I am not sure if my topic really means something, but in Sweden we say that "unwritten rules/laws" are rules everyone is supposed to follow even though they officially do not exist. For an example, it is an unwritten rule that when else someone talks, you shut up. Or whatever. You get the point.

So, today I was about to win a game. The opponent had only 1 guy left and i had the whole map. Then I had to go very urgently and therefore my round got skipped and my next round as well. I got booted.

As the other player was clearly losing, I felt that it was really poor sportsmanship not to surrender. i am not sure if you agree, but I just want to ask what unwritten rules you think exist on Wargear? What do you just don't do? Except cheating since there is a rule against that and therefore it is not an unwritten rule...

Not to be a jerk but.... all is fair in love and war.

Couple reasons why:

-You'd have to accept his surrender so you being gone would have prevented that.

-The other player didn't know that you weren't going to be around so he/she probably figured you'd  finish the game and win.

In America we use the term "Unwritten Rules" too but I don't really know of any here.  Never say die is probably one of them, however which would be the opposite of what you want.  In this case, what happened sucks but it is also the reason people take vacation time before ACTUALLY going to virtual war.

RiskyBack wrote:

Couple reasons why:

-You'd have to accept his surrender so you being gone would have prevented that.

He don't have to accept when only 2 players left. I guess he was playing 1vs1 game...

Interesting question, I would have surrended in that situation before you were booted.  In fact, in one of my first games something similar happened and I gave my opponent the win.  However, I can understand why others would not have surrended and I would not be upset with them if they did not. 

Two "rules" that I try to follow and I wished everyone did -

1) in fog games don't give out information 

2) Play your games out like you have a chance of winning.

Amidon37 wrote:

Two "rules" that I try to follow and I wished everyone did -

1) in fog games don't give out information 

2) Play your games out like you have a chance of winning.

 

I fully agree with your unwritten rule #2.

I fully disagree with your unwritten rule #1. I believe it's part of the game to give out or not information. It doesn't mean that I agree about giving false iinformation ;) 

Knosken wrote:

I am not sure if my topic really means something, but in Sweden we say that "unwritten rules/laws" are rules everyone is supposed to follow even though they officially do not exist. For an example, it is an unwritten rule that when else someone talks, you shut up. Or whatever. You get the point.

 

So, today I was about to win a game. The opponent had only 1 guy left and i had the whole map. Then I had to go very urgently and therefore my round got skipped and my next round as well. I got booted.

As the other player was clearly losing, I felt that it was really poor sportsmanship not to surrender. i am not sure if you agree, but I just want to ask what unwritten rules you think exist on Wargear? What do you just don't do? Except cheating since there is a rule against that and therefore it is not an unwritten rule...

IMO, one of the unwritten rules is : make sure not to get booted ;)

Amidon37 wrote:

1) in fog games don't give out information

+1

To Toto and those like him (I'm only picking on you, because you happened to be the one to disagree here) - If I wanted to play a game where it where the 3 weak links could see that the leader is leading the pack and gang up on him, I'd have played a non-fog game. But I didn't.  I chose to play a game that involves a much different tactic, and by you announcing what you see, you're changing the game rules, which frustrates me to no end.

One of two appeals:
You have, in a number of threads, defended the position that the one who plays the best game should win, and you prefer to look for protections against someone usurping that win from them (examples: boot limits, or protecting scores with a point cap, for instance).  But the whole strategy behind a fog game is different than a game where your opponents know where you sit.  So when someone plays the perfect fog strategy, and outplay you in the game, you should take that loss because you were outplayed, not take away the win by removing the fog from the game.

A different appeal:
Announcing publicly what you see in a fog game is tantamount to the 3 weak players in a free-for-all Simulgear game sharing the order of their moves/attacks against the leader.  This will essentially turn the Simulgear game back to a modified turn-based game, nullifying anyone's "Simulgear Strategy."  For all intents and purposes, it's using the messaging feature to modifying the rules of the game, and that doesn't sit well with me.

(In your defense:  I don't believe I've ever actually played a fog game against you where you've done this to me, so please don't feel this is a personal attack, just attacking those who share your opinions)

I have played a game where someone was clearly leading. He was everywhere I was so I figured he was about to win. I warned the other players - and he didn't win.

Looking at the history later, I saw that there was another player even stronger than him. But everyone focused on the one I said was about to win.

Therefore: Sharing info in fog games shouldn't be allowed, otherwise the purpose of fog is eliminated imo

and then there's me. i'm not against looking into the history and trying to determine what's going on in a fogged game. to me that's part of it (and part of the fun). If i see that X is going to take the game if something doesn't happen, i'll send a private chat to another player mentioning this fact and that i'll be focusing on player X. if they so happen to work with me then all the better. especially if i can then take them out after player X is done

About sharing informations in fog games...

Let's try to imagine we are in real war, 2000 years ago, before any technology and satellites...

Your country is attacked by other two contryes from east and west... So you send some of your units to the west and to the east to scouting your enemy. They come back and give report to your king that east is weak as we are and those who scouting west informed you that west have control of about half of the world! What would be the king's right decison, to keep mouth silent and send units in both fronts, knowing that his kingdom would soon be destroyed from west, or try to make a deal with east and ask for a truce and survive as long as you can?

I tend to attack anyone who starts giving away information in fog games, even if they aren't giving away information about me.  I see it as a way to nullify whatever advantage they were trying to get.  Talk if you want, but there will be consequences.

That can be huge advantage for premium members cause they can talk private, so they can strenght their power doing same thing as standard member (persuade others to invade a third person). I don't complain about that, just saying...

I've mentioned this in threads in the past but posting public comments in a Fog game should be taken witha  grain of salt. Players can use those comments to deceive just as easily as to reveal information.

So it seems "thou shalt not make comments in fog games that gives information" is not an unwritten rule of WarGear players -

Different tack - I was visiting the forums of another Risk site and they seemed to have an unwritten rule against turtling.  (piling all your armies into one or a few territories and just building). There seemed to be this agreement to gang up on the turtler.  Unwritten rule or smart playing?  Thoughts?

Amidon37 wrote:I was visiting the forums of another Risk site

I thought an unwritten rule was that we didn't fraternize with the enemy.  ;)

My thoughts on the two topics:

I don't like other players revealing information in a fogged game since I think it goes against the intention of the ruleset - unless I am misinterpreting the intention of the ruleset.

I think turtling is an acceptable strategy, although I don't use it unless I am in fear of being eliminated.  Also, it seems that many players in a mutli-player games, including myself, use a modified form of this strategy by concentrating all of there armies in one or two territories and only conquering other territories to gain cards.   That it to say, there is not an attempt to control certain regions of the map or control continents.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

1) in fog games don't give out information

+1

To Toto and those like him (I'm only picking on you, because you happened to be the one to disagree here) - If I wanted to play a game where it where the 3 weak links could see that the leader is leading the pack and gang up on him, I'd have played a non-fog game. But I didn't.  I chose to play a game that involves a much different tactic, and by you announcing what you see, you're changing the game rules, which frustrates me to no end.

One of two appeals:
You have, in a number of threads, defended the position that the one who plays the best game should win, and you prefer to look for protections against someone usurping that win from them (examples: boot limits, or protecting scores with a point cap, for instance).  But the whole strategy behind a fog game is different than a game where your opponents know where you sit.  So when someone plays the perfect fog strategy, and outplay you in the game, you should take that loss because you were outplayed, not take away the win by removing the fog from the game.

A different appeal:
Announcing publicly what you see in a fog game is tantamount to the 3 weak players in a free-for-all Simulgear game sharing the order of their moves/attacks against the leader.  This will essentially turn the Simulgear game back to a modified turn-based game, nullifying anyone's "Simulgear Strategy."  For all intents and purposes, it's using the messaging feature to modifying the rules of the game, and that doesn't sit well with me.

(In your defense:  I don't believe I've ever actually played a fog game against you where you've done this to me, so please don't feel this is a personal attack, just attacking those who share your opinions)

No problem BTF, I am not taking it as a personal attack ;) We are here to discuss our point of views.

I am not going to give any answer about Simulgear games as I still did not take the time to try to understand how it works precisely.

About fog games, like with non-fog games, I believe diplomacy is part of it. This is the reason why I am also advocating alliances or truces. I know some players will also disagree with me on this point. So, "talking" in fog games is IMO part of the game. Otherwise there should be a written rule saying that talking is cheating, and private and public messages should be disabled.

SquintGnome wrote:

My thoughts on the two topics:

I don't like other players revealing information in a fogged game since I think it goes against the intention of the ruleset - unless I am misinterpreting the intention of the ruleset.

I think turtling is an acceptable strategy, although I don't use it unless I am in fear of being eliminated.  Also, it seems that many players in a mutli-player games, including myself, use a modified form of this strategy by concentrating all of there armies in one or two territories and only conquering other territories to gain cards.   That it to say, there is not an attempt to control certain regions of the map or control continents.

I agree with you SG about turtling. Sometimes, it does make sense. Especially when you are close to get eliminated. But I reckon it can be annoying when someone else is doing it to you.