Open discussion of dice

Copy of my post on AAWC message board. http://www.axisandalliesworldclub.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8189&p=55821#p55821

Graf, I believe my post was removed because I gave out too much information that might upset the status quo. I must be dangerous. Why? Skip to the bottom of this post to find out.

PRNGs use the same numbers over again. Its like someone rolled dice and recorded the results. Those results are used again and again. If any half ass hacker/programmer knew what PRNG is being used, then they could cheat.
There are a limited amount of PRNGs, so thru trial and error the PRNG could be discovered. PRNGs provides attack vulnerabilities and are not secure. They were used by Hasblow because they are fast and easy.

Even Plot admitted that a hacker/programmer could hack the A&A program as it is now.

The following algorithms are pseudorandom number generators: Most of these are not suitable for A&A, but a search taking a few seconds, and these popped up. Like I said before, in the censored post, I know very little about PRNG and TRNGs. Other people are very knowledgeable.

Blum Blum Shub
Inversive congruential generator
ISAAC (cipher)
Lagged Fibonacci generator
Linear congruential generator - the most common type in computer programming languages
Linear feedback shift register
Mersenne twister
Multiply-with-carry
Complementary-multiply-with-carry
Naor-Reingold Pseudorandom Function
Park–Miller random number generator
Maximal periodic reciprocals
Well Equidistributed Long-period Linear
Xorshift

Many algorithm's have been developed in an attempt to produce truly random sequences of numbers, endless strings of digits in which it is theoretically impossible to predict the next digit in the sequence based on the digits up to a given point. But the very existence of the algorithm, no matter how sophisticated, means that the next digit can be predicted!

Jim's post is a perfect example why the PRNG method sucks. I am not saying Jim's opponent is using a cheat, but PRNGs use the same numbers. The string of numbers in a PRNG repeat. PRNGs are not random, they only look random. (to some).

Why open discussions are dangerous. HISTORY

Prior to the discovery of the proof of plot's dice hack, The message board of WarClub had numerous posts questioning if there was a dice hack. Players were saying the dice had changed. Players were asking questions. That was dangerous!
Some players were getting very good dice all the time. The dumb ass cheaters were overusing plot's cheat. Ridicule was heaped on posters questioning the fairness of the dice and were told to provide proof. An impossible task.
Plot's cheat was only discovered because one player who was using the cheat, confessed.

Discovery of a dice cheat would destroy what's left of this community. We have no one we trust to fix A&A if a dice cheat were discovered. To prevent any discovery, censorship, straw dogs, misinformation and ridicule must be used.

In my censored post, I proposed using TRNGs. (using a free service) I have no idea if it were possible and even if TRNGS would be resistant to hacking. I ask questions, so, I must be dangerous.
Like I said before, I am not a very knowledgeable about this subject and its quite easy to pick a mis-statement by me, but I believe essentially most of this post to be true.

I will re-post this on my AAPlayer's Club message board. Anyone that wants to join a open discussion is free to sign up for it. I suggest you do not use your AAWC or WZ player name to prevent retaliation.

https://aaplayers.forumotion.com/
I will not tolerate attacks on other players, but do feel free to post your feelings and information.
Templarhttp://www.axisandalliesworldclub.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8189&p=55821#p55821
Post subject: Vagaries of The Dice

"the computer controlled players have a better chance, on attacks and defense, to score a hit that the human player does. Example - infantry attacking score a hit on a roll of "1" on the die. On average, there should be one hit for every six men attacking. The computer character consistantly scores above average while the human player (you) will consistantly score below average. On the other side, defending infantry scores a hit on a "1" or a "2" on the die, but again the computer will consistently do better than average while you will do worse. This is true for every type of piece on the board. This will sometimes be so blatant as to invalidate a game and cause you to want to destroy your CD. In this case, make use of the "Time Machine" function and play the combat again; don't let it walk on you, but also don't just insist on being the winner of every conflict."

This is a quote from GameSpot, written in 1998.

I see this bias vs human players, as had others in the A&A community. The same player's names keep popping up, that appear to have this advantage.

This bias has been written into the game from day one. It would be very easy for this to be used as a cheat by a programmer bypassing the PRNG system.