PBEM ethics

[Herode_2]

I've just read the Bliztkrieg Staff Academy paper. Great job indeed & looking forward next issue [:)]

One question bothers me however, it's not about tactics but about ethics, or habits... In PBEM mode, I always play my first turn as the other turns : I do not look at my opponent's positions before moving my troops & I do not replay my turn if the fist moves go wrong. In other words : FOW is effective, even for the 1st turn of the 1st player.

After the document above, it appears that some tricks disabling the PBEM anti-cheat mode are kind of official part of the warfare for the 1st player / 1st turn ? Is it really true ? I hope not, but I'm curious to have some feedback from other PBEM players on this point. Do you guys use those tricks ? Do you think it's safe to encourage them or to make them an official part of the PBEM mode ?

[Manus von Olie]

The thing is Herode: how are you going to check if somebody reopens as first player the first move? Since this is not possible it should be 'given free' to do. This gives the first player even more advantage, but to counter this you could play 2 identical games, every player plays each side once.
 
Then, if you prefer FOW on the first turn, you could play a random scenario. In historical scenarios it is IMHO not unrealistic to know the enemy's positions as you could spy on them in peace time, or have betrayers on their side in mid-war, which did actually happen in WWII.

[Barthheart]

You don't have to disable the anti-PBEM cheat stuff to restart your turn over again as the first person. Just start the game normally and save it. Then start asecond to see if you can do better, etc. Then send the save you're happy with.

Having said that, I don't do this. I feel like Herode2 does, that this is a form of cheating.

KNowing where the units are at the start of the game however is different. If you play the same scenario ewnough you begin to memorise the starting locations of your opponents forces. Also anyone can edit a scenario and look at the force layout. The only way I can see to fix this is that a scenario would need a load of events that move units around before the first player turn. This would also mess with a player's pet start plan and make them think - what a concept.

That's a lot of work though....

My $0.02

[seille]

The only really bad thing for restarting for example the first turn as Germany in russia 1941 is the fact that
starting the player can get the R&D event which give him overall 300 PP to spend.
This is a weak point in the scenario setup. First turn no R&D should happen.
 

[rickier65]

Herode,

I don't play much PBEM - and only a few where I went first. But of course, I played the first turn as you, same as all the turns.

However, at least one of the PBEM's was a scenario I had ALREADY played (and enjoyed), vs the AI - So I did have some feel for enemy location. But I did tell my opponent ahead of time, and actually rationalized it as 'pre-battle aerial intelligence'. But I still felt like I had an unfair advantage.

Rick

[all5n]

This could also be an issue in shroud games (i.e. Iron Age games) where you have to explore to find expansion cities.
 
The only way to truly prevent hacking of that nature is to move to a client/server archtecture for the game.  Since it is currently igougo, this is not an insignificant task.
 
Until then, we are dependant on the honor of the players.  Dont be a tool and cheat.  Karma will make sure you are a toilet snake in your next lifetime.

[Manus von Olie]

OK, Herode and others, it seems the PBEM code of honor has to be given more shape: I thought at first that everything 'possible' would be OK to do in PBEM and that the program was completely cheat free  , naive me... So there has to be more space in the code for being sportive and communicative, which is OK, since you seem all very civil . I'll write a new part for the PBEM code for version 1.1 of the academy for you to discuss before putting it on the website.

[Jeffrey H.]

I think I understand the subtlety of the "if you can do it then have it out in the open and everyone do it" approach but honestly, it feels a bit gamey to me. Just personally speaking, even though I can and my opponent might, I won't. 

[Manus von Olie]

Right Jeffrey, actually I like your style more: you call what I wrote 'gamey', but I have to admit it's even worse: I'm quite fanatic in gaming, learned to play wargames as an adolescent! One is never too old to change, though... [8D] 
 
Players could communicate their attitude and skills in the scenario shortly, before deciding whether to play if this is an issue for one of them.

[Widell]

This is not an issue for AT, as it is the same (more or less) for any game you play that doesn't have very random setups. If you play a historical scenario, you will have more and better knowledge of the situation beforehand compared to the historical commander unless you have not read anything about the particular campaign you are playing. Big surprise? Not really. Big drawback? Evidently not since many, if not most of the scenarios included/created for almost any game (AT, TOAW, WitP, ACW, FOF etc etc) are aiming at either historical campaigns and battles or improved historical accuracy of the initial TOE, OOB and starting locations for units etc.

Given, most games have exploits and gamey play can and will occur. This of course something else then cheating, and the gamey stuff can be managed short term by house rules and longer term by new releases altering the behaviour of the game itself. Cheating, or tampering, is harder to get at. If you PBEM someone and catch them outright cheating, it's game over as this should never be accepted.

When it comes to communication, I consider it important to discuss the scenarion about to be played with your opponent before starting it. You need to agree to settings, house rules, frequency of turns and understanding your skill levels and expectations of the game before committing time and effort.

[Manus von Olie]

The following text is ready to be inserted in the next version of AT PBEM Code of Honor on the website, if you all agree. So if you have further remarks you think should be incorporated, please:  [:-], or [:D], or [>:]...
 

NEW: Before deciding to play some things should be clear. Please don't send your first move yet, before sorting these things out together. When you have each other's email address you can just communicate,  but if you don't and you challenge someone, then make sure the following information is in your challenge text or in your description as a player on your profile on the website. So read the profile and (some) AARs and check out the ranking of your opponent to be too, before deciding to play a ladder game. If you don't like the conditions of a challenge, you should decline it. First negotiate the conditions, having gotten or sent an email address in a declination or challenge text, so both players really agree before playing a ladder game.
1) Make sure how often you can send in a move. Be realistic in this.
2) Make sure which game to play, with which settings. In an official ladder game you could leave this to the first player, but beware of the random official ladder games, which have sometimes a mapping which is very much in favour of the first player. Those games should be played mirrored or the second player should have the option to ask for a new game.
3) Make sure you know of each other how much experience and knowledge you have on a specific game: for example in scenarios where the units have fixed starting positions this knowledge can be an important asset. Some people study scenarios like chess masters on a tournament, analyzing test games and tactical variations, and using the combat simulation mode to test the first turn completely out. Other people know nothing about a scenario, try to understand the briefing and start to play their first move with their first opening ever of the scenario as if they are the historical Field Marshall going into battle. Both approaches are perfectly fine, but should be known and communicated. You could give yourself an overall number from 1 to 10 (highest) in knowing the scenario considering  you knowing the effects of the special rules, first move, initial positions, times played (solitary and against others in total), how often you won this scenario and all other relevant expertise on this scenario or game.
4) Optional: give some study time to the player with the lowest number, so he can do some testing. Or take both a study time. The idea is that players, especially in a game for ranking, should be as much as possible on the same level regarding info on the scenario for the sake of fair play. If you know about special rules which are unclear, or not described in the briefing, you should point them out to a new player.
5) Decide (exactly) when the game will start for real. After this date and time (first) moves may not be reopened anymore, nor is it allowed to have two versions of the same scenario open at the same time (to peek at enemy positions for example). Those acts are considered as plain cheating and will have consequences. After this zero hour all the information on the scenario should come only from the current game itself and memory, if any.
 
NEW: In an official ladder game don't claim more points than 500-0, since sometimes (newer) players don't surrender when they should, latest in turn 9. This counts also for mirrored play: the best player out of two games scores a maximum of 500-0 in an official ladder game, or 1-0 in a casual ladder game.

[Daniel_machinegun]

Something that bother me in shroud games is that player 1 can see other players location.

Most of these cheats would be disabled if the game have a Turn 0 (where everybody play his password only)

Maybe Turn 0 could be (if Vic wants) to play/select "army composition", but no location.

[all5n]

Are you talking about the situation where the first player might continue and play everyones first turn to see where their starting location is?

This would be possible because the passwords are not yet set.

I consider this to be flat out Cheating.

ORIGINAL: Daniel_machinegun

Something that bother me in shroud games is that player 1 can see other players location.

Most of these cheats would be disabled if the game have a Turn 0 (where everybody play his password only)

Maybe Turn 0 could be (if Vic wants) to play/select "army composition", but no location.

[Daniel_machinegun]

yes, that is what I'm talking about

[Widell]

As I said before, there's no way to design a tamper proof, 100% anti cheat game system. Cheaters will always be around, but IMHO they are a very small minority, and should not consume valuable code crunching time that could be used for other stuff = catering to the non-cheating majority of players.

[all5n]

I agree 100%.

However the logic of people who would rationialize this would be something like:

The game allows me to do it. If I can do it, then it must be intended and therefore not Cheating.

I dont take that position personally, just pointing it out.

ORIGINAL: Widell

As I said before, there's no way to design a tamper proof, 100% anti cheat game system. Cheaters will always be around, but IMHO they are a very small minority, and should not consume valuable code crunching time that could be used for other stuff = catering to the non-cheating majority of players.

[R.E.LEE]

IMHO anyone who checks other players positions on first turn are simply arcade gamers,and not members of true wargamers and students of history.so do not worry fellow true wargamers as these cheating arcade gamers come and go fast,flame away but i have no respect for anyone that would do this, mirrored or not it just takes away from the true feel of the contest.

[Manus von Olie]

Well, is it really that simple, my dear R.E.LEE? [:-] I'll give you an example: I wanted to play against Seille who was winning all the time on the same scenario in the casual ladder, and I wanted to challenge him on that same scenario. So I studied the scenario in my own time, also his positions in the first turn, so we would be more even on the whole thing and I eventually did beat him. Would you call that cheating? I like it better too, to start a scenario blind, but not in a game that counts for ranking against somebody who has already a thorough knowledge of it.
I think also there's very few people who are really cheating, since the whole game is basically a hobby. When we would play for money this would be different .
 
Personally I just like playing deep, competitive, logical games, not specially for simulating a war, since I don't like wars, they do more damage than good .

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Manus von Olie

Well, is it really that simple, my dear R.E.LEE? [:-] I'll give you an example: I wanted to play against Seille who was winning all the time on the same scenario in the casual ladder, and I wanted to challenge him on that same scenario. So I studied the scenario in my own time, also his positions in the first turn, so we would be more even on the whole thing and I eventually did beat him. Would you call that cheating? I like it better too, to start a scenario blind, but not in a game that counts for ranking against somebody who has already a thorough knowledge of it.
I think also there's very few people who are really cheating, since the whole game is basically a hobby. When we would play for money this would be different .

Personally I just like playing deep, competitive, logical games, not specially for simulating a war, since I don't like wars, they do more damage than good .

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

[british exil]

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.

Would be interesting if there was a poll where we could say if we feel we may/have cheated or not. Anonymous of course.

Mat