Patience -it's all in the Game

[Marquo]

Of course I agree with the Steel God :bow:

Marquo :)

[Aetius]

This is such a good thread. Always relevant.
I'll bump it.

[consume]

It should be stated that there is a big difference between quitting a game because you are losing, and quitting a game because you find the gamey exploitation of the limitations of the game system one's opponent employs to be distasteful, and they refuse to stop despite appeals to both common sense and personal honour.

[Turner]

This is a good thread. I've had this problem being a new player. Discovered the PzC series about a year ago and now all titles but the Africa & Italy campaigns are on my shelf. With a deep interest in 19-20th century to modern day military history I revel at the depth and detail of these games.

It's easy to get involved in new games and tournaments but you need to be mindful of how much time you have, or will have.

This year has been chaotic for me, I've moved 3 times, had a daughter (our first child), plus some other things. While I engaged in a tournament (Ostkrieg) which I eventually had to withdraw from because of time limits, a few smaller scenarios has been completed, with limited success. lol

Very enthusiastically I jumped into a grand campaign, wanting to play through the east front titles in chronological order the natural choice was Smolensk. Alaric99x was up for the challenge, also a new player but I found out he's been wargaming for about 40 years. So me being new and making mistakes from the first round, he schooled me proper the first time around... He was kind enough to give me a second chance though, so we started a second game.
Our turn rate has varied from a day or two up to several weeks. Sometimes life interfere and you have to make priorities, however I've always come back with a new turn. Because I have the determination to see it through.

This type of gaming really isn't for everyone. Many have the interest but lack time, others also with interest lack the patience. I think also that sometimes you have to allow yourself defeat and see it through because you probably learn more that way than through a victory.

One year of Panzer Campaigns, still consider myself new, just starting to learn things. Like, I just found the G key very useful. ;)

[Turner]

It should be stated that there is a big difference between quitting a game because you are losing, and quitting a game because you find the gamey exploitation of the limitations of the game system one's opponent employs to be distasteful, and they refuse to stop despite appeals to both common sense and personal honour.

This is a valid point imo and I wouldn't want to play against such a opponent either. Where to draw the line though could be debated but historic gameplay should be sortof a gentleman's agreement imho.

[Marquo]

"quitting a game because you find the gamey exploitation of the limitations of the game system one's opponent employs to be distasteful, and they refuse to stop despite appeals to both common sense and personal honour."

The greatest PzC icon aka Escher was of the opinion that all is fair as a long the game engine permits it. Whether you agree or not, at least you developed a deeper understanding of the system whenever you played him; for some these are games, for others, historical simulations; and for others, whatever.

The point is that a player should never simply disappear. If you are fed up with your opponent's "antics", then you can agree to stop the game and report a draw or whatever; there are always 2 sides to a story and while you may feel offended, your opponent may honestly have different expectations and also feel obfuscated by what you want. So, it is best to negociate up front, and avoid simple misunderstandings which can turn into a pissing match or worse.

IMHO the worst and most obnoxious behavior is when an opponent wants to impose "house rules" several moves after the match has begun and he is "losing;" I have never had an opponent want such rules when they are winning. The best early example of up front negociation which is honorable was in the early days of Smolensk. Quickly players learned where the Soviet artillery pieces are, and would start off on move one as the Axis by reconning those hexes and then plastering the most valuable units on the first move. It thus became an unofficial, gentleman's agreement that the Axis player would refrain from that behavior; likewise in Kharkov there is a large depot of Soviet tanks in the "T" mode; I never play with anyone who will not agree to refrain from pounding them with stukas - which I still consider to be gamey.

Marquo :)

These are games, not tests of worthiness.

[consume]

I didn't feel complex negotiations before each game would be necessary. This is a serious wargaming community populated by history buffs, not graduated Starcraft d00dz, or so I thought. See the thread I just posted for a fuller explanation of the behavior that prompted me to stop the game in question. Just because a limitation or oversight in the system design allows some BS ahistoric thing to happen, does that mean we as presumably mature adults who play these sort of games because we want a deeper, more realistic experience than Command and Conquer or whatever, should exploit those limitations? I say no. I'm not saying don't fight hard and try to win, but don't intentionally abuse the spirit of the game just to get more points on the ladder. Anyone who agrees with me, I will gladly play you if I have time and energy and the scenario is fun for both of us. But let it be known that I will just quit drastically unbalanced scenarios or any game in which my opponent uses such exploits on me. I will not besmirch my own self-respect and retaliate in kind with gamey maneuvers of my own, I will just drop the game without remorse or regret. I don't care about ladders or rankings, I just want to enjoy a historically believable war simulation in my spare time. I don't do things I don't like if I am not getting paid.

J

[U124IXB]

Hey marco... was it you I had a game with moscow 41? if so I'm sorry my hard drive crashed and I lost all my email address'..I'm always looking for a game.And I dont drop without an explanation.

[Marquo]

" didn't feel complex negotiations before each game would be necessary."

I agree completely; the only thing for me is the optional rules, to enable "Save" or not, and if I know there is an inadvertent design flaw Achilles heel, then I ask about it up front.

"Just because a limitation or oversight in the system design allows some BS ahistoric thing to happen, does that mean we as presumably mature adults who play these sort of games because we want a deeper, more realistic experience than Command and Conquer or whatever, should exploit those limitations? I say no."

I am on your side, and try to play opponents who are like minded; however I do not reproach those who enjoy PzC more as a game and do feel restrained not to do something "ahistoric;" I simply like to avoid playing them.

"was it you I had a game with moscow 41?"

I do not recall. I develop quick amnesia about these things, and can't find you on my, "Do Not Play" list. :)

[Krak]

Consume
When you solicit for a game or reply to an opponent wanted advert you should spell out your 'rules for dissengagement' and such. It will save both parties some grief. If you are not interested in ladders, points and what not then I am sure you will find like minded people here. Just let them know up front. I happen to like the ladder as I am competitive by nature. But that doesn't mean I will resort to underhanded tactics to better my opponent. But I will try different strategies and tactics to win a battle, rather than stick to some obviously suicidal course of action, I would rather my opponent experience such pleasures.....:cool: