Request for an Important Thread: "Rules of Engagement for PBEM Games"

[Askari19]

...Most of the players I play on a regular basis have had ROE discussions from early on. I do not feel the need to discuss each ROE with them prior to play. I am sure they can look at what I've posted over time and say the same.
...Some of the "rookies" that I try to "teach" how to play the game are given ROE pointers as they progress through various scenarios. When I see something in their play that I do not care for, I tell them. It usually leads to further discussion of what the ROE does to make it a more historic and a less "gamey" game to play. I do not think that you will find any one that I have "taught" how to play the game will be using trucks to block, surround, or spot.
....I can assure you that 99% of all my opponents know what ROE's we are using.
....Who am I more comfortable, and will have fun, playing against?
A player whose ROE is "I will use all means to defeat you, including spotting with trucks, surrounding with trucks, and blocking line of sight with trucks, taking combat units off the map to deny you points. Everything goes!"
... or ...
the player whose ROE is "I will play the game more as a historical simulation. Everything historical goes!".

....Therefore the only behavior I expect is decency.
The only observation (of the rules) I expect is that one let me know if they have a controversial personal ROE.

HSL

HSL,

Have to say, I had the same initial impression as Pawel, from your previous post. You certainly left the impression, in that post, that your opponents should know what you expect of them regarding ROE without being told. And did I understood you rightly, that anyone playing you should know your opinion from past posts? Please... I don't genuflect or spend time studying the opinions of the Great and Terrible here. There are a lot of us out here that are not your old gaming friends who know you so well; have not been "taught the game" by you; and aren't going to know these things without your being explicit about them, just as you expect all other players to be. Maybe you didn't really intend to sound like this, but that's how it came across.

Really, I think we're all dancing around the same fire, and agree on the value of stating ROE or house rule preferences and expectations up front.

The player who criticizes my game play in mid-game according to some unstated "code of conduct," from some ephemeral moral high ground, will not be my choice for future play! He can huff off in one direction, and I'll go the other, and good riddance -- and wouldn't it be a pity, if we really share the same general view regarding realism and historicity in game play?

I too prefer wargaming "realistically" or "historically," but let's face it, it's a wargame, and I assume the designer had good reasons for building things into the game - like the original, non-EA assault rules - that look neither historical nor realistic to me. I give the designer a lot of benefit of the doubt - I've been playing modern era tactical games since 1970, and I've seen every approach. I'll try to understand the designer's intent and play by his rules, AND I'll try to optimize my play within those rules EXCEPTING only areas that my opponents and I agree upon explicitly. It IS a game, after all, else we wouldn't count points and post results.

One person's realism or historicity may not be the same as another's. It's easy to make broad statements about trucks and halftracks and exit rules, and something else again to define our ROE carefully, with the rigor that a good designer/developer would put into a rules set, so that the left and right limits of acceptable use are mutually understood and don't give rise to arguments or ill feeling later on.

I strongly agree with the idea put forward by several in this thread, that we should compile and post a list of optional rules for reference, discussion, and agreement among players - prior to their game. If you play with the same folks over years, of course, you have your mutual understandings; but you should not expect anyone else in the gaming universe to have a clue what those are.

Bill (Askari19)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I personally do not find the gamey to be my way. If Pawel wants to be strictly vegan than I will not be eating in Pawels house

I am confused my self with those food comparisons. junk was very right with his poin t :)

What does junk2drive know?
He only eats "junk food".



HSL

---

Please... I don't genuflect or spend time studying the opinions of the Great and Terrible here. There are a lot of us out here that are not your old gaming friends who know you so well; have not been "taught the game" by you; and aren't going to know these things without your being explicit about them, just as you expect all other players to be. Maybe you didn't really intend to sound like this, but that's how it came across.

Bill (Askari19)

At first I was going to make a comment on this.
I'll refrain. I think too many posters see the nefarious in my most innocent words. If you got a problem with me, send me an e-mail.

For now, I can only say:

Opinion noted. Thanks!



HSL

[Otto von Blotto]

BTW I meant no offense to vegans, vegetarians, carnivores, or cheat-eaters. Merely pointing out how analogies can be twisted around to suit a point of view. Don't trust 'em.

None taken I agree with you analogies are not to be trusted.

[PawelM]

Bill's view of giving the designer a benefit of the doubt resonates with me. I would like to think their intention was to create a strategy game for blokes like us to enjoy the ww2 as realistically as possible. I appreciate there are some imperfections, but in general they have done a great job. So surely if they for instance have given HTs assault larger than 0 in contrast to say HQ then it must have been informed decision based on logic they have applied for ALL the units.
I am not saying this is right or wrong logic, but nonetheless they decided to give unit non zero assault factor. If they decided HT needed to be accompanied by other unit to attack then they could easily define the assault capabilies of HT as additive to other units, i.e. Exactly as leaders work! Saying that use of HT for solitary assault is gamey might be an exaggeration. I think it is simply proof of different assumptios by the designer and players who wish not to see such a usage.

I have also a question about the rules on assault blocking by 'non combat' unit. I was made to believe that HQ ( assault factor 0, capable of firing ) cannot be use for assault blocking. Fair enough... But at the same time noone seems to have indicated assault blocking by artillery, AT, and russian ATR units. all have assault factor zero
but posses firing capabilities which are sometimes worse than some HQ as assesed by the game designer. I would be interested to hear if HQ restriction is commonly accepted ( I mean by members sharing HSL's and VE expectation) or is it not as commonle 'gamey' regarded. And if it is gamey, what is the logic in favour of other 0 assault factor units over HQs?

[PawelM]

The bottom line is all units in CS are simply intended as a
representation of RL units and their organisational structure. As
often happens this representation is not perfect. I feel many ROE
aimed to cut gamey-ness ( is there such a word at all :) ) are simply
subject to how an indivudual interpretes what a given CS unit
represents. Lets take my favourite halftracks example... They have
assault factor >0 (I think it is 1 for any HT in the game if I am
right). Many Blitz member do not wish to play them as solitary assualt
units.... Fair enough assuming that 6 SP HT bit in the game represents
6 vehicles and say 6 drivers. They would not have a chance to carry
out an assault- no question about that. But what if the designer
actually though of it as 6 vehicle 6 drivers and a platoon section (
or Winnie the Pooh and his friends:) ) and based on that or other
composure decided there is enough people to have a limited assault
strength of 1. Then using HT bit for an assault does not appear gamey
at all to me.... If you think the 1SP (out of 6SP infantry platoon)
which was decimated in combat will still have an assault factor higher
than any HT!!!!

I could provide more examples. And I am not trying to convert anyone.
I am just saying that the gamey and simulation sides might not be as
clear a cut on all ROE ( some of them are really purely gamey still).
In many cases it will be down to what an individual sees the CS unit
represents compared to what the designer had in mind...

This is why I do not feel so strongly against playing some gamey
tactics if my opponent wishes. In the cases like above it is to me
just down to a subjecive picture what we see sits behind this HT icon
(or any other unit icon) in a hex......................

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Pawel, at this point I think you need to just list your ROE's in bullet point fashion.
What if's and many sentences of justification may be muddling the discussion?

*Trucks and non combat transports
*Half tracks
*Leaders and HQ's
*Etc.

I will pull up my personal ROE's, that I discuss with each opponent, prior to starting a match. Once fleshed out they haven't changed much in ten or so years.
And, much thought upon the tactical use of a unit, (since the game is a tactical level simulation based on the "platoon & squadron" organization), goes into the personal ROE's.
Some are even justified through "study" & reading.

One consistent point on trucks. I never read where a truck and driver were sent behind the lines to spot for the combat units. Nor have I read where a commander ordered trucks to park nose to tail along the length of a highway to deny the enemy passage. Nor, did a commander ever order every truck in his command to drive into one area to deny the enemy a line of sight to friendly regular combat units.
Never happened. That is part of the historical justification of the use of my personal ROE's.

As I have consistently stated, these are my personal ROE's. No one has to like them or accept them. Nor would I want anyone to say these should be the ones that the whole club should follow.
Some are negotiable. Some are not. Playing a game with me is the only circumstance.

As with Extreme Assault. Some believe it adds realism. Some do not. Some think that the game without using EA is more realistic. Others do not.
Those are opinions and are not ROE's. I hope you can appreciate the description of the difference?

On your previous point about HT's and assaults. I use HT's to assault. Alone against broken soft units. Only in conjunction with other combat units (infantry & armor) against tanks.

Heck, I do not even assault with light tanks or armored scouts against medium or heavy disrupted tanks. I only use them in those assaults in conjunction with other combat units.



HSL

[Von Earlmann]

HALFTRACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

[junk2drive]

One man's junk food is another man's...

And yes I am one of those skinny guys that eats everything in sight.

Halftracks?

[PawelM]

Pawel, at this point I think you need to just list your ROE's in bullet point fashion.
What if's and many sentences of justification may be muddling the discussion?

Muddling is something I have inherent skill in :)

For the record (if anyone is interested at all ) my preferences are following:

* optional rules all on but VV

* HTs drawing OppFire - I do not do it and prefer play it that way. I would not shout about few cases in the game. I will be bothered if my opponent take it to a ridiculous levels .....

* units with 0 assault factor which are incapable of firing ( trucks, leaders? ) should not be used for assault blocking

* units capable of firing can be used for assualt blocking (russian ATR, any ATs, artillery, HQ) - and I am not a madman putting my HQs, and artillery up front to provide the means for assault blocking.... But if someone wants to use HQ or artillery on the front line I will accept their indirect "request" for their removal from the map
I would not hesitated to assualt an enemy unit which say ended up next to my arti or HQ......

* Any units with assault factor > 0 are allowed to assault on their own - No problem at all when playing EA on ( yes it it propably mostly about the HTs :) ) . With EA off one could capture disrupted heavy tanks with HTs which is a taking things to a ridiculous level

* Exit - I think it is acceptable to allow the defender to retreat units with 0 assault factor (like HQ or artillery) through their friendly entry point ( by that I mean for instance friendly reinforcement entry hexes). I consider the defender pulling back under pressure is allowed to for a withdraw.... Under really heavy pressure I can acccept the defender retreating toward reinforcements entry hex and when there is not more room for retreat I think it is acceptable to retreat units with no assault factor (e.g. HQs, artillery). I would leave other units to die off protecting the retreat route for the former ones. I see this as a feasible thing in the battle where HQ and artillery would be first to flee when threatened. I stress I would leave other units on the map as I would think in a combat situation this is what would happen -another personal view.
I know this can be a shaky ground. I have seen 1 or 2 scenarios when the defending side could have a draw or minor victory by abandoning all objectives and exiting the map with no or small losses. I would not want to hold my opponent like fish in a tank, but I would ask a question why playing in the first place :) ? - Personally I routinely exit trucks, occasionaly halftracks when not needed. They will be exiting through what I consider my edge of the map.

I even managed a lot of sentences in bullet points.

Hopefully they are not as muddled though :)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

As to not be lost in this nice thread, I will post up my ROE's in a separate thread.

Junk, I can look at a picture of food and gain weight.



HSL