Slitherine

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 , or ...

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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 .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manus von Olie
He knew, I told him I had to study a bit first and we discussed tactics a little: I told him I was looking into wiping out HQs completely, but he said I should just go for encirclements...

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manus von Olie
Exactly, British Exil, so that's why I wrote in the addition on the PBEM Code that you should agree on an exact time when the game should start. This you could do just for and by yourself too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seille
That´s true, but i still think the initial HQ´s you killed did not win the game for you.
It was the third (Smolensk) That neutralized my complete center defense and the fact that i had bad luck in destroying a important bridge behind Minsk even i was prepared for.
But, i still think it was the hardest attack i saw so far. Harder than Twebers or XBoronX´s, who both won with Germany when we played.
Maybe i´ll try to take revenge one day in a non ladder game

quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell
Von Ollie, the code is good and I fully support it, so don't get me wrong. Another question I have is how you deal with scenarios that are (non random) well known and often played? Again, this is not specific fo AT, but for almost all games (the ones that count at least ), but there are scenarios in TOAW, WitP, ACW etc etc where "everyone" know the situation on turn one give or take some of the noobs. This does not prevent players from playing them, rather it seems as if these are the more favoured scenarios compared to the more obscure for which general knowledge about the situation is more limited.

Then again, as your code state, I believe in being open and honest vs your potential opponent: Let him/her know if you played the scenario a couple of times or if you never opened it before. Most likely you will both have a better gaming experience if you do what the code propose. Then again, pure cheats/exploits that are beyond simply being knowledgeable/experienced is not OK, and I think/hope most gamers agree on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber
I think an 'exploit' is just a new, undiscovered tactic.  Once it is widely known, it is either accepted and becomes just another tactic or it is not accepted and becomes a cheat.

quote:

I am glad that there are at least some scenarios that people find worth studying.  It does make it hard to balance a game if you have to consider how it plays with the AI, with the casual gamer and with the serious gamer.  I would be interested in feedback from Manus and others on the balance of the 1941 scenario after careful review.

There are two ways I can think of eliminating the 'play the first turn many times' tactic:
- add a ghost regime that the Soviets use to start the game to get anti cheat up and running.  Put the ghost regime to sleep once the first turn is passed to the German side.  Writing this event would require some care so as not to upset the other events already in place (requires an extra emailing). 
- just agree to play the first side only once (requires trust)