UV PBEM Etiquette

UV PBEM Etiquette (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room

Message

Gary Gossett -> UV PBEM Etiquette (8/16/2002 7:02:51 AM)
PBEM in UV is the way to go. After trying PBEM playing the AI is like kissing your sister. As the number of UV PBEMers increases, I am curious how others out there handle a situation where your PBEM opponent cries foul when the system bites them and they do not like (believe) the results. I am enjoying a great scenario 19 PBEM game as the US. My opponent, who has been great in returning moves and appears to be a very experienced Japanese player just lost two carriers when his air combat TF that was trying to interdict the Noumea-Luganville sea lines got hammered and sunk by my land based air. He had not commanded his carrier TF to move in so close to my bases( where I had parked my carriers) Realizing that getting and keeping a consistent, mature, dedicated, quality opponent is easier said that done, I gave him the option to "rewind" if he wanted which he decided to do. In this case, I'd rather keep playing and want both of us to believe we have done the best within the system and were not defeated by it. And, I like 3 day turns and he is used to playing 1 day turns-so I compromised. I can think of four options to chose from if this comes up again and would like to know what the rest of you think. Option 1 (Hardcore) Ability to "rewind" is 0. You make the move, check it and mail it then you are stuck with it no matter what. Option 2. (Selective Hardcore) The ability to rewind only exists if both players agree it was a major game skewing screw up. Option 3. (Rewind Ownership) Like in some games with re-roll options player take turns owning the ability to rewind and when they use it the other player owns it until he uses it. In this option if you own it and refuse to cash it in the other player is stuck back in option 1. Option 4 (Warm and Fuzzy) At any time either player can ask for a rewind and the other player is obliged to grant it. It appears the key is to agree in advance which option to play under. What do you suggest? :confused:

seydlitz_slith -> (8/16/2002 8:48:14 AM)
Well, I am playing in two PBEM games myself. In both games I have seen the AI screw things up for both sides. In my scenario 17 game where I am the jap player, I had only one carrier (the Junyo) while the US had at least two, possibly three. This was around day 70-75. I loaded the Junyo with zeros, leaving the vals & kates ashore. I then built multiple task forces including 5 BBs plus the Yamato, as well as just about every cruiser & destroyer that was fit to fight. All of this was piled into one hex, under competent commanders. The CV group was in the same hex, and all of the zeroes were assigned to LRCAP for the core group (Yamato). All other TFs were set to follow that TF. The task force was sent to clean out the US forces supporting the landings at Irau. Meanwhile, I had Lunga stacked up with Vals, Kates, Zeroes, and Bettys just waiting to hit the US TF when they tried to interviene. It worked great until I found the US carriers just south of Irau. Suddenly the CV task group wheels out of line and reacts by moving two hexes closer to the allied carriers. Meanwhile all of it's planes were on LRCap over the main body, so the carrier had no CAP. Junyo went down immediately with 5 bomb and 8 torpedo hits. I lost all of the planes. Due to rain at Lunga, none of the support from there flew missions. To top it off, the surface combat task forces all turned away without hitting Irau. this was bad, because I had shot down most of the allied bombers over two turns. Follow this two turns later. I have 54 ftrs and approx 60 level bombers at Rabaul. They are assigned Naval Attack with airfield attackk secondary. The zeros all have escort missions. I sat and watched helplessly as the AI sent unescorted bomber raid after bomber raid to various targets the next turn, right into the teeth of enemy cap in excess of 40 fitrs. Only one raid, of 6 Bettys, got an escort of 9 zeros. The rest of the zeroes stayed home. What should have been a mass attack well protected by escorts instead turned into the Gili-Gili Turkey shoot. What are we doing about it? My worthy opponent said that I coudl do the turn over (without me asking). However, I declined. it is fortunes of war. Best not to set a precedent of do-overs. I am sure that somewhere down the line he will get messed over by the AI much like I was. My policy is to leave it as shows. No rewind. Regards, Don

denisonh -> It's a Long Campaign (8/16/2002 9:32:48 AM)
This is a long campaign. There is time to recover from a mistake. Sometimes it may cost you the chance at a decisive win, but it does not necessarily mean you lose. If it is June 1942 in SC 17, there is a lot of time to play! Redos are a bad precendent if you ask me. I would only redo for a recognized bug: Like an alliedplayers units teleport to Rabaul, get blown away, then teleport back with no fighting strength to get blown away again. If it is an event of that sort yes, but not a bad decision. Every decision you make as a senior level commander is fraught with risk. Good commanders deal with the consequences and make lemonade from the lemons so to speak.

Mark W Carver -> (8/16/2002 11:53:56 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by seydlitz It worked great until I found the US carriers just south of Irau. Suddenly the CV task group wheels out of line and reacts by moving two hexes closer to the allied carriers. Meanwhile all of it's planes were on LRCap over the main body, so the carrier had no CAP.[/QUOTE] As per the manual on page 61 under "Special Aircraft Carrier Movement", this MAY happen even if the CV TF is set "Not to React". I would suggest that a less aggessive TF commander be used in situations where you want to be on a more defensive state. As an aggressive TF commander may take the initiative that you may not like.

Oleg Mastruko -> PBEM etiquette (8/17/2002 6:02:34 AM)
Oh, boy! Now you opened a can of worms (or rats?) or whatever is the phrase... I did have this discussion with one of my opponents recently. And oh do I remember such cases back in the "old" days of TOAW!!! I'll say what I think very concisely: PBEM quitters and moaners should be put to virtual firing squad, and I'd be volunteering for this duty! Honestly, I'd have more understanding for cheaters, than I do have for quitters (and moaners and "lets get the turn back", and "AI cheated on me" guys are just quitters in disguise). In terms of your options, I am for option 1), maybe, but just maybe - 2) If you can't stand the heat - don't play with the fire. Wargames are not for just anyone, be prepared to lose, bite the bullet, eat your own sht and carry on! That's what you, your partner, me or anyone else should do in case of major screw up in a game such as UV!! Every wargamer should always start from himself. Oh, so I* made a mistake? OK; never mind, let's carry on - this is the right attitude. Moaning that the AI was a bitch is for wussies. AI is the same for your partner too. What right does anyone have to ruin the game for his partner who did nothing wrong? Also, what happened to your opponent, Gary, is typical case of over-aggressive TF commander, it's not even a bug in the game!!! You should have continued, and not pay attention to his whining. Fuk him! Give us his name so that we know to avoid him and never to play against him ever! And what a stupid idea it was - to try to interdict Luganville-Noumea while your carriers are still afloat! It's just right his ships got sunk!! Maybe you think I am too harsh, but when you spend 10+ hours on a game for it just to be ruined by someones whining (and it was his stupid idea to go there with his ships at the first place) - you'd be thinking very much like me. I do imagine there might be cases where someone is really badly screwed by some bug (and I say BUG, not AI) in the game, and his moaning may be understadable, like if his TF disappeared, Bermuda-triange style (there were such cases reported, I guess in previous versions), but your example is certainly not the case here! I'd very very much like to avoid quitters and play with serious opponents in the future. If anyone thinks like me and is able to make at least 1-2 turns a day, maybe we should form some sort of "Hardcore anti-quitters PBEM UV league" so that we know where to find serious, no sht, no quarter given kind of opponents? :) O.

Gary Gossett -> (8/17/2002 8:26:42 AM)
Thanks for your input Oleg. I'll put you down as a strong Option 1 advocate. If there is any blame to be taken for what happened, I'll take it. Perhaps my opponent was overly agrressive in moving into harms way but if anything I was too passive in not insisting we agree in ADVANCE to which "problem" resolution system we would stick to. And besides, I gave him the option. In the old days of paper games and snail mail PBM I used to belong to AHIKS (Avalon Hill International Krigspiel Society) and played a number of games PBM. After being put a number of times in the uncomfortable position of trying to play judge and jury(if I say no, he'll get ticked off and quit and if I say yes I am opening the floodgates and that will potentially REALLY slow down our game) I sent in an article of all things called "The Hardcore Option" The essence of which was that stuff happens and your troops don't always behave as you would have liked. BOTTOM LINE, YOU SEND IT-YOUR STUCK WITH IT! If anything playing hardcore actually enhances the fog of war aspect. The Hardcore Option was included in the AHIKS player handbook as a viable alternative for handing problems or misunderstandings. The intent was to minimize hard feelings by pinpointing responsiblilty IN ADVANCE. After further consideration I am now more convinced than ever that the Hardcore Option is the way to go and I will insist that future UV PBEM efforts start out with that understood. If I can't get my current opponents to agree to it at the least I will adhere to it personally. Just last night in another UV PBEM effort I lost two US carriers and all their air groups when I and Admiral Homer Simpson had them all training at 0! Duh! I thought they were out of harms way and It was not a pretty sight as not a single plane took to the air as CAP. At least Homer went down with that TF never to command again. The key is to agree in advance how to handle "problems". In my opinion it is just as important as reinforcement level sub docrtrine, repair etc.

Oleg Mastruko -> ............ (8/17/2002 9:18:10 AM)
Point is... We may be bestest of friends, or just two guys from different parts of the planet with not a thing in common, we may share jokes and comments on seducing women and favorite brands of beer in lenghty e-mails, or we may just send turns with not a word in between. Regardless of all that when we play PBEM we all play for those glorious moments when we see torps, bombs and other explosive stuff blowing our enemies ships apart. That's the whole point of the game! So, what is the point if I see your ships sinking during replay, only to know that you're going to whine, ask for turn back etc in your next mail? Then we do not have to play at all, it's senseless. When I see your ship sinking - no way you have the right to take that moment away from me! :) (And it goes the other way too.) Take it like a man! Historic commanders didn't have option to turn back the time, even after disastrous blunders (Midway, anyone?), so eating your own sh*t in this sense is also "historical", and lets you see (at least to some degree) what the feeling was on the losing side after the battle. Anything else I find to be disrespectful of your PBEM partner, and against the spirit of this highly historical game. I'd never EVER have the nerve to ask for turn to be replayed because something bad has happened to me, unless I've been victim of some horrible bug. I have had my TF commanders act exactly like the guy you described and it wasn't in the back of my mind to ask for forgiveness (I've learned to use less aggressive commanders in future though). And I would never accept the offer from my opponent to take the turn back, should he be so reckless to give it to me :) PS. Am I right in assuming you actually blame yourself for being too generous to your opponent, even more so than you blame him for accepting it? O.

XPav -> (8/17/2002 11:11:54 AM)
Alright Oleg, as someone who played you in TOAW and got his *** kicked before claiming some lame excuse and running away, I'm going to have to say that while of course, taking back turns is utterly not going to happen, you're not going to be able to "force" people to play games to the end. In that TOAW game that you and I played, I was finished. I know that scenario well, and there was no way in hell that I was going to be able to pull out a victory. I didn't have the troops. My opening gambit didn't work because you were too fast, and I was not going to look forward to turn after turn of waiting, followed by an utter steamroll of my forces. We play these games to have fun and to be challenged. That was hopeless. I could have been better about actually saying "YOU WIN", but in non-tournament play, I don't think you're going to find people willing to ride their flaming plane right into the ground.

denisonh -> Play The Game if the Outcome is in Question (8/17/2002 11:32:03 AM)
There may be a point when regardless of play, the outcome of the game is no longer in question. At that point, even I would concede and move on. If its July 1943 and as the USN all my carriers have been sunk and the IJN still has 5, and has the lead in VPs, I would probably concede at that point if I was the USN. If I thought there was a chance to even draw I would play, if for nothing more than pride. But doing it in May 1942 because I lost the Lex and Yorktown is chicken$hit. There is no reason in a campaign of this length to simply quit early. You can lose a battle early and still win the campaign. Hell, that is an even sweeter victory, if you ask me. It is like Oleg said, play it from the begining even against the AI, and take you lumps. It will teach you to be a better decision maker. If you just "play the turn over", there is no consequence for being stupid, and lessons are lost, not learned. So when you play against a human in PBEM, he will ping you when you try to get stupid. But in a long campaign, there are a number of battles to be fought, not just the first one. SO buck up, plan your defense without the carriers your opponent got toasted, and make him pay when he makes a mistake. "Winners never quit, and quitters never win"

Raverdave -> Re: Play The Game if the Outcome is in Question (8/17/2002 12:26:15 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B] There is no reason in a campaign of this length to simply quit early. You can lose a battle early and still win the campaign...................... Hell, that is an even sweeter victory, if you ask me....................... But in a long campaign, there are a number of battles to be fought, not just the first one. SO buck up, plan your defense without the carriers your opponent got toasted, and make him pay when he makes a mistake. "Winners never quit, and quitters never win" [/B][/QUOTE] That pretty much sums up my feelings as well..............there is no way that I would let a PBEM be re-wound, and I would be insulted if it was offered to me.

Drongo -> (8/17/2002 6:12:01 PM)
Posted by Raverdave [QUOTE]That pretty much sums up my feelings as well..............there is no way that I would let a PBEM be re-wound, and I would be insulted if it was offered to me.[/QUOTE] That's nice. What do feel about some bastard who sends you reassuring Emails during a PBEM telling you that you can relax now, nothings going to happen for months, close your eyes little one and go to sleep.....and then springs a diabolical sneak landing on you, Hmmm......?:p

Raverdave -> (8/17/2002 6:27:28 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo [B]Posted by Raverdave That's nice. What do feel about some bastard who sends you reassuring Emails during a PBEM telling you that you can relax now, nothings going to happen for months, close your eyes little one and go to sleep.....and then springs a diabolical sneak landing on you, Hmmm......?:p [/B][/QUOTE] Ok lets look at this..........I am and do engage in....er.....um....deceptions, when I post a reply the person that I am PBEMing. I guess bullshit is a crude but accurate description. Well so what? anything is fair in love and war, and if you choose to believe what I am telling you over what you are seeing on the map screen......well gee, so sad too bad.:D

Supervisor -> (8/17/2002 10:44:10 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo [B]Posted by Raverdave That's nice. What do feel about some bastard who sends you reassuring Emails during a PBEM telling you that you can relax now, nothings going to happen for months, close your eyes little one and go to sleep.....and then springs a diabolical sneak landing on you, Hmmm......?:p [/B][/QUOTE]I think they call that propaganda and misdirection. :D

XPav -> Re: Play The Game if the Outcome is in Question (8/18/2002 2:16:59 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by denisonh [B]There may be a point when regardless of play, the outcome of the game is no longer in question. At that point, even I would concede and move on. But doing it in May 1942 because I lost the Lex and Yorktown is chicken$hit. [/B][/QUOTE] Agreed.

siRkid -> (8/18/2002 4:09:10 AM)
What does any of this have to do with bugs? How is Matrix going to pick out the important items to fix if a thread gets sided tracked to such an extent?

denisonh -> (8/18/2002 8:43:52 AM)
Maybe the thread should be moved out of Bug reports and Problems, since it is less a game issue, and more a gamer issue. And how many threads have not been sidetracked? Probably a very small number.

Gary Gossett -> (8/18/2002 9:12:04 AM)
Exactly: Within minutes of posting the original as sent Emails to the moderators to have this thread moved to a more appropriate address: namely the War Room. The original intent was to bring up a discussion of how UV players handle "problems" while in an ongoing game. The issue of surrendering is another issue. I see no dishonor in formally surrendering when there is no hope of victory. I do see dishonor in slowing down or stopping all together when the winds of war start blowing against you. As UV is new to most players determining when to fold them or hold them is yet to be determined. ie. how far down can the US get before they can't climb out of the hole? What is a "save" Japanese lead? Gaming time is too limited and valuable for most of us to spend it beating a dead horse. If its really dead shot it (surrender) to make certain and get on another. I would hope that a formal surrender would be enough-hopefully with a rematch

AFIntel -> (8/21/2002 9:34:28 AM)
In the month I've been playing UV, I've lost more CV's that probably most people here (combined in some cases). My thought: no rewinds. If I made a stupid mistake, it's my job to climb out of it. If it's a computer fluke, rack it up to the intangible mysterious occurences in war...

Luskan -> I agree with Oleg (8/21/2002 6:06:22 PM)
I'm with Oleg on this one. No rewinds, just acceptance of the consequences (of your mistakes or of the game's mistakes - which will afect both sides equally). As for surrender, I don't see anything wrong with it. Personally, UV is such a good game that I even have fun while I'm loosing.

Wolfar100 -> (8/22/2002 1:13:03 AM)
I am all for NO REWIND. Like 99% of what I have been reading in this thread. Take your lumps and learn! If you want to learn like I did in the begining play the AI and rewind if you want to see differnt outcomes to battles. Even myself after doing this about 4 times came qwickly to the conclustion that War is HELL live with it even when playing the AI. Even to think about a Rewind when doing PBEM is totaly discusting! Salute Wolfar

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625