I got to get some perspective here.  After beating an opponent in Fogged on Civil War I get this comment.

"Fortunately for Kleck, cunning and cheating are two different things. Having just watched this game, Kleck wasn't cheating, he was simply very cunning. Unfortunately, cunning and good sportsmanship are two different things as well. Kleck, you NEVER would get away with this in a straight up, unfogged game, which is how this map is meant to be played. By using fog on a map that isn't intended to have any, you were able to use a style of play that is unacceptable under any other conditions, and as you are the host of this game, that is very unsportsmanlike behavior. Shame on you. I will not be joining another fogged game with you on a map where fog was never intended to be used in the first place, however, in the event I find myself in this situation again, by hook or by crook, rest assured, I will fight fire with fire, and I will give you a very tough game. Good luck in your future games, everyone."

How on earth was I being unsportsmanlike?  By playing a fogged game and being the host of it.  Does this guy have a point or is he out to lunch?  I'm thinking the latter, but maybe I'm wrong. 

Thoughts?

My attitude is that if you don't want the game, you don't join it.  If you don't like fogged games, don't join them.  And if you learn that you don't like them the hard way, well, you're the only one at fault.

That said I also think that people sometimes claim that something is "good sportsmanship" when they really mean "give me a chance to win".

kleck wrote:

"Fortunately for Kleck, cunning and cheating are two different things. Having just watched this game, Kleck wasn't cheating, he was simply very cunning. Unfortunately, cunning and good sportsmanship are two different things as well. Kleck, you NEVER would get away with this in a straight up, unfogged game, which is how this map is meant to be played. By using fog on a map that isn't intended to have any, you were able to use a style of play that is unacceptable under any other conditions, and as you are the host of this game, that is very unsportsmanlike behavior. Shame on you. I will not be joining another fogged game with you on a map where fog was never intended to be used in the first place, however, in the event I find myself in this situation again, by hook or by crook, rest assured, I will fight fire with fire, and I will give you a very tough game. Good luck in your future games, everyone."

 

Translation:  "I learned something this time around - mad because I lost - but learned something"

I wouldn't take it personally - and honestly, I would be inclined to challenge such a player to another fogged game, just to see what they did learn, and if you couldn't learn something more from them. 

If the board was not meant to be played with fog the designer would have set the fog level so that it couldn't be changed.

Fogged games call for different strategies.  Kudos to you for realizing that and playing accordingly.

Isn't being a sore loser unsportsmanlike?

Translation:  "I learned something this time around - mad because I lost - but learned something"

I wouldn't take it personally - and honestly, I would be inclined to challenge such a player to another fogged game, just to see what they did learn, and if you couldn't learn something more from them. 

My translation is a bit different than ratsy's :

I'm mad because I lost, so I'll engage in some generalized ranting and make accusations and offer no specific examples, except irrational ones (e.g.  "..by using a fog on a map that isn't intended to have any")  I didn't really learn anything this time around because I'm still in the denial / mad rant stage. 

If anyone is being unsportsmanlike, it is the accuser.  But I agree with Ratsy that you could offer to play another fogged game with him.  Perhaps he can be persuaded to understand that, similar to how Poker is not very enjoyable when you can see all the cards, fog adds a dimension to play that rewards an additional set of skills.

All players in the game were subject to the same rules (fog) and you prevailed. Nothing unsportsmanlike about it.

Got a link to this game?

EDIT: http://www.wargear.net/games/player/260811

Well I don't know what was unsporting about your play.. but Affordablecards play, imo was very sub-par. He didn't go for cities at all... trying to get all of the provinces per state is a long and unrewarding route to go on this map.. no wonder with a cheap attack you were able to demolish his upt.

I am confused by his play.. its not like he isn't badly ranked, or a noob? Perhaps he was trying out different tactics?

Regardless, the map is a joy to play with fog on.. I play more often with fog than without! A map visible to all is a bit boring imo, and too risky to cheap cascades ending the game early.

I've run into the opposite scenario (playing non-fogged on a map intended to be played as fog). I can relate to the opponent that posted the message vs Cleck, but I would feel more angry at myself for joining the game. BTW, I think most designers allow for the override of the fog setting even if they strongly feel the map should be played with/without per their design.

Thingol wrote: I've run into the opposite scenario (playing non-fogged on a map intended to be played as fog). I can relate to the opponent that posted the message vs Cleck, but I would feel more angry at myself for joining the game. BTW, I think most designers allow for the override of the fog setting even if they strongly feel the map should be played with/without per their design.

Unless one of my boards makes use of a fog setting for a game play mechanic that is central to the board concept (like the satellites in Total WarGear), I always allow game hosts to change the fog setting if they choose. I tend to default to light or medium fog since I've found it tends to reduce the probability of stalemate, but I understand that different players have different preferences for fog in their games.

Kjeld wrote:

Thingol wrote: I've run into the opposite scenario (playing non-fogged on a map intended to be played as fog). I can relate to the opponent that posted the message vs Cleck, but I would feel more angry at myself for joining the game. BTW, I think most designers allow for the override of the fog setting even if they strongly feel the map should be played with/without per their design.

Unless one of my boards makes use of a fog setting for a game play mechanic that is central to the board concept (like the satellites in Total WarGear), I always allow game hosts to change the fog setting if they choose. I tend to default to light or medium fog since I've found it tends to reduce the probability of stalemate, but I understand that different players have different preferences for fog in their games.

Ditto to most of the above.  I think if a designer doesn't want a board to be played at other fog levels, or just wants to avoid some, they can do it with scenarios.  There should be no excuses on the player's end.

Interestingly enough, I recently created a game and put "heavy" or "total fog" in the title - then promptly forgot to change the fog setting.. 

affordablecards said that? doesn't sound like him. don't have the time to look at the history right now, but my guess is that he was ticked at a quick turnaround (which happens in fog). not sure about the comment about fog not being part of it. as a designer, I too allow fog overrides on my maps even if i don't use it in the original. otherwise i wouldn't allow overrides by host.

1. Affordablecards is a good guy and a good player so let's not do a big pile on here.

2. It would be cool if designers could allow some fog levels and disallow others.

Amidon37 wrote:

1. Affordablecards is a good guy and a good player so let's not do a big pile on here.

2. It would be cool if designers could allow some fog levels and disallow others.

Agree with #1 Temporary Demonic Possession is my guess. Affordable is stand up and was very helpful on some maps when I was a noob.

Disagree with #2 Why limit it? If you don't like a fog level don't join. Buyer beware. I've played that map at every fog level.  I personally don't care for no fog on that one or on many for that matter because stalemates bore me. 

My opinion is primarily in the abstract: I don't like it when people complain about losing. I meant my harsh comment in a needling way that defends the original poster. But, people are inclined to complain after a frustrating or seemingly unfair loss and that doesn't necessarily reflect badly on them.

In support of the original poster: Clearly no deception was intended. Fog can spice up some pretty boring maps and there is nothing wrong with starting a fogged game.

itsnotatumor wrote:

Disagree with #2 Why limit it? If you don't like a fog level don't join. Buyer beware. I've played that map at every fog level.  I personally don't care for no fog on that one or on many for that matter because stalemates bore me. 

Like Kjeld said, some boards need a certain fog level because of some special designs.  Sometimes multiple fog levels will work, but others (or lack of fog entirely) will not.  So, it would be nice to, say, set either "total" or "heavy" as options, but not anything else. 

This would effect very few boards - in general I agree with your statement that all fog levels should be available on the vast majority of boards and you play what you like.

A) I'm not sure what he is talking about, because you didn't do anything particularly offensive.

B) Civil war three player without fog is one of the worst games on the site.  I would rather hit myself in the head with a hammer than get into that sort of stalemate fest.

C) Deviousness is a virtue in risk.

+1 to all 3

This argument is dumber than fighting about whether it's sporting to charge rent in Monopoly.

Cramchakle wrote:

This argument is dumber than fighting about whether it's sporting to charge rent in Monopoly.

+1