What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by 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. [:)]
User avatar
vonTirpitz
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC
Contact:

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by vonTirpitz »

Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com

gamey or gamy (ˈ¨Àeɪmɪ)

¡ª adj , gamier , gamiest
1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game
2. informal spirited; plucky; brave

Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D]

On with the discussion! [;)]

Image
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com

gamey or gamy (ˈ¨Àeɪmɪ)

¡ª adj , gamier , gamiest
1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game
2. informal spirited; plucky; brave

Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D]

On with the discussion! [;)]



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]
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Merica

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by jeffk3510 »

Historical or not doesn't mean gamey in my opinion.

Gamey is taking advantage of the game's mechanics imo....

I play EU3 a lot for example....I build ONLY cavalry armies...its a game exploit....its considered "gamey".

For those that understand EU3....I build up my navy FAR past my forcelimit modifier, because it is an exploit and you're not penalized.....its considered "gamey"

The whole "moving squadrons off carriers to expand" issue...most consider that gamey

Gamey to me is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended.

That one popped into my head right away, as I was playing UE3 a bit last night...

I wouldn't consider something gamey if you're just that much better at a game than someone else however....
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Dez caught it
User avatar
vonTirpitz
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC
Contact:

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by vonTirpitz »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

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

Probably a little of both but I'd rather not know actually. [:D]

As to your point I tend to agree with what you are thinking. The term itself is probably overused and, as you implied, has become a thin politically correct coating for many whom think they are being cheated in the game.

Whilst one can appreciate an opponent whom devises a strategy or method that is effective and within the boundaries of the games' mechanics. It seems to boil down to the fact that it can be explained and is within the designed parameters of the game. This is what I would call "gamey" play style based on the second informal definition.

Cheating on the other hand involves fraud. It involves manipulating data, stealing information and violating agreed upon rules, etc.

The boundaries between "spirited" play and "cheating" often get blured with increasing levels complexity. As mentioned in other discussions I still feel it comes down to the personalities of those involved as well as the limitations that a game design has.

There are many excellent examples in AE where these boundaries exist. With a game of this scope and magnitude I believe it really has to come down to a gentlemens agreement as to what play styles would be acceptable.

Likewise, I think many of these issues should be resolved more quietly between the players themselves than brought up as an informal inquiry like so many do. Whether it be a mistaken understanding of what your opponent is doing or an outright confrontation to an opponent whom is believed to be cheating in some way. Once the issue is brought to the public forum I cannot imagine how it would positively affect the game only in that it often times carries unspoken accusations that have to have a negative effect on all involved parties.

This is just my general opinion on the matter. No threads, members or small animals where harmed in the formation of these thoughts....

I now need to go find more coffee to finish waking up. I'll re-read this later and realize it probably didn't make much sense. Oh well. [>:]






Image
User avatar
Crackaces
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:39 pm

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by Crackaces »

"Gamey" in my opinion is a player exploiting a software or rules behavior in a boardgame, in such a way that the risks are infinitesimally small and the benifits of such an explotiation are overwhleming. The line is crossed when the opponent has no similar retort. Thus the contest becomes about the figuring out the GAME as a puzzle, and not about the PLAYERS and their decisions. For example, some role playing games have some sort of puzzle or pattern than one learned one can dominate despite the responses of the other player(s).

However, I think I do see where you are coming from in terms of definition and perceptions. In some threads some ahistorical move with appropriate risks and benifits is perceived as "gamey" because one player has a rigid context for reproducing history and the other wants to try a "what-if" situtaion vs.both are just playing a game. IMHO) For these types of wargaming players they are testing the ability of the software to reproduce historical results or they are testing the ability of the software to simulate all of the War in the Pacific during WWII, and not so much interested in playing a game. The problem becomes that WitP is just a game and not a simulation.

For example, I posted the thought that if IJN submarine warfare completly fccused on isolating the land of OZ then the powers to be would have made the appropriate response, which I might contend is to build much more infrastrcutre once the risk / reward became apparent. The game does not allow for such responses, which a simulation would facilitate. Thus to put all the IJN submarines to isolate the land of OZ might be a bit gamey -- but that is in the light that right now I do not understand a response within the confines of WitP AE.

(A little background .. I am working with software called "Organizational Risk Analysis" and this allows for such decision making along with the overt and unintended consequinces of such decisions and thus thus my rant :)
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

Gamey to me is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended.

Jeff nailed it. Defining what "gamey is" is not difficult. Defining what "is gamey" is a very personal, opinion based decision. Sure there are plenty of things that have a "consensus" from the forum members declaring them gamey, but there are plenty of individuals on the other side of the issue in every case. They are absolutely entitled to that opinion.

The only problems arise when people start to imply that their opinions "should" be the opinion of everyone else. The only people who need to agree whether something is gamey or not are the players in a PBEM or yourself if you are playing vs the AI.

Before starting a PBEM relationship with anyone, be sure you can reach an agreement on what is/is not gamey, or be sure you can reach an agreement in the future when something comes up. It always will. [:)]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by FatR »

The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right).

Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

For example, I posted the thought that if IJN submarine warfare completly fccused on isolating the land of OZ then the powers to be would have made the appropriate response, which I might contend is to build much more infrastrcutre once the risk / reward became apparent. The game does not allow for such responses, which a simulation would facilitate. Thus to put all the IJN submarines to isolate the land of OZ might be a bit gamey -- but that is in the light that right now I do not understand a response within the confines of WitP AE.

While I believe your example is a good one, I disagree that the game fails to provide avenues of response. True, the Allied player can't build more infrastructure in Oz. But once it is clear that the IJN sub force is camped there the Allied player has many responses available to him which ARE possible in the game code. The biggest one, and the thought applies in myriad situations like your example, is to "go where they ain't." Any time a player crowds resources into a geography, land or sea, he necessarily is leaving other places less crowded. Being prepared to respond to this, especially within the prep consraints of the engine, is a key to becoming a very good player. Also, knowing, on either side of the color wheel, when is the time to stop being "reaction conservative" and instead becoming overtly aggressive in the pursuit of final end-game goals, is a key skill. Many PBEM games have not or never will get to 1944, so Allied players in particular don't have a lot of AARs to study for this swing mechanism, but it's there. Playing 1942 over and over and over does not fully show the game's possibilities.

I don't play PBEM, but were I to do so I would play with no HRs. From reading many AARs I think they detract more than they add. They motivate much table talk which not only slows down progress and can lead to hurt feelings (or one side leaving the game) but also often reveals a lot of operational planning to the opponent. If the game engine has limits which can be pushed (and it does, especially in the area of Op Points), there are areas available to both sides. Outside of simple cheating, such as reading an opponent's AAR, I say play on. It's a long war, and you'll get many chances for payback.
The Moose
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: FatR

The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right).

Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on.


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. [&:]
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by USSAmerica »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: FatR

The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right).

Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on.


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. [&:]

My opinion is that purposeful "ammo sponges" are gamey but pickets are not gamey, Steve, but my opinion doesn't matter. Only you and your opponent's opinions matter.

Oh, wait. I guess my opinion DOES matter in a couple of cases, then. [:D]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

Gamey to me is finding a way to exploit game mechanics, in such a manner that is not intended.

Jeff nailed it. Defining what "gamey is" is not difficult. Defining what "is gamey" is a very personal, opinion based decision. Sure there are plenty of things that have a "consensus" from the forum members declaring them gamey, but there are plenty of individuals on the other side of the issue in every case. They are absolutely entitled to that opinion.

The only problems arise when people start to imply that their opinions "should" be the opinion of everyone else. The only people who need to agree whether something is gamey or not are the players in a PBEM or yourself if you are playing vs the AI.

Before starting a PBEM relationship with anyone, be sure you can reach an agreement on what is/is not gamey, or be sure you can reach an agreement in the future when something comes up. It always will. [:)]


So can this thread serve a usefull purpose by exploring what's "gamey", and trying to reach a general consensus on what many if not most players view as the problem, if not a solution? My experince is that many players jump with both feet on houserules without stopping to discuss if they are needed. If we can figure out what the problem is , aren't we a little closer to solving it?

My personal intention is to explore that here, THEN follow up with other threads , 1st exploring some of those flaws and problems that might be gamey.And how to solve them. But 1st we need to figure out what the defination of "is" is.


One thing I'm convinced is , the time to figure out if something is a problem in in threads like this one.Not when you are negtoiating house rules. [:)]
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: FatR

The general definition of "gamey" is exploitation of the game engine's quirks to achieve results that a)would have been impossible in reality b)clearly weren't intended to be achieved by the delelopers. (Point (b) is here because some of the game engine's elements sacrifice close adherence to reality in lesser things, to achieve it in greater things - i.e., while actual altitude numbers associated with AE's stratosphere air combat are wrong, the resulting general advantage of late-war Allied planes is exactly right).

Unfortunately, people tend to not agree where unconventional tactics end and impossibility begins. For example, it is pretty clear, that sending a gaggle of small-value targets ahead of one's SCTF to make the enemy vaste their ammo and ops points is gamey, but is is it gamey to engage the enemy with a bunch of single-DD TFs? Single-PT TFs? And so on.


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. [&:]

My opinion is that purposeful "ammo sponges" are gamey but pickets are not gamey, Steve, but my opinion doesn't matter. Only you and your opponent's opinions matter.

Oh, wait. I guess my opinion DOES matter in a couple of cases, then. [:D]


Your opinion ALWAYS matters Mike. And so do that of others.

Find the problem. Identify it, and kill it or deal with it. Frankly , I'm so fed up with this lack of defination of gamey (that's the burr under my saddle. Everybody whined about the problem) that I would like it dead, or al least handcuffed and put in a staight-jacket! Then we can move on to other pressing issues. [:D]
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com

gamey or gamy (ˈ¨Àeɪmɪ)

¡ª adj , gamier , gamiest
1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game
2. informal spirited; plucky; brave

Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D]

On with the discussion! [;)]



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.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
USSAmerica
Posts: 19198
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Graham, NC, USA
Contact:

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by USSAmerica »

Steve-O, I'm afraid you might be tilting at windmills again.  You're not going to be able to define what moves/tactics/sneaky tricks are or are not gamey to anyone's satisfaction, except your own.  I know you well enough to know you would usually prefer as close to "no holes barred" as you can get an opponent to accept.  I think that's the answer you are looking for, and the only one that matters for you, except that of any opponents you engage.  [:)]

You'll sooner solve the Federal budget problems than get everyone here to agree that any single issue is or is not gamey.  [:D]
Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Image
Artwork by The Amazing Dixie
User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by AW1Steve »

ORIGINAL: USS America

Steve-O, I'm afraid you might be tilting at windmills again.  You're not going to be able to define what moves/tactics/sneaky tricks are or are not gamey to anyone's satisfaction, except your own.  I know you well enough to know you would usually prefer as close to "no holes barred" as you can get an opponent to accept.  I think that's the answer you are looking for, and the only one that matters for you, except that of any opponents you engage.  [:)]

You'll sooner solve the Federal budget problems than get everyone here to agree that any single issue is or is not gamey.  [:D]


Not necessarilly true Mike. My only real requirement for house rules acceptance is "show me where one person that I trust makes the case that it's necessary". That means any one from Matrix, only any of the non-employess that helped build the game, or any one VERY knowledgable about the game. That includes automatically any of the "GrandMasters". I don't oppose houserules. I simply want to have it proven to me that we need them. I do not belive in exchanging one monster for another. And quite often , in my humble view, a house rule simply shifts the advantage from one party to another . In other words I view house rules as often gamey themselves.

As far as the Federal budget goes, I can easily solve that! But until my plan for global world domination comes to fruition , the budget will have to remain the problem of the people we are PAYING to solve it. [:D]
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Merica

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by jeffk3510 »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

Well I would think we should have a starting definition so I pulled this from dictionary.com

gamey or gamy (ˈ¨Àeɪmɪ)

¡ª adj , gamier , gamiest
1. having the smell or flavour of game, esp high game
2. informal spirited; plucky; brave

Based on the "official" definition I would have to say that everything about WitP-AE, the forum, and many members seems to apply to the term. [:D]

On with the discussion! [;)]



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...
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Dez caught it
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: USS America

Steve-O, I'm afraid you might be tilting at windmills again.  You're not going to be able to define what moves/tactics/sneaky tricks are or are not gamey to anyone's satisfaction, except your own.  I know you well enough to know you would usually prefer as close to "no holes barred" as you can get an opponent to accept.  I think that's the answer you are looking for, and the only one that matters for you, except that of any opponents you engage.  [:)]

You'll sooner solve the Federal budget problems than get everyone here to agree that any single issue is or is not gamey.  [:D]


Not necessarilly true Mike. My only real requirement for house rules acceptance is "show me where one person that I trust makes the case that it's necessary". That means any one from Matrix, only any of the non-employess that helped build the game, or any one VERY knowledgable about the game. That includes automatically any of the "GrandMasters". I don't oppose houserules. I simply want to have it proven to me that we need them. I do not belive in exchanging one monster for another. And quite often , in my humble view, a house rule simply shifts the advantage from one party to another . In other words I view house rules as often gamey themselves.

As far as the Federal budget goes, I can easily solve that! But until my plan for global world domination comes to fruition , the budget will have to remain the problem of the people we are PAYING to solve it. [:D]

When it comes to house rules, I don't necessarily bar anything, but what I do ask is that you make it reasonable. For instance 4Es at 1000' for skip bombing: I agree you can do it, just don't set every 4E unit you have to do it, etc. I guess it would be less of a house rule as a gentlemen's agreement, or a better way to put it, don't do anything that ruins the game for either player.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Merica

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by 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.

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Dez caught it
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: What is the defination of "Gamey"?

Post by 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.

Image
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”