GD1938 Game 24

[Bombur]

Mate, I'm really getting tired of this infantile tit-for-tat bulls#*t. Let me remind you one more time. It was YOUR shoddy play that let the Germans gain such easy access to the N.American east coast in the first place, not mine.

This is really offensive to my honor....I have no alternative but to challenge you for a two player game with my new Deep Battle 1938 scenario. The winner will get the title: "The second worst player of ATG community".

[baloo7777]

Ironduke:

Thanks Chuck and ernieschwitz

quote:

I think we should end this game and hand victory to the German/Italy/Soviet coalition. They played a great game, and, more important, they did good diplomacy. I don´t know how the Chinese/Japanese/USA coalition can win if the USA is given to Japan (I tried to explain a thousand times to falco that it results in a HUGE decrease in production rates). It´s also difficult to go back to USA´s turn, given the big victory obtained by the German forces in this naval battle. An alternative is to have Japan give back the USA assets to its original owner. GB will be soon reduced to Australia and I cannot do any alliance because the USA is at war with me (a war that was useless to him, unless he wanted to invite the Germans to America. I´m sorry that my bad diplomacy helped to ruin what would be an epic game. As ironduke said, the row is 50% my fault. I never wanted to break my alliance with the USA, but was really upset that he not only refused to play any role in the war but also that he was unable to pay attention to what his allies said.


I tend to think now that Bombur was correct in his assessment. Congrats to Germans Italians and Soviets.

Are we ending Game 24 then? Just so you know... I am perfectly capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory... I've done before. [8|]

[ironduke1955]

Yes at least its over for me Chuck and his stunning naval victory has ended the game absolutely brilliant stuff who would have thought of using a game mechanism designed to resolve the problem of two belligerents occupying the same hex to destroy a opponents fleet, the mans a Genius.

I sent this message to Bombur it sums up my feelings regarding the latest stroke pulled by cpdeyoung. I am not wrong in any of the statements made here, point is will anything be done or will this kind of behaviour be allowed to continue without censure or correction. And before I hear that its not against the rules I refer you back to the comments made by ernieshwitz regards unwritten rules of conduct, exploits would in just about any other gaming environment and should in this one come under the heading of unwritten rules or even written rules like exploits are not allowed.

The Chinese had 11 Carrier III 5 BB IV 70+ destroyers some 90 naval fighters and due to cpdeyoung using a exploit none of them survived, because it is very difficult to make Sub III retreat especially if they have high experience as these U-Boats did, they would have done very little damage if they had attacked in the correct way, but because cpdeyoung used what the designer of the game Vic called a exploit he gained a huge victory. Game 24 we have a exploit game 23 cpdeyoung broke the rules on false wars no one disputes that he did. But I see no complaints on the forum about his behaviour. Could anyone explain why there seems to be one rule for cpdeyoung and another rule for the rest of us.

Lets be clear the fleet that was destroyed was not destroyed by combat it was destroyed by a glitch in the game a glitch we are all aware of but would never exploit, except for cpdeyoung. I am wondering what is wrong with the GD1938 community they seem to allow this man to get away with dishonourable play that the rest of us would never consider.

[Bombur]

Gentlemen, we are a small community, it can be easily be killed if we don´t solve this kind of conflict. I asuggest to submitt this question to arbitration. If chuck and ironDuke agree we could nominate a third person to decide the question (I would suggest ernie, who is the game designer and usually doesn´t play). I think two decisions are possible.

1-We go back to falco´s turn and, if he is willing to get out of the game he gives the USA to Larry,then the exloit used by chuck will be forbidden
2-The results of the naval battle are legitimate and we continue playing

Of course, another fix could be decided. We all promise to accept ernie´s ruling on this question.

[cpdeyoung]

@Bombur

Sure.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

Not really sure what we need to arbitrate

Game 23 the rule on no false wars was broken not as if there is any controversy.

Game 24 the game designer has called the abuse of the game mechanics dealing with two neutral or allied powers occupying the same hex that become belligerents a exploit, and it clearly is as your opponents units are destroyed without the need for combat, that is as about a clear a case of exploitation as cheat codes.

[cpdeyoung]

@Ironduke

Regarding Game 23 : while, like all players of the Americans I wanted somebody to declare war on me, and while I did create a very, very tempting situation, I point out that war was declared on me, and while I did make peace with the attacker, it was not me who initiated the "phony war". If the other player had not attacked me there would have been no issue, as I could not possibly declare war.

Not sure this should be chalked up against me as the other player shares the responsibility. He made his informed decision to attack me after all.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

The political influencing of Finland to the point that they became a US satellite, by the US and the tempting offer made to the Soviet Union, were clearly the initiating factors, the Finnish army disbanded and a open invitation given to the Soviets to just walk in, but the invitation came with the breaking of US neutrality in 1938, I am sure he had not thought it through but I am pretty sure you had.

Game 24 I was going to continue what was probably going to be a losing game but what the heck, then I get a kick in the butt for my pains with your using of a exploit.

Really not sure why the need for you to gain a edge, your considerable skills as a player are all the edge you should need.

[ironduke1955]

If you could replay the turn that included the attack on the Chinese fleet then we can continue game 24

[cpdeyoung]

Here is what Vic sent me with regard to this thread :

I recommend the following:
1) The following should be known by all PBEM players when they are determining relations with other players:
Most Safe you cannot be backstabbed = At War
Naval ambush possible = Neutral
Naval and Land ambush possible = Allied

2) PBEM players should try to create house rules for next games (or if players are forgiving replay the turn in question) whenever they find an issue that caused great debate

In a private conversation with Claus he went into more detail. Let me just say that the ambush is legal, possible, and normal. It will be part of the game ongoing. Vic discusses two ways to avoid ambush which I think are public domain enough to discuss. First, if you feel in danger declare war on the dangerous party. Second, place your ships in port, a well defended port I may add. Pearl Harbor does not qualify!

Vic wrote :

Dishonourable is a very subjective term. And its easier to use if one got surprised by the rules of the game.

If you feel you were "surprised by the rules of the game" and want a "forgiving" replay the players in this game can go that route, but this must not set a precedent. All players must realize that we learn this game by playing it and painful lessons are lessons after all.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

So to be clear "Ambush" this is a fleet that was surrounded by a very large number of Chinese Submarine III's how did this Ambush come about, and no survivors in every instance of the use of this exploit/Ambush, that's no survivors in every conceivable application of this "Ambush" a very effective Ambush indeed.

At the very least this "Ambush" tactic should be agreed upon before a game is commenced no such agreement has been given in any game of GD1938 that I have participated in, so I go back to my original position that this was a exploit as no agreement had been reached.

As has been stated most of the veteran players are aware of what happens when allies/neutrals find themselves in the same hex when they become belligerents, it has never been called Ambush, and never to my knowledge been used in a game of GD1938 or for that matter any incarnation of Advanced Tactic's Gold that I have taken part it may have been the subject of a post but not one I have ever seen. And does not explain why you felt it would be acceptable to use "Ambush" in a game of GD1938 when no agreement was in place and that it would cause at the very least a debate that would not reflect well on Advanced Tactics Gold.

And of course if all that you have said is correct and you take note of my comments the turn should be played again and if this tactic is to used again then agreement should be reached by all participating players for myself I will never agree the tactic is gamey and does not feel real world no survivors and existing screens and pickets that suddenly go blind, really.

[cpdeyoung]

Tom wrote :

cpdeyoung used what the designer of the game Vic called a exploit

This is false. I do not think Vic said anything of the sort. If you have any evidence he said this please quote him as I did.

"Ambush" is his word as seen in the quote. This is how he expected the ambush to be used. The words inside the Quote fields were Vic's, not mine.

We do not need special agreement to play by Vic's rules. We "agree" to that when we start his game.

no survivors in every conceivable application of this "Ambush" a very effective Ambush indeed.

There were no German survivors either. If there had been German survivors in enough quantity I would have sunk some of the Japanese in the hex too. Too bad your "screens" were that effective anyway.

I thought the attack was very "effective" and the results very satisfactory.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

The advent of the rule that made it possible for neutral nations to move forces into other neutral forces sea hexes, is my doing. I played a game once, when the rule did not exist, and made a screen of subs, that prevented the other player from attacking my coastline. Vic considered this an exploit. I still think it was good gaming If not a bit unrealistic though.

QUOTE from earnieschwitz

Vic considered earnieschwitz play a exploit I strongly disagree (If a major power wished to restrict the movement of another major power then placing warships or subs in there path in a effort to control bodies of ocean should be acceptable, it is also highly provocative and could provoke a war) as I understand it if the Soviets and Germans are allies the Germans can move there army onto the Soviet army then declare war and obliterate them without a fight, the use of such rule has to be agreed it has not been so replay the turn or concede defeat.

And the reason your subs did not survive is because Larry's fleet finished them off by using combat you remember combat don't you, its a valid means of resolving combat in a wargame, something you seem to have lost sight off this is a wargame not a sleazy lawyers convention.

I checked through the manual there is no Ambush rule in the manual (probably because it has just been made up) can't really allow a rule that does not exist.

The term Ambush is mentioned 4 times all of them exclusively to do with units moving into units that are hidden due to the FOW, a combat occurs when these units attempt to enter the hex, I like these Ambush rules they make sense they seem to belong in the real world, your ambush rule seems more in the realms of David Copperfield making BB IV and Carrier III just disappear into thin air.

[Vic]

Hi all,

I think its very important everybody realises very well the following:

Most Safe you cannot be backstabbed = At War
Naval ambush/back-stab possible = Neutral
Naval and Land ambush/back-stab possible = Allied

It might be interesting to add some variety to the diplomatic options in PBEM games of ATG.

There might be space for a subvariant of neutral and allied relations where for example a player could prohibit sea hex sharing with neutrals and where a player could prohibit land hex sharing when allied.

Best wishes,
Vic

[ironduke1955]

Naval ambush/back-stab possible = Neutral
Naval and Land ambush/back-stab possible = Allied

A player that attacks first already has the advantage of surprise, why add the ability for a combat in a hex that forces the defenders to retreat and then eliminates them ? what is that meant to represent what real life event is this meant to mirror ? Pearl Harbour ? Barbarossa ? the Invasion of Poland ? simple fact if units are forced to retreat then that is what they do retreat and live to fight another day unless there is a physical obstruction to said retreat like enemy units or a physical obstruction. The attack made by cpdeyoung was at sea and there were multiple escape hexes.

The above quote does not explain the mechanics of back stab it uses the word ambush well we know what ambush means its mentioned four times in the manual but back-stab what is a player to make of those two words, and I take it that the above quote is not from the manual so where is this information located ?

[baloo7777]

Isn't Vic the creator of the game? I am not taking sides, if we replay we replay, if we end we end... but I would think what Vic says is what goes for the game, except by house rules agreed to before the start of play. I realize this is a mod, so it plays quite different from the ATG basic game, and has taken me a long time of actual play to begin to see how to play. I am still learning. And no, I had no understanding of this rule which is being discussed. But that doesn't make the rule any less valid.

[ironduke1955]

Thanks baloo7777 back-stab is not in the manual, as to it being a rule read the above and decide. There is a gap in the game mechanics that we are aware of, back-stab has only just been added to cover a problem that has just cropped up because no one has thought to exploit the gap in the game mechanics until now.

As to my position you invest several months into these games you build up your forces then someone uses a exploit and removes them from the game Vic states.

There might be space for a subvariant of neutral and allied relations where for example a player could prohibit sea hex sharing with neutrals and where a player could prohibit land hex sharing when allied.

A solution to the current exploit by cpdeyoung. As I said no rule was broken because if you look at the manual no rule exists conversely you could argue that no rule prohibiting the use of this exploit exists. But for myself I take you back to my comment regarding the time spent playing this game if no rule exists then it is down to the players to decide what is acceptable and what is not I say its unacceptable and I have laid out why.

Just to add some thought's on Back Stab Germany and China are not allies so no stab in the back took place, the German vessels that carried out this Back Stab entered a hot war zone the Chinese were conducting a huge military operation against the Soviets Germany is a ally of the Soviet Union !!!!, they were not conducting a reggata or a naval revue. So these German U-Boats entered a war zone and sailed right through and past hundreds of Chinese naval vessels all of them the newest vessel type in their class.

[LJBurstyn]

So how do keep "neutral" and others from mixing their units with ours. The rules allow neutrals to move into the same hexes as those who are at war with others. I would like to see Vic change this so neutrals cannot enter hexes with units with any nation that is at war. If he does not we SHOULD make this a standard rule for all games.

[cpdeyoung]

A unit can move into a land hex of another country if it is at war with that country, or allied with that country.

How would you change this?

Are you saying that allies should not be able to enter the hexes of countries they are allied with?

At sea any fleet can enter any hex. When Ernie tried to build a wall of ships, Vic deliberately stopped this. A naval unit can pass through or occupy any hex unless it is occupied by an enemy fleet. If this is not allowed a single sub could blockade the Thames so no USA (not belligerent, but allied with Britain) ship could enter London.

Let's be careful here.

Chuck

[ironduke1955]

Surely its possible for neutrals to be able to sail through other neutral nations but not stack with them, but if we are sensible we see that neutral navies play cat an mouse all the time Russia with NATO the Iranians with the US navy and so on, these are provocations. Now a nation that takes its navy and spreads them thinly over a large area to control sea, is going to lose a large part if not all of those vessels in the event that war is declared. They will be like fish in a barrel. The reason they cannot stack together is the same reason they do not get to close to each other in the real world the possibility that a accident may happen and a war started proximity of rival navies is not encouraged for these reasons so hex sharing is a huge no no. And I say again if the Kriegsmarine wants to blockade the Thames though as a local to these waters there are several miles of territorial coastal waters before international waters are reached if the Germans enter UK territorial waters that's a act of war.

There might be space for a subvariant of neutral and allied relations where for example a player could prohibit sea hex sharing with neutrals and where a player could prohibit land hex sharing when allied.

This seams like a good start at addressing the problem.