Sleazy Trick

[Russian Guard]

I must admit I never thought of this - quite frankly, my mind just doesn't work this way.

Playing a multi-player game, I was sieging a conquered minor Country capital and, the turn before it would have definitely fallen to me, the player controlling that minor, gave it it's independence - right out from under me.

So of course I was forced to start over, and declare war on the now neutral minor.

Am I the only player left in the world who doesn't resort to "clever" tactics like this?

In any event, watch out for this one, if you are playing multi-player...

[Joram]

I am surmising from your post that when granted independence the troops in the fort regained full strength? If that's so, then yes, it's definitely sleezy because it's exploiting a design flaw.

[Russian Guard]

No, the city was empty and I conquered it immediately the next turn.

But it's still sleazy; it cost me diplomatic points to declare war on the neutral, which also costs you a hit on the attitude other nearby minors have toward you, and took an extra turn that my Army had to sit there and siege.

[Panama Red]

Sounds like a slick diplomacy trick to me and in the real world things like this happen all the time.
 
A good example of a political/diplomacy trick was Lincoln's emancipation of the Southern slaves in 1863.  His emancipation only freed the slaves in the Southern States that he did not control, he did not free the slaves in the border slave states that had stayed in the Union. By doing this he also took Britian and France out of the political mix too. So like I said political or diplomatic tricks happen all the time in real life too and freeing a country that is about to be conquared by another country gives those people something worth fighting about that they did not have before.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Panama Red

Sounds like a slick diplomacy trick to me and in the real world things like this happen all the time.

Your answer reminds me that as a gamer, my breed is getting rarer and rarer... [:'(]

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

ORIGINAL: Panama Red

Sounds like a slick diplomacy trick to me and in the real world things like this happen all the time.

Your answer reminds me that as a gamer, my breed is getting rarer and rarer... [:'(]

Hehe, I hear what you're saying. It's why I avoid most multiplayer games. Just keep in mind that if it can be done, someone will find a way to do it, and someone else will always say it's "historical". Ok, time to go back to Solitaire. [:'(]

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Joram

Hehe, I hear what you're saying. It's why I avoid most multiplayer games. Just keep in mind that if it can be done, someone will find a way to do it, and someone else will always say it's "historical". Ok, time to go back to Solitaire. [:'(]

Nice to hear a familiar voice in the gaming ethics wilderness...Yes and, although this particular "gamey" tactic could be fixed (by not allowing a minor country to be liberated while it's capital is under siege), you are right about the "if it can be done"...

[TexHorns]

I have mixed feelings about this issue. If the game allows it why should it be frowned upon? THen again why does the game allow it if it is gamey or ahistorical?

It reminds me of a time I was playing one of The Gamer's brigade series board games, August Fury (2nd Bull Run) I think it was. I was playing against a human opponent (ah those were the days). My opponent (the Yankee) was brining on reinforecements in road column. I (the Confederate) had artillery on a hill that could see the oncoming Yankee columns in the distance. Although the fire value of firing at a target at maximum distance was low, the fact the target was in column gave a bonus. To me it was worth the expenditure in ammo to try and disorganize or even rout the oncoming reinforcements. I fired my battery's and hit the columns sure enough, disorganinzing and routing some of them. This really ticked off my human opponent. He stated that he had never thought of firing cannon at such long range against road column targets simply to disorganize them. He also stated that it was ahistorical because ammo was so precious to the Confederates they would have never "wasted" it on such long range targets. To me it was risk vs reward and I was willing to take the risk. To him it was not playing to the spirit of the game. So who was right?

As in most things, it is all relative to your own point of view. To the guy who liberated the minor, it was playing to win. Maybe not in the "spirit" of the game, maybe not historically, but to win. The object is to win within the rules of the game. I think what ticks us off sometimes is that 1) we were thwarted in our strategy, and 2) we didn't think of it ourselves. The risk (or reward) of playing a live opponent is the unpredicatability of another human player. I say tip your hat to his ingenuity, be grateful you have a live opponent and chalk it up as a lessoned learned.

[Hard Sarge]

one hassle with this one is, the AI will do it also
 
as for fireing on troops on the fire, sour grapes, if they with in range and marching, shame on him, now if you were gambling on fireing beyond your normal range, that is a little dicey
 
 

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: TexHorns

I have mixed feelings about this issue. If the game allows it why should it be frowned upon? THen again why does the game allow it if it is gamey or ahistorical?

It reminds me of a time I was playing one of The Gamer's brigade series board games, August Fury (2nd Bull Run) I think it was. I was playing against a human opponent (ah those were the days). My opponent (the Yankee) was brining on reinforecements in road column. I (the Confederate) had artillery on a hill that could see the oncoming Yankee columns in the distance. Although the fire value of firing at a target at maximum distance was low, the fact the target was in column gave a bonus. To me it was worth the expenditure in ammo to try and disorganize or even rout the oncoming reinforcements. I fired my battery's and hit the columns sure enough, disorganinzing and routing some of them. This really ticked off my human opponent. He stated that he had never thought of firing cannon at such long range against road column targets simply to disorganize them. He also stated that it was ahistorical because ammo was so precious to the Confederates they would have never "wasted" it on such long range targets. To me it was risk vs reward and I was willing to take the risk. To him it was not playing to the spirit of the game. So who was right?

As in most things, it is all relative to your own point of view. To the guy who liberated the minor, it was playing to win. Maybe not in the "spirit" of the game, maybe not historically, but to win. The object is to win within the rules of the game. I think what ticks us off sometimes is that 1) we were thwarted in our strategy, and 2) we didn't think of it ourselves. The risk (or reward) of playing a live opponent is the unpredicatability of another human player. I say tip your hat to his ingenuity, be grateful you have a live opponent and chalk it up as a lessoned learned.

The classic argument.

Reminds me of the old days when I first played Squad Leader - the rules as first written allowed a tank to drive forward sideways through your line of fire, always keeping a frontal armor facing you. Until it was fixed in an addenda, players I knew would actually DO this, and claim it was "within the rules". They were right, it was; but that didn't change the fact that it was not intended that way, by any application of both common sense and historical precedent (not to mention, laws of physics).

I have no interest in tipping my hat to the "ingenuity" of exploiting game mechanics loopholes.

But you are right about one thing; this is all relative. Some players define exploitation of rules as "ingenuity"...others consider it something else entirely.

[TexHorns]

Then pick your "live" opponents carefully. Pitty the generals on the field of battle couldn't pick their opponents to make sure they didn't "exploit" any loopholes in the battlefield terrain, entry areas, time of deployment or other "rules" of the "game" of war. I don't think you would have liked playing Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in a "game".

[Cheesehead]

When I have encountered games that have "gamey" loopholes that allow a player to exploit a situation unfavorably, I generally lose interest in the game. Even if it is within the rules of the game, if it get's too ahistorical or too "weird" it ruins the game for me. I don't fault my opponents for doing what it takes to win and I don't necessarily claim it is a bad game. It's just not a game for me. An example of this is GGWaW. I liked this game when it first came out, but then started encountering clever PBEM opponents who would put all their research into killer tanks or super subs and then dominate the theater with just a handful of these industructable beasts. Maybe I was a chump for trying to simulate a more realistic game instead of countering these bizzaro strategies, but I just didn't want to play that way. I quickly lost interest in the game. Is anyone playing that game anymore?

John

[alaric318]

greetings, it is a hard way to all we to find players what like same type of game and tactics on it, if i have to side to one way or another i will take the way to try to avoid "wierd" tactics, but not allways succeded on it, Accomplishment and success onwards is a problem to make a righteusness play, i think much players "are lost" in this way, in the course of a game, in effect and for some games some groups of players play, with same game engine very different game styles, some at a "win total war at total cost", allowing all tricks that game allows, some others take the hard way of configure own house rules for limit o elim. the tricks that game allows but they not find ethics or ethical, to make a dedicated house rule for adress these issues is a hard work and take much time to stablish it on some games, but can offer a ethical correct custom game, i am for it, partucularly with games with the degrade of complexity (for good) that "crown of glory" and other games offer, this is my point about this post, hope to not have make "aflame" no one,
 
with best regards,
 
Murat30.
(please take care on my topic about off-topic games, maybe it interest some or all of you)

[haruntaiwan]

How is this gamey, when in fact, you were at war with the foreign power that had occupied that nation? If the foreign power gives up his control, he has lost something too, and it is very realistic that the newly liberated country would become neutral?

The whole point of having the minor countries is that they act semi-autonomously and are not just "rebel" provinces to be mined for resources.

It reminds me of a historical situation where the Japanese occupied European colonies during WW II and then afterwards the Europeans were forced come back in to "re-occupy" these colonies since many had declared independence (with some Japanese help oftentimes.) See Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.

[Hard Sarge]

I don't know if any of you had played BTR from Talonsoft (Matrix is redoing it by the way:)

but I used to post on another fourm alot, ideas, hints, tips and ideas on the game and out of the blue some guy wanted to play me a game, I don't normally play PBEM games, but thought why not and started one

after a few turns, it started to look a little funny, I know, he was watching the turn and then replaying it, and other little odd things

(one tip off was he never lost a GE fighter in combat, if I attacked and damaged the plane, fine, and it may crash later, but after about 10 days of playing, he never lost a GE fighter to a attack)

so, I set up a trap (I did a lot of beta testing for the OOBs so knew alot of how the game really worked)
if I hit this and that Radar site, and then fly the whole route over the water, I could pop up into the side of France with out him knowing where I was

run the turn, every worked like a champ, my raids pop up out of nowhere and every Gruppen of GE fighters is in the air waiting for them

we stopped playing at that point, he had the time down to the minute that I would pop into view and all of his planes waiting

I think that is one hassle a lot of players have, if they are going to help themselfs or take advantage of something, they forget to be subtle about it, and just go for things that should never happen

and then it stands out even more what is going on

Rule Lawers should go where they send the rest of the Lawers

(any Lawers here, I didn't say that, honest)

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: haruntaiwan

How is this gamey, when in fact, you were at war with the foreign power that had occupied that nation? If the foreign power gives up his control, he has lost something too, and it is very realistic that the newly liberated country would become neutral?

The whole point of having the minor countries is that they act semi-autonomously and are not just "rebel" provinces to be mined for resources.

It reminds me of a historical situation where the Japanese occupied European colonies during WW II and then afterwards the Europeans were forced come back in to "re-occupy" these colonies since many had declared independence (with some Japanese help oftentimes.) See Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.

It's gamey not because it can be done but because the game mechanics do not really simulate the consequences of such an action properly.

You bring up an interesting point but there really is little you can compare with 1940's Pacific with 1800's Europe.

[Russian Guard]

ORIGINAL: Joram


It's gamey not because it can be done but because the game mechanics do not really simulate the consequences of such an action properly.

You bring up an interesting point but there really is little you can compare with 1940's Pacific with 1800's Europe.

Yes exactly. If the controlling power lost additional glory for abandoning a controlled minor that was under siege, or if that minor automatically then surrendered to the sieging power, then I'd say sure, go for it.

Of course, no player would; the whole point of the tactic is to beat the system and avoid losing glory for losing a minor controlled state, and force your opponent to lose some glory in an otherwise unnecessary DoW, and take another month to conquer the minor.

I can hear some players laughing and saying "what a great move!" [8|] [:D] [:-]

[haruntaiwan]

I see about the glory part.