Matrix Games Forums

Right now it's way too easy to cheat. Before the editor, PBEM skipping, PBEM simul, blah blah blah, the major holes in security really need to be fixed. I'm surprised there aren't more threads regarding this subject.

This has come up before, and if I recall, correctly was said to be technically too difficult to change, or possibly requiring a fundamental change to the game set up.
 
It should, however, be pretty straight forward. Revising the existing process with the following should work, and maybe not need any database changes. Basically it is the same as the existing system, but the die rolls and chits are revealed at the beginning of the next round, rather than at the end of the current round. This way the chits and die rolls are revealed after a file exchange, and therefore can not be changed/re-rolled. Would this only add one file exchange?
 
Let’s see if I can get this right.
 
Step 1: Attacker (A) chooses a chit, the game makes the attackers dice roll, but does not[/i] show the attacker (yet). Attacker sends file to defender.
 
Step 2: Defender (D) receives file, selects chit. The game makes the defenders die roll, but does not[/i] reveal either the attacker’s chit or the die rolls to the defender (yet). (if D selects withdraw, game rules withdraw, but does not show D). D sends file to A.
 
Step 3: A receives file, and is the first player to see both chit choices and both dice rolls (and withdraw role). Assuming D did not withdraw, A takes first round losses, sees the number, but not the type of losses taken by D, and then decides to reinforce/commit guard. (If D successfully withdraws, file goes back to D and there is no further action). Assuming no withdraw, game rolls for outflank (if any), but does not show A die roll result. Game rolls round 2 die roll for A, but also does not show A die roll result. A sends file to D.
 
Step 4: D receives file and see the chits and first round die rolls for first time (including the number, but not the type of A losses). D takes first round losses, then is shown the type of A’s losses, and then decides to reinforce/commit guard. Game rolls round 2 die rolls for D, but does not show D. D sends file to A.
 
Step 5: repeat 3. A takes second round losses, sees number of D’s losses, game rolls third round die roll but game does not show A his die roll. A sends files to D.
 
Step 6: report 4. D takes second round losses, sees A’s second round losses, and game rolls third round die roll but does not show D his die roll. D sends file to A.
 
Step 7: Attacker takes third round losses, sees D losses, and if unbroken, decides if there will be an extra day. A sends files to D.
 
Step 8: D takes third round losses, sees A losses, and if unbroken, decides if there will an extra day. D sends file to A.
 
Step 9: A takes final losses, selects chit for second day if any (go to step 1).
 
When one side breaks or both sides break, the battle is over, as per normal. If A breaks, he is the first to find out, but file needs to go back to D, who decides on pursuit (A can plead for mercy during this file exchange). If D breaks, he is the first to find out, but file needs to go to A, who decides on pursuit (D can plead for mercy at this stage). If no pursuit is possible (i.e. victor has no cavalry or has taken too much morale loss), then maybe this last exchange becomes simply for the winners information, and the game moves on once the loser has taken the losses.
 
If both sides break, then A will find out first.
 
As long as the attacker can live with seeing only the number of defender losses, instead of the type of loss, before deciding reinforcement/guard/third day, then there is no real change in the process.
 
I think this only adds one extra file exchange, which seems worth it to me, if it makes cheating much harder.

If there are no other arguments as to why this game is unplayable this should be the one:

IT'S WAY TOO EASY TO CHEAT!!!

That's the one solid argument every who cares to know should know. Bottom line.

That is one of my reasons for being a proponent of IP with loging in and out for play to continue as long as the players are there - So if its France's turn and they are kicking it with Austria and Prussia, Turkey can take a nap...  Or put it on auto with the new skip screens...  Not that there wasn't cheating with Face to Face, just not as easy...  that is why when we used to play we always announced builds and tracked total manpower so forces did not just show up from not being erased after a battle etc..  In that respect, the conputer keeps alot more honesty than most...  I still like the player vs AI but it is true, the computer still cheats there every once in a while too.

About security issuses.
I dont see why you need to know corps names etc, for forage rolls. This in general drops the security, since with a little math skill you can locate different special corps, by checking forage values.
 
 
Regards
Bresh

FYI...I will be looking to install some extra PBEM secutiry in 1.05-1.06

ORIGINAL: bresh

About security issuses.
I dont see why you need to know corps names etc, for forage rolls. This in general drops the security, since with a little math skill you can locate different special corps, by checking forage values.


Regards
Bresh

You should be able to look at what kinds (not actual corps) of corps are in any area at any time regardless. This limited FOW is just dumb and annoying.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: bresh

About security issuses.
I dont see why you need to know corps names etc, for forage rolls. This in general drops the security, since with a little math skill you can locate different special corps, by checking forage values.


Regards
Bresh

You should be able to look at what kinds (not actual corps) of corps are in any area at any time regardless. This limited FOW is just dumb and annoying.

I thought you could?

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: bresh

About security issuses.
I dont see why you need to know corps names etc, for forage rolls. This in general drops the security, since with a little math skill you can locate different special corps, by checking forage values.


Regards
Bresh

You should be able to look at what kinds (not actual corps) of corps are in any area at any time regardless. This limited FOW is just dumb and annoying.

I thought you could?

Often times I am unable to simply click in an area and have a list of the corps appear. Am I the only one with this problem?

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

Often times I am unable to simply click in an area and have a list of the corps appear. Am I the only one with this problem?

They should be there. Make sure you have the right view selected; remember, you can choose whether you're looking at AR/ER/AC/EC. Check the slider also (if you've most recently been looking at another area with a long list of corps, and then click on a new area, those corps may be hiding off the left end....

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

ORIGINAL: bresh

About security issuses.
I dont see why you need to know corps names etc, for forage rolls. This in general drops the security, since with a little math skill you can locate different special corps, by checking forage values.


Regards
Bresh

You should be able to look at what kinds (not actual corps) of corps are in any area at any time regardless. This limited FOW is just dumb and annoying.

Inf corps, yes, but say 1 Guard corps, janisary Light Cav, Artillery corps. Forage in a area 2(with modifiers) while the rest of the corps forage in value 3 or 4.
Then all know Ahh the Guard corps etc, is the one in that area..

It should say XX-corps, or XX-cav-corps. not named corps-names on forage rolls.
Also no point in posting autoforages.

Where XX is the MP, GB,FR,TU etc.

Regards
Bresh

You should be able to see the type of corps (Inf or Cav) but that is it! You should not be able to see Artillery, Guard types. I apologize for being redundant Bresh but you are right and this is the expected behavior.
 

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Often times I am unable to simply click in an area and have a list of the corps appear. Am I the only one with this problem?

Try right-clicking some other map area (any area except the one you are trying to get to or the one that currently has focus). Then click on it.

If this works, then there is already a bug report. But, I made it "tweak" level and in interface change, so it's on a back burner.

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Often times I am unable to simply click in an area and have a list of the corps appear. Am I the only one with this problem?

Try right-clicking some other map area (any area except the one you are trying to get to or the one that currently has focus). Then click on it.

If this works, then there is already a bug report. But, I made it "tweak" level and in interface change, so it's on a back burner.

Yeah, I have tried this and it doesn't work. This "technique, aka workaround" seems to work for most things so this was one of the first things I tried.

According to me, Id like to have a autosave option added in the game for PBEM games. And good Cancel option to comes with.
It is way too easy to reload the save file to do your turn again if its not as you liked it. If you wanted to break a city and doesnt breach, you just need to load the save game again an retry to breach it ! way too easy to always have what you want.

ORIGINAL: bOrIuM

According to me, Id like to have a autosave option added in the game for PBEM games. And good Cancel option to comes with.
It is way too easy to reload the save file to do your turn again if its not as you liked it. If you wanted to break a city and doesnt breach, you just need to load the save game again an retry to breach it ! way too easy to always have what you want.

Yes, this is one of the few security issues.

good point. I have never thought of this, but I tried it and that is exactly how it works. Plus, thanks to the thread, anyone like me that had not thought of this, now knows how to cheat. So PLEASE push this up the priority list. We all know 95% of us are honest, but..........

To me (a bit of a paranoid) it just sucks knowing it's this easy to cheat. I'd like to trust people but at the end of the day it's not worth it to play a game that takes so much time when you know the other guy can decide his own fate simply by reloading his turn.

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

To me (a bit of a paranoid) it just sucks knowing it's this easy to cheat. I'd like to trust people but at the end of the day it's not worth it to play a game that takes so much time when you know the other guy can decide his own fate simply by reloading his turn.

This type of problem should be very easy to fix. Why not have the game role a list of 100 rolls at the end of the previous players turn (say 100 roles for foraging, 100 for besieging, naval interception, naval combat, etc), then during the current players turn, the game just picks from that the top of that list for whatever type of roll? Basically this would mean all the die rolls happened during the previous player's turn, which neither the previous player can see, nor the current player change. If a player reloaded his turn, he would get the same rolls for foraging as the first time he tried to load it. The best the active player could then do is possibly change the order in which his/her corps foraged/besiged etc (even this could be almost eliminated with some more effort by assigning the die rolls to corps numbers and leaders). This greatly reduces the benefit of the reload cheat.

If you were afraid that a player might hack the code to get the rolls before opening his turn, then there are ways to deal with that too.

The game could still generate random numbers if it ever ran out, or for those strange events that don't come up very often, so only a few items would need a the couple of extra lines of code it would take.

The same thing can be done for battle files. Have all the die rolls for battle files generated in the previous players turn, so re-loading the file would do nothing, as you would always get the same result (have different lists for combat, reinforce, withdraw, outflank, etc.).

Now, if you also hid the opponents chit selection until after active player (whether Attacker of deffender) has emailed his turn off, then the system is secure from such simple cheats.

The reload cheat is so easy to elminate, I can't see it taking more than a day's worth of programming effort (of course, I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea).

So it's just easier for you to assume that anyone else you're playing with it cheating, but you're a paragon of virtue?

That's High class there...

Todd

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

To me (a bit of a paranoid) it just sucks knowing it's this easy to cheat. I'd like to trust people but at the end of the day it's not worth it to play a game that takes so much time when you know the other guy can decide his own fate simply by reloading his turn.