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

[PawelM]

I have been following this threat closely. Trough my reltively short time at the Blitz I have been gaining the knowledge of all the little unwritten ROE ( e.g. like ones discussed in this thread) which have been developed in the community and are widely accepted by many long time members ( Personally many of these ROE are nice little rules which bear sensible and have fair justification - but this is not the purpose of this post).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I sensed ( it is always a bit risky to base the judgement on my senses ) a bit of stereotyping in this thread that long term members who have been here sometimes from the inception of the club are considering those who adapt the rules as little bit as nobel knights and those who do not are seem to be tainted as the ones lacking honour. I know noone has said it that way, but this is the impression one might get (again one with the sense like mine ) .

I do not seem the problem with both as a different way of playing the game. And the Blitz can be home to any way (expcept the cheater are not wellcome).

It player do not agree the rules beforehand, they eqauly guilty of wrongly assuming....
It is a bit unfair to assume the one with more "chivarlic" and "realistic" rules is the good guy and the second party is the one is playing "gamey" because they should have know better and did the research of the first party view on ROE..

This is my take, but if it is not shared by anyone else treat me as a who tries to entratain people by bombarding the thread with bad jokes. I do not care.... Am as relaxed as one can get about it and have managed to develop enough distance to thing

[PawelM]

I just had a thought....

How about adding a section to the member profile reagrding their ROE just like the survey -an optional thing

This way all players could list their ROE. This would be easier and more feasible than searching the forum and making lists or creating new dedicated forums at the blitz...

Each memebr could list in bullet points their rule as an indication and I could always use this list to request for a clarification of a rule if not clear enough. But at least this would be a great starting point when playing some new ....

Just a thought

[Herr Straße Laufer]

HSL,
I never intended to question any specifics of your or anyones else ROE.

Yes, I understood that. I added mine for clarity in the discussion. Not so that they would be dissected.

As for top gun advice, your message on the ROE was clear

Clarity over all. Including agreement.

Lets imagine player A and B want to play each other. They do have non overlaping ROEs. Even if the player A has more commonly accepted rules as he might think (whatever more commonly accepted rules mean :) ) they might not be as common and knwon to player B. If they both fail to discuss ROE and base their play on their assumptions, then IMHO they equally guilty. And I think it should not have anything to do whose rules are more widely accepted.

Truth.

Did I manage to make it understandable enough and not offend or upset anyone

I did not see offense nor was I upset in any post that I responded to. Though, I may have had a bit of trouble understanding what you were initially trying to say. I am sure that it was mostly me.

I think Hawk summed it up pretty well too.

:drink:

HSL

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I sensed ( it is always a bit risky to base the judgement on my senses ) a bit of stereotyping in this thread that long term members who have been here sometimes from the inception of the club are considering those who adapt the rules as little bit as nobel knights and those who do not are seem to be tainted as the ones lacking honour. I know noone has said it that way, but this is the impression one might get (again one with the sense like mine ).

I did not see anyone as noble or tainted.
When a player says that they want to play it as a simulation then they should have a set of personal ROE's that remove the "gaminess" from the play of the game?

I do not see the problem with both as a different way of playing the game. And the Blitz can be home to any way (except the cheater are not welcome).

You mean one as a simulation and the other as a game?
Kinda like making a banquet for a meat eater and a vegetarian?

Either can be equally tainted by a cheater?

It player do not agree the rules beforehand, they equally guilty of wrongly assuming....
It is a bit unfair to assume the one with more "chivalric" and "realistic" rules is the good guy and the second party is the one is playing "gamey" because they should have know better and did the research of the first party view on ROE..

Chivalry and realism? Not sure they can be put together.

How about a player who believes that trucks and transports are valuable in their role? Like the creation of the Red Ball Express, which immobilized three infantry divisions because the trucks were more valuable than to have the three divisions in the line? Trucks and transports should be husbanded and kept safe.

Then about another player who is willing to stack up unarmed transports in a hex to block line of sight. Or, move trucks forward to absorb opportunity fire so that following infantry can move forward unhindered? Or, line a road with transports, nose to tail, so that your opponent cannot exit units from the map or drive into open victory hexes? Or drive an unarmed truck miles into the rear to spot "?" question marks?

To me, one is realistic and the second is gamey. Nothing chivalric about either. Though, I personally would have more respect for the first player over the second player.

if it is not shared by anyone else treat me as a

Your opinion does not make you a jester, nor should you be treated as one. You have a valid opinion and should be respected for it.
Also, it does not mean anyone has to agree with it? And, if they disagree that they are disrespecting you either?

I always have respected the opinion of others. Though, I sometimes get prickly when, during a discussion, the "facts destroy the hard held theories" that some are unwilling to let go.

Here the only fact is that we all have various views of how to play the game?



HSL

[PawelM]

Personally I can play with any reasonable ROE as well as with no special arrangement for trucks etc......

I admit I have made mistakes of assuming as well and have been through misunderstanding or two.

Therefore I think it would be really useful to have a list or preferred ROE viewable to other members.

my would be very simple rules:

1. I will happily play my opponents rules as long as they are made known to me
2. If I do not see any rules I shall prepare for suprises :)

But seriosuly I think having preferred ROE listed as part of member profile would be a very useful feature and help in avoiding misunderstandings. Everyone can than go and check that PawelM is a madman who says can play their rules' as long as told what they are....

[Scud]

If you guys can come up with a list, Mike, Toni, or I will be glad to post sticky under Mike West's suggested heading: Things to discuss before starting a PBEM.

There's no need to debate every item on the list in this thread. They are to be debated individually with your opponent.

I'd start with the use of trucks and noncombat vehicles.

I'd put in the blocking of line-of-site too. I'd forgotten that trick. Tough one, since it can be used legitimately and also gamey.

Can you still use artillery to target your own fixed units with the intent of unfixing them? I seem to recall Jason Petho saying that was fixed.

Exiting units off the map from non-exit hexes. Allow or not? Exceptions?

Pawel. Start making the list. Number the list and post it here. Again, no need to discuss each point on this thread. These are discussion points for opponents to make pre-PBEM.

Lastly, I will ask Raz about the feasibility of creating a field for "personal ROE's" in their profile. It may or may not be worth his effort, so we'll see.

Dave

[Crossroads]

Hawk Law's? You flatter me.

It is sacred. :respect2:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I like Pawel's and Petri's first thoughts.
A sticky thread that can be locked.

**Please discuss personal ROE's with your opponent before beginning a game.**
Note your preferences on the use of trucks, halftracks, exiting units, leaders, etc.

BTW, Dave, one of the earlier versions took care of the friendly artillery "self mobilization" effect. Even if you are attacked by friendly scattered artillery you will remain fixed.



HSL

[RADO]

Wow! And to think all this came up now because of little 'ol me!



Here are the ROE's some of us play by (simply copied from an email from RD_DeathDealer):

1) Halftracks - Most halftracks on the battlefield lack weapon systems to defend themselves alone, so if they are not loaded with infantry, they can really only be used to transport units or perform in a defensive manner. They can not be used to 'scout' ahead of your tanks to draw OP fire from enemy tanks...which would allow you to use your tanks to counterattack the enemy tanks safely after the enemy armor has exhausted their action points (in late war West front scenes where the Germans have very few panzers and the Allies have many halftracks and tanks this can really nullify the effective us of German armor for the Axis player). As a caveat, halftracks armed with weapon systems (the special ones with HMGs on up to 88mm guns) are allowed to scout, assault or draw OP fire on their own. Unarmed or unloaded halftracks are only allowed to participate in assaults if they are loaded with infantry or infantry armored vehicles with weapon systems also concurrently assault the same hex. The Japanese would have a complete exception to this rule due to their suicidal nature in combat.

2) Trucks/prime movers cannot be used: to block off assaults (assisting in encirclement); 'scout' ahead purposefully to determine if enemies are in a hex (the game will not show the enemy unit, but will say that the hex is occupied by an enemy unit and the truck cannot proceed); 'scout' by placing them in locations with good LOS on the battlefield (enemy units will appear as question marks in LOS); or used purposefully as roadblocks.

3) Leaders cannot block off assault hexes unless they participate in the assault.

4) HQ units cannot block off assaults or move towards the enemy to> attack (if they are in supply). They can only be used in a defensive manner or fire on units in defense.

5) All units must stay on the battlefield unless they can be exited by scenario design to create points. It is up to the player to use them wisely and protect them while keeping them on the field of play.

Of course, not everyone will agree with this. We have been having an ongoing string of emails on this subject for a few days with some really good points & counter points.

It's always great to see how others react to what one feels is a proper method of play. Some of us here at The Blitz are simply gamers and others take the game as a bit more of a historical simulation.

Either is fine but it has become apparent to me over the few 200+ games I have played that ROE's are worthwhile having & discussing with one's opponents.

My 2 cents worth.

[Von Earlmann]

I have been following this threat closely. Trough my reltively short time at the Blitz I have been gaining the knowledge of all the little unwritten ROE ( e.g. like ones discussed in this thread) which have been developed in the community and are widely accepted by many long time members ( Personally many of these ROE are nice little rules which bear sensible and have fair justification - but this is not the purpose of this post).

Correct me if I am wrong, but I sensed ( it is always a bit risky to base the judgement on my senses ) a bit of stereotyping in this thread that long term members who have been here sometimes from the inception of the club are considering those who adapt the rules as little bit as nobel knights and those who do not are seem to be tainted as the ones lacking honour. I know noone has said it that way, but this is the impression one might get (again one with the sense like mine ) .

I do not seem the problem with both as a different way of playing the game. And the Blitz can be home to any way (expcept the cheater are not wellcome).


Pawel,
It is not so much a question of honor. it's a question of two ways to play the game and they are truly not compatible. Most of the old guard prefer the traditional way of using units as historically as possible. The other view point says lets play everything the game allows. The former is my preference as I feel the latter tends to make it more of an arcade game. I don't care for arcade games no matter what the roes are.....as to setting them before the game that is probably a good idea. I usually don't say too much but if my opponent uses gamey tactics I usually thank them for the game and ride off into the sunset.
When running a campaign I let it be known that gamey tactics will not be tolerated and as the gamemaster I will take steps to nullify them and penalize them when evaluating victory levels.

Fortunately most of the guys who campaign realise expending transport units, etc will result in no transport as the campaign progresses. Neither me nor their opponents seem to object to that lack of mobility :-)

Just different ways of playing the game is all.......

VE