Well, as everyone knows, cheating is to win with impropriet play (in few words). This separates in two categories:

1. Cheating using cheat codes through an in-game control or changing some values at the config files of the game. This kind of cheating is actually allowed and created by the devs themselves (not changing the config fles, the first one), since it can be disabled on multiplayer gaming; in single player, it is up to the user whether or not he wants to use such a feature.

2. The second type of cheating, which is the point of this thread, is due to the materalization of the game itself. This is not done on purpose by the devs, it is based on certain "bug-like" features of the game (not bugs literally) and can destroy the multiplayer (mainly) experience A LOT.

Although i suppose you have already understood what i'm talking about, i'll mention some of these "cheats" found in Force Commander, since explaining this type of cheating is more difficult than giving few examples. So:

a. In Force Commader there was a "technic" (-cheat) called "swap". What was this? You opened the dialog screen and typed "swap"? - No. It was due to the game's materalization and nothing else. This swap had as such: When a group of Tie Fighters, gathered very close one to the other (the last Tie was very close to the first one) would attack an AA gun, due to the fact that the AA missile weren't homing ones and that the TIE's fire range was a bit larger than AA's one , the player (this wasnt done by the computer) would act in the following way; he would go straight to the AA attacking it, let the TIEs throw their lasers and then immiediatelly call them back. The lasers finally would hit the AA, with the last one not even see the TIEs (or in the best situation it would fire a couple of missiles without hitting any tie at all). Obviously, this "tactic" would apply to every enemy. [And for this one, most people would see a "no swapping" message when entering a MSN Zone room for multiplayer...).

b. Another "cheat" was due to the fact that imps were made TOO strong in FC (i hope this is not repeated in EaW). So, a player with imps chosen -in multiplayer- playing against a reb, could apply this "tactic"; as far as the game begins, he would call down 1 ATAT, 1 ATAA and 6 troops (loaded in the ATAT) and go straight for the rebel base. Well, ATAT had it "super-beam" laser charged until reached the base, while the ATAA could take down any early air enemy force. If there was any turret neaby, the super-beam would take its half health (and then with few shots the turret was dust). In few words, this game would end within the first 5-10 mins.

Well, these are few example of this "cheating" type as mentioned in 2., which is not cheating in the literal way but it spoils the whole game much more than the first type of cheating since it is -in a way- "strategies" (for those that cannot play otherwise...).

Obviously, the point of the thread is to report such cheating found in other RTS so that they are not incorporated in EaW.

I hope i'll come up with such info later on.

In reference to your #1, servers for RTS are usually set up in such a way that EVERYONE playing the same match has to have the same version of the game, same everyhting. Someone can't modify a file and then play against a group of people unless they all have the same modification.

Number 2 a and b doesn't refer to cheating, but rather a game exploit or balancing problem.
Far from cheating and technically, it's off-topic.

Number 2 a and b doesn't refer to cheating, but rather a game exploit or balancing problem.
Far from cheating and technically, it's off-topic.
Some of these "cheats" arent actually cheats. They may be there on purpose, such as the imps being stronger. Thats just the way the game was made, there are ways around one at-at and an anti air unit approaching your base, you just have to find them. This is like saying that because your enemy was smarter and got a bigger army first they were cheating.

As for the force commander exploit, I still dont see this as a "cheat". This is an example of when you needed to implement mobile AA units for your base. As far as you know this may have been done on purpose. In fact, it seems perfectly fine to me, good job to whoever found this out first.

I dont think that that is cheating. Now I will give you there are a FEW types of bugs that are cheating, but usually thats why game patches are released and so fourth.

Technically, it shouldn't be a secret on how to counter tactics efficiently.

Usually, when a winning technique with no existing counter(or requires one to litteraly master the game before pulling off said counter) is spammed by a lot of players, it is considered a game exploit.

Yup, game exploit is the correct word, this is the reason i used " " for the "cheating" term of second category.

Also, if i'm not mistaken, C&C first series had such an exploit with those tesla tanks (prism tanks, i don't remeber); build 5 of them and destroy everything in your way even before the enemy sees you.....no counter attack tactic/unit.

I just hope Petro doesn't make similar mistakes. As popcorn said, if few people know this "tactic", then it is considered as tactic, but when the whole multiplayer community ignores any other side of the game and tries to win using such exploits, well, i think this just spoils multiplayer (and single player if used), doesn't it?

2 and B are not cheats they're just really good stratigies.

If im understanding 2:A correctly then what your saying is youd fire your shot then before they could counter you would pull back your troops before they could retaliate its not much as cheating as it is a cheap way to wither away enemy forces but this CAN be easily counterd by just sorrounding there forces and cutting them off thats if I understood what swapping is ive never heard of that term

That sort of tatic, "swapping" would probably work once or twice against an, at least mildly, smart player. So while its cheap, that sort of thing happens and you just need to learn how to counter it. Now if something has no counter in the game mechanics, then thats a different story. But becuase some one got a bigger army faster and used them to decimate their enemy quickly with few or no causalties, one would call them cheaters, then there are 'cheaters' in real wars as well. However if the same player managed to repeatedly decimate the oppenent with the same tatic, then there may be a balancing issue. It would really need to be determined on a case by case basis and either solved in an open strategy or fixed in a patch.
On repeated occasions, in the demo my falcon wiped out the entire army with no back up at all. Thats the sort of thing that needs to be fixed. What if one team has a hero and the other does not? Tough luck, get a hero, but there should still be ways to remove a hero from play so the heroless player does not get totally decimated based on that small fact.
Balancing while being different is very important, but difficult. Look at SW:GB, it was balanced, but mostly because all the armies where almost identical. So i hope this will be balanced while having very different play styles.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the swapping thing? Why is it an exploit? from the way you described it, it sounds more like a surgical strike tactic. Have i just read it wrong?

As for exploits, it is very rare that an exploit comes along and is deemed unbeatable. It only usually occurs when a unit is 'broken' and as said before they get patched.

Game like this, you simply can't cheat on unless it's a modified map that everyone has to download (example, some one makes a new planet and has specific points on it that yeild over the top advantages when discovered, usually in a place only the mapmaker knows about) otherwise everyone would just have to have the same version in order for file changes to work.