01-10-2003 00:49									#1
	Is GCA cheating? Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

They have been very "lucky"

	01-10-2003 00:51									#2
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Why not use this thread to keep track of the RNG outcomes from their attacks,

So far IIRC they have attacked and killed one fortified NM with a horse w/o losing any HPs.

	01-10-2003 01:18									#3
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by OPD So far IIRC they have attacked and killed one fortified NM with a horse w/o losing any HPs.

Actually they probably attacked with their elite Horse, which we can't see and don't know how much HP they lost (almost 100% sure it's at Random Outpost 9).

	01-10-2003 01:19									#4
	Got spare money?

We do not know that they lost HP, the horse that most likely attacked and killed the NM was an Elite Horse and is not currently visible. It could either be in ICG or 9 of Random.

With the consul's permission, before we start the turn, Trip has moved Warrior BigFree south from AGA (to the spot that is 3-3 from the rubble pile that was Rye) and has spotted 1 other horse that had pillaged the road at Rye 3. We also see a stack of 3 Vet Spears, 1 Vet Horse and 1 Settler (the one from Rye). But still no Elite Horse.

E_T

	01-10-2003 02:12									#5
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by OPD So far IIRC they have attacked and killed one fortified NM with a horse w/o losing any HPs.

The merc was not fortified (unless it was us cheating first by using the 'fortify all' trick on our stack).

	01-10-2003 02:28									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

why is the fortifying all cheating? The option is there.

Cheating to me is the galley 3-tile view trick which I was vehemetly opposed to us doing but that we've been doing anyway. That takes advantage of a game bug in a deliberate manner. I guess we all have been "cheating" then.

	01-10-2003 02:31									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen I guess we all have been "cheating" then.

this thread is about GCA cheating not us cheating

	01-10-2003 02:36									#8
	Support Apolyton

I said it in the chatroom, and I'll say it again here.

I already went over the odds. 1 in 3 to win. 2 in 3 to retreat if they don't win. Those are good odds. I would probably have done the same in their position.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of all this talk about GCA cheating.

They killed one unit and everyone cries "cheater!" It makes it sound more like whining than a legitimate concern, at least that's what it sounds like to me. People are focused more on GCA's "cheating" than on the war. If something like this happens turn after turn after turn then I will start to get concerned as well.

But losing one unit is not enough to make such a big ruckus over.

	01-10-2003 02:37									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree with the gentleman MoW. Use this thread to keep track of the odds. When the odds get below 1% cumulative, THEN we can *****. Until then, just smile, nod, and keep track. Even suggesting cheating here will color our perceptions - AND COMMENTS - outside of this forum.

	01-10-2003 02:41									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Despite my earlier questioning of their trustworthiness, I agree with Trip and FP. We need more evidence than one battle that is entirely possible they did win without cheating. Just because it wasn't what we would have done doesn't mean it's not what they would have done in our place.

	01-10-2003 03:02									#11
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen why is the fortifying all cheating? The option is there. Cheating to me is the galley 3-tile view trick which I was vehemetly opposed to us doing but that we've been doing anyway. That takes advantage of a game bug in a deliberate manner. I guess we all have been "cheating" then.

Oops... when I talked about this cheat/exploit/trick, I did not think we were using it. Now I open up the save to make sure we were not... and guess what? We were...

Now, I do not feel very uncomfortable about this. I consider the 'fortify all' trick used on land stacks at least a HUGE exploit, if not cheating - much worse than the very same trick used with galleys, because it has a bigger impact (25% defensive bonus is certainly a big deal). If it was intended to allow units that ran out of their movement points to fortify, the action would be available even for single units.

But it is not.

It may be just me, but I do not consider that kosher.

Otherwise - I agree with Trip, F-P, and all those that say we chill and stop talking about GCA cheating. The very fact that the horseman won is nothing extraordinary. It is possible and it did happen (can be easily checked). What we could question would be the very ATTEMPT to attack our stack/merc with that (elite?) horse. But... we will NEVER be able to prove any suspicions in this regard - we are not Lucky, we are not GCA, we know nothing about their strategy, situation, level of despair etc. With no solid proof, we better save ourselves the time & efforts and simply take whatever happens ingame as a matter of fact.

	01-10-2003 04:43									#12
	Tired of ads?

* MrWhereItsAt is totally bemused

But the fortify bonus doesn't kick in until the turn AFTER you fortify. So even if we'd fortified all with the stack we wouldn't have got any benefit from it. I use fortify all routinely if I wanted to skip the moves for a large stack without having to individually skip each of them.

	01-10-2003 05:36									#13
	Got spare money?

Are they cheating?
Maybe.

Is anyone else cheating?
Maybe.

Can we prove it?
No.

Will we ever be able to prove it?
Not likely.

Can we do anything about it if they are?
Not without proof.

Do I think they are cheating?
Does it matter given the above?

Does discussing cheating have any merit then?
Only this:
Letting us discuss alternate strategies which can minimize the impact of a replay exploit. Very minor value, there isn't alot we can do other than attack in such overwhelming force that the outcome of the war can't be influenced by small things. We've done that.

Given that we've already done all we can to protect ourselves from any *potential* cheating, and that we'll probally never be able to conclusively prove cheating (statisticians back down, it may work in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion there is always a shadow of a doubt), and that we can't do anything without proof, I'd say the answer to whether or not this is a worthwhile way to spend our time is no.

Anyways my two cents, but that doesn't mean that I won't point out anything that comes to mind that we can do better within the rules of the game to guard against exploits used against us in the war. I don't consider doing such an accusation but rather as strictly insurance. Although I really can't think of much we haven't already done, so thats a moot point.

	01-10-2003 06:06									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt * MrWhereItsAt is totally bemused But the fortify bonus doesn't kick in until the turn AFTER you fortify. So even if we'd fortified all with the stack we wouldn't have got any benefit from it. I use fortify all routinely if I wanted to skip the moves for a large stack without having to individually skip each of them.

Hm, I will admit that I am not 100% sure about this, but in a PBEM I am playing, the player that is after me (just like we are after GCA in this game) was using this trick - and when the turn came to me (just like when the save gets from us to GCA), I saw his swords fortified and I felt they WERE fortified... I cannot prove it, but my cats were scoring about ~50% hits. We then spoke about it and he himself said it was not nice of him to use it, he stopped using it - and on the turn he left his swords unfortified, my cats missed not a single shot.

Too little data, though, as I killed all 7 swords of his on that very turn...

Even if what you say is true - a new turn starts with GCA, so I would expect our stack to be really fortified when they get the save. If not, it would mean that a unit starts enjoying its fortification bonus only after fortifying and staying fortified for one more turn, which I do not believe is correct.

Perhaps if GCA was after us in the turn order, you might be right... but they are not, they are before us.

	01-10-2003 07:08									#15
	Get a bigger avatar today!

In any case, I don't think the fortify mattered in this case, but we should make an effort to avoid doing it again.

	01-10-2003 07:42									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well I think this thread is pretty much useless. We will not be able to prove that GCA cheats.

	01-10-2003 08:58									#17
	Put an end to popups!

I don't know if they are or not. I think if that refugee bill gets passed, then perhaps we can learn a bit more of their prior wars. AT this point we've only lost one unit, and IIRC, there are other horses in the area, so if they were cheating, they might have been able to destroy three units, that would be suspicious, 3 kills with no horse losses. One dead unit isn't incriminating.

we shall see.

But for now, who knows.

This war is going to be a while, I'd hate for every defensive loss to be called cheating or something (though I might think that personally as well)

	01-10-2003 14:39									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt * MrWhereItsAt is totally bemused But the fortify bonus doesn't kick in until the turn AFTER you fortify. So even if we'd fortified all with the stack we wouldn't have got any benefit from it. I use fortify all routinely if I wanted to skip the moves for a large stack without having to individually skip each of them.

I agree with MrWIA.

The units look fortified, but in fact they do not get the defensive bonus until the following turn. It's a display bug. That was the consensus that GS arrived at some time ago, I believe, although that was at least one maybe two patches ago so maybe things have changed.

This is all IIRC, by the way.

	01-10-2003 15:20									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, Vondrack does have a point: if it was intended to allow units that ran out of their movement points to fortify, the action would be available even for single units, but it isn't.

The "Fortify all" command is there to avoid excesive micromanagement, fortifying every singe unit one by one, not to fortify units that have no movement points left.

Btw, if it has no immediate effect, why is it used it for our ships, who supposedly will move again next turn?

I wouldn't use it. Just my 2 cents.

As for GCA, I agree with Trip & co: "Don't cry wolf" unless something like this happens turn after turn after turn. Even though I agree that it is suspicious.

	01-10-2003 16:08									#20
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet The units look fortified, but in fact they do not get the defensive bonus until the following turn. It's a display bug. That was the consensus that GS arrived at some time ago, I believe, although that was at least one maybe two patches ago so maybe things have changed.

Do you mean that the following is true?

1) Turn T: GCA (player #1) plays their turn
2) Turn T: we play our turn and 'fortify all' units with no movement points left; they do NOT receive the defensive bonus
3) Turn T+1: GCA plays their next turn, our units do NOT enjoy the defensive bonus when attacked (despite looking like fortified)
4) Turn T+1: we play our next turn and in order to finally get the defensive bonus, WE LEAVE THE UNITS FORTIFIED
5) Turn T+2: GCA plays their next but one turn, our units DO receive the defensive bonus when attacked

Now, I believe this is clearly incorrect.

AND - even if it's correct, then why do we bother with 'fortifying all' units that will move on the next turn anyway?

Sorry, but I am getting more and more convinced that it is either a cheat or a completely useless action. Whatever is the case - can we cease using it, please?

	01-10-2003 16:21									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I believe the "fortify all" command is used to extend our range of vision.

	01-10-2003 16:23									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Vondrack:

That makes perfect sense to me and I believe that's how it works. Why do you think it is "clearly incorrect"? If you have some kind of tests or evidence to prove that isn't what happens I'd be very happy to see it.

In essence all you are doing when you tell units with 0 movements points to fortify-all is "queuing up" the fortify command to be taken by those units at the start of your next turn.

	01-10-2003 16:24									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by BigFurryMonster I believe the "fortify all" command is used to extend our range of vision.

That (IMHO) is an exploit and is cheating, but then again I've always thought that. I can't believe that this bug hasn't been killed yet.

	01-10-2003 16:25									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I believe fortifying a ship at sea is suspose to extend their vision (I think I read that either in the manual or the encyclopedia somewhere).

But I dont know about using fortify all on the last turn at sea to achieve it, that seems sort of like an exploit.

	01-10-2003 17:31									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

FP, if this is how it works, what's the point of using it?
We could very well fortify the units on the next turn, should we decide not to move them.

	01-10-2003 17:54									#26
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Do you mean that the following is true? 1) Turn T: GCA (player #1) plays their turn 2) Turn T: we play our turn and 'fortify all' units with no movement points left; they do NOT receive the defensive bonus 3) Turn T+1: GCA plays their next turn, our units do NOT enjoy the defensive bonus when attacked (despite looking like fortified) 4) Turn T+1: we play our next turn and in order to finally get the defensive bonus, WE LEAVE THE UNITS FORTIFIED 5) Turn T+2: GCA plays their next but one turn, our units DO receive the defensive bonus when attacked Now, I believe this is clearly incorrect. AND - even if it's correct, then why do we bother with 'fortifying all' units that will move on the next turn anyway? Sorry, but I am getting more and more convinced that it is either a cheat or a completely useless action. Whatever is the case - can we cease using it, please?

Gentlemen- for once, I believe multiplayer has the answer to your problems. REAL multiplayer, that is.

Fortifying a unit with no movement left has NO EFFECT. In active multiplayer, if you fortify a stack that has completely run out of movement, they will adopt the pose, but you can see no white border around the health of the units. Fortifying a unit WITH movement left, on the other hand, immediately causes the white border.

Those units fortified with no movement left? You guessed it - as soon as the turn refreshes, the white border appears - because the units in question now have movement, and therefore can fortify. Other players who play their turns before yours will not see a white border during their turns, because you have no movement to fortify with. The "fortify all" command is there as an administrative convenience; there is no exploitable bug to it at all. GCA may not even see the units as fortified - not sure here - but we get no unfair bonuses from it.

Think of it this way - fortification is an action, and requires movement. Telling units to fortify means "as soon as you can take the action, please fortify." Some will do it immediately, and some do it as soon as they can.

Please believe that this subject (for the very "exploit vs feature" argument reasons above) has been heavily tested in the MP world, and the universally accepted conclusion is that fortification with no movement remaining means no bonus until after the unit has movement available again.

	01-10-2003 18:10									#27
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet Vondrack: That makes perfect sense to me and I believe that's how it works. Why do you think it is "clearly incorrect"? If you have some kind of tests or evidence to prove that isn't what happens I'd be very happy to see it. In essence all you are doing when you tell units with 0 movements points to fortify-all is "queuing up" the fortify command to be taken by those units at the start of your next turn.

Well, it seemed incorrect to me, since the Shift-U 'upgrade all' trick also did not 'queue' the units with 0 MPs up for an upgrade, but simply upgraded them - even though normally, a unit with 0 MP cannot be upgraded.

But you are right - I have done a couple of tests using an edited scenario (attacking warriors fortified 'properly' and the other way) and the fortify bonus really is not applied for units that had 0 movement points, no matter what the order of players is.

So then, the other part of my statement applies - using that 'trick' is useless, as it has no effect whatsoever.

EDIT: cross-posted with F-P/Tiberius.

EDIT #2: ...which brings us back to that Numidian Master was NOT fortified when GCA (elite?) horse attacked it, thus giving the horse 35.5% chance to kill him, plus some more to retreat, if down to 1 hp.

Does that sound like an overly reckless tactics?

	01-10-2003 18:26									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Without looking at the retreat percentage it does seem a bit reckless to me, seeing as they were risking triggering our GA. However a single incident is no proof of anything except that the RNG lets annoying things happen every now and again. But we ALL know that.

	01-10-2003 18:46									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius FP, if this is how it works, what's the point of using it? We could very well fortify the units on the next turn, should we decide not to move them.

hmmn I think this is infact a sneaky plot to confuse GCA and gain the psychological edge.

"How can those units be fortified they're weren't on that square last turn", they'll say

Then they'll start questioning game mechanics, which will eventually lead to them questioning their own existance.

Once this happens they are putty in our hands, they'll fail to see the importance of this game and surrender to our will.

It's only a matter of time really.

Muwhhhhahhahwwwahhahhwhawww

edit - as for the horse attack, what else are they going to do with their horses? wait untill they see NM on hills then attack? Our units are always going to be protected by NM and a horse attacking a NM on flatland is the best odds they're going to get. So really they should be attacking our stack with horsemen everyturn. What else are they going to do with them?

	01-10-2003 20:22									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

We have got to find some way to differentiate between FrustratedPoet and FriedrichPsitalon because this "FP" crap is driving me up the wall.


Poet! I challenge you to a 1v1 simultaneous turn game for the rights to "FP!"

* Fried-Psitalon unleashes the demon-Fried!