What is the defination of "Gamey"?

[USSAmerica]

John said, "widdling." [:D][:D][:D]

[Chickenboy]

Do I get some good AA for my tuna boats? [:D]

[Schanilec]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510





That is why I fish more instead of hunt. Catch-n-Release... when I drop a pheasant from 25 yards...I, unfortunately, have to eat it...

Dude...you're not using the right pheasant recipes then. I'll take pheasant any day over most freshwater fish...[&o]

I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall.

I understand your taste. Many people just can't savor wild game and some don't care for fish.. I'm just the opposite on all counts. Fish, upland game waterfowl, big game you name it. However I don't care for bear. To greasy IMO.

And gamey. I don't believe I have any problems in my AI game. Couple of weeks ago (20 August 1942) I landed on Guadalcanal and my surface force got clobbered at Savo. I lost three heavy cruisers and a destroyer and others damaged to various degrees. And nary a scratch to the IJN group. But the transports were spared. Pretty much followed what actually happened. Though it two weeks to get the airfield. And I goofed on the Tulagi group not showing up. Greatest of fun though.

[dr.hal]

Like many things in the real world, there is no one unifying theory (look at physics or international relations theory for example) in terms of this topic and although attempts are made, to date they have failed (poor frustrated Einstein). I don't think it is possible to come to a single definition and have it work. There seems to be two areas (separated for argument sake but interrelated within the game) that some of this discussion falls into (IMHO). Gamey in relation to the game engine is one and certainly that is something of a concern here. Second relates to a tactic or strategy that is "clearly" a historical. Disco Duck points to this in his post above. I think the first form is easier to "define" than the second, as there is a lot of gray area in the second concerning what is "a historical" and what is just "thinking outside the box". I think the discourse between two players agreeing before hand about some guidelines really is the effective way of dealing with the second issue area. The first area can also be handled this way but should also raise the awareness of the designers in relation to a future modification. The "gray" in this area has also been identified, such as when a short term tactic used because it "can be" seems to offset a longer term tactic or strategy that the designers tried to bring into balance (in the larger view of the game) through the short term tactic. I guess a lot of the angst can be cured with a good does of mutual common sense between the players and a lot of conversation as well. This will lead to the now famous naval cry: "Damn the definitions, full speed ahead"!

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Like many things in the real world, there is no one unifying theory (look at physics or international relations theory for example) in terms of this topic and although attempts are made, to date they have failed (poor frustrated Einstein). I don't think it is possible to come to a single definition and have it work. There seems to be two areas (separated for argument sake but interrelated within the game) that some of this discussion falls into (IMHO). Gamey in relation to the game engine is one and certainly that is something of a concern here. Second relates to a tactic or strategy that is "clearly" a historical. Disco Duck points to this in his post above. I think the first form is easier to "define" than the second, as there is a lot of gray area in the second concerning what is "a historical" and what is just "thinking outside the box". I think the discourse between two players agreeing before hand about some guidelines really is the effective way of dealing with the second issue area. The first area can also be handled this way but should also raise the awareness of the designers in relation to a future modification. The "gray" in this area has also been identified, such as when a short term tactic used because it "can be" seems to offset a longer term tactic or strategy that the designers tried to bring into balance (in the larger view of the game) through the short term tactic. I guess a lot of the angst can be cured with a good does of mutual common sense between the players and a lot of conversation as well. This will lead to the now famous naval cry: "Damn the definitions, full speed ahead"!

Not looking for a "Unified field theory". I'm looking for an agreeable defination. More Noah Webster than Albert Einstein. [:D] And I perfer the comment that is unofficially attributed to ,"Soc" McMorris at the Battle of the Komandorski's. "Screw the torpedo's, full speed astern, let's get the hell out of here!" [:D]

[pws1225]

gamey adj : descriptive of an action that exploits the game engine to achieve ahistorical results : unfairly exploitative of the rules : against the spirit of fair play

[darbycmcd]

I hope it is ok to step into this thread, but it relates to the other one I started. The problem with the definition of gamey = cheating is it is sort of tautological as a definition, but not really clarifying in some cases. For example, the Japanese air group resize issue. It is possible by code. But is it a cheat? It is definitely in the game, but was it intended? JWE says they designed the game to allow for rational play, so because it is in the game should that mean it is not an exploit? Would anything then be, as long as one player can say it is 'rational'. That is why I was soliciting input on the other thread, as one of the players I have a perspective, and in discussion with my op he had another. We had already come to a conclusion, but certainly one that wasn't based on really much more than "I'm right". Only a very small handful of people know what the design intent was.

(very American example) think about baseball before the infield fly rule. Guys were dropping pop-ups to turn double plays, very much within the rules of the game. but not within the spirit of the game. of course if you asked an infielder at that moment he would say it was totally ok. ask a hitter (maybe the same guy!) and he would complain about it. definitely not cheating but also gamey (as they added the rule to prevent this with baseball 2.1)

[JeffroK]

One of the reasons I dont do PBM/PBEM, lost friends arguing over stupid actions.

One I did myself, certainly not cheating but definatly gamey.

SPI Folio game Wurzburg, as NATO using your small armoured and mechanized battalions to hold back the Soviet hordes in their Regiments. the game was about 3/4 way through and became a series of blocking actions which would continually get pushed back. I noticed that IFF I could hold Wurzburg I could win the game, but it was about 10 hexes behind the lines. My right flank was floating on some rough terrain (maybe armour couldnt enter?) so I moved an Air Cav Sqn over there.

On the last turn, with no ability for the Soviet to react, my Air Cav scooted into Wurzburg and I won the game.

No rules to say there had to be a LOC or the unit be more than a dozen Hueys.

I thought I was pretty good, but noticed that I wasnt asked over to play as often.


WITPAE suffers, like mose wargames, from the ability of each side to KNOW the others abilities, and how to exploit them. Playing the Line of Death and the knowledge of what reinforcements arrive, where and when (Maybe playe with reos +- 60days!!, I do against the AI, bloody annoying!)

And like most behaviours, those being gamey often dont understand what they are doing wrong, after alll the game lets them.

[Itdepends]

To me;
Gamey is exploiting the system or rules to achieve a result outside of the intended paramaters of the game/programmers. I can't explain this very well- but effectively it's doing something you know you shouldn't be able to do- but you do it because it gives you an advantage.
Cheating is completely different- effectively it's breaking the rules. The rules in this case being an agreed rule between players or breaking the game via hacking the database, cracking your opponents password, reading their AAR or using information given to you from their AAR etc.
 
So perhaps to summarise- gamey is exploiting a flaw in the system and cheating is breaking the system.
 
And of course please note the initial sentence- this is what these things mean "to me". Others opinion will vary. The best scenario in a long PBEM game such as this is to get an opponent who's thoughts on what is and isn't gamey closely matches my own.
 
Regards,
 
Daniel
 
 

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510





That is why I fish more instead of hunt. Catch-n-Release... when I drop a pheasant from 25 yards...I, unfortunately, have to eat it...

Dude...you're not using the right pheasant recipes then. I'll take pheasant any day over most freshwater fish...[&o]

I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall.

Soaking in milk over-night does work, I've made venison this way. Thing is, I actually prefer the gamey flavour myself.

[augustinus]

I agree with Bullwinkle58. If a player wants to try out new tactics or strategy in AE, so be it. There will always be an appropriate response to another's creative imagination. Remember, all is fair in love and war. My friend and I are playing a PBEM of the Full Campaign game. No HRs. He has the Japanese side. We are into the eighth turn and where has he deployed KB? Its not supporting his efforts in DEI or the Malay Peninsula where it is probably needed to destroy Allied shipping. He's hanging around PH. Meanwhile, I set my CVTF to raid Kwajalein and sank plenty of ships and damaged some of the port. Leaving the area I fortuitously bumped into a small IJN invasion TF near Ocean Island, and sank some transports with their embarked LCUs. Maybe, I frustrated his attempt to take the island. There is no way for him to retaliate and I have had a nice romp, but I'm getting the heck out of there, because too much of a good thing can be unhealthy -- my last sighting of him, he was stern-down and full speed ahead toward the Marshalls. Anyway, the lesson being: he wasn't in the area, so I took advantage of it while he was prancing about PH looking for targets of opportunity.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510
I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall.

Friend of mine, next door, gave me a bag of 16 pheasant breasts after one of his hunts. Finally defrosted them and marinated them in a decent Port (Fonseca, Bin 27), garlic, onion, bay leaves and cardomom. Will slow grill half, and serve with wild rice, greens and an Italian salad. Other half, I'll slow smoke to 80% done and give to folks hereabouts.

Had pheasant back in Cali that were marinated in Port and they were good. Also like pheasant straight up. Like dove straight up. Like wild duck straight up. Like damn near anything ya shoot, straight up, except for big mammals; deer and goats, and such ought to hang for two days, moose and bears ought to hang for four days. After that, marinade makes it tender and pulls the gaminess out. There's a reason the Germans invented sauerbraten; and why God invented wine/vinegar and onions and piquant spices.

[crsutton]

"I will know it when I see it." Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I hope it is ok to step into this thread, but it relates to the other one I started. The problem with the definition of gamey = cheating is it is sort of tautological as a definition, but not really clarifying in some cases. For example, the Japanese air group resize issue. It is possible by code. But is it a cheat? It is definitely in the game, but was it intended? JWE says they designed the game to allow for rational play, so because it is in the game should that mean it is not an exploit? Would anything then be, as long as one player can say it is 'rational'. That is why I was soliciting input on the other thread, as one of the players I have a perspective, and in discussion with my op he had another. We had already come to a conclusion, but certainly one that wasn't based on really much more than "I'm right". Only a very small handful of people know what the design intent was.

(very American example) think about baseball before the infield fly rule. Guys were dropping pop-ups to turn double plays, very much within the rules of the game. but not within the spirit of the game. of course if you asked an infielder at that moment he would say it was totally ok. ask a hitter (maybe the same guy!) and he would complain about it. definitely not cheating but also gamey (as they added the rule to prevent this with baseball 2.1)

I disagree that gamey = cheating. JWE is entitled to his opinion of course, but I believe he has self-identified on the forum as being a lawyer (among other things) and so well understands the importance of defining one's terms. "Rational" is among the most slippery in the language.

Yesterday, when reading this thread, I also thought of sports analogies. Baseball is rife with examples of tactics employed (stealing signs, doctoring the ball by pitchers, sliding spikes high, "chin music") which may or may not be punished by officials if detected, but which are ALL retaliated against by opponents and well within "the spirit of the game", even though against the rules. (Often, chin music is a valid "rational" tactical move in a given situation, even though later retaliation hurts the musical team more in the long run.) In each of these cases, however, it's up to the umps to catch the offense and punish it. No one expects a pitcher to walk to home plate and hand the ump his emery board. In fact, were one to do so, he'd probably be drummed out of the sport.

Ditto football, where things which happen in a pile-up would rise to the level of gross misdemeanors, or even felonies, if done in the open, but which are an accepted part of the game.

Now contrast these to golf, where the official rules REQUIRE a player to self-report an infraction. Not only will failure to do so result in a loss, but such a player who cheats and hides his own actions will be shunned by others. In golf there is no requirement that an official (the "code") catch the malfeasor. It's self-policing all the way, and the rules so state.

The devs could have written a number of thou-shalt-nots into the rule book shipped with the game. Pickets, parafrags (what's a "frag" anyway? 10%? 39%? More?), "ammo sponges", etc. All could be in the rules, but aren't. I'm glad they aren't.

But the converse of this is everything that IS in the code is there because the devs wanted it there, including the ability to "throw chin music." AE is baseball, not golf.

Just some thoughts from a non-PBEM, non-Kool-Kid kid.

[JeffroK]

But the converse of this is everything that IS in the code is there because the devs wanted it there, including the ability to "throw chin music." AE is baseball, not golf.

The problem is where something isnt in the code because the devs didnt think of it, and we have had enough patches to know that it is impossible to cover everything.

I love CR's approach, but disagree with his use of pickets. Generally the Radar-Pickets were close to the fleet, not a number of hexes (100 miles?) ahead.
This is using a semi-valid tactic which the code cant resolve, so CV use up their strike to clear.

Using sports as a simile is only good if 100 years plus of rules development has taken place.

[AW1Steve]

Actually , that's only ONE way pickets were used. You are referring to the RADAR pickets used as a counter Kamikaze tactic. A more conventional line was used by Japan's fishing fleet , and the American's "Hooligan Navy". Historically pickets have been used by the USN from the Civil war till just before the end of the Cold war. Along with the DD radar pickets you mentioned , DER (coverted DE's) and SSR's and even one SSNR (Triton) were utilized. So were "Texas towers" (retired oil platforms) , WV's (EC-121's and Z class blimps "flying the barrier" before the DEW line) and most recently (till the early 1990's) both specially designed mono-hull craft, as well as converted tuna boats and whatever the Navy could get ahold of (the COOP program--craft of opportunity program--seized drug boats , ships with tax leins, whatever). And these ships were handled by the USNS and were civilian manned (Navy paid).

Pickets are an ancient and traditional way of protecting a perimeter. As long as there has been war, there's been pickets.

Often I hear that no one would ever put an exposed AKL on picket duty. Really? Ever hear of the Banner class AGI's? They were converted AKL's that sat off unfriendly shores during the Cold war vacuming SIGNINT. The most famous was of course, the USS Pueblo.[:)]

OK, more history than you ever wanted to hear, and once again I've let myself get off topic due to this subject (which , admittedly is near and dear to my heart).

Let's try and firm up the defination of "Gamey" and I promise a WHOLE thread on this subject alone. Promise![:)]

Now , hopefully JWE won't see this post and slap me around again! [8|][:(][:D]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Now , hopefully JWE won't see this post and slap me around again! [8|][:(][:D]

You dummy, this isn't the sarcophagus of King Rootin Tootin, it's his Queen, Hotsy Totsy. [:D][:D]

[Oldguard1970]

Jeff keeps nailing it.  Gamey is an exploitation of game mechanics or bugs.  One of the best examples was the old WITP issue with LCUs.  You could break them down and recombine them and they grew!  Obviously, the program lets that happen, but the designers didn't intend it.  It was a bit of goofy "magic" in the code.

Of course, as you move away from the obviously absurd stuff, you begin to move into the area of just playing the game.  As many have said, the key to dealing with the "gray" areas is to find a like-minded opponent and talk about any sore spots.

[wpurdom]

The only thing I am confident of is that not paying PP's to cross national borders is "gamey" because all of the developer's have said that's the intent, and the only reason it's not in the software is that it would be too hard to program. Moving an unrestricted HQ subordinate to a restricted HQ is probably in the same category, if you polled them, they would probably almost all say that's essentially cheating on the PP's.

Beyond that, it's going to be a matter of personal choice as to how much of a simulation you want versus doing the best that can be done with this particular program and how much you need to weight things to make things fun for the IJ player. (The game itself is pretty unrealistic in terms of the quality of Japanese aviation industry and more so on the ability to maintain planes out in the field.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JeffK


But the converse of this is everything that IS in the code is there because the devs wanted it there, including the ability to "throw chin music." AE is baseball, not golf.

The problem is where something isnt in the code because the devs didnt think of it, and we have had enough patches to know that it is impossible to cover everything.

But everything in a patch the devs DID think of, eventually, and is thus fair game to be used. OR abused, under my formula.

I actually set up a false situation in my post on purpose. The devs didn't ship a "rulebook." The manual, not rulebook, simply describes what the code will do. It doesn't say what may not be done even if the code allows it to be done. In this way it is unlike baseball or football, and light years different from golf, a game designed for those with OCD.

In my view, because the docs aren't a rulebook it's ultimatley purely subjective to then assign thou-shalt-nots to operations which the code happily executes. Some here have described good systems for somewhat peaceful negotiation of such subjectivity, but it's still subjectivity in play and peace in the PBEM world depends on there existing only a minor gap in the degree of that subjectivity perception.

I love CR's approach, but disagree with his use of pickets. Generally the Radar-Pickets were close to the fleet, not a number of hexes (100 miles?) ahead.
This is using a semi-valid tactic which the code cant resolve, so CV use up their strike to clear.

But the code DOES resolve it. It gives intel and it lets the picket be creamed. That the intel might be worth more than the VPs of the picket is peripherally a code issue, but it's a trade-off since the code can't decide that the VPs awarded in exchange for valuable intel ought to (subjectively) be 50x as much as the VPs awarded for sinking that same xAKL while it's on a sake run between two worthless island bases. On the third hand though, the devs didn't put in code to make that distinction possible. So, it isn't a "rule."

The enforcement mechanism for pickets IMO ought to be "Do it, and I'll do it back." Since supply of small ships, supply of warships, supply of fuel to be used for pickets, and other variables are not symetrical, retaliation will have an unequal effect on the two sides at different points in the game. Can this system ever be "fair"? I dunno. Maybe. But if you go the other way, and institute an HR "against pickets" you get into advanced carping over definitions. One guy's picket is another's "he saw something he shouldn't 'uv while plying the sake trade between East and West Pooistan."

Using sports as a simile is only good if 100 years plus of rules development has taken place.

I was going for a metaphor. [:)]