FIONNS IDEA FOR GUIDE FOR GAMERS ETHICS

[not here]

This had been an interesting thread- I don't PBEM, at least not yet, and I've always used whatever tools were at hand to beat the AI as a matter of course. It's a game- I wanna win.

But the subject of gamey-ness (gaminess?) got me to thinking. I just ran through Last Defense as the Germans, and worked the HTs through the gaps in the woods on the German right. Dropped some 81mm smoke in front of known bad guy locations and did the HT bum's rush with D platoon up the right side of the map to flank the town (other details proprietary).

What got me thinking about the difference between a "game" and gameyness was when I went to roll up the houses from right to left to get that left-most (from the German perspective) VL. As one platoon worked it's way over, I paralleled it with an MG that was still in the woods on the German player's side of the big open field. I figured that if any Amis had survived my tank-and-mortar shelling and were laying low, I'd have them in a nice crossfire as my squad approached, with the MG across the field.

Now there were no officers and no radio with the MG- he was very alone in that part of the map, and basically out of targets. He was at least 250m, probably more, from the platoon going after the house- earshot was out of the question (there was still a tank battle and beaucoup shelling going on). In real life, how would he know that the distant platoon was going to manuever 350m to its left, and that they would really appreciate some back up when they made their final rush?

Is this gamey, or playing the game? I am genuinely confused about how to deal with this, and I never really gave this sort of thing much thought before. The MG might have witnessed the platoon movement and divined their intentions, moving to help on his own intiative. I certainly could pretend that he had been briefed as part of a master plan, except that that particular part of the plan was anything but defined and arose as circumstances permitted.

In short, only my god-like view allowed this otherwise obvious maneuver to take place. From the sky, I directed the MG as if by magic to the right time and place- coordinated as if by magic with another unit with whom contact was pretty much impossible. The platoon on its own could not have done that.

An ethical dilemma, and one that arises multiple times per scenario. Have I sinned? How would either software or human judgement adjudicate such a thing?

[Guest Captain Foobar]

That is an excellent point. I think we all just need to relax...Because where do you draw the line??? Do I have to act aggressively in a historical campaign because the history of the engagement called for it. Personally, I choose little mental rationalizations to take care of this.

"The MG knew to prepare a crossfire, because we talked about it in the meeting around the campfire last night..."

I am comfortable enough with the exhaustive AI designed here to just play. Play to win. The game is built well enough to give realistic results for oddball tactics.. (or here's for hoping!!!)

[Trooper]

I'm currently involved in the TacOps tournament, a similar simultaneous-turn-based PBEM structure (Oddly enough, also available from Battlefront), and there were a few rules going around. However, in the current scenario, there is a situation wherein it is possible to airstrike or bombard the opposition at the exact moment that they enter the map. And, given that there are only one or two roads, you also know <where> they are going to enter the map.

Before the game started, I asked for a ruling to avoid the use of air or artillery in the first kilometer or whatever. This was denied by the umpires, on the basis that it should be 'reducable' by the use of certain tactics (Which IMHO would prohibit you from winning the game).

Regardless of this ruling, I undertook not to make such a gamey move if the opposition didn't. It turned out that I cancelled my airstrikes when the optimum time for him to hit me passed. The next turn, he struck. I was displeased, and diverted another wave of airstrikes to compensate. End result: We got very lucky in that the strikes were unusually ineffective, and the game progressed. However, it's an example in favour of 'if the game allows it, then use it.' I tend to agree. Even edge-huggers can be beaten...

DWH

Manic Moran

[Gromit]

Hello all:

I have to say that Harold makes a good point and that my view is in agreement with Doug B's.

It may take some time, but human nature being what it is, guys that continually use "gamey" or underhanded methods in CM will eventually only be able to play with the other "gamey" and underhanded players out there.

The old phrase "Burn me once, shame on..." comes to mind.

Don't get me wrong...I think it's OK to come up with fixes on these topics, though as some have stated, there are some that will always be around.

Thanks for the info Steve.

Paul

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

[Reverendo]

I'm sorry, but I think I have to say this:

It is sure that we should make an effort to eradicate bad gaming behaviours. For example, modifying the game to your benefit, or using some sort of 'cheat codes'.

But I think the concept 'gamey' is a bit... well... 'gamey'.

What I mean is that CM is a realistic game. Most things work like they should work real life. Sometimes you can have a stroke of bad luck, of course, as you can get lucky, but the action still follows a pattern.

Any behaviour that 'doesn't come from the game', like modifying it, is bad. But if it is IN the game, it should be ALWAYS RIGHT.

I will NEVER modify my tactics if somebody tells me they're 'gamey'. I love WWII history, but I want to play a game, not to make history happen again in a computer simulation. 'Hey, the Germans didn't use this tactic!' some may say. 'Should I care?, I'm not German and this is not WWII anymore!' I'll reply.

In my opinion, you should be allowed to do ANYTHING the game engine allows you to do. And if you don't like the way somebody plays, don't tell him to play any other way, just stop playing with him and look for another opponent...

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

Regards

Reverendo

[Guest Captain Foobar]

HEAR HEAR!!!!

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Exactly. If it's in the game, then it's fair play. Patches can take care of any flaws.

Problem with game rules is that they are too open to interpretation. If something was not done in real life, there was a reason for it. Find that reason.

[Wild Bill Wilder]

I've read every letter in here carefully. The end analysis is that some are for it. Some are against it.

Each side has its own reasons. Both present strong arguments. I'm convinced on both sides.

But then reality sets in. A person is going to do what he is going to do. If he is honorable, he will play honorably. If not, he will play his way, whatever that way might be.

I am very selective about the person I play in a PBEM game. I have fought against the best and the worst. I have seen many kinds of cheats, tricks, short cuts, and unrealistic (yet sometimes very successful)tactics.

I've supported all types of security features that you can imagine for games.

In all that time, I've learned to pick my opponents well. I don't want to play wondering if the other guy is being kosher. That takes the fun out of it.

Short cuts, gamey moves, and using a game weakness have always gone on and always will. I don't see how you can avoid them.

So if I play a scenario or operation for the historical value, I play alone against the AI.

If I want a knock-down,drag out fight to the death, I carefully pick me an opponent I trust, agree beforehand what can and what cannot be done and get to it.

Personally, I don't see how it can be done any other way. Neither do I think it can be successfully legislated.

I do applaud Fionn's effort. It is a noble one. I wish him luck with it.

Finally, plain and simple, you aren't going to find that many "gamey" moves in this one, guys. They just ain't there (G)!

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

Dirctor of Scenario Design,

The Gamers Net

[Hundminen]

I think the whole concept of PBEM ethics or etiquette is really a bit of a band-aid for faulty game design. The game should be programmed to minimize or eliminate these gamey tactics from working in the first place. Hopefully the final game release will do this.

For instance, units out of communication should be controlled by AI only, and not by the player (to Not Here's point). You should not be able to issue commands to units that have no communication with a commander.

Also, many units appear much too willing and eager to walk into direct enemy fire (including abandoned tank crews, and other units ill-prepared). That kind of behavior was extremely rare, except when substantial covering fire (suppression) was offered.

From my limited knowledge of the western European theatre of operations, most soldiers acted much more cautiously than what I have seen so far. I have not seen very much in the way of surrendering either (the Germans were surrendering on a massive scale - to the western allies - as the western front advanced eastwards).

In my opinion, I think a little more reality-balancing in these areas could make this game not just good, but great.

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

[Spy_Eye]

The main problem with ethic is ; who is the judge of the ethics. Sure for file hackings thats more then ethics matter, thats CHEATING. But who can judge for others. Tactics can be very specials. In an exemple if you have to guard a bridge at all cost to protects an open flank, who wont use every resources in his power to guard it. Even FO can be involved to save the situation. And in some situations the crews were very in good uses. Like in stalingrad they knew they wont have any other tanks to use. So why not using them to fight to save the day. its a matter of choices. Cheating list is more important. To be aware of those. But i think that ethics is like war.... You do what you have to do. If its shooting prisoners or let your FO fight along. Like someone can say that sending a HT on a bridge to block it is not ethic. Even if it means an HT sacrice. But for others it means simply slowing the ennemy. Ethics is the burden of the commanding officers, some are very bad, some are very good. So let them be themself, if you dont like their style, ask to be assign to a new regiment.(dont play this player again) Because imagine all the nightmare to the ones who will claim to have been played not ethicly. We will have just enough with "possible" cheaters accusations.

[This message has been edited by Spy_Eye (edited 12-13-99).]

[howardb]

Actually that thing about the HT blocking the bridge is pure brilliance and not gamey at all if you ask me. If you're smart enough to think about it you should be able to use it. If it on the other hand are glitches in the system that makes a bridge impossible to blow up (let's asume that's the objective of the attacker) because the HT is there it's unethical to use that tactic. Well that's my opinion for what it's worth

[Slapdragon]

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">The issue of ethics in gaming

is a tough one, maybe a little easier in a wargame, but still

present. For a "normal" one-on-one game, the answer

of course it to not play with the person who cheats. With tourney

games though, things get more difficult.</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">During the breakout from Normandy,

the British spent tanks like water to hold down German forces,

often charging into death traps just to distract attention from

the combined allied breakout. The trick of it was that the crews

often survived the destruction of their vehicles, and were soon

back into new tanks. Some of this can be simulated as follows-</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">The loss of a tanks is a blow

to your victory points, but if you can retreat a crew off board,

you get some of those points back. In a campaign game vehicle

crews would be harder to replace than tanks, especially for the

allies.</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Forward observers should always

have a small chance of unexpected artillery. More so with the

American artillery system, but their is always a chance that soem

coppuld be freed up for all sides.</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Create some way in the game to

handle casualty and prisoner evacuation. Although in a 40 minute

game this is not a huge issue, members of units that had been

chopped apart would often be assigned to these sorts of duties.

Also, as a unit takes casualties, more units will stop to render

aid (less so for veterans who have good medics behind them). That

way sending little units to their doom will cause other units

to drop out to handle casualties.</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Create "scout" units.

Oral histories of the Big Red One (1st Infantry Division) talk

about people in platoons assigned to scout duties despite it not

being an official organic duty of the unit. The need to charge

bazooka and crew teams about the board would be less if platoons

could calve scouts, or scouts were available in the form of recon

troops.</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">The big issue of course is that

in one-on-one play things are unrealistic to some extent. When

I was getting my master's degree was had a Steel Panther's league

that tried to campaign, with interesting results. Sometimes, in

different tactical situations, a player would just say "to

hell" with attacking. The objective was not important enough

and the defensive situation way too tough. The player just decided

to save his strength, probed the defenses, used up his artillery,

and withdrew to a defensive position. Now of course, this makes

for a boring contest, but a realistic one. World War One bogged

down in part because local commanders started parking their troops

rather than take huge casualties.</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">If you know each crew and each

half chewed up squad can be rebuilt for the next game, you may

have more incentive to save them rather than winning the battle

and loosing the war.</FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Finally, hacks could be handled

by a set of checksum bits that look at unit statistics in the

binary files. If the checksum does not add up for each category,

then the game has been hacked, and the game could be designed

to say. "This game has been modified from the original".

I am, of course, not talking about what color your Hetzer is,

but if you have a Stuart with a 90mm gun, some number is changed

somewhere and it wont add up. </FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"></FONT></P>

<FONT FACE="Times New Roman">Steve Jackson</FONT>

[Degrees of Frost]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Hough:

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.

-John<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't feel up to addressing all your points John

But this (specific) one seemed the easy to deal with.

Make troops exiting vehicles as exposed as all get out. I have had this tactic used against me and it really sucked. Have used it against the AI (just a test I assure you) and found it successful)

I am sure it was used in reality once in a while when the enemy was pinned and most members of the target squad wounded - but against a full squad it would seem suicidal to tootle up to a building containing a squad of Brits (lets say) and jump out of the halftrack and spray them down with MP40s - but in the game it seems to work more often than not.

There has to be way to pin the bastards in the halftrack so they stay in the vehicle - imagine them banging against the wall - yelling "Could you please get us out of here, driver I am not going to get out here".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve - Big Time Software:

The point about HTs driving up to within 10m of a target isn't something we canspecifically 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should add the caveat that german halftracks to alot worse facing Americans (love those rifle grenades) in that situation.

But if the halftrack is on a road and approaching at speed - the SMG squad is dismounted and attacking so quickly that AT assets such grenades or demo-charges don't get much of a look in.

So my suggestion is maybe reduce the immediate combat effectiveness of dismounting squads (the squads leader may have difficulty directing his squad as they are jumping and after they have jumped out of a halftrack) and make them more susceptible to enemy fire.

[This message has been edited by Degrees of Frost (edited 08-28-2000).]

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hopefully the final game release will do this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> -Hundminen, the final is already out.

It all depends on why you play the game. You play for enjoyment of the game or you play to win at all costs. Both types of players exist and there's really not much that can be done except watch who you play with.

-johnS

[deanco]

I like the comment, 'treat your men like they were real people'. I was playing "Meyer's Revenge" (no spoilers) and at the end of the game the situation was tense. I used a crew that just happened to be there to attack and distract an enemy tank, just long enough for my engineers to get close enough to close assault it. I felt like I had treated my guys realistically. The situation was desperate, and I had to balance the loss of the crew against the possible elimination of the tank. As I said, he happened to be there so he was pressed into action. My usual MO however is to leave the crews where they land if they are behind the front lines, and send them rearward if they are in the line of fire.

DeanCo--

[Chupacabra]

Sheesh, who dug this old chestnut out?

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Rattus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Sheesh, who dug this old chestnut out?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hamsters!

Seriously, I am playing a game, a very good game that is probably much more realistic than than any other WWII computer sim I've played but still a game. I BTS have (& will continue to do) a good job limiting the effectiveness of certain sorts of gamey tactics but for the rest, it should be up to the player. If the objective is so critical, I will utilise all the resources under my command to achieve it. That call is best left to the player. This is where campaigns are so good.

My 5c (AUD=about 1c everywhere else )

[Pham911]

I'd think that how you use your troops reflects more on your leadership than on gamey mechanics. If you like to charge loaded halftracks to within 10m of the enemy and then unload and fight, go for it. It shows you to be an agressive commander who is more concerned with completing objectives than with the welfare of his troops. Is this bad? Well, I guess if you're under the command of someone like that it would be. Is it unrealistic? Not really. CO's risk thier mens lives every time they enter combat, it's just a matter of how casually they risk them. OTOH, if I charge a position with loaded halftracks, bail my men out and proceed to machine gun the enemy into oblivion from 10m away, maybe I'm saving more lives than if I slowly moved on the position in a standard move/overwatch/move pattern.

Hell, maybe if I don't take the position quickly I'll find myself facing massive armor reinforcements on the next turn and have to advance carefully while now under 88mm HE fire.

It's really a matter of personal choice, influenced by battlefield conditions. There are no ethics on the battlefield, just possibilities, impossibilities, and objectives. Also, since no real lives are lost in the course of a game, it's harmless to test out new tactics even if they would normally cost you your command for incompotence.

And, judging from the beach landings on D-Day, it's not all that hard to get troops to exit a fairly safe vehicle into direct and lethal fire.

[David Aitken]

Tiger wrote:

> -Hundminen, the final is already out.

Yeah, well he posted that last year.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911:

There are no ethics on the battlefield, just possibilities, impossibilities, and objectives.

tom w opines:

Good Point!!

Also, since no real lives are lost in the course of a game, it's harmless to test out new tactics even if they would normally cost you your command for incompotence.

And, judging from the beach landings on D-Day, it's not all that hard to get troops to exit a fairly safe vehicle into direct and lethal fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was a very good post.

What's wrong with playing to win?

Was it "gamey" when Japenese pilots in

WW II piloted their fighters laden with bombs into Naval ships and died trying?

No, it was an effective military tactic.

Was it "gamey" when vietnamese sappers strapped explosives to their bodies and ran straight for the command bunker or the highest ranking officer to detonate?

NO

(now its true in these examples the faction using these tactics did not win the overall war, Well I'm Canadian and I hate to bring up the Vietnam war thing, so lets just stick to the Kamakazee Pilot attacks, the Japanese did not win the war)

Anyway I use these examples to illustrate the point raised above that "There are no ethics on the battlefield" only winning and loosing,

I prefer to believe that ANY tactic that is do -able or that the game will allow is open as an option to try to use to win.

War is a Full contact sport and if you are not playing to win why are you playing? And if you are not playing to win at all costs do you think your opponent will respect you more?

I won't. (now cheating is a whole other story, cheating is hacking the game or the PBEM file, that's just plain out and out cheating and I think that's very wrong)

Play to win and use any thing and EVERY thing that will help you gain victory!

Again...

"There are no ethics on the battlefield" !!!

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>