What do you think is proper etiquette in fogged games? Is talking with other players about your position kosher? What about another player's position?

Here's a situation that just occurred. game log is here: http://www.wargear.net/games/player/326626

Green gets unlucky attacking Blue's armies (turn 1360) and Blue retaliates. Green says "32 v 12 was the end for me." Is it reasonable for Purple to assume that Green is basically done for the game? Purple apparently does, and focuses several turns almost exclusively on Blue. After several turns, have elapsed in which Green has retaken Africa, blue mentions that Green has Africa and likely Europe, too. Purple attacks Green that turn. Is it OK for blue to say what Green likely has?

My two cents: I was Blue, so I'm biased, but I think it's completely legitimate in this situation to state that Green has Africa. 1. It's within the rules. 2. It's not even cheap, because Green's earlier statement implied that he was lost, and possibly even quitting. Green's statement clearly changed Purple's strategy.

But would it ever be cheap to call out a player's position? Or is that always OK? Of course, you can also lie when you state a player's position, so it's hard to know whether you can trust the information. Green, in this case, did again provide misleading information after Blue stated Green's position "He just wants you to stop attacking him". Of course, Blue did want purple to stop attacking him, but Green was amassing a lot of troops under false pretenses.

Great question that will elicit many varied answers.

My stance is that the purpose of a fogged game is to add an element of difficulty or mystery to the board.  Since the designer's obvious intention is to prevent visibility I think it is not appropriate to make comments about other players locations or strength.  This is supported I think by the great efforts made to prevent implying location and strength by viewing history.

I agree with Squint, you will undoubtedly receive a myriad of responses.

And to prove the point (and to play the devil) I offer this:

If Risk is to represent war, isn't all fair?  There is both intelligence and misinformation involved in war and the army that is victorious is usually the one that can distinguish between the two and can take advantage of it. 

Great Question +1

I think posting 'to a degree' is appropriate...but other players will have to take the posts with a grain of salt...they don't know whether you are lying to gain an upper hand or pointing out an obvious leader about to take over the map.  Some folks can take it to abnoxious levels, however and this can ruin the game.

I'd rather players not discuss the board state in fogged games, but I will on rare occasion say something.  Usually in response to someone else stating something.  I have never lied about the state of the board.

Ozyman wrote:

I'd rather players not discuss the board state in fogged games, but I will on rare occasion say something.  Usually in response to someone else stating something.  I have never lied about the state of the board.

Remember, there was no fog in the original game, but as I recall, there was a lot of trash talk and diplomacy.

All is fair in war.  If Ozyman is known to "never lie", then that becomes part of the dynamic of the fogged game.  So, if he 'never lies,' where does it become advantageous for him to give out information?  Well, for one - once one player is way ahead.  But in doing so, and continuing to do so until the game is brought back into some kind of parity, at some point he will give out information inferentially when he does NOT saying anything.  Additionally, now there's some grey area.  He needs to stop talking at a point where it doesn't give out too much information, but he also would like to be the one that is in the strongest position at that point.

If alliances are allowed, then surely breaking the fog should be.  Heck, I'd love to see more of it, especially if players start thinking like poker players.  Can you imagine if Phil Hellmuth was playing a fogged game here and decided to talk numbers and positions while intimidating players?  What a blast that would be!

Much too easy to say the wrong thing, or make the wrong comment. Better to just beat them without the chatter. 

Far too many stalemates I've been in have ended with: lets just attack that guy cause he was the first to talk. 

Personally, I think that the politics can be fun!  That said, I also do think that there is a certain fog etiquette that means the table talk should be general and not specific.  Specific numbers and locations should not be given, but, I have no problem with saying, "I think that so-and-so is getting stronger then you realize and perhaps we should refrain from fighting a while to bring some balance back."  Personally, I don't lie when I say such things, but, when you read anyone's intel that they're willing to reveal, specific or not, you also have to take them with a grain of salt as such statements can be providing as much mis-direction as direction.  And for those like I and Ozy, who don't like lying, even a completely honest statement can be mis-direction too!  So watch out!

The hardest board for such is invention because I want to remain loyal to the intention of fog, but, when satellite is acquired by all then it's no holds barred with what can be said... But, how do you know when that is?  The grey area gets a bit bigger and assumptions have to be made.

I am ok with "table talk" and feel it's part of the game.  It might not feel great to be the target but it rarely causes somebody to lose because of it.  Chatting during fogged games just becomes another element as others have said above.

I usually try to be the 3rd player in the game that gets to take advantage of the talk while giving nothing away myself :)

I find that straight up lying rarely works. It's hard to exaggerate someone else's position without the facts on the board giving you away. Because of that it often backfires as you draw attention to yourself when you're called out immediately.

Conversely, telling the truth publicly usually backfires because you incur the wrath of a player who is in a much stronger position than you. I know it always pisses me off, but hey, I wanted to take you out anyway.

Istrangely enough I have no problem with it if I'm not mentioned or involved. It's good strategy if it works, just hard to do right. You really run the risk of turning the heat on yourself

I will always use this strategy when I think it will significantly benefit me and I have no trouble doing so. It's for as far as I can tell part of the game.

I make sure I tell the truth and try to keep it to public chat in order for the information to be more trustworthy. What's more important is to make the strategy work in the long run, another reason to be honest in the statements. Some people will still hate you for it, but that happens very rarely in my experience.

Typically, the only time I lie or mislead is in a game of fogged A&A...I simply can't resist.   But this works only if you are truthful a good percentage of the time.

In general, I think there are some players who enjoy a little in-game banter and some who simply do not.  My guess is that if you don't, you will really be pissed by any postings in a fogged game.

I used to feel that any chat in a fog game was essentially cheating and I disliked seeing it happen. Now that I have "been around the block" awhile on fog games, I don't blame people for doing it.  I've even started to do it occasionally as well.  In a perfect world I would like to see it not happen - but as long as others are doing it, I don't want to be left out (yes, I know, two "wrongs" making a "right"). 

Some people don't like it at all (if you post such things) and will hammer you if you post, others will ignore you, thinking that you are asking them to do you a favor or to take out your biggest threat.  Usually the later is what happens when I do it.

It's like the Reality Show "Survivor", you are held accountable for your actions by the community of players.  There are no rules against posting in a fog game - but how people react to how you play varies wildly and some may hold a grudge against you for it, in this game and/or future games.

I mostly agree with Cona, but would go further in explaining:

If you give away my position as part you your chatter, I'm going to hurt you for it the next time I can.

If you say, "BT, we have to both attack blue," I'm just as likely to take you out, cause now everybody knows I'm next to blue on the board, and that's unhealthy for me.

If you said "Man, blue's getting big," I might attack blue, I might not, and you're still moving up my list of people to eliminate first.

This isn't a matter of grudges, or hating or anything, it's a practicality.  You blew someone's cover once, you'll probably do it again later, so to me it makes sense to take you out if I've got anything going on that I don't want people to know.

Finally, it's a fog game, so remember to watch what people do, not what they say.

If you're trying to make an alliance with me (I'm a non-premium player), I will almost always make my chat response negative, and here's why:

If I blow you off in the chat, and then do what you asked in the game, then we are now secret allies, which is way better than public allies.  I can't private-message you, so my other options are to not respond or say, "yeah sure let's be allies," at which point everyone else has to assume we're allies and will adjust their plans.  If I say "no thanks," it preserves the fog for at least a few more turns - and that's a big deal.  (Does it go without saying that if I blow you off AND attack you, we're not allies?  It should.)

A small percentage of the time, people watch what you say more than what you do, and that's always, always, always a mistake.

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2203/warning_in_fog_games

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2472p1/Unwritten_rules

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1466/The_Morals_of_War

Good points BTdubs.

I have to disagree with anyone who says that messages go against the intention of the fog. It is part of the structure of this site and therefore is part of the intention of the fog.

That being said, messages can be quite annoying for a variety of reasons, and with a limited number of opponents you have to factor in how your actions will affect future games on this site. Even in non-fog games messages can be annoying. In one of my early games Toto hassled me about my sub optimal strategies for several turns (but then again he won, so it can be an effective strategy).

One of my biggest problems with in game chatter is that as a standard member, it is difficult to respond to private messages, so generally public discussions are more fun.

Korrun wrote:

One of my biggest problems with in game chatter is that as a standard member, it is difficult to respond to private messages, so generally public discussions are more fun.

There are workarounds for Standard members, but it is certainly more convenient for Premium members. Between that and game stats alone, Premium membership is well worth the money spent.  It doesn't give players an explicit advantage, but it sure makes things easier ..not to mention that you are supporting the site.

M57 wrote:

Korrun wrote:

One of my biggest problems with in game chatter is that as a standard member, it is difficult to respond to private messages, so generally public discussions are more fun.

There are workarounds for Standard members, but it is certainly more convenient for Premium members. Between that and game stats alone, Premium membership is well worth the money spent.  It doesn't give players an explicit advantage, but it sure makes things easier ..not to mention that you are supporting the site.

I will probably upgrade eventually. I have always had a knee jerk reaction to the subscription model for games and software. I have never paid a subscription for any game (or even any other type of online service). Despite that, I have a lot of respect for how Tom has set up this site. This will definitely be the first subscription game I will pay for. As a teacher with a 2 year old there is just always something else to spend $10 on.

M57 wrote:

Korrun wrote:

One of my biggest problems with in game chatter is that as a standard member, it is difficult to respond to private messages, so generally public discussions are more fun.

There are workarounds for Standard members, but it is certainly more convenient for Premium members. Between that and game stats alone, Premium membership is well worth the money spent.  It doesn't give players an explicit advantage, but it sure makes things easier ..not to mention that you are supporting the site.

I don't find the "workarounds" to be satisfactory, and yes, in some games it is an "explicit" and massive advantage.  Maybe a blinking icon for new wall posts needs to be put in, or something of the like? Plus, if the owner of the wall reads the message it should de-highlight somehow so that the the poster knows it has been read.  As it is, I find private messaging for premium members only, to be a serious flaw with the site, especially considering that the premium members hardly ever even check the "workaround", nor does the standard know if it's been read if it's met by silence.  Silence for an in-game message vs for a wall message are completely different things!  It's easier to make the assumption that the in-game private message has at least been seen and make inferences from that.  So many times as standard I've had players write way later, "oh, I've just read my wall, sorry I didn't read it earlier.", often after the game is already over. Also, for the sake of "secrecy", the poster should be able to pick an expiry date for the message to auto-delete so that other players are less able to exploit messages left on the lazy premium guy's wall that he/she has neglected to erase.  The stats are the real benefit to the premium account holders anyways, so, why provide a mechanism which if not made parallel through a suitable workaround that actually works, it only serves to leverage a completely unfair advantage for one group of WarGear Citizens over the other?  I have played numerous games from both sides of this, and I'm willing to call foul on it.  At the very least, standard players should have the option to send an automated in-game private message to any player saying "I've left a message on your wall!"

I'm completely fine with the messaging options for nonpremium, and I respect that people who support the site financially get a modest edge.  Seems fair.

If I ever want that advantage badly enough, I'll pay for it.  Meanwhile, I get just that much more satisfaction knowing that I can play with a handicap and win!