What is the defination of "Gamey"?

[bradfordkay]

The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send a bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve




So not being the brightest of "cranky old men", am I correct in sumarizing as "tastes or smells bad"? [&:]

One question I need clarification on.....do you mean the forum members view , or they themselves? [:D]

Actually gamey in the sense of meats is not so much it tastes or smells bad, but rather it has the flavour of the wild (wild animals are what they eat after all...remember that the next time you take a big bite of wild hog). After all, you hunt wild game, so it makes sense.

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]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I just don't think "historical vs non-historical" is the answer to gamey...

As I mentioned... gamey is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended.

Jeff, I think you're seeing the discussion drifting into the HR/gamey gray area. That's another "trap" IMO, on the path to declaring any individual issue gamey or not. I think it can be hard enough to get two people to agree on any issue, but once they do reach an agreement, what the rest of the world thinks about that game issue is irrelevant to their game or fun.

[bradfordkay]

CB... there is no AAR, but ChezDaJez and I are well into 1943 in our PBEM with no house rules and no "gamey" exploits. This is because we played each other in a CHS game and recognized that neither of us tend to pull such exploits (we did have a long list of house rules in that game, but dropped them for this one as they never really came into play).

My original ad for the CHS game explained my playing philosophy, which I feel went a long ways towards finding a compatible opponent.


EDIT: here are the lines from my original "opponent wanted" ad that described my playing style. I think that posting this information made it far more likely that I was able to find an opponent of similar bent...

My reason for playing the allies is that I have never yet even looked at the game from the Japanese side, so this would be a nice advantage to my opponent. I have no idea as to the exact capabilities of the Japanese OOB, nor its arrival times.

I play a very historical style of play. Some examples of how I've been doing this are as follows:
No replacements until TFs arrive from the US/Aden.
The only a/c that can relocate and fly missions on the same day are those whose relocation takes four hours or less at cruise speed.
No more than 2 subs per AS can leave Manila each day.
No replenishing SCTFs at ports under size 3.
No replenishing BBs/CVs at ports under size 6.


These are not proposed house rules, but rather an example of my style of play. In general, if it seems impossible IRL, I don't do it.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send a bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them.

I think dropping the % of attack planes on a CV when it is not expecting a major engagement would conserve sorties. The question then is, "is this too dangerous if the CV does encounter a non-trivial enemy force?" It's a tradeoff, like many choices in this awesome game. [:)]

[bradfordkay]

Mike, to me that answer is a non-working one because if you do hit the picket line then you are getting close enough to have needed your squadrons on "full alert". You are right in that it is a philosophical difference - I prefer to go into dangerous waters with my eyes open (a certain percentage of my carrier aircraft set to search) while Chez keeps his carrier aircraft off of search so as not to give away the location of his carriers.

 At any rate, I feel very lucky to have found an opponent who plays in a similar historically limited manner, and so have been enjoying years of excellent game play in WITP and AE. 

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I believe that's "no holds barred", Mike. All of my holes should be considered barred. [;)]

VonTirpitz and Jeff's definitions of 'gamey' are quite suitable by my standards.

Here's my question to you, Steve: "How will one deal with their legitimate philosophical differences about what they consider illegitimate application of the game engine?"

Will we know for certain how our opponents will look at a potential future problem? What issues they may find inoffensive versus those that are 'game killers'? The only way to know is to talk about specific, known issues with prospective partners moving forward. Otherwise, you may find yourself apoplectic with anger and dropping a game yourself because your opponent is gamey/cheating/scheming to get an upper hand through game mechanics alone.

The only way to do so is to talk things out ahead of time, get to understand an opponent's style of gameplay and give specific examples of activities that are verboten before committing to a long-term relationship. Otherwise, you are assuming that you will agree in the future on yet undiscovered problem. If one is afraid to talk about these issues ahead of time, trouble will come.

If you really wanted to play 'no holds barred', I'd hunt your carriers on turn one, move all Kwangtung infantry above the threshold out of Manchuria for further assault exploit, hyperexpand my industry and my training groups and maybe insist on a starting OOB that gives me some additional ahistoric toys. I'd also use every movement-related trick in the book to bork your naval and LCU-related movements (para fragments combined with LCU assault, parafragments to bork LCU LOS movements, etc., etc. When it was possible to do so, I'd stack every artillery tube in the empire and grind China to dust. Well, what was left of China that I hadn't already carpet bombed in my attack on HI.

Before long, such an approach like this devolves into a frustrating match of one-upsmanship. Who can find the newest wrinkle in the game code, the most subtle flaw in the mechanics and exploit that towards victory. Victories are tainted by this footnote, losses blamed on it. It's not what most people want.

Lastly, a challenge:

Show me one-just one-AE PBEM AAR that has survived the test of time with zero house rules to prevent 'gamey' exploits.

Andre. as always , you make excellent points. But once again, I'm not anti-house rule. I just want to make sure 1) we understand why want them, and be certain that they are necessary 2) we don't create a monster to replace a monster.

So you might say I'm very cautious, maybe even conservative or reluctant to house rules. There's a big difference between opposing the concept and being cautious about it. I might not be opposed to my daughter (the non existant one) dating , but I'll be very careful who I let her date. [:D]

How do you deal with philisophic differences? As gentlemen, with respect and grace. But before you can deal with any problem, question or difference of opinion, you 1st need to define it and identify it.

As I said before, we can come up with endless threads on this is gamey, and that is gamey. That's identifying the problem, and overall it's a good thing.

But 1st we need a general idea of what gamey is. So far we see it as a flaw,glitch,oversight,mistake or inadequacy of the gaming system. Pretty much no one has championed the "a-historical" argument. And we are talking about it. That's what I'm looking for. Set the mission 1st, and get it in our heads. Because as the old Florida say goes, "When your up to your butt (censored version) in alligators , it's hard to remember that your there to drain the swamp".

Gamey is the swamp. Examples and objections are the alligators. [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send a bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them.

I salute you and your sense of fairplay. I too refrain from their use , but I resent to some degree the fact that I feel my hands are tied. But your right, it's what we have to do sometimes to play in a gentlemans fashion. [&o][&o][&o]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I believe that's "no holds barred", Mike. All of my holes should be considered barred. [;)]

VonTirpitz and Jeff's definitions of 'gamey' are quite suitable by my standards.

Here's my question to you, Steve: "How will one deal with their legitimate philosophical differences about what they consider illegitimate application of the game engine?"

Will we know for certain how our opponents will look at a potential future problem? What issues they may find inoffensive versus those that are 'game killers'? The only way to know is to talk about specific, known issues with prospective partners moving forward. Otherwise, you may find yourself apoplectic with anger and dropping a game yourself because your opponent is gamey/cheating/scheming to get an upper hand through game mechanics alone.

The only way to do so is to talk things out ahead of time, get to understand an opponent's style of gameplay and give specific examples of activities that are verboten before committing to a long-term relationship. Otherwise, you are assuming that you will agree in the future on yet undiscovered problem. If one is afraid to talk about these issues ahead of time, trouble will come.

If you really wanted to play 'no holds barred', I'd hunt your carriers on turn one, move all Kwangtung infantry above the threshold out of Manchuria for further assault exploit, hyperexpand my industry and my training groups and maybe insist on a starting OOB that gives me some additional ahistoric toys. I'd also use every movement-related trick in the book to bork your naval and LCU-related movements (para fragments combined with LCU assault, parafragments to bork LCU LOS movements, etc., etc. When it was possible to do so, I'd stack every artillery tube in the empire and grind China to dust. Well, what was left of China that I hadn't already carpet bombed in my attack on HI.

Before long, such an approach like this devolves into a frustrating match of one-upsmanship. Who can find the newest wrinkle in the game code, the most subtle flaw in the mechanics and exploit that towards victory. Victories are tainted by this footnote, losses blamed on it. It's not what most people want.

Lastly, a challenge:

Show me one-just one-AE PBEM AAR that has survived the test of time with zero house rules to prevent 'gamey' exploits.

Andre. as always , you make excellent points. But once again, I'm not anti-house rule. I just want to make sure 1) we understand why want them, and be certain that they are necessary 2) we don't create a monster to replace a monster.

So you might say I'm very cautious, maybe even conservative or reluctant to house rules. There's a big difference between opposing the concept and being cautious about it. I might not be opposed to my daughter (the non existant one) dating , but I'll be very careful who I let her date. [:D]

How do you deal with philisophic differences? As gentlemen, with respect and grace. But before you can deal with any problem, question or difference of opinion, you 1st need to define it and identify it.

As I said before, we can come up with endless threads on this is gamey, and that is gamey. That's identifying the problem, and overall it's a good thing.

But 1st we need a general idea of what gamey is. So far we see it as a flaw,glitch,oversight,mistake or inadequacy of the gaming system. Pretty much no one has championed the "a-historical" argument. And we are talking about it. That's what I'm looking for. Set the mission 1st, and get it in our heads. Because as the old Florida say goes, "When your up to your butt (censored version) in alligators , it's hard to remember that your there to drain the swamp".

Gamey is the swamp. Examples and objections are the alligators. [:D]

Steve,

OK. I understand what you're looking for now. [8D] I too share your philosophy on HRs.

I think most players want to play with an eye towards POSSIBLE non-historic outcomes rather than nutsoid 'gonna do it because I can'. I think there are a good many disagreements about 'the alligators' as specific subjects.

There's also (maybe more?) disagreements about about unspoken expectations for how the game flow should be. This philosophical approach that Brad spoke to. They knew each other's style of gameplay and how compatible it would be with their own vision. That obviated the need for targetting alligators in their most recent game. Wouldn't it be cool if we were all that predisposed towards a common vision that we didn't need cumbersome rules?

I've started three AE CG PBEMs. One partner dropped after losing a major naval battle early in the war. I lucked into a really good second PBEM partner. Other than the fact that he's an inveterate AFB (Boo! Down with Eleanor Roosevelt! Babe Ruth go to ****!), we've been clear with one another moving forward on issues that arise. The 'expanding carrier group' issue is one of them. Neither of us knew of this problem when we started the game, but we game to an understanding-I volunteered to not do this because of my game philosophy and he agreed. I expect that he will self-identify issues that make him uncomfortable now too. Result? No more HRs. No accusations of gameyness for sure. It can work, but it takes time, patience, compromise and a compatible partner.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The picket boat situation is a tough one, because they were used IRL (even though those specific craft weren't included in the game). The problem with using them "in game" is that the game mechanics don't handle them well. If the AI would only choose a couple of your carrier aircraft to deal with a single picket boat, I would have no problem with the use of single ship pickets. However, since the AI tends to send a bucketload of aircraft to deal with the single picket boat it has the result of soaking up the available sorties on your carrier and thus has an effect on the game way out of proportion to the situation. This is why I do not use them.

I salute you and your sense of fairplay. I too refrain from their use , but I resent to some degree the fact that I feel my hands are tied. But your right, it's what we have to do sometimes to play in a gentlemans fashion. [&o][&o][&o]

They modified the air attack routines to be quite good at handling many small targets. I have to interpret occasional incidents of sending too many planes as FOW in the (internal electronic sailors') reports that triggered the raid, and therefore I have no problem with that.

I would have a problem with using tiny TFs as CAP traps, as the game probably does not have any consideration for sighting reports like "2 ships with 400 fighters on CAP" or such.

As far as surface combat goes, using a bunch of single ship TFs to use up enemy ops points is certainly gamey. Single ship TFs trying to get out of Dodge is totally different, and so are the orders given to those TFs.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I believe that's "no holds barred", Mike. All of my holes should be considered barred. [;)]

VonTirpitz and Jeff's definitions of 'gamey' are quite suitable by my standards.

Here's my question to you, Steve: "How will one deal with their legitimate philosophical differences about what they consider illegitimate application of the game engine?"

Will we know for certain how our opponents will look at a potential future problem? What issues they may find inoffensive versus those that are 'game killers'? The only way to know is to talk about specific, known issues with prospective partners moving forward. Otherwise, you may find yourself apoplectic with anger and dropping a game yourself because your opponent is gamey/cheating/scheming to get an upper hand through game mechanics alone.

The only way to do so is to talk things out ahead of time, get to understand an opponent's style of gameplay and give specific examples of activities that are verboten before committing to a long-term relationship. Otherwise, you are assuming that you will agree in the future on yet undiscovered problem. If one is afraid to talk about these issues ahead of time, trouble will come.

If you really wanted to play 'no holds barred', I'd hunt your carriers on turn one, move all Kwangtung infantry above the threshold out of Manchuria for further assault exploit, hyperexpand my industry and my training groups and maybe insist on a starting OOB that gives me some additional ahistoric toys. I'd also use every movement-related trick in the book to bork your naval and LCU-related movements (para fragments combined with LCU assault, parafragments to bork LCU LOS movements, etc., etc. When it was possible to do so, I'd stack every artillery tube in the empire and grind China to dust. Well, what was left of China that I hadn't already carpet bombed in my attack on HI.

Before long, such an approach like this devolves into a frustrating match of one-upsmanship. Who can find the newest wrinkle in the game code, the most subtle flaw in the mechanics and exploit that towards victory. Victories are tainted by this footnote, losses blamed on it. It's not what most people want.

Lastly, a challenge:

Show me one-just one-AE PBEM AAR that has survived the test of time with zero house rules to prevent 'gamey' exploits.

Andre. as always , you make excellent points. But once again, I'm not anti-house rule. I just want to make sure 1) we understand why want them, and be certain that they are necessary 2) we don't create a monster to replace a monster.

So you might say I'm very cautious, maybe even conservative or reluctant to house rules. There's a big difference between opposing the concept and being cautious about it. I might not be opposed to my daughter (the non existant one) dating , but I'll be very careful who I let her date. [:D]

How do you deal with philisophic differences? As gentlemen, with respect and grace. But before you can deal with any problem, question or difference of opinion, you 1st need to define it and identify it.

As I said before, we can come up with endless threads on this is gamey, and that is gamey. That's identifying the problem, and overall it's a good thing.

But 1st we need a general idea of what gamey is. So far we see it as a flaw,glitch,oversight,mistake or inadequacy of the gaming system. Pretty much no one has championed the "a-historical" argument. And we are talking about it. That's what I'm looking for. Set the mission 1st, and get it in our heads. Because as the old Florida say goes, "When your up to your butt (censored version) in alligators , it's hard to remember that your there to drain the swamp".

Gamey is the swamp. Examples and objections are the alligators. [:D]

Steve,

OK. I understand what you're looking for now. [8D] I too share your philosophy on HRs.

I think most players want to play with an eye towards POSSIBLE non-historic outcomes rather than nutsoid 'gonna do it because I can'. I think there are a good many disagreements about 'the alligators' as specific subjects.

There's also (maybe more?) disagreements about about unspoken expectations for how the game flow should be. This philosophical approach that Brad spoke to. They knew each other's style of gameplay and how compatible it would be with their own vision. That obviated the need for targetting alligators in their most recent game. Wouldn't it be cool if we were all that predisposed towards a common vision that we didn't need cumbersome rules?

I've started three AE CG PBEMs. One partner dropped after losing a major naval battle early in the war. I lucked into a really good second PBEM partner. Other than the fact that he's an inveterate AFB (Boo! Down with Eleanor Roosevelt! Babe Ruth go to ****!), we've been clear with one another moving forward on issues that arise. The 'expanding carrier group' issue is one of them. Neither of us knew of this problem when we started the game, but we game to an understanding-I volunteered to not do this because of my game philosophy and he agreed. I expect that he will self-identify issues that make him uncomfortable now too. Result? No more HRs. No accusations of gameyness for sure. It can work, but it takes time, patience, compromise and a compatible partner.

Absolutely! You've summed it magificently and succiently , showing what a masterful educator of future poulty physicians you are![&o][&o][&o]

BTW, I'm assuming I was the 1st? You didn't clean my clock THAT badly.....[8|]


There are no issues that can't be solved between friends. And the 1st step to establishing friendship is always communications. As with any relationship. [:)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I'd like to hear from a few people about what they consider "Gamey" is. No, I don't mean how Logboy smells after a day IN the Seattle rain (Just kidding Nik![:D]) or how the deer (venison) that uncle what's his-name shot and insists on subjecting the family to taste. I mean as the term is used in these forums. Personally , I feel that the term has been misused, and grown to encompass far more then it's creator (whom ever that might be) intended.

And since I've been uninvited (dis-invited? well, at any event, asked to leave) by another forumite on his thread (obviously ignoring the reality that none of us "own" these threads....Matrix does), I feel that maybe the time has come for us to define , capture and get this monster under control.

So what do you think , gentlemen and lady ? [&:]


BTW , I'm not a cranky old man (but I do play one in the Geezer thread. The same thread which a professional Swedish Army officer plays a flowerchild. Obviously some people have difficulty tell theatre from reality). I might be considerd a Angry middle aged man. The major difference is a cranky old man just complains, the other tries to do something about it. And I would like to hear everyones view. Not just the ones that conform with my own. Thanks. [:)]

This question is gamey.



[:D]

[Disco Duck]

I consider Gamey to be taking advantage of programing errors or things that can be done because of the way the programmers modeled it but would never have been done in real life. The last part is the hard question.

For the first one, in the "thousand mile war" scenario you used to be able to use the PG Charleston on surface bombardment to completely wipe out the aircraft on Kiska. Thus saving your airplanes. The picket ship question is similar. The Japanese used fishing boats as pickets and the U.S. used PT boats for the same thing. But neither side sent out a full strike to take one out.

An example for the second one is loading up a 25 ship ASW group to go sub hunting off of Australia. You can't do that in AE but you could do it in the old WITP

[Chickenboy]

So, if I was to develop a list of recommendations for PBEM partners to limit accusations of gameyness they would be:

1. Suss one another's philosophies about the game and what you want to get out of it. Are you a 'reasonably historical' player or a 'let metaphysics and the real world be damned' sort of player? There's probably a partner out there for you in either case.

2. Be familiar enough with the game's current iterations, frailties and foibles that you can understand their potential impact on your enjoyment of the game. Tell your partner about what these are and why you feel that way.

3. Self-police your actions. Your opponent won't know when you show restraint because of your philosophical game beliefs. You'll have to do it yourself often.

4. Trust your opponent. It will help you build faith that he is doing the right thing over time.

5. If you don't know your opponent well, try to break the ice with a scenario before the 'big' relationship starts. Pay attention to their gameplay and experience in the scenario before offering them a full game.

6. Use HRs for your own game to 'plug holes' that need to be specifically addressed. Find an opponent with a similar perspective re: the need for these HRs.

7. Compromise and learn to 'let it go'. I've not always agreed about some goings-on in my PBEM. I've learned to compromise on some things and just 'suck it up'. Move on-it's not the end of the world.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
BTW, I'm assuming I was the 1st? You didn't clean my clock THAT badly.....[8|]

No-wasn't you. [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

If you really wanted to play 'no holds barred', I'd hunt your carriers on turn one, move all Kwangtung infantry above the threshold out of Manchuria for further assault exploit, hyperexpand my industry and my training groups and maybe insist on a starting OOB that gives me some additional ahistoric toys. I'd also use every movement-related trick in the book to bork your naval and LCU-related movements (para fragments combined with LCU assault, parafragments to bork LCU LOS movements, etc., etc. When it was possible to do so, I'd stack every artillery tube in the empire and grind China to dust. Well, what was left of China that I hadn't already carpet bombed in my attack on HI.

Before long, such an approach like this devolves into a frustrating match of one-upsmanship. Who can find the newest wrinkle in the game code, the most subtle flaw in the mechanics and exploit that towards victory. Victories are tainted by this footnote, losses blamed on it. It's not what most people want.

1. Hunt CVs on Turn 1: OK, go ahead. You know where they are. But I know there are no HRs, so I move randomly. I might get lucky. I'll for sure attrit some of your good pilots. And while you're chasing Big-E all over the Pac the KB isn't elsewhere supporting something else while also accumulating system damage. I'll wish you don't sink my birdfarms, but by 1944 it won't matter. I'll play a bit differently in 1942 without them, but not markedly so. It's a long war.

2. Move infantry out above the threshold. Why does this need an HR now? The threshold is there so you CAN move everything else out. What don't I get here?

3. Hyperexpand away. It has significant costs. The expansion code is there to allow the trade-off to be made. I don't see why preventing expansion should even be an option for an HR.

4. Ditto training groups. Groups training are groups not fighting. If that's your choice go for it. Live with it too.

5. Changing the starting OOB is not an HR issue or any other issue in this disscussion that I see. Agree on the scenario, play that scenario. Or find someone else to play.

6. Movement "tricks" work for both sides, some better later for the Allies when they have appropriate units, but they're in both quivers. If the Japanese player has run away before the Allies can really use the tricks that's a shame, maybe, but it's also a win for the Allied player. The point is, movement and hex control code is exactly the same for both, within unit design parameters. Use it, and die by it too (maybe--that's a player skill issue not an HR.)

7. The granddaddy of them all--China. Do your worst. Try to grind it to dust. You can, yep. But while you are you're not doing something else with those resources. You're burning supplies, and more importantly vehicle and arms points stocks. You're giving the surviving Chinese experience. They get those LCUs back for free, but knock yourself out. What you take you have to garrison too. Once you take it you have to hold it, all of it, forever, because by 1943 the Allies can come into China in a variety of ways and take back what isn't garrisoned. You probably won't get an auto-vic out of a China take-down, but you can pressure the Allied player to be sure. That's what it's about, Charlie Brown. [:)] Overall though, China is the best example in your list of the power of opportunity costs. Going for it is nowhere "free" for the Japanese. It should be an option since it opens the door to a good Allied player to focus elsewhere while a major portion of the Japanese effort is in China.

I somewhat agree with your conclusion. There would be one-upsmanship in a lot of these games. In some, however, only until each side gets counter-punched and backs away. If they don't, fine. If they do, fine. Either way you avoid the neverending carping which is HR negotiations. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a "gamey exploit" which only one side can use, or which doesn't have a counterpart, even if it comes later in the war.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
This is one I've always had trouble with. My opponents generally forbid me to use AKL's or other extremely low value ships as pickets while citing this issue. I don't intend these units to be a sponge...I intend them to be part of a picket line (which both sides used..but there are no fishing boats for Japan or requesitioned Tuna boats or small pleasure craft for the allies. Is this "gamey"? My intentions are not...but the results may be. [&:]

Dude, you are widdling on your own thread. You asked a good global question, but are now responding to irrelevant details, i.e., making them pertinent. The thread can now slide downhill and devolve into a discussion about the AA values of tuna boats. Patience, my friend. Patience and focus. If the "real" question is addressed, the piddling details fall into place. Your question is top-down, not bottom-up.

I don't care if it's called "gamey" or "cheating", it's the same thing to me. IF you couldn't normally do it, and the only way you can do it is use a "code trick", it's "CHEATING". Period. End of frikkin story.

Anything one can do without using a "code trick" is fine.

Speaking as a developer, we tried to make things work acceptably if people played within the normally accepted principles. To support a certain flexibility, the game code has windows at the top and bottom that can be exploited.

If one exploits time, tempo, hindsight, whatever, that is acceptable and within the parameters of the game engine.

If one exploits the margins of the game engine in order to acquire an advantage they would not otherwise get, they are "CHEATING" and not worth playing against. It's really simple.

If someone wants to play a clean game, you know exactly what they mean.
A butthead who wants to push the envelope ain't too bad, so long as you know who they are.

What you must realize is there are over 1000 people who play this title. I know there are over 270 people who play Babes but who do not post on this board because it is just so subjective and irrelevant. So if one is an objective individual, patience and a thick skin is indicated. The game engine is set up for flexibility, not to keep morons from cheating.

If a moron wants to cheat, then let him. Why do you waste your time listening and responding to those 20 (out of a 1000) whiners who have nothing better to do with their time than moan about something they know little about, but always able to volumetrically projectile vomit about.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I just don't think "historical vs non-historical" is the answer to gamey...

As I mentioned... gamey is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended.

Jeff, I think you're seeing the discussion drifting into the HR/gamey gray area. That's another "trap" IMO, on the path to declaring any individual issue gamey or not. I think it can be hard enough to get two people to agree on any issue, but once they do reach an agreement, what the rest of the world thinks about that game issue is irrelevant to their game or fun.

Fair enough.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Shark7




Actually gamey in the sense of meats is not so much it tastes or smells bad, but rather it has the flavour of the wild (wild animals are what they eat after all...remember that the next time you take a big bite of wild hog). After all, you hunt wild game, so it makes sense.

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.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
This is one I've always had trouble with. My opponents generally forbid me to use AKL's or other extremely low value ships as pickets while citing this issue. I don't intend these units to be a sponge...I intend them to be part of a picket line (which both sides used..but there are no fishing boats for Japan or requesitioned Tuna boats or small pleasure craft for the allies. Is this "gamey"? My intentions are not...but the results may be. [&:]

Dude, you are widdling on your own thread. You asked a good global question, but are now responding to irrelevant details, i.e., making them pertinent. The thread can now slide downhill and devolve into a discussion about the AA values of tuna boats. Patience, my friend. Patience and focus. If the "real" question is addressed, the piddling details fall into place. Your question is top-down, not bottom-up.

I don't care if it's called "gamey" or "cheating", it's the same thing to me. IF you couldn't normally do it, and the only way you can do it is use a "code trick", it's "CHEATING". Period. End of frikkin story.

Anything one can do without using a "code trick" is fine.

Speaking as a developer, we tried to make things work acceptably if people played within the normally accepted principles. To support a certain flexibility, the game code has windows at the top and bottom that can be exploited.

If one exploits time, tempo, hindsight, whatever, that is acceptable and within the parameters of the game engine.

If one exploits the margins of the game engine in order to acquire an advantage they would not otherwise get, they are "CHEATING" and not worth playing against. It's really simple.

If someone wants to play a clean game, you know exactly what they mean.
A butthead who wants to push the envelope ain't too bad, so long as you know who they are.

What you must realize is there are over 1000 people who play this title. I know there are over 270 people who play Babes but who do not post on this board because it is just so subjective and irrelevant. So if one is an objective individual, patience and a thick skin is indicated. The game engine is set up for flexibility, not to keep morons from cheating.

If a moron wants to cheat, then let him. Why do you waste your time listening and responding to those 20 (out of a 1000) whiners who have nothing better to do with their time than moan about something they know little about, but always able to volumetrically projectile vomit about.

Mea culpa! [8|] I should not have thrown out that example. I should have kept things general. [:o] I thought that we'd gotten things back on track, but apparently not. If I delete that post , would you pull off that quote, so that we can make the whole thing dissappear? Thanks for putting me back on the straight and narrow.

And if I haven't said it before John, let me say it now. I greatly appreciate everything that you and the folks who put this marvel together have done. I say a mental thank-you to you all everytime the WITP AE screen comes up on my glass and pastic box! [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o