New PBEM - 8 players!

[borgg]

Well put. I absolutely agree.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

As to the diplomatic dilemma between Russia and Britain, I just hope none of us do take such things personally. After all, diplomacy, as part of this game, will always contain trickery, deceit and stalling as well as openness and honest deals.

There is no morality in this game, and no public opinion. We do not need reasons to cancel deals or declare war on each other than percieved strategic opportunity or simply "feeling like it" - therefore, it is rather pointless to discuss who is "right". In the end, the one who was right will be the one left standing.

I just hope you all percieve it the same way, and no one will be mad at each other on the player-level for being backstabbed in the game. Otherwise, we should probably have played a game with fixed teams.

Best Regards,
Martin

I also agree. But I think we need to keep our "trickery, deceit and stalling" within the game. One could claim what so ever with proper indications through email, rather than posting it here in this public thread. What makes me boiled were the continuous misleading statements appeared outside the game environment because we are all representing ourselves in here.

 

[Fandazma]

Well it is sad for all participants of this diplomatic crisis. BUT it is great cinema for me!!!

Thats the reason why i like this scenario so much. It is impresive how deep the feelings of the players for there "nations" are (also in german GEM-PBEM).

Thanks for that great entertainment!!!

 

[Dazz_G]

First off, I bear no ill feeling towards Kai. I have played, and will continue to play the diplomacy in this game from a roleplaying point of view. The things I have said in my posts should be viewed with roleplay in mind.

I will respond to Kai's accusations of trickery though.

I am very aware of the vagueness of Open Borders agreements ... they are pretty much an all or nothing thing. However, just because the game permits it doesn't mean you should assume you should do it and that is pretty much what you have done Kai - you assumed I would permit you to launch attacks from Russian soil. As Borgg says above, this would be for discussion between us within the realms of diplomacy and that is a path you chose not to take. Had you mentioned your intentions I would have stopped you immediately.

As for trickery, I could easily accuse you of trying to trick me by intentionally not mentioning your intentions of bombing the Romanian Oilfields when you asked for Open Borders but you will notice I have made no such accusations.

As the Russian leader, I feel aggrieved that you chose to ignore Russian policy on this matter and as such have decided to cut all diplomatic links with Britain and her vassals - that is an ingame decision, not a personal one.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

Dazz. I have tried to keep this within the game, but you have brought this matter to the public. That was why I got angry.

I did politely explained in my emails my view and mentioned a few times that this could be a misunderstanding issue (i.e. not claiming it was your fault), did I? But you chose not to listen and bring this to the public, and accused me being arrogant. That's why I emotionally said you tricked me.

Let's not discuss further who's responsibility is it. It seems that we have already expressed our views enough. In game terms, we both lost a potential ally (at least for the time being) and this is a lesson for all of us in the game, that we have to be very careful in dealing with any agreements.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

What I have learned from this is the following:

Kai will use ANYTHING that is not expressively forbidden by the game engine or house rules.

Most others are having (sometimes vague) assumptions what should be avoided despite being possible with the engine.

Mind you, I will not say anything about ethics or morality here. The problem arouse due to differing standards, not due to one standard being more right or wrong then the other.

So the best solution would be: make sure we have clear cut house rules that help to avoid such missunderstandings.

Thus my following rule sugesstions:

1) get rid of prearranged diplomatic ties (especially open border agreements) for PBEMs, as they can't be cut easily

2) develop a set of "open border stages", allowing either only the right of passage, stationing or even attack from the territory of the allied nations

3) regulate "reloading

About the third point:

everybody of us has to reload, as given the sheer size of our nations we will make mistakes. But it seems that some of us are reloading till they get the result from a battle they like. This results in 10% victories beeing rather common for some of us. In my opinion this is blatant cheating.

While I do not see a way to technically control it without using HOF, we should come to an agreement that is followed by everyone out of civil courtesy. Because for me realising someone is cheating (mind you, I suspect the one probably doing so is not even considering it a cheat, so again the problem of differing standards) was putting me VERY close to jumping out of the game. I don't know about you others, but I just can't stand cheaters.

So, whats your opinion?

 

[borgg]

1) prearranged diplo you mean right initially when the game starts? Well i would keep this, as it is a historically szenario.

2) i dont see any reason to make such. When someone wants to open borders and another one agrees they simply should talk about, what is allow and what not. This can be solved completely ingame. If both parties have different opinions about the arrangement this can lead to diplomatic distortions (as we can see GB/russia) now.

@Kai: I dont see any problem to discuss this public here. This thread here is like the public in real life. When Russia and Nato have problems you will find a public discussion in the world and public statements ( interviews, public comments etc). AND you will find closed channels, where the the parties communicate. So its just normal that Dazz wants to inform the "rest of the world" about this. His accusation of "arrogance" should be treated as ingame attitude of your roleplay character you implement here. So dont take this personally. And YES, I think this kind of public channel should exist. If you prefer we can do this via email (to all participants of the game) in future. But from my point of view this thread here is more handy.

3) Well, i was faced with this odd results right from the beginning (and here i talk about the first game we started where i played GB vs Germany/Kai). I didn't complain about it, because i was new here in fanatics. But the air battles i was faced with could only be done by successive realoading. Starting from turn two, where my opponent had again such w5 strike-like results i tried to copy such, and it really took some reloads and changing of battle orders. So i said, well, if this is the way pbems are done here on fanatics, ok. (in german civforum.de this is strictly forbidden btw). Fighting that way the use of defensive fighters is completely rediculous, because they are snapped one by one.
(also your finding of all submarines in atlantic that fast was a surprise for me, kai).

If this is cheating is a question of definition. So i dont accuse anyone ore anything here. I can live with both (with or withour reloading). But we should agree to one. We can agree now not to do this anymore. But once i see a considerable number of odd results in successive turns in future i will switch again to this. Actually i moved almost all my bombers to south to avoid air battles, because i dont like reloading. The french air units i will snap simply by groundattacks, which i can win easily due superiority of german ground forces. However, bombing on french cities is almost nonsense due the bins anyways (apart from fortification).

Summed up : my point is: I prefer without reload, but than all of us please.

 

[Genghis_Kai]

I think we probably should quit this game, since there so many unhappiness. So sorry to say.

@borgg: I admit I did reload, but only when facing major casualties. Civ4 itself doesn't permit reloading until you get what you want. It is impossible to reload and win with only 10% chance. In regards to our previous game, I got the same feeling that my opponent must have reloaded. It wasn't discussed whether reloading is completely banned, so I really don't feel that it is cheating, unless doing it excessively. I can of course agree to not reload in the future, but if there is no trust, it is a useless rule.

In regards to your submarines this game, how hard it is to find your submarines provided I have so many destroyers and that I knew exactly your initial positions? I actually used your map to help eliminate the locations. In regards to the air battles this game, yes I did reload once in the first turn. I didn't reload in the second.

 

[Adhesive86]

1) prearranged diplo you mean right initially when the game starts? Well i would keep this, as it is a historically szenario.

2) i dont see any reason to make such. When someone wants to open borders and another one agrees they simply should talk about, what is allow and what not. This can be solved completely ingame. If both parties have different opinions about the arrangement this can lead to diplomatic distortions (as we can see GB/russia) now.

@Kai: I dont see any problem to discuss this public here. This thread here is like the public in real life. When Russia and Nato have problems you will find a public discussion in the world and public statements ( interviews, public comments etc). AND you will find closed channels, where the the parties communicate. So its just normal that Dazz wants to inform the "rest of the world" about this. His accusation of "arrogance" should be treated as ingame attitude of your roleplay character you implement here. So dont take this personally. And YES, I think this kind of public channel should exist. If you prefer we can do this via email (to all participants of the game) in future. But from my point of view this thread here is more handy.

3) Well, i was faced with this odd results right from the beginning (and here i talk about the first game we started where i played GB vs Germany/Kai). I didn't complain about it, because i was new here in fanatics. But the air battles i was faced with could only be done by successive realoading. Starting from turn two, where my opponent had again such w5 strike-like results i tried to copy such, and it really took some reloads and changing of battle orders. So i said, well, if this is the way pbems are done here on fanatics, ok. (in german civforum.de this is strictly forbidden btw). Fighting that way the use of defensive fighters is completely rediculous, because they are snapped one by one.
(also your finding of all submarines in atlantic that fast was a surprise for me, kai).

If this is cheating is a question of definition. So i dont accuse anyone ore anything here. I can live with both (with or withour reloading). But we should agree to one. We can agree now not to do this anymore. But once i see a considerable number of odd results in successive turns in future i will switch again to this. Actually i moved almost all my bombers to south to avoid air battles, because i dont like reloading. The french air units i will snap simply by groundattacks, which i can win easily due superiority of german ground forces. However, bombing on french cities is almost nonsense due the bins anyways (apart from fortification).

Summed up : my point is: I prefer without reload, but than all of us please.

I agree with Borgg completely. Personally, I would never reload, purely because I don't have the time. I made a small annoying mistake last turn, realising as soon as i'd pressed the turn, but thought it both unfair and time consuming to reload.

I do view relaoding as cheating, problem is that as soon as one person does it, there is an incentive for everyone else to have to do it to keep up. So I can sympathise.

Really though. We are adults playing an amateur game for fun. There is no cash to be won by cheating and alot less fun to be had by doing so.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the person who won would just be the one who was willing to reload the most times. This devalues for whole game and takes away skill.

So can we please call this as cheating now and ALL refrain from reloading in future?

 

[borgg]

I think we probably should quit this game, since there so many unhappiness. So sorry to say.

I'm neighter unhappy nore i want to quit this game

It wasn't discussed whether reloading is completely banned, so I really don't feel that it is cheating, unless doing it excessively.

This might be a cultural problem here... There is only yes we reload or no we dont.

I can of course agree to not reload in the future,

So lets agree on that.

but if there is no trust, it is a useless rule.

And once you say you dont, i will trust you. Its again a matter of "communication problem". As you said it was not discussed in advance. Now we did. Up to this point noone of us got drawback from this. So lets play now wiithout this. France had no drawback since the groundbattles are way easy to win as i outlined before.

In regards to your submarines this game, how hard it is to find your submarines provided I have so many destroyers and that I knew exactly your initial positions?

Ok, i see your point. I had not the exact number of destroyers and distances in mind now...

 

[Adhesive86]

regarding borgg's latest post, i am in agreement with him again.

I'm not unhappy and certainly i am not commenting on anyone being purposely devious. I think also it is just different understanding borne out of a lack of prior agreement on rules.

As far as I am concerned, an agreement not to reload is desirable and enough- i wouldn't suggest someone would break this. I repeat: I can understand why reloading has occured if there is no agreement not to do it and especially if you believe others are. Personally I haven't but that doesn't make me right.

Bastian commented that Kai will use anything not expressly outlawed, allowed by the game. He may be right. This is probably a good thing. The most successful people always do this. If for instance we are talking about reloading, then if upon discussion, we don't want this to happen then let's agree. I don't believe that anyone would break that.

Guys, this is only the second game, and we can't expect to cover everything off before we start as if it was the 100th. Let's discuss, adapt if required and move on.

And Kai, cheer up. I don't think anyone is unhappy. I'm sure most people are just trying to help in the evolution of the game you've created. Think about all the incremental changes you've made to your mods, well that's what we're doing now with GEM PBEM

 

[Bastian-Bux]

Bastian commented that Kai will use anything not expressly outlawed, allowed by the game. He may be right. This is probably a good thing. The most successful people always do this.

I have to disagree on this. People doing so are successfull ... for a time. But they will loose the most valueable currency of all: trust.

I do understand why Kai is reluctant to keep on playing: he managed to not only make his enemies (Germany) warry of his, lets call it "ruthlessness" (being willing to use any option which isn't forbidden). But he as well was insulting his allies (France by declaring the player incapable of playing well, Russia by pulling the bomber attack stunt). And honestly, who of us "neutrals" can after several such occurences claim to be not aware of the danger of future misunderstandings?

Yes, I do think it is a question of cultural standards. I think especially we german players are used to so many rules permeating our life, that we have some of this "rulesabidingness" as part of our cultural heritage.

I agree with you Adhesive that this can hamper success ... in the short run. In the middle or long term a more agressive and open rule interpretation can be devastating diplomatically. And in my opinion Kai is just facing this.

Trust, once lost is very hard to regain. In german we say "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, auch wenn er tausendmal die Wahrheit spricht." A loose translation "if someone is lying / fooling people even once, he wont be trusted even given 1000 honest words".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Kai lied. He followed the rules AS WRITTEN, according to his personal and cultural standard. Now the problem is that a few/many players seem to have differing standards, and thus feel fooled. I have serious doubts that this feelings can be put away, and that trust can be regained.

 

[Ikier]

WOW - this game of yours surely is interesting to watch from the sideline - AND to draw parallels to the real world, in terms and globalization and communication. I guess it only shows just how difficult real life diplomacy is - where people aren't even "threatened" on their own life and/or personal career.

But keep up the good work - I hope you keep on playing this as it is great fun to "watch"

 

[Adhesive86]

I have to disagree on this. People doing so are successfull ... for a time. But they will loose the most valueable currency of all: trust.

I do understand why Kai is reluctant to keep on playing: he managed to not only make his enemies (Germany) warry of his, lets call it "ruthlessness" (being willing to use any option which isn't forbidden). But he as well was insulting his allies (France by declaring the player incapable of playing well, Russia by pulling the bomber attack stunt). And honestly, who of us "neutrals" can after several such occurences claim to be not aware of the danger of future misunderstandings?

Yes, I do think it is a question of cultural standards. I think especially we german players are used to so many rules permeating our life, that we have some of this "rulesabidingness" as part of our cultural heritage.

I agree with you Adhesive that this can hamper success ... in the short run. In the middle or long term a more agressive and open rule interpretation can be devastating diplomatically. And in my opinion Kai is just facing this.

Trust, once lost is very hard to regain. In german we say "Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, auch wenn er tausendmal die Wahrheit spricht." A loose translation "if someone is lying / fooling people even once, he wont be trusted even given 1000 honest words".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Kai lied. He followed the rules AS WRITTEN, according to his personal and cultural standard. Now the problem is that a few/many players seem to have differing standards, and thus feel fooled. I have serious doubts that this feelings can be put away, and that trust can be regained.

Of course I'm not German and I especially appreciate what you're saying your culturally different approach, but of course those rules have arisen over time as people realise that they're required.

Bastian, I understand your want for rules... and it would appear we're happy to adopt this as one. I'm glad we are.

Given there were no such agreed rules however, I don't see why anyone should lack trust of someone in the future? Especially as we have all accepted that Kai has not lied nor attempted to fool anyone. (I appreciate the rough translation). Indeed, attempts from Kai himself to provide more rules were infact challenged by both Bastian and myself. So I'm inclined to be very sympathetic here. This has NOT come about through trying to fool anyone so I don't think your phrase is relevant to this situation.

We are running an international mulitplayer game, and issues will arise. I agree, and I think we all agree (or are happy to) that to most 'reloading' is not acceptable going forward. We have agreed that these rules are required. All involved have agreed not to reload.

We have understanding and agreement, that we did not have before and that I don't think we could have been expected to know. Surely this suits everyone, especially the German guys?

Come on guys, you know I was at the bus stop this morning when a French guy 'pushed in' as i would call it. Except he didn't. That's just what they do in France. They don't queue, at least not like the brits (geronimo; correct me if i'm wrong!!) He didn't break any trust from this unwritten rule as he didn't know about it! I informed him so he could adapt his behaviour to suit, then we moved on!!!! Kai is offering to adapt his behaviour to suit the majority for a game he created. For me this is enough!

 

[Ace of Spades]

Sorry, but I really have do disagree here. This discussion has nothing to do with any players cultural background, and it would be best left out of this - generalizing explanations are not what we need here and are, from my experience, a sure way to cause bad blood.

This is purely about personal preferences. To my mind, up to now (and I will freely admit this now) I would not have refrained from reloading excessively, if not for the time involved - which I am not willing to spare at present - and would never have regarded it as cheating, since it is open to all players and within the rules the game engine provides. It just so happens that as the Middle East, there is not much sense in reloading as I hardly have any battles to fight.

On another note, I also did so in the last PBEM as Italy, where I frequently reloaded until I got my troops where I wanted them, or used Aircraft for reconnaissance to get an overview, reloaded, and used them to attack.

I have also discovered several other moves that could be considered minor exploits, and would have been prepared to go ahead with them in order to get advantages. I never felt that I was cheating, as all of this was strictly using the means that the game engine provided. It never occurred to me to inform anyone but my current allies (who were or are planned to be involved in these strategies) about these in-game possibilities, as giving them up would have been a strategic loss.

Why do I tell you all of this? Because I strongly disagree with what Bastian wrote about this being "a question of cultural standards". This fails to explain, why me, with the same cultural background as Bastian, should have behaved like you claim Kai-Ming behaved.

So, let us please leave cultural background out of this discussion, and let us view the matter strictly as a matter of personal preferences.

That being said, I really don't care either way how we solve the reloading dilemma. I am willing to comply if we forbid this for future games, but I am also fine with the way it is now. One thing the PBEMs have taught me is that it is always very hard to agree on rules from the start that hold firm for the entire game, since we will always discover new issues that arise due to the complex nature of the game. I am not unhappy with the game, however, and hope to continue it.

Best Regards,
Martin

 

[borgg]

The biggest issue is (for me) interception fighters are nonesense. As i pointed out before, they get snapped one by one. Its very easy and just a question of time invest into reloads. Thus there is no way to defend vs Bombing. Therefor i'd appreciate we can agree not to use reloads anymore.

Another issue on this: I noticed that after some air attacks my fighters sometimes start to attack ground units instead of the (still available) interception fighters. How this? Anyone also experienced such? Can someone tell me the engine behind it? When do fighters stop to attack the interceptors?

 

[Adhesive86]

I noticed that after some air attacks my fighters sometimes start to attack ground units instead of the (still available) interception fighters. How this? Anyone also experienced such? Can someone tell me the engine behind it? When do fighters stop to attack the interceptors?

Those fighters may have only been transferred last turn, so are not yet in interception mode. I don't believe that fighters intercept unless instructed to, so for instance if that fighter has been used for recon last turn, it won't intercept. If anyone knows otherwise, do correct me.

 

[borgg]

Since I 've seen the fighters "circling" in the air I guessed they are in intercept mode, are they?

 

[Ace of Spades]

A fighter can only intercept twice a turn, so maybe the fighter has already reached the maximum interceptions for this turn.

Best Regards,
Martin

 

[borgg]

There were 5 fighters in the air visible. And it was the 4th attack or something...