PBEM ethics

[Manus von Olie]

ORIGINAL: Rick

Actually, as long as your opponent, in this case Seille, knew what you were doing, I don't see a problem with it. As with most things, it really is a situational issue. I recall playing some training scenarios for Combat Mission. And doing what you described was not only accepted, it was encouraged, in order to learn the lesson. Of course, these missions were played against the AI.

Rick

He knew, I told him I had to study a bit first and we discussed tactics a little: I told him I was looking into wiping out HQs completely, but he said I should just go for encirclements...

[seille]

Looking at a scenario before playing is ok especially the briefing and possible event triggers,
but playing the first turn 10 times until i have a deadly result isn´t.
Using combatsim to check possible result isn´t.
I wouldn´t call this cheating, but it´s not what i call fairplay.
Especially in russia 1941 the first german turn is too important to allow things like this.
A few unsuccessful attacks can increase the russian chances to survive the initial attack a lot.
Just my opinion.

[seille]

ORIGINAL: Manus von Olie
He knew, I told him I had to study a bit first and we discussed tactics a little: I told him I was looking into wiping out HQs completely, but he said I should just go for encirclements...

That´s true, but i still think the initial HQ´s you killed did not win the game for you.
It was the third (Smolensk) That neutralized my complete center defense and the fact that i had bad luck in destroying a important bridge behind Minsk
even i was prepared for.
But, i still think it was the hardest attack i saw so far. Harder than Twebers or XBoronX´s, who both won with Germany when we played.
Maybe i´ll try to take revenge one day in a non ladder game [:)]

[Manus von Olie]

If you study a scenario before you play the game, not yet involved in a PBEM, then I would not count that as cheating.
As in real warfare armies take aerial photos, spy out the enemy positions, maybe talk to those who know the layout of the terrain etc. Eg. Operation Overlord how many photos were taken,beaches were checked, time of tides were taken into account,the list of things could go on forever.

But the armies didn't undertake an opening attack and if it went wrong say, that doesn't really count so I can start again.

The same should be with a game. Prepare for a game. Yes
PBEM started then first go should count.

Exactly, British Exil, so that's why I wrote in the addition on the PBEM Code that you should agree on an exact time when the game should start. This you could do just for and by yourself too.

I'm quite sure that, according to some or most people, I have been cheating. I found also quite a few exploits and was using them happily in my eager innocence, but I described and documented them all as unrealistic and Victor changed them in the newer version. This is an ongoing process: things that are not really exploits should in my opinion also be changed in a newer version: 'attacking in waves' (several dosed ground attacks on the same hex to avoid wasting action points and to avoid the crowding penalty) and 'surprise attacks' (attacking out of the blue with newly formed HQs) are both tactics that I would like to be made impossible. So that's one reason I started the AT Academy: to inform people about the possibilities of the game first, and then after we could decide collectively if there needed to be more adaptations in the game itself.

I started to write the PBEM Code, because I thought it would be cool to have a set of house rules everybody would feel comfortable with and because I noticed my own personal code was changing too in the course of time by playing with other people (I just started some months ago playing with people, before I only played the AI). It seems that the average player doesn't need such a code, since most people are playing friendly games and there seems to be already an unwritten Code people abide by, which I think is excellent . Especially for games played on the ladder lists the written Code could be nice to promote fair play and to avoid irritations and disappointments. The Code could also be helpful for people new in PBEM gaming, and, with some adaptations, it could probably be used for other games too.

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: Manus von Olie
Exactly, British Exil, so that's why I wrote in the addition on the PBEM Code that you should agree on an exact time when the game should start. This you could do just for and by yourself too.

Von Ollie, the code is good and I fully support it, so don't get me wrong. Another question I have is how you deal with scenarios that are (non random) well known and often played? Again, this is not specific fo AT, but for almost all games (the ones that count at least [;)]), but there are scenarios in TOAW, WitP, ACW etc etc where "everyone" know the situation on turn one give or take some of the noobs. This does not prevent players from playing them, rather it seems as if these are the more favoured scenarios compared to the more obscure for which general knowledge about the situation is more limited.

Then again, as your code state, I believe in being open and honest vs your potential opponent: Let him/her know if you played the scenario a couple of times or if you never opened it before. Most likely you will both have a better gaming experience if you do what the code propose. Then again, pure cheats/exploits that are beyond simply being knowledgeable/experienced is not OK, and I think/hope most gamers agree on that.

[tweber]

I think an 'exploit' is just a new, undiscovered tactic.  Once it is widely known, it is either accepted and becomes just another tactic or it is not accepted and becomes a cheat.
 
I am glad that there are at least some scenarios that people find worth studying.  It does make it hard to balance a game if you have to consider how it plays with the AI, with the casual gamer and with the serious gamer.  I would be interested in feedback from Manus and others on the balance of the 1941 scenario after careful review.
 
There are two ways I can think of eliminating the 'play the first turn many times' tactic:
- add a ghost regime that the Soviets use to start the game to get anti cheat up and running.  Put the ghost regime to sleep once the first turn is passed to the German side.  Writing this event would require some care so as not to upset the other events already in place (requires an extra emailing). 
- just agree to play the first side only once (requires trust)

[Manus von Olie]

ORIGINAL: seille
That´s true, but i still think the initial HQ´s you killed did not win the game for you.
It was the third (Smolensk) That neutralized my complete center defense and the fact that i had bad luck in destroying a important bridge behind Minsk even i was prepared for.
But, i still think it was the hardest attack i saw so far. Harder than Twebers or XBoronX´s, who both won with Germany when we played.
Maybe i´ll try to take revenge one day in a non ladder game [:)]

I think I saw your HQ Smolensk with a figther flying a recon mission, or else with troops moving ahead. Then I thought, "Maybe I can destroy it, that would disrupt his defense." Then I go about really very carefully, little step by little step, making sure to concentrate all available fire as 'economically' as possible on this single goal, and I succeeded. Mind you, such a move does cost me some hours, and not the 30 minutes you guys are talking about. And then still to take some hours for a move is not enough: the previous moves should also be thought out very well, using all the key points, especially about flexibility, and thinking ahead all the time, both strategically and tactically. Of course when you train yourself in playing like that it goes eventually quicker and quicker.

I think, rather than me playing Tom, you could try to beat me as Germany in Russia 1941, as you gave that one up on me. You can study and analyze whatever you want beforehand (after all: combat sim is just 200 times an attack and it's very good to learn on average what the engine does, much quicker than trying two hundred times ). Restart as often as you want (I restarted twice, maybe three times maximum in the game against you). Because you're right: the first move is very important, but if it is not supported by cunningness (and a fair amount of invested time) it is not decisive. If you want we can also play an official ladder game, mirrored, on or off the record, it's up to you.

[Manus von Olie]

ORIGINAL: Widell
Von Ollie, the code is good and I fully support it, so don't get me wrong. Another question I have is how you deal with scenarios that are (non random) well known and often played? Again, this is not specific fo AT, but for almost all games (the ones that count at least [;)]), but there are scenarios in TOAW, WitP, ACW etc etc where "everyone" know the situation on turn one give or take some of the noobs. This does not prevent players from playing them, rather it seems as if these are the more favoured scenarios compared to the more obscure for which general knowledge about the situation is more limited.

Then again, as your code state, I believe in being open and honest vs your potential opponent: Let him/her know if you played the scenario a couple of times or if you never opened it before. Most likely you will both have a better gaming experience if you do what the code propose. Then again, pure cheats/exploits that are beyond simply being knowledgeable/experienced is not OK, and I think/hope most gamers agree on that.

I'm not sure Widell, you give the answer to your question yourself? To me that's fun, people becoming experts and then starting to battle each other. Happens all the time in sports too, no?

[Manus von Olie]

ORIGINAL: tweber
I think an 'exploit' is just a new, undiscovered tactic.  Once it is widely known, it is either accepted and becomes just another tactic or it is not accepted and becomes a cheat.

...becomes a cheat... or is effectively made impossible by the designers. Thanks for desensitiving the issue Tweber.

I am glad that there are at least some scenarios that people find worth studying.  It does make it hard to balance a game if you have to consider how it plays with the AI, with the casual gamer and with the serious gamer.  I would be interested in feedback from Manus and others on the balance of the 1941 scenario after careful review.

There are two ways I can think of eliminating the 'play the first turn many times' tactic:
- add a ghost regime that the Soviets use to start the game to get anti cheat up and running.  Put the ghost regime to sleep once the first turn is passed to the German side.  Writing this event would require some care so as not to upset the other events already in place (requires an extra emailing). 
- just agree to play the first side only once (requires trust)

Well, I have the strong feeling the Russians will always loose with a German player who is using the possibilities of the game well, but I'm willing to look into that more with Seille, if he wants of course. Locking the first turn with a ghost regime won't do the trick: already now I'm capable to destroy or effectively immobilize all Soviet front troops, except the ones from Leningrad Front, just by having clearly each HQ's goal for the turn in mind and about 95% independent of randomness (just one after attack outcome to conquer the hex Northeast of Odessa is sometimes 'off' for a, to me, mysterious reason).

The solution to make it incredible more fun by creating myriads of different starting positions and to give more game balance in favor of the Soviets could be that the game starts with the Russians making their setup first as start of the game (without altering the composition of their units) : In the excellent boardgame 'Russian Campaign' the Russians had different setup sectors for their different army groups. Within such a sector the Soviet player could deploy his troops how he thought was best. Because of the retarded official Soviet military doctrine at the time, which resulted in massive troop deployment very close to the border, the sectors were not 'deep'. Maybe in our game the sectors could be four/five hexes deep, counted from the border, or following a river a bit inland. If you can and want to include such a setup for our 1941 Russia scenario, I could help defining the shape of the setup sectors. With this improvement it would be much more difficult too to overrun Soviet HQs. It would be a good protection for all scenarios against cheaters like me who sometimes analyze the first move to the bottom just for the hell of it [:D].