Ethical Question - help wanted

[gingerbread]

Not telling. You have to wait until X-mas day like everyone else.

[morvael]

My bealated input to ethical question:

There are gamers and powergamers. I'm of the first type, and I don't enjoy playing against the second type. But I believe such people are very important, because they find (and exploit) every little broken rule or mechanism, that can be improved thanks to their "involuntary feedback" (by observing how they play). This is not cheating, and the blame (if a rule can be abused) is actually on the author of the rules, not the powergamer. Esentially, they are best kind of people for testing a game. But playing against them is a chore for casual players and these two groups should not mingle.

[swkuh]

@morvael: +1

and maybe the "power gamers" could have a flag awarded to identity icons. No idea how this would be accomplished, still...

Its one thing to develop and use extreme techniques and another to disclose and describe, etc. Could be an interesting thread.

Example, credit Pelton for technique of using distributed regiments as reserves (OK) but "railing back to Berlin" not so much.

[sillyflower]

To identify the power gamers, you have to identify the actions that make one. Sending units back to western europe for rest and refitting was an historical practice which I don't think is at all gamey.

[swkuh]

@sillyflower:

Of course, you're right.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the term as executed in the game. Its the number of such units affected and the circumstances of the front in the event. Believe the "stille stand" order of the 1st winter did not mean at the railhead (Apologies for my German.) In my own play as Axis I adopt a defensive posture w/minimum retreat. Works well enough.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

To identify the power gamers, you have to identify the actions that make one. Sending units back to western europe for rest and refitting was an historical practice which I don't think is at all gamey.

and to be fair, carries quite a cost, it will allow the Soviets to push further west, thus making it harder to push them far enough back in 1942. I've no issue with a trick that has both costs and benefits - which of course is what makes it very hard to id exploits as such.

but some tricks by some players are designed simply to abuse the rules - send a Pzr corps into Rumania and attack out from the south - couldn't have happened for political reasons and will not work in WiTE2 as the rail cap will be too low to support any such move. This one is cost free, there are no penalties, unrealistic and designed to get an advantage purely in terms of the rules as they exist. Ditto later in the game disbanding the luftwaffe etc.

[gmtello]

Apart from the ethical cuestion during the real war many pockets early created were destroyed in december

[No idea]

Sillyflower, if it makes you feel better option 4 is exactly what a player is gong to do to me next turn. He has pocketed both northern fronts and it is going to destroy them now that mud is gone. In mid November. The pocket was formed with clear weather and he had enough time to destroy it before mud, but he chose not to do it. Well, it doesnt go against the rules, so i guess that is the way things are with nom flexible rules.

Simply change the rule so that all units who are destroyed until Sept. Come back. 75% of those destroyed during oct. 50% of those destroyed in november and 25% of those during Dec. That would make the exploit senseless. The player would choose what to do depending on circunstances and not depending on an artificially fixed game rule

[sillyflower]

Not bad, but this can rather change the game balance especially re the German Nov snow O. I personally still prefer Mehring's proposal.

The use of option 4 that you describe does not make me feel happier, but just adds to the need for a solution. Can't see how a house rule could work ie distinguish between options 2,3 and 4 because 2 and 3 require subjective judgment by the german player

[VigaBrand]

ORIGINAL: No idea

Sillyflower, if it makes you feel better option 4 is exactly what a player is gong to do to me next turn. He has pocketed both northern fronts and it is going to destroy them now that mud is gone. In mid November. The pocket was formed with clear weather and he had enough time to destroy it before mud, but he chose not to do it. Well, it doesnt go against the rules, so i guess that is the way things are with nom flexible rules.

Simply change the rule so that all units who are destroyed until Sept. Come back. 75% of those destroyed during oct. 50% of those destroyed in november and 25% of those during Dec. That would make the exploit senseless. The player would choose what to do depending on circunstances and not depending on an artificially fixed game rule

That is clearly not true or you play a second game where your army in the North is pocket.
At first I close it with tanks before mud. That is right. After I closed it, my infantry pushed every turn in clear weather forward as it could (after some attacks the there are out of mp).
The pocket is from the end of T15. My tank forces are out of fuel or hunt eastward to catch more units and take more ground.
In T16 and T17 my infantry moved forward. I wish I could clean the pocket before turn 17 because I could use my valuable tank forces to attack moscow. But that wasn't the case and in mud, I didn't clean that pocket, because the cv is very low. Leningrad holds because I want to save blood.
The decision had nothing to do with exploting and it would be very well, if you talk to me instead to talk with every other player or say, that somebody exploit that rule against you!
Please remember, that one of your partisans has destroyed the railline East of Pskov and my supply didn't reach me.

[VigaBrand]

At the end of T16 I close a pocket near Kaluga.
In T17 I killed all units, with the exception of one division in Kaluga (urban) which held at least two attacks from me. So, if I will play for the exploit, why I did clean that pocket?
The answer is, that the pocket in the North stands, because it is very wide and you retreat. The Finns couldn't attack somebody, my tanks from Panzergruppe 2 are out of fuel.
I must stay 9 panzer and mech divisions in the North, where I want them to be free to attack Moscow. It is not intended.
In Leningrad I attack all I could what was not urban. And the Leningrad pocket was close in the same turn as the other one.

Best is to reset the november month with december or january 1942. I would play everything the same if there will be not that rule with the units. Because I couldn't clean it early as I want.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand
Best is to reset the november month with december or january 1942.

A very good solution I think. December would be fine. Nobody's going to deliberately leave a pocket until then. Too dangerous.

[Icier]

Just to add more confusion to the mix, I was under the impression that if you force those Soviet units to surrender, they are gone,
never to rear their ugly heads again. [&:]

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Ice

Just to add more confusion to the mix, I was under the impression that if you force those Soviet units to surrender, they are gone,
never to rear their ugly heads again. [&:]

if they are destroyed before the end of November they come back as weak shells 10-12 weeks later. Form most of the Soviet reinforcements in late 41 through to spring 42. You pay the cost of new manpower and equipment but not of the admin pts.

that matters as admin pts are a major bottleneck.

anything destroyed post-nov is indeed lost for ever and the Soviet player needs to pay out admin pts to recreate the formation as well as manpower and arms pts to rebuild - which is why the issue of when a unit is destroyed is so important

edit: I like vigabrand's suggestion of say Jan 42. Very few Soviet units will be pocketed in December/Jan and it removes any temptation to take risks?

[No idea]

My apologies to Vigabrand

[VigaBrand]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Ice

Just to add more confusion to the mix, I was under the impression that if you force those Soviet units to surrender, they are gone,
never to rear their ugly heads again. [&:]

if they are destroyed before the end of November they come back as weak shells 10-12 weeks later. Form most of the Soviet reinforcements in late 41 through to spring 42. You pay the cost of new manpower and equipment but not of the admin pts.

that matters as admin pts are a major bottleneck.

anything destroyed post-nov is indeed lost for ever and the Soviet player needs to pay out admin pts to recreate the formation as well as manpower and arms pts to rebuild - which is why the issue of when a unit is destroyed is so important

edit: I like vigabrand's suggestion of say Jan 42. Very few Soviet units will be pocketed in December/Jan and it removes any temptation to take risks?

If I had time until the end of November, everything is okay, because I will be finished after that. May not with the heavy urban defenders from Leningrad, but the big pocket should be clean. (I hope).

[Icier]

As usual the mechanics of the game differ to what is written in the rules..on surrender its say the unit & is removed from map, with the possibly of some of the sections creating Partisan units..& then further on some of the destroyed units may return as a shell. My experience
is that all the units return, making the Russian army gigantic, & one tough mother to beat in December.

[sillyflower]

They can both - at least the inf, tank and mot xx can. They all come back and a very few also leave partisans behind

[Belphegor]

For me it is about the impact on the game. Will holding on to the pocket be the deciding factor that causes your opponent to lose? Probably not. The German already seeks the discomfort of the Soviet player by removing factories of various sorts. That action makes it more difficult to win but not impossible. The inconvenience of not reducing the pocket is AP only for the Soviet and tied up troops for the German. So the question is whether your value returned is worth the price.

Surrounding Soviet troops in '42 or beyond does not pose an ethical dilemma. Obviously it is sought. So why so critical in '41? Those lost in the last turns prior to them not coming back will not be back in time to do much of anything until summer '42 earliest. For some reason I view this in a similar fashion to turning 18 (or whatever the age of majority in your country). In general, regardless of intelligence, readiness and sometimes preparation on the day of your 18th birthday a whole different set of rules apply.

I think on the balance there will rarely be sufficient Soviet forces pocketed and held until after November to give the German player significant advantage while disadvantaging the Soviet. If it occurs in the small scale I don't find it ethically questionable and in the large scale I suspect it might be impractical.

Ethics are what you do when you won't get caught. Everything else is risk assessment and tolerance.

Are you playing with any sort of historicity in mind (different from replaying exact history). Could the Soviet forces survive in a pocket until November IRL? If so, then no problem. If they couldn't (say you pocketed them in June) then there's an issue if you're playing with history in mind. Hard to say although Stalingrad is a good example of surviving (so to speak) in a large pocket for a long time. I'm not going to debate the effect of air resupply on that pocket.

Are you playing a game as a game? Then it's within the rules.

Others have already identified this.

And finally (also identified) is the only really important opinion is that of your opponent. Ask him directly if he cares.
If others don't like your gameplay they'll limit you with house rules before playing you.

[loki100]

WiTW solves this to some extent (and so will WiTE2). In that if you surround a unit with low morale/experience (say an Italian infantry division on Sicily), next turn its a 1-1 ant and ready for culling. If you surround a FJ Division (or regiment) if can stay powerful for 3+ turns (depending on its access to supplies) - with the allied player cursing its ability to resist attacks.

So that reflects the ability of high morale/well experienced/minimally supplied units to cling on in encirclements for some time but on the other hand a formation with low morale etc will simply fall apart.