Ethical Question - help wanted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

sillyflower -> Ethical Question - help wanted (1/29/2016 9:59:40 PM)

Thisis one that has arisen in my game vs Brian G. The summer has just ended for my Germans so the point is a bit academic. It is an issue I raised in my AAR a few turns ago, but no one commented so I'm trying again.

The question is: when is it acceptable not to kill already surrounded soviet units in the summer of '41 before snow starts in November? As you all know, this matters because Russian inf and mot divs return as inf divs, and tank divs as tank brigades free of any AP cost if they are destroyed before Nov '41.

In my game, I destroyed all surrounded units by the end of T17 except those in 2 cities in L'grad area which were isolated in about T14 and one pocket just W of Moscow which was isolated only on T16 because Brian broke the pocket on his T15.

There are always 4 options after creating a pocket -

1 kill those units ASAP or

2 leave them for a bit to weaken them or to bring up additional attackers

3 leave them to weak follow up forces which may take some time to do the job, because the surrounding unis are needed elsewhere. The Lvov pocket is often a good example - though the issue I pose only arises in late summer.

4 Exploit the 'free return' rule by leaving the isolated units until November purely to exploit the 'free return' rule

In effect for both pocket I chose option 3 but that will cost Brian 400 APs My reasons for leaving were that I really did need the forces that were needed to take them out, elsewhere.I am pretty sure that I would have done the same even if the 'free return' period had already ended. On the other hand, I would convince myself of that wouldn't I?

Is option 3 acceptable play or too gamey?

Was L'grad too long a leave?

If it is OK, is there some sort of limit? Is 400 APs over that limit?

Is option 4 acceptable to other players/ am I being too wet?

All thoughts welcome, especially Brian's. The Russian perspective matters.



loki100 -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/29/2016 10:15:38 PM)

I'll bite

if I understand, some early versions of the game allowed a German player to set up a massive open air prison camp that they culled when November arrived? To me that is gamey.

surrounding say Leningrad on T16 and letting it alone while the cv runs down? I think that is force efficiency.

anything in between - it depends ... situation of the game and intent of the German player? But I do think setting up a pocket and keeping it just to cross this threshold is pretty abusive - but I can see the logic of handing off to follow up units etc.



Peltonx -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/29/2016 10:34:13 PM)

Play by the ruleset

You will not be tormented by this question soon.

.08

Pelton's Law

It's not whether you win or lose it's whether you win or not that matters.

[image]local://upfiles/20387/9A4E6F2B51444B7BA1874CC2EF89616A.jpg[/image]



charlie0311 -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 12:30:34 AM)

Asking for "it" again, obviously new meds aren't working..

"Pelton's Law" it's not etc... ok then anything goes including cheating, and logically, if cheating produces wins then it is "ethical". Defining ethical here as that which produces a desired, good, result.

That did it, now my hair's on fire, going for toilet dunk.



56ajax -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 2:34:34 AM)

Wow.

Go on operational necessities so do you need to eliminate these pockets asap? if not wait until they are a rollover. As the AXIS you have to conserve your forces so Option 3 or 4. Is it gamey, Yes, but so is railroading your elite unties back to Berlin for the winter, or making good use of non random weather.

And next time you start a game try to address this in house rules



sillyflower -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 6:13:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Asking for "it" again, obviously new meds aren't working..

"Pelton's Law" it's not etc... ok then anything goes including cheating, and logically, if cheating produces wins then it is "ethical". Defining ethical here as that which produces a desired, good, result.

That did it, now my hair's on fire, going for toilet dunk.


Charlie - this is is not a fair response to Pelton. You can't separate Pelton's law from the first line of his post. Playing by the rule set is not cheating. It can be gamey to do that (which is why I started this thread) but that's a very different and very subjective concept.



sillyflower -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 6:47:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

Wow.

Go on operational necessities so do you need to eliminate these pockets asap? if not wait until they are a rollover. As the AXIS you have to conserve your forces so Option 3 or 4. Is it gamey, Yes, but so is railroading your elite unties back to Berlin for the winter, or making good use of non random weather.

And next time you start a game try to address this in house rules


Tx for this post which really shows some of the difficulties. I don't regard either of your examples as gamey but I'm not comfortable with option 4. If I was, I would not have eliminated the 14 divs I pocketed in the south on T15, before Nov nor would I have raised the issue in this thread.

I don't think either railing units back to refit in winter or making the best use of fine weather forecast are gamey. They mirror what happened or could have happened in the real war.

The 'free return' rule is a game mechanic which is divorced from reality because APs are purely a game mechanic that has no correlation to real life. There was no real life choice 'do I sack someone or build another division?' nor could the Germans IRL do anything to stop the Russians doing things that cost APs in the game.



charlie0311 -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 7:23:18 AM)

Oh boy, more fun with silly..

I didn't separate the P law from the P remark, "play by the ruleset", P did that. So, ok, he meant, if you play by the rules then winning is..

Not accusing anybody of cheating, a few have come by charlieland, but so what?

I would vote, tho it means nothing, that waiting for the surrender with no "free" rebuild is gamey.

May soon post for opponent, have now two months of coaching from one of the first alpha testers on a new open, two months to do six turns. Not as skilled as the coach, but can go along in my rumblin' bumblin', stumblin', manner.



Manstein63 -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 9:03:29 AM)

I always try to clear pockets in the turn after they have been formed wherever it is possible, but sometimes you are unable. Is waiting to November before reducing pockets allowed within the game rules, yes it is, should you do it deliberately , no I don't think that you should. If you do then you can't complain if the Russian player isolates German units but doesn't destroy them thereby stopping the Axis player from replacing them, although that is what happened with the Courland pocket.
Manstein63



loki100 -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 9:54:11 AM)

there are two parts to this problem and no easy solution.

One dynamic is the age-old debate between the approach of 'play to the rules' and 'if its not banned, you can do it' vs realism/plausibility etc. No point rehearsing that one, not least one person's gamey exploit is another's astute game play.

The other is where the basic game rules hit special cases. I actually think this is quite a problem in WiTE as various special rules are in there to shape the flow of the game. Some are standard (some sort of command/movement bonus for the Germans early game, some sort of simulation of the surprise/shock of the Soviet winter offensive), some reflect WiTE's concepts (such as the shifting NM ... which I am increasingly going off) and then there are things like this.

Why do losses at a certain stage need to be paid for rather than free? You end up with an arbitrary line and I think you create the sort of opportunities that only make sense in the WiTE framework. FWIW, I'm somewhat of the view to one of two extremes - no free builds (give the Soviets more admin pts) or all dead units come back (and take admin pts off the Soviets).

The problem with the first is it removes the last constraint on the Soviet build strategy, you could end up with Chaos45 all cavalry armies or something. The advantage of the latter is it is a good reflection of Soviet practice. Most destroyed units were reformed, you'd still need to pay the production costs of the contents of the unit. I also think this might encourage more realistic Soviet operational practice - push your spearheads as far as they will go, not as far as is safe against being pocketed. As I've argued elsewhere, the Soviets didn't see the creation of pockets as the primary goal of an offensive (they were an additional secondary bonus), their doctrine was all about disruption and dislocation of the enemy rear.

This will work better in WiTE2 (I think) with fixed depots, fixed capacity rail nets and fixed airbases. A deep incursion will cause chaos, even if it is cut off.



loki100 -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 9:55:12 AM)

hit wrong button sorry



swkuh -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 12:51:03 PM)

Hmmm... ethical question vs. personal practices.

Play the best way the game code allows, simple answer. Each opponent is then challenged to exploit the rules that each knows. But what does it take to ferret out these non-intuitive rules? (Thanks to better players for discoveries and discussions, so far.) Who knows all these exploits, anyway? (The Shadow, of course.) This isn't the only gamey exploitation possible, so what should be allowed, not allowed? Who's to say?

Know your opponent's approaches and be warned.

Doing what is historically possible is my preferred approach, else WitE goes towards "Star Wars." But I accept what various opponents offer and enjoy the play. Its a game, isn't it?



Mehring -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 2:25:46 PM)

I suggested many years ago, a "surrender" button for Russian units pocketed more than a couple of weeks before the no return comes into effect, Flaviusx's reply "don't play with people who do this." Players exploit bad rules, devs should fix them. This is one that got away... so far.



Peltonx -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 2:37:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Asking for "it" again, obviously new meds aren't working..

"Pelton's Law" it's not etc... ok then anything goes including cheating, and logically, if cheating produces wins then it is "ethical". Defining ethical here as that which produces a desired, good, result.

That did it, now my hair's on fire, going for toilet dunk.

Play by rule set.

You don't need to cheat echo ect.

If I am exploiting a piss poor ruleset I post in my AARs that I am.

I help bag cheaters/hackers I help expose loopholes/exploits for both Germany andRussia.

Play byrule set be it good or piss poor



sillyflower -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 3:11:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I suggested many years ago, a "surrender" button for Russian units pocketed more than a couple of weeks before the no return comes into effect, Flaviusx's reply "don't play with people who do this." Players exploit bad rules, devs should fix them. This is one that got away... so far.


The trouble with the 'don't play people who do this' argument is that it is very divisive because it is so often a wholly subjective point of view about what is/isn't OK: as this thread shows. I'm sure many examples of options 1-3 can easily be found in the military history books throughout the history of warfare, including ones on the eastern front.

Your proposal seems to be the best answer to this particular problem in a way that no house rule could be. It's fair to both sides, very simple and doesn't impact on the game mechanics around APs. Might be easier to have your button available all game though. Have you put it forward on the WiTE 2 thread?

Hell has indeed frozen over[;)]





Mehring -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 3:32:38 PM)

Not as I recall, it was long before that thread opened. Can't see the point in maintaining a surrender button past no return date as normally you want to tie down enemy forces reducing pockets.

One thing I did wonder about was the fate of the injured within pockets. Certainly in Stalingrad thousands were evacuated, so there's some justification, at least where airfields are within the pocket, for returning a % of injured to the pool. Perhaps that % could be related to the number of planes bringing supplies in and/or the level of airbase.

As is, do the injured join the prisoner tally or miraculously evacuate the pocket? Their fate has some bearing on the worth of kicking isolated units around in search of morale boosts.



sillyflower -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/30/2016 3:47:35 PM)

I agree in practice with what you say about the button, but I thought a permanent button might be easier to code. It ould also address Manstein's pconcern about the russian doing to the germans: though I have never done it nor seen anyone else do it.

I think attrition losses just go into the owner's pool rather than the surrendered box, but not sure how the broken AFV etc would get out. Clarity from Morvael/ Denniss would be helpful.

You will get a +1 from me if you put you forward for wite 2



56ajax -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/31/2016 3:55:44 AM)

Well I think you have 2 options

1. Go with what you feel comfortable with which is the elimination of the pockets as quickly as possible

or

2. State your intentions (play by the game rules) clear and concisely in House Rules before you start a game.

To my way of thinking either is fair in the context of this WiTE.

Remember as a Russian why waste admin points on disbanding Corps HQ or building forts before Nov? So it is just not the German player who faces these issues



timmyab -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/31/2016 11:43:26 AM)

The next patch will roughly half the effectiveness of this ploy (I think).

I must say that it's tempting to hold off reducing a pocket if you make a large one in the late summer turns, but for me it's not worth the risk of upsetting your opponent and of course delaying reduction of the pocket usually has some disadvantages as well.




BrianG -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/31/2016 1:27:54 PM)

I have no issue with delaying to a November surrender.

Besides, I plan on a rescue during the mud season. lol.



Uh, what will change on this in the next beta?






gingerbread -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/31/2016 5:41:58 PM)

Not telling. You have to wait until X-mas day like everyone else.



morvael -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (1/31/2016 5:55:23 PM)

My bealated input to ethical question:

There are gamers and powergamers. I'm of the first type, and I don't enjoy playing against the second type. But I believe such people are very important, because they find (and exploit) every little broken rule or mechanism, that can be improved thanks to their "involuntary feedback" (by observing how they play). This is not cheating, and the blame (if a rule can be abused) is actually on the author of the rules, not the powergamer. Esentially, they are best kind of people for testing a game. But playing against them is a chore for casual players and these two groups should not mingle.



swkuh -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 11:07:21 AM)

@morvael: +1

and maybe the "power gamers" could have a flag awarded to identity icons. No idea how this would be accomplished, still...

Its one thing to develop and use extreme techniques and another to disclose and describe, etc. Could be an interesting thread.

Example, credit Pelton for technique of using distributed regiments as reserves (OK) but "railing back to Berlin" not so much.



sillyflower -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 12:39:47 PM)

To identify the power gamers, you have to identify the actions that make one. Sending units back to western europe for rest and refitting was an historical practice which I don't think is at all gamey.



swkuh -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 2:43:54 PM)

@sillyflower:

Of course, you're right.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the term as executed in the game. Its the number of such units affected and the circumstances of the front in the event. Believe the "stille stand" order of the 1st winter did not mean at the railhead (Apologies for my German.) In my own play as Axis I adopt a defensive posture w/minimum retreat. Works well enough.



loki100 -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 3:08:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

To identify the power gamers, you have to identify the actions that make one. Sending units back to western europe for rest and refitting was an historical practice which I don't think is at all gamey.


and to be fair, carries quite a cost, it will allow the Soviets to push further west, thus making it harder to push them far enough back in 1942. I've no issue with a trick that has both costs and benefits - which of course is what makes it very hard to id exploits as such.

but some tricks by some players are designed simply to abuse the rules - send a Pzr corps into Rumania and attack out from the south - couldn't have happened for political reasons and will not work in WiTE2 as the rail cap will be too low to support any such move. This one is cost free, there are no penalties, unrealistic and designed to get an advantage purely in terms of the rules as they exist. Ditto later in the game disbanding the luftwaffe etc.



gmtello -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 3:47:46 PM)

Apart from the ethical cuestion during the real war many pockets early created were destroyed in december



No idea -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 3:59:43 PM)

Sillyflower, if it makes you feel better option 4 is exactly what a player is gong to do to me next turn. He has pocketed both northern fronts and it is going to destroy them now that mud is gone. In mid November. The pocket was formed with clear weather and he had enough time to destroy it before mud, but he chose not to do it. Well, it doesnt go against the rules, so i guess that is the way things are with nom flexible rules.

Simply change the rule so that all units who are destroyed until Sept. Come back. 75% of those destroyed during oct. 50% of those destroyed in november and 25% of those during Dec. That would make the exploit senseless. The player would choose what to do depending on circunstances and not depending on an artificially fixed game rule



sillyflower -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 4:28:07 PM)

Not bad, but this can rather change the game balance especially re the German Nov snow O. I personally still prefer Mehring's proposal.

The use of option 4 that you describe does not make me feel happier, but just adds to the need for a solution. Can't see how a house rule could work ie distinguish between options 2,3 and 4 because 2 and 3 require subjective judgment by the german player



VigaBrand -> RE: Ethical Question - help wanted (2/1/2016 5:43:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea

Sillyflower, if it makes you feel better option 4 is exactly what a player is gong to do to me next turn. He has pocketed both northern fronts and it is going to destroy them now that mud is gone. In mid November. The pocket was formed with clear weather and he had enough time to destroy it before mud, but he chose not to do it. Well, it doesnt go against the rules, so i guess that is the way things are with nom flexible rules.

Simply change the rule so that all units who are destroyed until Sept. Come back. 75% of those destroyed during oct. 50% of those destroyed in november and 25% of those during Dec. That would make the exploit senseless. The player would choose what to do depending on circunstances and not depending on an artificially fixed game rule

That is clearly not true or you play a second game where your army in the North is pocket.
At first I close it with tanks before mud. That is right. After I closed it, my infantry pushed every turn in clear weather forward as it could (after some attacks the there are out of mp).
The pocket is from the end of T15. My tank forces are out of fuel or hunt eastward to catch more units and take more ground.
In T16 and T17 my infantry moved forward. I wish I could clean the pocket before turn 17 because I could use my valuable tank forces to attack moscow. But that wasn't the case and in mud, I didn't clean that pocket, because the cv is very low. Leningrad holds because I want to save blood.
The decision had nothing to do with exploting and it would be very well, if you talk to me instead to talk with every other player or say, that somebody exploit that rule against you!
Please remember, that one of your partisans has destroyed the railline East of Pskov and my supply didn't reach me.



[image]local://upfiles/50702/647FC5DBEE55417E90CB1840E7FC48B7.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.875