New bugs

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Wed Aug 29, 2001 11:42 pm

Originally posted by Josan:

Is this another exploit? So I cant use other Hqs to supply corps?

The other commentary seems me out of wiew. I can exploit one feature ( if really I do) but you are speaking about cheating and dont forget, Mist, I dont cheat.Maybe you do but Im not. Im beging to be tired of people like you <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Josan.

Josan,

It's time for me to get on my soapbox and correct a very big misconception. The game box for WIR calls it a World War II Simulation. In 1991 when this game was published it was as close to a simulation as a war game could get with the state of computer technology that existed at the time. It was neither a simulation then nor is it one now no matter how much people try to modify it with the limitations imposed by DOS. When people play against each other they have the option to impose any house rules on each other that can be agreed upon. When people play against the computer they are free to play this "game" any way they chose without the criticism from those individuals who want this "game" to play like the simulation it isn't. There has been an effort to stop the game AI from cheating so the "game" can be as close to a simulation as possible within the constraints of DOS. Some of the AI cheats have been removed so the simulation camp seems to feel that if the AI wont do something, the player shouldn't. They characterize any game play not representative of the AI as unethical or cheating. For the information of those individules who want this "game" to be a simulation, it isn't and probably never will be. The computer AI can and does things that the human player is prohibited from doing. The AI can move air groups and conduct player directed air operations on the same turn, transfer divisions onto Korps/armies and conduct attacks the same turn, move large numbers of divisions all over the map without regard for rail movement points, and evacuate divisions from surrounded HQs even though there is no escape route. Do I agree with the AIs' ability to be able to do these things, yes. It is after all just a game and the AI is not large enough to be able to conduct a credible operation without these abilities. It is up to the individual player do decide how he wants to conduct his game play and eliminate certain advantages he has as a thinking human against the AI. One of the simplest ways is raise the difficulty level if the game gets too easy. Just don't criticize others who may not be as smart as you and find the game a challange.

Svar

PS. I also use supplies from HQs that are not involved in heavy combat to support those HQs that are. After all that is exactly what Patton did in 1944.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Svar ]</p>

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:19 am

Originally posted by Josan:

Is this another exploit? So I cant use other Hqs to supply corps?

The other commentary seems me out of wiew. I can exploit one feature ( if really I do) but you are speaking about cheating and dont forget, Mist, I dont cheat.Maybe you do but Im not. Im beging to be tired of people like you <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Josan.

Dear Josan! I am realy very sory that I 've made you to begin to feel tired of people like me. But I am begging you to read my answer. I did not say neither that you cheat nor that I do that. I believe that you are honest player and would not act like cheater in any circumstances. Please forgive me if I've accidentaly insulted you.
However, I still think that using of "mule" HQ for special supply is exploit. In other words it is a thing which is neither a way the game is expected to act nor historical thing. Certanly one can give special supply to heavy unit and then pur this unit under command of HQ which is situated very far(for example to OKH ) or to make AGN to command panzer korpses near Rostov. There will be no sensible penalty for that.
It will not be a cheat. But it will not be fair play either. Even reassigning units to the near HQ is not historical thing because "simple" change of command during both defensive and offensive operations was very hard thing which required high proficiensy from commanders and was very risky thing during "hot" periods. Of course you, honest player, wouldn't do things like this.
If speaking if game terms. OPs are distributed among HQ reflect capability of HQs to direct/supply troops under their command. One can spend all OPs and suffer penalty for having low ammount of them. This is ok. But when one uses part of his HQ for special supply and remaining part for commanding then it is a nonsence which has nothing with historical events. That is my personal position. I do not forbid to do that and I am not the God here and I am not even Ed Cogburn.
If I still make you tired, please do not read my messages and place me to your personal ignore list.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:58 am

Moonfog, I have writen my point about using of "mule" HQs for special supply above.
As for number of Soviet HQs "unfairness", I thing it is just a problem of amount and names of HQs. Yes, there was very limited amount of front HQs in every given period of war. It can possibly be solved if Arnaud will make for each HQ appearance time and remove(decrease) readiness penalty for Soviets. It will make Soviet player to operate with lesser amount of HQs each year but each HQ will direct larger amount of troops and so its subbordinates will suffer from poor command which will improve itself as the number of fronts increase(South Front in the begining and 3 Ukranian fronts later in the war). But it is just a theoretic assumptions which I think will never be realized in WiR.
Ability of using of all Soviet HQs from the very begining is I think one of the serious game flaws. But with enough imagination player can ignore this and think that Caucasus front in the begining of war in Russia is just army HQ.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]</p>

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:17 am

I only know one thing. Too many discusions, too many personal attacks... I dont believe this is the better way to help WIR. The only can get is that people dont play this game and play the new releases. Play the new HPS Russo-German war 41-44 without fear of make a exploit or a cheat...

Seriously, I dont believe we are helping WIR right now.Please JUST PLAY THE GAME !!! ( I think Mr.Grysby would like that )

Josan.

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 2:07 am

Originally posted by Mist:

This is obvious exploit and game spoiler.
To spoil this even more I can say that you do not need to use your own HQs - go and change to enemy HQs and steal his OPs for special supply.

Since I'm the originator of the comment this refers to, I must reply. First, the transfer of materials between HQs in time of need was, I'm sure, widely used during the war (and this is what OP stand for). Second, Transfer of command of units between HQs was quite common and easily achieved, at least for the Germans. Flexibility was one of the German's great strengths. Third, The fact that the Soviets have a larger number of HQs is quite fitting when you consider that in actual fact they had more of EVERYTHING than the Germans during the war. Your demand they have even HQs (it is implied by you at a minimum) is as absurd as demanding both sides have the same number of divisions, tanks, airplanes, etc., so forth, and so on. This is a recreation of an actual event and not a game of Chess. Lastly, your tone and nature of your comments were indeed meant to offend. How could they not be when you such brash and outrageous statements. Don't feel bad, I find it a common occurance on boards due to the impersonal nature of the form of communication we are using and trend in this world toward insensitivity.

I normally have played the Germans when I play vs. a human opponent (just love that Blitzkreig) and commonly win in Dec '41 against an opponent in the original game and they can special supply 'til the cows come home. It doesn't stop me from crushing them. Makes me wonder about the skills of a player crying "Wolf!" so easily.

END RANT...Exhale.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 2:36 am

A couple of things here on the comments here. First there is an issue with native language. Mist is Russian. Josan is from Spain. I did not take Mist's comment on the HQ use as an attack on Josan, and he apologized for any offense caused. He was stating his opinion about using the multiple HQs to boost readiness. The second comment about using enemy HQs is probably due to the fact that Mist is the one that found it. By the way, he has never played against a person in the game, I believe, so he sure wasn't looking for this to be able to take advantage of it.

As has already been stated, we are all welcome to our opinions, and the whole idea of the forum is to share ideas and yes, opinions too. It seems we are reaching the point where forcefully stating an opinion about a legitimate issue without attacking someone personally is being taken as an attack anyway. Let's all try owning our opinions and not take offense when someone else has a different opinion. It happpens. There are design issues in the game, and I would suggest that anybody who wants to play another person work out an agreement with the other player as to what issues, which are fortunately being raised here so they can be discussed, are okay to use in the game and which should be banned.

Personally, most of these are molehills being made into mountains, and I don't have too many concerns except for tank-less tank/panzer corps. The HQ boost and change trick is no worse than taking every factory and producing Panthers, or Tigers, or He177s, or whatever other weapon. I don't pick on Soviet weapons as they don't really have any killer weapons, at least until the very end of the game. I don't worry about it in my games, even though it wouldn't have happened historically because the incremental costs would have become prohibitive. Work out the issues with your opponent, and keep posting your opinion here about different play issues, as this allows everyone to have an idea of what can be of concern. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: RickyB ]</p>

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 3:53 am

Originally posted by RickyB:
It seems we are reaching the point where forcefully stating an opinion about a legitimate issue without attacking someone personally is being taken as an attack anyway. Let's all try owning our opinions and not take offense when someone else has a different opinion.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Rick, really do you think that Mist stated is not a direct attack? not is the first attack I get from somebody and sure not will be the last.

Josan.

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 4:05 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:

I normally have played the Germans when I play vs. a human opponent (just love that Blitzkreig) and commonly win in Dec '41 against an opponent in the original game and they can special supply 'til the cows come home. It doesn't stop me from crushing them.

BrickReid, maybe you are the fews in the forum that thinks Im not a cheater and seems you are very good player too so whats about a challenge?

Warning Im a tough player <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Josan.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 6:00 am

Originally posted by Josan:
Rick, really do you think that Mist stated is not a direct attack? not is the first attack I get from somebody and sure not will be the last.

Josan.

Hi Josan,

I really don't think it was a direct attack on you. It was an attack on using HQs in the way being discussed for sure, but I don't know why Mist would attack you. Again, he has never even played anybody, but has his opinion about what is a proper play method, as I guess almost everybody does. Me I don't care how people play.

BrickReid · Post by **BrickReid** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:48 am

Originally posted by Josan:

BrickReid, maybe you are the fews in the forum that thinks Im not a cheater and seems you are very good player too so whats about a challenge?

Warning Im a tough player <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Josan.

I'm currently playing 2 games vs. a former shipmate (we were in the US Coast Guard together) and buddy of mine (one with me the Germans and one with me the Soviets). I'm also playing a solo game as the Germans to try to learn the ins and outs of the Matrix version of WIR. So for awhile at least I've got enough games going to keep me busy. I will, however, be happy to play you at a later date as I'm interested to know how others have approached playing the game.

I would like to state that I see almost no one in these forums to be a cheat. I consider a fair game to be subjective rather than an objective concept. You can play the game as a strict historian and place non-game induced limits on play or you can consider anything that the game lets you do to be fair and the only way to cheat is to make edits of the files outside of the game. And anything in between. For myself, I use the game features that are in the rule book as an initial source and whatever I can figure out how to do as all being legitimate. I do this because game developers are notorious for leaving out features of a game so they can save a dollar. I just don't look for ways to exploit. If I run into a capability of the game that is unwritten because I'm trying to accomplish an objective in the game, then I consider it a legitimate option. I also play where my opponent is the one to do the execution of my turn, and I execute his turn, to remove temptation. I save the game, execute it, then send the file to my opponent to execute again and do his turn, repeat. I have not yet tried the PBEM version. Is it fool proof? Or is it just a convenience tool for the e-mail function and if someone wants to rerun a turn over and over again, they can, and make edits each time?

Oh, and Mist, sorry I came back too strong in my response. If the problem is one of fluency of the English language then I can't hold you to implied meanings in your writing.
Just say that I don't agree the things being discussed are an exploit because of my above reason that game guides are notoriously incomplete (especially SSI game books).

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 9:45 am

Originally posted by BrickReid:

I'm currently playing 2 games vs. a former shipmate (we were in the US Coast Guard together) and buddy of mine (one with me the Germans and one with me the Soviets). I'm also playing a solo game as the Germans to try to learn the ins and outs of the Matrix version of WIR. So for awhile at least I've got enough games going to keep me busy. I will, however, be happy to play you at a later date as I'm interested to know how others have approached playing the game.

I would like to state that I see almost no one in these forums to be a cheat. I consider a fair game to be subjective rather than an objective concept. You can play the game as a strict historian and place non-game induced limits on play or you can consider anything that the game lets you do to be fair and the only way to cheat is to make edits of the files outside of the game. And anything in between. For myself, I use the game features that are in the rule book as an initial source and whatever I can figure out how to do as all being legitimate. I do this because game developers are notorious for leaving out features of a game so they can save a dollar. I just don't look for ways to exploit. If I run into a capability of the game that is unwritten because I'm trying to accomplish an objective in the game, then I consider it a legitimate option. I also play where my opponent is the one to do the execution of my turn, and I execute his turn, to remove temptation. I save the game, execute it, then send the file to my opponent to execute again and do his turn, repeat. I have not yet tried the PBEM version. Is it fool proof? Or is it just a convenience tool for the e-mail function and if someone wants to rerun a turn over and over again, they can, and make edits each time?

Oh, and Mist, sorry I came back too strong in my response. If the problem is one of fluency of the English language then I can't hold you to implied meanings in your writing.
Just say that I don't agree the things being discussed are an exploit because of my above reason that game guides are notoriously incomplete (especially SSI game books).

BrickReid,

You couldn't possibly play the game as you describe using the PBEM feature. If you save without executing the combat phase, all your plotted moves would be reset when your opponent opened the game. Not only that but all the operations that are executed prior to the orders phase will be executed again which causes all kinds of problems. Your method is definitely easier to emplement than the PBEM feature if you trust you opponent. In the PBEM games you must continue through the entire turn and execute combat at which point the game saves your move in a save game slot that you chose. It takes some getting used to but your opponent gets an encrypted turn that only allows him to see his side. Of course you have to wait until you get your turn back before you see just how well you did but you already have that. I guess it is just weird for me who is used to instant feedback.

Svar

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 2:27 pm

Originally posted by murx:
1. Against the AI I randomly get 'double corps' -

This is a known problem. Arnaud is putting off for now trying to fix the AI problems as the AI code is very complex and he can take care of other bugs a lot faster than he can handle AI bugs.

2. I have in the '41 campaign a ?brigade? with 1-3/202 Panzer Bn but it dosn't show anywhere on the whole map (all several HQs have slots left) but it is in the ALT-(R)eport.

Good job, you just found a bug. The 26th panzer division has a delay of 110 turns but the panzer battalions 1-3/202 have a delay of about 59 turns. They won't show up because the panzer division they're supposed to be added to doesn't exist. The arrival times for all 4 units has to be on the same turn (I think).

Rick, are you reading this? The 26th is supposed to go to the Italian Front. So which delay is right, 110 or 59?

3. In the ALT-(R)eport the total numbers of units (tanks & aircrafts) seem to be seriously bugged.

Yes, known problem, should be fixed in next version.

4. Sometimes when I got units to surrender that have more then 1000 squads and lots of artillery the battle summary doesn't say something like 50000-60000 men but 1000. I'm not sure if the number displayed is the number of squads that got destroyed but it looks like the 65355 overflow.

Could you send me a saved game that shows this? Using the latest beta version, I can't duplicate this problem. This may have been fixed, I think Arnaud was working earlier on the battle summary.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 2:53 pm

Originally posted by Josan:
Is this another exploit? So I cant use other Hqs to supply corps?

He didn't say you were cheating Josan, although I wouldn't have used the word "obvious". I can see how it might not be obvious. This thing has come up before, before you arrived here, so some people (myself included) have already hardened their positions on this issue.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 3:13 pm

Originally posted by BrickReid:
Add to this, I deploy the reserve Soviet HQs in my first turn and use them as OP mules. I change HQs to one of my mules, special supply the corps, then change HQ command again to return the corps to a HQ with lots of OP points and a high quality commander.

You use the term "mule" and still don't see why its an exploit? Do you believe at any time between 1941 and 1945, that multiple HQs were "sharing" the command of an army? An army with *multiple* chains of command? HQs don't work as cooperative organizations working in parallel, historically the things that the OP points represent wouldn't help since they are almost totaly redundent from each HQ. Take Army leadership with a corps getting OPs from 2 HQs. How does having 2 army leaders help the corps? Having 2 leaders certainly doesn't double the OPs, realistically having 2 chains of command would hurt you not help you.

You've got no historical leg to stand on here, but thats just my opinion since I strongly favor historical accuracy as others here can warn you about me. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

the ability to double special supply transferred units CAN make a major difference to the Soviet player during the Blitzkrieg and initial fighting withdrawals of the game.

Of *COURSE* it can make a major difference! Ask yourself *WHY* thats the case. If Gary meant to allow "HQ mules", why didn't he make it so that any HQ could help any corps in range?

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 3:30 pm

Originally posted by Mist:

To spoil this even more I can say that you do not need to use your own HQs - go and change to enemy HQs and steal his OPs for special supply.

Ed, Rick, etc...

This is not an opinion is a personal attack because is not make cheats steal the enemy Ops? I see I have very good friends around here.
If every time I post I must hear things like that..

Josan.

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 3:52 pm

Josan writes... This is not an opinion is a personal attack because is not make cheats steal the enemy Ops? I see I have very good friends around here. If every time I post I must hear things like that..

I think that Mist was making a joke...of the "you think that is bad, try this"...variety. But again, part of the problem is that english is neither his nor your native language. It is very easy to make an error in intrepetation especially without body language. I firmly believe the next world war will start over a misunderstood email.
I have personally seen a fight start due to a native speaker misunderstanding what a non-native speaker was saying. Given the fact Mist appologised I don't think he was insulting you intentionally.

Rick made some very good points a few messages back which I think you have read. The trouble is that this whole question depends a lot on how you look at things. I am in the historical group...but even I will allow 1 Inf division in a Pz Korps for convience. But other people don't think about the historical simulation side of things (you can make up your own mind where you fall) and any discussion between the two groups is essentially mutally incomprehensible. I played email against someone who "utilized the game ability to the fullest" and found it very frustrating...and I know for a fact he found me very frustrating. It soured me on PBEM. No way now without fully understanding what the other person wanted in the game or to get out of the game.

Just ask yourself what you want to get out of the game?...for me it is a question of simulating the german attack on the soviet union, and can I do better than was done historically (with either side) given the resourses available at the time? So I want the game to play as much as possible as a historical simulation. This is no better than someone who looks at it like the game "Blitzkreig!" by AH and plays it as a red-blue war.

Something I have learned in years of being a member of the Starfire list...don't take anything not directly aimed at you too personally and give the other person the benifit of the doubt for as long as you can...even if your have the justifiable urge to reach thru the internet and strangle the moronic dolt. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Just my 5 pfenig worth anyway.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 4:56 pm

Originally posted by Josan:

Ed, Rick, etc...
This is not an opinion is a personal attack because is not make cheats steal the enemy Ops? I see I have very good friends around here.
If every time I post I must hear things like that..
Josan.

Please Josan, calm down. I had no intention to insult you. All I had said was "This is obvious exploit and game spoiler. To spoil this even more I can say that you do not need to use your own HQs - go and change to enemy HQs and steal his OPs for special supply."
May be I was wrong about obviousness. Probably I should be more accurate in my expressions to avoid hurting anyone. But I did not even think of you as a cheater. And certanly I did not mean that you steal OPs because you just could not know that it is possible. I've just shown you another way to "use the game at the fullest" (c) Someone. IMHO this way is not much worser that having mule HQs. I did not say that you do dishonest things, I did not even make a hint on it. And what happens? You blame me in insulting you personaly and strike back with very personal: "Mist, I dont cheat.Maybe you do but Im not. Im beging to be tired of people like you <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> ". All right. Little misunderstanding we had between us. I AM SORRY.
I 've given you my appologies for you not understanding my non-insulting post. And what is then? Why are you making "Ed, Rick etc..." so patiently and correctly explaining you what I was meaning? Do you refuse to accept my appologies? Huh?

Josans · Post by **Josans** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:40 pm

Originally posted by Mist:

Please Josan, calm down. I had no intention to insult you. All I had said was "This is obvious exploit and game spoiler. To spoil this even more I can say that you do not need to use your own HQs - go and change to enemy HQs and steal his OPs for special supply."
May be I was wrong about obviousness. Probably I should be more accurate in my expressions to avoid hurting anyone. But I did not even think of you as a cheater. And certanly I did not mean that you steal OPs because you just could not know that it is possible. I've just shown you another way to "use the game at the fullest" (c) Someone. IMHO this way is not much worser that having mule HQs. I did not say that you do dishonest things, I did not even make a hint on it. And what happens? You blame me in insulting you personaly and strike back with very personal: "Mist, I dont cheat.Maybe you do but Im not. Im beging to be tired of people like you <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> ". All right. Little misunderstanding we had between us. I AM SORRY.
I 've given you my appologies for you not understanding my non-insulting post. And what is then? Why are you making "Ed, Rick etc..." so patiently and correctly explaining you what I was meaning? Do you refuse to accept my appologies? Huh?

No Mist I accept your apologies and sorry if I have annoy you.Its time to speak about the game or the new version, arent you?

Josan.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:58 pm

Originally posted by Josan:

No Mist I accept your apologies and sorry if I have annoy you.Its time to speak about the game or the new version, arent you?

Josan.

Svar · Post by **Svar** » Fri Aug 31, 2001 12:42 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

You use the term "mule" and still don't see why its an exploit? Do you believe at any time between 1941 and 1945, that multiple HQs were "sharing" the command of an army? An army with *multiple* chains of command? HQs don't work as cooperative organizations working in parallel, historically the things that the OP points represent wouldn't help since they are almost totaly redundent from each HQ. Take Army leadership with a corps getting OPs from 2 HQs. How does having 2 army leaders help the corps? Having 2 leaders certainly doesn't double the OPs, realistically having 2 chains of command would hurt you not help you.

You've got no historical leg to stand on here, but thats just my opinion since I strongly favor historical accuracy as others here can warn you about me.

Ed,

If Operation Points in WIR were the same thing as Preparation Points in Pac War, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, Operation Points in WIR are generated and used just like supply and fuel is used Pac War so the planning/command and control aspect you want to assign to Operation Points just doesn't exist. When people use Operation Points as supply and fuel to raise the readiness of Korps/Armies assigned to a different HQ all they are doing is transferring supplies. In 1944 didn't Patton get more than his fair share of the available supplies?

Svar