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

[K K Rossokolski]

Hawks Rules always look good to me.

[Warhorse]

Hey guys,

I only really started PBEM in earnest a month ago, maybe a little longer. Didn't know of Hawks Rules, but he's a hell of a good guy to play against!! I prefer to be as historical as possible, like Ed says, trucks, etc. unarmed transport, transport your fare to within 400 meters of the front, dismount, get the hell out of Dodge!! No scouting with these either, I usually will ask what the player prefers, I even play with VV, just because it intrigues me!

Ed, I have to look into the mechanics of EA, but what is the deal with this, sorry, did NOT read that part of the manual!! There seems to be a bit of controversy over this rule, I just play with it on, but isn't that a good idea? And I'm not being a smartass, I just didn't read on this, I mod mostly!!

Anyhow, you guys have made a PBEM'r out of me, totally sucks to play the AI now, thank you very F'in much!! Thanks to all you willing players out there, it is an honor to be a member of this fine club!!

Mike

[Crossroads]

Thanks Ed, a very nice summary you provided us with

What are we missing here... A few words on exiting the map with units / battle units?

Then we have touched bases with most things that are typically discussed?

And perhaps the sticky should be titled like "Things to discuss before starting a PBEM"

Oh yes: Earl - glad we have been able to provide an "old man" with some excitement LOL

[PawelM]

HSL,

I will play a bit of a devil's advocate with regard to your expectation how ROE's are set for your game. From your two posts in thia thread I read (correct me if I am wrong):

1. If someone has special ROE you expect them the to infrom you
2. As for your ROE - you say they should just ask if they want to know

So based on that you expect others to ask for your ROE but do not make an effort to check the same with regard to the make an effort to the same you expect from other.

It would be nice to add one more ROE to everyone's set:

if you expect certain behaviour or rule observation from your opponents the your opponents have every right to expect the same for you

[PawelM]

I try and not question anyone taste. I have an equal respect for those adhering to additional ROE's for increased realism and more historical game experience as I have for those choosing to play 'gamey' way. To me this is purely a matter of taste how people play. I prefer not to asign ideallistic chivarlic badge to the former ones and making neandertals lacking a moral spine of the latter ones.

I will happily play both ways and enjoy it eqully and this again my personal taste.

Out of respect and to avoid misunderstandigs the rule one of Hawks law is the key one hear.

It would not cross my mind to be upset with someone about breakin a rule I did not make an effort to make them aware of.
some might say this is reasonable expectation some might say this is personal tatse. But to be honest we can dismiss any expectation with the latter label and the we encrouching a dangerous territory of tryind and assessin whose rule is more valid .... A purely subjective stuff

[Herr Straße Laufer]

What are we missing here... A few words on exiting the map with units / battle units?

Ah, yes. I am one that likes to see combat units stay on the map. Unless there is a friendly exit hex, of course.

And perhaps the sticky should be titled like "Things to discuss before starting a PBEM"

Yes, a good idea indeed!
Probably would save a lot of mistrust, misunderstanding, and anger?

Oh yes: Earl - glad we have been able to provide an "old man" with some excitement LOL

I'd like to hear how Earl feels about Halftracks that carry small mortars. (inside joke) Especially if they are used in a cold winter night scenario.



HSL

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Luckily, the first part is already available. It is known as the Hawk's Law, and here it is in its full glory (gosh Eric, you sure have the skill to squeeze lots of wisdom into a few words only )

Hawk's Law

1: If there are no ROE's stated then none are in play. Everything goes.

2: Other than cheating the Blitz has no ROE's regarding game play.

3: If you are better than your oppoent you will beat him the majority of the time no matter what tactics he uses.

4: For every "gamey" tactic there is an answer. Go find it.

5: If you play me please spot with your trucks and lead with your halftracks. You will lose.

6: Enough hand wringing. Go play.

Hello Petri!

Thanks for bringing this to light again. Hawk Law's? You flatter me.

I suppose I have played enough games verses enough opponents that this really is my basic requirements the I need from my opponents. I have enough wins and losses that those are no longer of a great concern. I know look for challange and fun.

Further comments on the Hawk Laws.

1. My style is not everything goes, I play more along the style that Ed does (he was my early mentor), but if my opponent does it is fine for one or two games. He will not be my opponent for long.

2. Cheating is the only place that the Blitz should be involved IMHO. ROEs are between players.

3. This is also very true. I could do most anything in a scenario and I will not beat certain players. They are simply better than me (in many cases way better than me).

4. That could be ammended to for most gamey tactics there is an answer. Ultimately the ultimate tactic against a gamey player is to not play them anymore. I once had an opponent who put the maximum amount of infanty SP's in open hexes and then drove his tanks behind them so I could not see them. He got his couple of games and then no more. No complaining, no crying foul.

5. This is also a truism. With truck's being worth 3 VPs an per SP you cannot lose a lot of trucks and expect to win. The math just does not work.

6. As to this. If you spend a lot of time worrying about ROEs (hand wrining) then you are devoting less time to the actual game. Go play, have fun, if you win great, if you lose its ok and if the opponent is not to your liking as to style then don't play them. No need to fret.

Anyone you would like to see the Hawk Rules (really Petri!) in action can send me an email.

Go play!

Hawk

[Herr Straße Laufer]

HSL,

I will play a bit of a devil's advocate with regard to your expectation how ROE's are set for your game. From your two posts in this thread I read (correct me if I am wrong):

1. If someone has special ROE you expect them to inform you
2. As for your ROE - you say they should just ask if they want to know

Since this is directed specifically to me I will respond specifically to you.
As you know, from the TOP GUN tournament, that I wanted the individual players to discuss their individual rules between themselves prior to starting their game? It was up to each pair to agree to what rules they play by and what ROE's they would agree to?
I don't understand your confusion. If I did it there, would I not also do it for a new opponent?

So based on that you expect others to ask for your ROE but do not make an effort to check the same with regard to the make an effort to the same you expect from other.

I've never played you, so I'll assume you have no clue as to what transpires between me and my opponents?
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.

It would be nice to add one more ROE to everyone's set:

if you expect certain behavior or rule observation from your opponents the your opponents have every right to expect the same for you

Behavior and observation?
Maybe I do not understand your meaning with these words?

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

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ed, I have to look into the mechanics of EA, but what is the deal with this, sorry, did NOT read that part of the manual!! There seems to be a bit of controversy over this rule, I just play with it on, but isn't that a good idea?

The EA rule, and discussion thereof, has done more to get me banned and censured than anything else in the game.

There are those who believe that EA is a great thing. Though, not me.
As presented, and true in play, EA slows the game down by taking away the assaults that are easily done without it on.
This has changed every classic scenario. Especially the ones that are previously found to be "balanced" for play versus human.

But, this might not be the thread to discuss EA (even if it is a rule that should be discussed prior to using it)? :whis:

Anyhow, you guys have made a PBEM'r out of me, totally sucks to play the AI now, thank you very F'in much!! Thanks to all you willing players out there, it is an honor to be a member of this fine club!!

It is an honor to have you with us Mike!
I wish you years of PBEM play here. You've done more for the game through the release of the K'talan and Korean mods, and you should get to enjoy the game on the level of playing versus humans!



HSL

[PawelM]

HSL,
I never intended to question any specifics of your or anyones else ROE. Neither with stating point 1 and 2 I said this is the way you normally do. I was reading your posts in this thread andfound these two in your post. This was not aimed as any accusation but just pointing out what transpired from the tow point purely.

As for top gun advice, your message on the ROE was clear and you have done a great job making sure the tournament.

Is that making the intention of my post clearer, i.e. No accusations or offence intended?
It seems I am having problem to capture precaisly what I mean with my words. I have to go back to my english books :)

My view on ROE are simple they should be agreed prior the gameK unless as HSL pointed out you player know them from previous games). I would not want resort to searching throught the forums in order to find out more on someone rules of engagement.

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.

Did I manage to make itunderstandable enough and not offend or upset anyone :)