From: San Antonio, TX
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.
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.
OK. I understand what you're looking for now. 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.