pbem playing ethics

[Rommel]

Ok now this one is about the ethics of playing pbem, when playing against someone, in a pbem game, do you all play like your playing in a real life situation, i.e. playing like you don't know those m10's on last defense are comming in at turn 10.

or

Do you play like your playing against another player and take any kind of advantage possible?

Did a maneuver the other day in last defense that guaranteed an early advantage against the allies, but playing in real life would never ever have attempted that maneuver. But was brought to my attention by my opponent that that maneuver would not have been attempted in real life, far far too risky.

[citizen]

It's impossible to not prepare a bit even if you are trying to play it real. In Last Defense I moved my tanks and HTs in a thrust toward the town and considered the hill a spot to watch out for as the Mortars were active up there. I never traced LoS to the middle of the road on top of the hill, yet I kept my vehicles out of the open. I had to manuever to get a shot on the Hellcats.

Funny thing was... Since I had played the same opponent as US the first time I got a message with the email on turn 10: "You hear a massive rumbling from on top of the hill headed your way..."

Once the random battle generator and points battles show up, we won't have to worry as much.

citizen

[Guest Lokesa]

I try to put my guys in protected positions but wouldn't allow myself to prepare an ambush nor pretarget mortar on the hill. Just seemed to cheesy.

[Doug Beman]

No way, I cheat every chance I get.

I'm also very sad that nobody will play against me.

Could the two be related? ;->

DjB

[Guest Gunnerdream]

Excellent question! I am currently involved in that PBEM game as we speak.

It really does seem to give the germans an unfair advantage to know exactly where and when the U.S. reinforcements will appear, so with that in mind I'm concentrating entirely on the objectives and trying like hell to ignore the game turn number.

However...theres always that little devil on one's shoulder whispering things in one's ear

like "hide your tanks behind buildings and pre-spot that section of hill!"

We are only human but I also believe the majority of us are gentlemen.

So...my tanks will probably be in the open when those nasty M-10's appear!

Gunnerdream...floating down through the clouds

[Guest Captain Foobar]

In last defence you have the option of leaving your tiger as far back as possible, or taking him down into town. With previous knowledge, this is an informed choice of whether or not to win. I have *never* lost my Tiger while trading shots with Hellcats at 900 meters. So I tend to play with the understanding that we are both using every little edge we can get our hands on. Call it a special recon team or something...

With this being said, I admire you guys trying to keep a level of honor and fair play to this. But have you considered that you, as a commander, would have no knowledge that your opponent has a roughly equivalent force at his disposal? Even on a fresh scenario, there are things that can spoil the "mental" simulation.

This is why I plan to build unequal scenarios on regular occasion, and make the goal of the attacker to succeed in a certain amount of time that makes it a good contest. They will have no future knowledge of their advantage or disadvantage. What do you guys think of this concept? ( and keep in mind that I do not claim to be the 1st person to think of it...)

------------------

"when in doubt, run in circles"

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Depends on your perception of the scenario. If you know exactly where morters are and you target the spot, that can be easily explained as a scenario varient where last night you had some extra recon info.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I am a very honorable player and believe in testing my skill to its limits. I don't believe in using information that I would not have access too as I feel it just spoils the enjoyment of the game. Using knowlege on the structure of a scenario in regards to force and unit composition , reinforcement schedules ,locations etc, lacks any true test of skill against an opponent. I realize that I am human and yes I would not leave my tanks right in direct line of fire of where the enemy would appear no more than I would smoke him the second he appeared there.I deem this as knowlege I should know nothing about. With this in mind I try to play a scenario that isn't blind any longer, as fairly as can be expected when you know the exact logisitics of it. I don't presume to know what my enemy has for a force when I'm attacking them, because my men simply would'nt know. For me to blindly rush into an area or action which I know I could not be thwarted in my opinion is an utter waste of a game of what could other wise be an enjoyable game despite the fact its not a virgin scenario.

I must ask myself If I play the computer am i trying to play this as if it were my first time or am I playing this just to win, and the latter seems to have no merit...........I also strongly feel this holds true against an opponent, I would much rather lose a close game knowing I didn't just use any means possible to win . If I win or lose that close game, I know that I have given it my best either way it will be an enjoyable game for both.

SS_PanzerLeader......out

[guachi]

I'm playing a Chance Encounter PBEM game as the Americans. I haven't looked at the German setup nor have I played through solo as the Americans.

I must say that it is proving to be more exciting than my other games simply because of lack of knowledge.

With the possibility of so many scenarios, I don't think foreknowledge should be a problem. Finding a fresh scenario that neithe player has played yet should be no problem.

Jason

[Compassion]

First time through a scenario I almost always play a few turns solo as there are some types of game that I like and some I don't. That takes away from much of the suprise of a battle, but since the packed in scenrios in any game get old after a while and you start playing downloaded scenrios, I don't see an alternative. THere are so many bad scenarios out ther in any game with an editor...

That said, I try and play realisticaly, but you just can't shake the forknowlege you get with a few turns of play from both sides. I'll play smart, but rush armor to good sightlines, infantry to expected ambush points, etc... I do play with people that also check scenarios before hand but also only check a few early turns to assure that the game looks good, so things like reinforcement entry time and size remain questions.

I will sometimes do things that you probably wouldn't see in combat that ften, but if it's not an explotation of the system, but rather an odd tactic that would never be used becasue of the danger it puts either taht unit in or some other friendly, I might if I felt the situation merited it. I play with a circle of gamers that for the most part I've played with for years... or at least played other games with so it's hard to go in without at least a theory of what you oppnent will do (anyone who has seen dawn playing Diplomacy standing in someone's backyard holding a map in one hand a smoke and a coffee in the other arguing with the Brit about why they need to convoy your army half way around the board will understand). At some point where does tactics end and exploiting known tendancies of your opponents begin? Patton studied Rommel, for example. Now, it's unrealistic to say that US compnay commander A studied German company commander B, but I find that it's hard to distinguish between.

I've played game systems where we've adjusted victory conditions to take shortcomings in a game into consideration...One thing I've never done or stood for is the last turn gambit where you rush out and drive through victory hexes for the points... Well, not since I did that in an SPI game when I was about 15 and my opponent screamed bloody murder and I understood... SO that was over 15 years ago, and I guess I've learned since then. one thing OI really liked about the Steel Panthers series is the veriable end turn. Wonderful innovaiton, I thought.

[Fionn]

Well I tried to play it with "no knowledge of what was coming" as the Germans.

However it soon became apparent to me that my opponents were mostly playing the game and planning for the arrival of the Hellcats etc.

One German opponent even went so far as keeping his Tiger to the extreme edge of the map for the entire game just to get the drop on my Tigers.

End result was that in the face of such play I adapted my play. Basically this involved dropping smokescreens on the hill most of the time and thus equalising the game since this gave the US the chance to deploy to different areas and we could fight on a more even footing.

I have NEVER kept my Tiger back at the map edge but I do sometimes keep him back at the road junction since I feel that's a realistic overwatch position.

Once, with my opponents permission, I did a rush to the hilltop and set up a fun ambush there but I had that game well won already so it was just to see what would happen that we did that.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Hawk]

As I haven't played LD in PBeM I can't really say. I do try to the best of my ability to play fair, but simply knowing where and when those Hellcats will arive, is probably affecting me in some way. It could even be "well, next turn they're here. My tank commanders would probably have started that flanking manouver now, but my opponent may see that as a move based on knowing about those Hellcats. Best to leave them here in the open for another turn"

Perhaps some of us could have set up a service, where two players who wants to play a pbem game tells us roughly what forces and terrain they would like, and we then create the scenario? The two players would still have to trust each others not to take a peek at the entire scenario first. Hmmm, have to think more about that one.

Hawk

------------------

Our's is not to reason "why", our's is but to do and die!

[Fionn]

That is something I've considered offering under the umbrella of CombatHQ.

My basic decision on how it would work when I thought of it was as follows:

1. Players would ask for a game by a certain date (maybe 2 weeks down the road (gotta give time for the designer to make it) ).

2 A designer would make it and another would check it.

3. It would be sent to the players for their game.

4. 2 weeks AFTER it was sent out it would be released to the general public complete with any revisions found necessary from the playing experience of the two guys who requested it.

This way:

a) the 2 players get a custom-made FULL FOW game.

other gamers get a somewhat playtested scenario.. ( eventually, if more testers volunteered it'd be best to put these scenarios through in-house testing so hopefully lots of people volunteer to playtest scenarios).

Again, most of the stuff people come up with is stuff I've thought of but am not mentioning publicly until people start receiving CM..

Maybe I should start organising now though?

I think that there would be a lot of benefits acrruing from gathering most of the CM expertise, scenario design, testing and graphics and sound mods on one site.

That way quality can be maintained and people can be assured a steady flow of content from one place ( probably would be more efficient in the long term too).

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Good Morning Fionn,

Here is whereI must point out the shortcomings of using scenarios that have been pregenerated with units bought. Do not get me wrong I am going to love playing the historically accurate generated scenarios although I dont feel they will be best suited for tournament play. This was an age old Discussion in Close Combat and Eventually the Battlemaker point system reigned king for competitive play. There is nothing wrong with a map being used repetitively( this is infact realistic as the terrain could be the scene for many engagements) - providing it has been either

1. balanced for deploy fairness

or

2. going to be played once as each side by ewach player

This is where CC2 shined with the ability to make point genrated battlemakers - the games were never exactly alike and unless someone was trying to pull a scam were very balanced usually for Ladder/Torunament Play

As Steve and BTs kindly made point generated scenarios an option I think that CM will also have the ability to curb this problem effectuating some great competitive play.

SS_PanzerLeader..........out

O BTW ---- say When I'm ready to set it up when You say you are ready to bleed :-P.

LoL You'll prolly kick my ass :-P but we'll have fun anyhow!