Anti-Cheat Features in TOAW III

[Currahee]

Dan, the TOAW III system doesn't require you to have the CD in the drive while you play, nor does it check to see which computer you're at; what it does, is check the running game against the serial number you've entered. So I think you should go onto the Matrix site, join as a "member", register your software if you haven't already done so, and check the serial number you're supposed to be using. Then, don't simply copy the game files to your flash drive, but "install" the game from your purchased CD, to the flash drive, or possibly, to your computer at work; you'll be prompted for the serial number; and when you enter it, the game should work without the "pirate" message.

[ralphtrickey]

Dan,
I'll bet that you started a PBEM game to play it as both players. TOAW saw that Player1 and Player 2 had the same Serial number, and gave that message.

Ralph

[jonnymacbrown]

"So WHY cheating?"

When I first began playing PBEM back in the Talonsoft days (late 90's) I played a Borodino game as Russians against a renowned opponent; one who was a serious scenario designer and well respected fellow. Half way through I realized that he had never lost a melee; even when charging Russian guns in redoubts with light cavalry. When he cleared Borodino proper with light cavalry, wiping out the A rated Imperial Guard heavy-infantry regiment in its entirety, I opened up a practice game and tried some of those melee myself and lost quite a few. Why was he cheating? Some people just want to win I suppose. One give away was his bragging about his skills. He was also practicing gamesmanship: cheap-shit stuff like charging his own cavalry through his own supply trains. He eventually disappeared from the scene, and I never said anything; just quit the game. I would say the anti-cheating devices are a good idea because anyone willing to go through elaborate cheating maneuvers is going to give himself away in other ways, and the simple fact that if you continually save and re-save your opponent will get the message is good enough to promote accurate play. I don't mind an opponent re-doing a move because he made some strategic mistake (like sending a division in the wrong direction). To me, cheating is manipulating combat results and that I figure is what the anti-cheat device is supposed to prevent. Happy Hunting jonny

[Currahee]

Well said.

[walkra]

Hi. Well Said!!!
I disagree with you only about the undo button. In TOAW should be eliminated (in PBEM or advanced). Like chess, touched-moved.
Regards.

"So WHY cheating?"

When I first began playing PBEM back in the Talonsoft days (late 90's) I played a Borodino game as Russians against a renowned opponent; one who was a serious scenario designer and well respected fellow. Half way through I realized that he had never lost a melee; even when charging Russian guns in redoubts with light cavalry. When he cleared Borodino proper with light cavalry, wiping out the A rated Imperial Guard heavy-infantry regiment in its entirety, I opened up a practice game and tried some of those melee myself and lost quite a few. Why was he cheating? Some people just want to win I suppose. One give away was his bragging about his skills. He was also practicing gamesmanship: cheap-shit stuff like charging his own cavalry through his own supply trains. He eventually disappeared from the scene, and I never said anything; just quit the game. I would say the anti-cheating devices are a good idea because anyone willing to go through elaborate cheating maneuvers is going to give himself away in other ways, and the simple fact that if you continually save and re-save your opponent will get the message is good enough to promote accurate play. I don't mind an opponent re-doing a move because he made some strategic mistake (like sending a division in the wrong direction). To me, cheating is manipulating combat results and that I figure is what the anti-cheat device is supposed to prevent. Happy Hunting jonny

[Murphz]

Sorry for reviving this old post :)

The undo movement sometimes is helpful, maybe when moved a unit the system goes to the next in the stack and you move it unwanted or when you wrong use the plan attack and loose the entrenchment status. But yes, it should be eliminated in pbem..also if i have different ideas for the movement system in toaw, something less click-and-go.

Another thing should be changed is the replay with the counter of the moves. If i move some reinforces in the back (not spotted) the other player see my 1000 or more moves and think "well, something going on". It's not cheating but it's not simulation anyway. Am i wrong?

[Currahee]

I don't think you're wrong, but I guess it's a matter of taste. I don't think that kind of vague intelligence is usually very helpful; it does give you the idea that "something is moving to somewhere", and the occasional spotting gives you a little more info on what's moving, on what road or trail, by rail or foot or motor, so I think it's about right in terms of what you see. If you play with "borders off" the fog of war is really pretty thick, units can slip into your rear without your knowledge. With regimental and larger units, that kind of infiltration probably happened less in real life, than in the game.

[Murphz]

Plus the occasional spotting gives you some information about the units too, like type and size that someone could use to harden some defense points by understanding where they're going. But yes, as you said not everyone use this information to have a right idea of what's going on and what to do.

Just think that an anti-cheat system could be improved to not show those extra informations :) maybe with an option that let players choose the level of anti-cheat and informations given while playing (like the enemy losses in battle reports) :)