potential for misuse that was a revelation to the designers.

Did you think the designers intended for sending air groups to reserve to become an extra supply source?

If you built a record on exploiting loopholes in the rules I want to be the first to congratulate you on being the best lawyer in the WitE community.

[Peltonx]

It's not the rule that is a revelation, it is the potential for misuse that was a revelation to the designers.

Did you think the designers intended for sending air groups to reserve to become an extra supply source?

If you built a record on exploiting loopholes in the rules I want to be the first to congratulate you on being the best lawyer in the WitE community.

Thats your opinion. There are many ways that the supply system can be messed with on both sides that I am sure were not intended that can be considered exploits or loopholes.

I play by the rules. I do not right the rules.

How it could not have been seen for what it clearly was for the last 18 months or during beta is a revelation in an of itself.

20.4.4. Return of Excess Supply
If a non-HQ unit, to include air base and rail repair units, has 200 percent or more of a type of supply on hand, it will return them to the HQ unit to which it is attached. An air base units must be within 15 hexes of its HQ unit to return excess supply, while all other units must be within 10 hexes. This return of excess supply cannot occur if either the unit or its HQ unit is currently isolated.

Its plain as day.

Again as I have stated for a very long time, thats why its important to have poeple beta testing that think out side the box a little.

So your not patching out "exploits" for several years after the product has gone gold. You can focus on game balance, bugs ect ect.

Thats my option, heheheeh

[Seminole]

Did you think the designers intended for sending air groups to reserve to become an extra supply source?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

Did you think the designers intended for sending air groups to reserve to become an extra supply source?

2. Rule Change (Section 20.4.4) – Excess supplies will be sent back to friendly cities instead of to HQs.

Did this fix the issue or simply make a new one?

I nor you can read the devs minds, we can only play by the rules.

[Seminole]

I'm asking your opinion.

Did you think the designers intended for sending air groups to reserve to become an extra supply source?

[Joel Billings]

We didn't intend it, no, and as soon as it was pointed out to us we made the change to send them to cities instead. Even a great group of 10-20 testers cannot come up with all the things that the thousands of players will think of doing. [:)]

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

We didn't intend it, no, and as soon as it was pointed out to us we made the change to send them to cities instead. Even a great group of 10-20 testers cannot come up with all the things that the thousands of players will think of doing. [:)]

Grats, but now a German player simply has a huge depot in a city.

The 2nd supply phase units draw from citys.

So as I am doing my 3 turn chain I capture a city many hexes from the railhead. The the airbase thingy and the supplys go to a city say Kharkov on turn 6.

The chain has another turn. Stalino on turn 7 or some other crazy push some plase esle.

Of course I save all my lvl bombers ect for the following turn. Rostov? heheh

Just figured I point that out, not that I would ever do that.

Mybee next patch you can fix that part.

Pelton

[Gorforlin]

I am sure Pelton like MT found this on his lunch break at work.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Grats, but now a German player simply has a huge depot in a city...Mybee next patch you can fix that part.

Pelton

That is all just speculation. Provide some save files showing what you think is an exploit and I'm sure the devs will look at it.

[Joel Billings]

I'd be surprised if he supply in the city would flow as quickly to the units as the supply in HQs. If you see this happening, please do get us a save and we'll come up with something else, but I have a feeling Pavel took that in to account when he made the change.

[Banori]

Big found Michael T !

from time to time i read in the forum. there are many "things", vou have found . Hut ab ( i raise my hat). I thinks ist very late to say that, but is inetresting to read the forum, for news for a player like me who plays only from time to time. I think this game is too big to me. so much you must keep in mind every turn.
But it is the best ww2 game i ever played or that i knew

[Michael T]

This bug is still not quite squashed.

If you position an Pz Army HQ around 11 to 20 hexes away from your rail head along with an empty Army airbase and then transfer in 9 X JU88 recon aircraft next turn your Pz Army HQ will have approx 600 Tons of fuel. You can then move this HQ to where ever you need some fuel an assign said Panzers. If you transfer the JU88's to another Army airbase on a following turn it will get the free fuel and so on, thus many Pz/Mot units can move on well beyond any normal logistical limits.

[morvael]

Good catch. Easy to fix. I'll make airbases draw supplies individually, not through HQ.

[Icier]

At least someone is taking positive action..good on yer morvael.

[morvael]

Already in testing [:D]
obviously for .09, not .08.