FIONNS IDEA FOR GUIDE FOR GAMERS ETHICS

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I would like to take this opportunity to pursue the idea that Fionn has presented on Creating a guide for Gaming Ethics which he is willing to post at his site

I would like for players to contribute there ideas here on what needs to be discussed and then solutions to the problem - also take a vote on the issue please respond with constructive posts only no flames

I consider myself tobe highly honorable and this suggestion by Fionn seems to be a wonderful way to set up some standards for upcoming competitive play.

Please if we can organize this thread to respond to new ethics questions by number it will probably make it easier to follow although some issues may have to have a thread of there own.

IF you are posting a situation to be adressed please number it (making sure it isnt already here)

If you are posting to comment refer to the post #

If there is a better way to handle this please feel free to advise. ( in a hurry this morning lol)

SS_PanzerLeader....out

thanks

SS_PanzerLeader.out

[CoolColJ]

Hmmm

I don't know about this....if the game lets you do it, you should be able to use it

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

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

CCJ

BLITZ_Force

My HomePage -----> www.geocities.com/coolcolj/

[Huron]

I strongly second the idea of CM Ethics. The game itself will probably handle gamey tactics in operations to some extent, but for stand-alone scenarios I feel this could really make PBEM and online more enjoyable.

Here's something small for a starter, that has been discussed before (sort of, mostly me and some other guys speculating ):

Nr. 1. The charging artillery spotters

This could also apply to other support units. Basically, units that have expended their combat effectiveness and are thrown away to draw fire in assults, blowing ambushes etc.

My suggestion would be for those units to have a high enough VP value to deter people from using them this way, and if it's possible, a higher value if support units are out of ammo, for example. Otherwise, we have to deal with this by ethics, I think.

Note, that this refers to things that have happened in the demo. With all the builds and the game going gold, who knows how things stand now. I'd be more than happy to hear someone say that it's already been taken care of, or that the VP values are high enough as it is.

Huron

[This message has been edited by Huron (edited 12-09-99).]

[Sten]

Or maybe a support units morale could in some way be related to the amount of ammo it has left?

I can se a FO climbing a hill, into the line of fire, to guide the shells from the battery (while it still has any), after all, he knows his job is important and that he can play a very important part in the battle. I can also see the same FO refusing to go into the line of fire on top of the same hill when he knows he cannot influence the battle in any way, since the battery is out of ammo. He should then be much more prone to panic and to run away.

Is this possible to simulate, BTS?

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 12-09-99).]

[John Hough]

It comes down to one simple rule, really: Treat your men as though they are real people.

And if you go ahead and throw your men forward to their deaths to no real advantage, we'll all know that you're a cruel, heartless bastard.

-John

[tss]

While I agree that charging with FOs is quite gamey tactic, but sometimes FOs really took active part in a battle. Of course, these cases were very rare and happened only in desperate situations where every man counted. For a concrete example, during July '44 in East Karelia a Finnish FO team defended a strongpoint alone when the infantrymen had fled. IIRC they had to repel a couple of recon probes without support but the reinforcements came before the main Soviet attack started.

- Tommi

P.S. I finished my Master's Thesis today so now I can once again start spending my time productively, like by playing CM.

[Dmeek]

I agree with John and Sten. I am not an extensive gamer, but the only really gamey tactics I see CM allowing are suicidal recon missions. If Panzerleader sent that crew into town just to flush out enemy positions than that would be pretty unrealistic. My question is, would all but the most fanatical units ignore such sacrificial orders in CM? I know I have tried to have crews join the attack in Reisburg and they are usually the first to run. I think it would be cool if the global moral of the entire force would drop when they realized their CO was so callous w/ his troops. ie, "If he is sending those guys to their certain deaths just to get a range on that machine gun, then I am not moving my sweet butt from this foxhole."

What other tactics would be considered "gamey?" In case I ever leave the confines of AI play and enter the turbulent world of PBEM.

[Boris Balaban]

A FO would know the the battery is out of ammo but whos to say that the artilery is wating for supplies any time and the FO would come in handy for spotting.

So would it be prudent to waist him or just get him in a strategic possition?

But I agree give them a high point value for lossing them.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I think this thread is taking the wrong approach.

Instead of listing approved and 'gamey' tactics why not list possible gamey tactics and see if Steve and crew can fix them so that they are no longer valid?

It is my understanding that the VP cost of spotters (for example) would make the offensive use of these troops very costly. If you want to waste the points then I (for one) as your opponent have no problem with it.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Rommel]

My idea is this,

All's fair in love and war

period

if the game lets you do it, so be it.

[John Hough]

Aye, you've got a point, Scott. So here's a list of potenial gamey tactics:

1) Using useless guys as fodder. Dealt with with victory points.

2) Continuing attacks that have become hopeless, because 'I've lost already'. Not much to be done about this in scenarios, if people insist on veiwing how they did in a scenario in a binary fashion.

3) Exploiting holes in the tac ai. In the demo, this can be done by things such as having an infantry squad crest a hill, attracting tank fire, before your tank crests the hill. (this particular example, I think, has been fixed) Improve tac ai. This will likely have to be a continuing process, as holes are found.

4) Exploiting unrealistic knowledge of scenarios. Get more scenarios. Will be done.

5) Exploiting end turn, by waiting and attacking just enough to contest or hold objectives for a short time. Randomize ending, or extend the game for short perods after objectives are first contested.

6) Exploiting holes in the reality model. I'm not sure, as I'm no grognard, but it seems kinda likely that driving a platoon in halftracks up to 10 m away from an enemy platoon, dismounting under fire, and fighting would be a bad idea, though I've used it quite effectively. Fix the reality model, if this, or anything else, is unrealistic.

7) Exploiting bugs. No jagdverbande-elevasionertruppen. Fix 'em.

8) Exploiting assumptions about reality that can be made because it's a game. 'I'm on this side, you must be on that side.' 'I have two companies and a few tanks, you must have two companies and a few tanks, or one company and a lot of tanks.' Have occasional scenarios that don't follow such assumptions. Alas, there's not much to be done about this.

9) Using tactics superior to those historically employed. Dunno enough history to know if this can really be done. Nothing to be done about it, unless the tactics are only superior to historical tactics because of holes in the reality model.

That's about all I can come up with.. any others?

-John

[Harold Jones]

To me gamer's ethics boils down to, don't cheat and treat your opponent with respect. If someone I am playing follows those two simple precepts they stay on my play list. As soon as either is violated I will not play that person again. As far as "gamey" tactics go I believe if the game's mechanics allow something then it is legal and you should expect your opponent to make use of it. If a game allows something cheesy then either the designers correct it or you the player should learn to make nachos.

[guachi]

Iadmit to using a useless unit to scout ot the enemy. I knew that there was a platoon of Germans hiding in some woods. I saw them enter but not exit. All I had to look at were Iron Crosses.

I sent a bazooka team into the forest and spotted the Germans. I wiped out the German platoon with two of mine for minimal losses.

I assume this was a gamey tactic. But a bazooka can't have a very high point cost. I would rather have sent two men in then a half-squad of six men.

My question is: how else could I have done this in a realistic fashion?

Thanks,

Jason

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Guachi:

Recon by fire MIGHT have worked. But I personally see nothing wrong with sending in a team to recon a possible enemy position.

Your only other alternative would have been to send in a full squad or split a (rifle?) squad and send in a single team.

I would have split a rifle squad myself. That risks less of a point loss and less of a real loss when that PzIV rolled over the hill, and my Bazooka squad was long gone do to recon work!

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Reverendo]

You don't know about the need of gaming ethics until you have lost entire positions to abandoned tank's crews

A friend of mine is well known for that. There are certain things certain units shouldn't be allowed to do. For example: this friend of mine usually plays Warhammer40k. This is not much of a wargame, I know, but there's an interesting rule about heavy weapons crewmen from the Imperial Guard: they CAN'T advance if not with the support of a squad.

I really think tank crews shouldn't advance at all. It's not that they phisically can't, but if I was a tank crewman and my general told me 'Charge!' I would answer something like 'Hold on lad, I'm yet to... em... comb my hair!'

Now, really. Game ethics would be nice, but the more modern a combat game is, the less rules there are.

1- I don't think we can really talk about 'campers' in a WWII game (hey, call it 'defense', not camping)

2- We can't talk about aimless waste of lives, since some bad generals did...

The victory conditions in CM are quite like real victory conditions. Anything helping to fulfill them SHOULD be allowed, 'camping' and sacrificing units included...

Any ideas?

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

Regards

Reverendo

[Guest Big Time Software]

We are firmly in favor of Scott's concept. If we can find something that is gamey, and come up with a reasonable set of disincentives, then we should put them in. So far I think you will find, on balance, that the tactics that John outlined won't work. Sure, every once and a while you are going to be able to pull off some sort of minor tactical advantage here and there, but there really isn't much that can be done about that. Here are some things to think about in connection with John's list...

1. Global Morale. Although we can't stop someone from fighting a lost battle without risking killing off a legit game, we can make it damned difficult Basically, if one side has taken lots of casualties, they will be far less likely to get guys to keep fighting (unless the are Veteran or above, then it becomes easier).

2. Points. Exchanging crews for possible nominal tactical gain isn't cost effective. Again, you can luck out here and there, but if you play 10 games and do this all the time, more often than not you will wind up on the losing end of the deal. This hopefully will curb behavior in general.

3. Recon by Fire ain't easy. Even back in the Alpha that Fionn and Martin played out over at TGN, this is tough to do. Fionn sent crews to confuse Martin into thinking they were infantry. Martin actually knew this, and the tactic did not work (and now that crews are always identified, it is impossible for it to work!). Then Fionn tried moving a HT with no MG to flush out Martin's guys. I think he spotted one unit of "Infantry?" in a building that he already *knew* Martin was in. But guess what? He got the unit spotted because they chucked some grenades in the HT and knocked it out So again, this sort of thing generally isn't a good idea!

4. Crews are fragile. As stated in more detail in another thread, bailed out crews are more likely to Panic and Break than other units. They are also armed with pistols, and are genearlly in rough shape right after they bail out. So using them offensively will most often see them killed and/or chased away before any gain is achieved.

5. Operations. The need to keep crews alive for use in future battles furthers all of the above.

Most of John's other points are related to tweaks/fixes that have been put in since the Beta Demo.

The point about HTs driving up to within 10m of a target isn't something we can specifically code around. It isn't *smart* to do this because the defenders might use grenades/AT weapons. If you have done this and had positive results, you got lucky or applied knowledge of what the enemy has (or is likely to have) when plotting out your moves. There ain't nothing we can do about either of these things So again it comes down to average gain for use. If you tried this in, say, 5 scenarios where you know nothing about the enemy forces, I bet you wouldn't be happy with the overall results And that *should* cause you to rethink the tactic and not use it.

Just some food for thought

Steve

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Well I was under the impression we would get alot more posts on this topic but thread is still young.

its good to see that alot of the issues brought up have been addressed by BTS already

1.I have somethings that I can contribute to what I consider unethical

2.Any attempt to decieve an opponent on the nature of a scenario that he is unfamiliar with, especially when in comptetive play.

3.Editing of files for any purpose whilst involved in

4. the misrepresentation of a win or match information, especially in comptetive play

5. Intentionally throwing a game to aid another in tournament play

6. false accusations of your opponent to avoid taking a loss during competitive play

7 Disconnecting intentionally during TCP?IP match - not sure this will apply here

8. deliberately avoiding an opponent in ladder play to inhibit anothers advancement

9. Not playing when you are the top of the ladder.

10. trying to work any grey areas to your advantage - this hasnt come up just yet

but I'm sure it will

11. refusal to take turns in map choice and or side in competitive play.

If i thin of any more i will add :-P

in regards to earlier posts

Huron Nr1 charging of artillery spotters

I agree that if a unit has no ammunition that using them in an offensive action is a bit cheesy and unrealistic, as a decoy that is iguess a bit of a grey area and relative tothe situation. SEE TOL YA A GREY AREA WOULD ARISE lol

I think that having them in a vict loc already under your control in hide is ok

( feed back here welcomed)

John Hough #4 I concur completely

#9 does that mean I cant call in for NaPALM?

Well Thatll do for now

SS_PanzerLeader.,,,,,,,,out

[Guest GriffinCheng]

I second this movement.

I was acussed by my PEBM opponent of *not* using the gamey features in the SP1 games long time ago. I don't like gamey tactics, since I think I am playing a simulation here.

Griffin.

[guachi]

For me as a new player it is sometimes hard to differentiate between a gamey tactic and a stupid tactic.

I think a gamey tactic would be abusing deficiencies in the TacAI. With repeated play, I suspect many of us will be able to pick these out.

Jason

[C Colapietro]

(Duplicate post deleted - #$%&*! Internet Explorer!!!)

[This message has been edited by C Colapietro (edited 12-10-99).]

[Doug Beman]

If you're playing against somebody who insists on using tactics that are unrealistic/gamey/both, then stop playing with that person. Eventually, if enough people do the same, the "gamey-tactics" guy will either stop playing or adjust his style of play.

DjB

[C Colapietro]

Do you suppose the Poles considered the German Blitzkrieg 'gamey' tactics? I mean, who in their right mind would charge their armor head-long cross country while bypassing important objectives? How about bypassing the Maginot Line by going through a neutral country - no fair! They took advantage of the edge of the map!

I think if the units are modeled properly, and the penalties for failure are appropriate, any tactics go. After all, we don't simply want to re-create historical battles (at least I don't) - we want to try our hands at leadership under the same conditions that were historically available. If you choose to be a leader with contempt for the lives of your men, and you can pull it off, then so be it. The long-term ramifications should balance out a high-risk approach.

As far as file-hacking etc, it goes without saying that that's a no-no.

Just my $.02

[Major Tom]

Certain gamey tactics are unavoidable. These are, when you know where and when enemy reinforcements will appear so you can adjust your forces accordingly. This is utterly horrible in Last Defence. The Hellcats and Platoon appear in the same spot, roughly on the same turn. So, the Germans know exactly where to bring their armour and infantry at the correct turn.

A way to get around this, is, to have all reinforcements appear OUT of enemy line of fire. That is, either they appear behind trees, in a valley, or behind buildings. Or, have them appear at random spots at their entry zone? Instead of everything being placed right on the road, how about randomly, or at the player's choice? Now, the player's choice idea could lead to a whole new set of gamey tactics which renders it to be a null choice. I say, let the computer decide where they pop up, totally randomly.

Now, I have honestly never used vehicle crews for anything other than guarding prisoners or rear defence. FO officers are also just about as good as tank crews. When they have served their purpose I usually coralle them into an area, as some sort of emergency rear defence if my attack or defense plan crumbles. Sure, I use crews to reinforce a rear area building freeing up better troops for the front line. Just in case they break through, I will have something to try and stop them, however, they can probably stop just about nothing.

If someone scouts out your position with a bazooka team, and then starts to send in overwealming force, then, retreat. You know that you have killed one of the valuable and relatively few bazooka teams, so, consider it a victory! This might not apply to the Germans, but, these are the Allie's only form of portable Infantry Anti-tank units they have, so, if they want to waste them LET THEM! There are ways to counter these gamey tactics within the game system.

If you are having a player bombarding places where they know you have set up troops due to default setup regulations, then, just move them around during set up! Realistically, if the game does allow it, then why not? It is not like you cannot use the same tactics against them? Also as Steve stated, for tank crews and FO, they won't add much towards gaining victory in a charge, they will only gain casualties and the LOSS of victory points. Possibly, the points for FO could be raised too, or just lower their experience level (unless that hinders bombardment time) so they have less will for suicidal charges.

[billcarey]

I would add one more "gamey" tactic that I am sometimes guilty of: spraying AP rounds at infantry. If *you* were the commander of a Hellcat and you fired all your AP at a submachinegun squad, and not 5 minutes later a StuG appeared and knocked you out how would you explain that to you CO? "Well - yeah I did lose the hellcat that was providing AT for the advance - but I sure got those 3 guys in the SMG squad!"

Once you run out of HE, just use MGs or withdraw!

- Bill

[Goanna]

I am not so sure using AP on a MG nest is that gamey. I have used a StuG to pin down a MG while I moved some infantry across the field of fire and I didn't consider it gamey and would try it in real life. I don't think I would waste it all that way though.

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

desert rat wannabe