Cheating

[low_bidder]

Call me cynical, but when I see someone on the ladder with 70 wins, no loses or ties I figure they have found a way to play outside the system, so to speak. To many random events in this game for the die to always fall one players way.

Glad we don't have anyone on the ladder with 70 wins, no losses or ties. Even Narwan has managed to pull out a draw or two.

But I don't agree about the random events. Sure, the game is a long coupled path of random dice rolls, but you can affect the probability of each dice roll to make it as advantageous as possible for you in so many ways by knowing your units capabilities and using sound tactics, both on the bigger level and in micromanaging the units. Looking at the top ELO players I've seen both Narwan and Cross play first hand from the receiving end and they are extremely good. I'm not surprised to see their score line and they don't need to cheat to win. This is a game of skills, at least in the long run, and 25 turns of a game is usually long enough to prove that.

Having a long streak of wins/high ELO etc. is also about choosing favourable conditions where the opportunities to win are even, i.e. not playing years, scenarios or settings that are unbalanced enough to more or less per default give you a loss. For example Vesku is also a very good player but more "brave" in choosing different types of scenarios. Used the quotation marks sicne there's nothing right or wrong. Either way is fine in my eyes. If you like to play meeting engagements in 1944 only that's fine too.

Sometimes it's easy to look away from your own lack of skills and instead blame a more skilled opponent of cheating.. ;)

70 was a random number. I was throwing no stones and apologize if I offended.
What I was saying about random events was the tend to average out over the course of the game. If they don't, they are NOT random.

I always get in trouble when I do this, but communication REQUIRES common terms;
ran·dom (ran′dəm)

noun
impetuous and haphazard movement: now only in at random, without careful choice, aim, plan, etc.; haphazardly

Etymology: ME randoun < OFr randon, violence, speed (in a randon, violently) < randir, to run violently < Frank *rant, a running, akin to OHG rinnan, to run

adjective

1. lacking aim or method; purposeless; haphazard
2. not uniform; esp., of different sizes: said of stones, etc. in certain types of masonry
3. Statistics of statistical sample selection in which all possible samples have equal probability of selection

So if an event can be affected by skill, it IS NOT Random.
Yes, a more skilled play should be better able to cope with random events and even take advantage of them on occasion. And better knowledge of a certain era, period or OOB would count as a skill.
None of which matters if their opponent has re-set their experience levels to 100 for their OOB.
Try it sometime and see. Use the editor to set your units to 100 experience then run a trial game. You always see the enemy first and seldom miss that second shot.

---

Cross, you up for a game? I haven't played WW2 vs a human since version 2.0 I really don't enjoy WW2 that much since it strikes me as too sci fi. Fair fights are fun, but they are NOT war. WW2 wasn't about fair fights.
That said, I'm getting real burned out on MBT. I spend most of my playing time picking it apart and looking at the flaws instead of enjoying the good parts. That means I need a break. So I was thinking about posting a challenge and seeing which sharks show up. I only have the un-modded latest version loaded. No CD since I seldom played the game. If I get into it, I'll order the CD. I swore when Cammo refused to do anything about the SP guns that play like they have a turret that I wouldn't play WW2 again. I'm old enough to know one should never say never.
I'll play the krauts but I would rather play the USA. Patton driving Monty back into the sea at Falaise. Or trying to.