I had a game where my opponent,which had checked the scenario previously,shelled the area where my reinforcements would arrive.
Needdles to say that it caused many casualties and spoiled any chance of a coordinated counterattack.
Do you think that it's normal or we should add this case in Blitz's house rules?
I would consider that "gamey" and not quite fair play. That kind of specific knowledge certainly gives an un-realistic advantage.
(03-11-2014, 01:08 PM)Jobu88 Wrote: [ -> ]I would consider that "gamey" and not quite fair play. That kind of specific knowledge certainly gives an un-realistic advantage.
Yes very Gamey, I would not be very happy if that was done to me .
That's why always mirror matches play! This is the best way against unfair scenarios.
(03-11-2014, 10:42 PM)Westland Wrote: [ -> ]That's why always mirror matches play! This is the best way against unfair scenarios.
I am not so sure. I do enjoy mirror matches to be sure however it levels the playing field by allowing both players to know more information than they would if they played blind.
My preference is to play a scenario blind the first time and mirror matches after that. If something like what @cargol describes happened in a game my opponent and I agreed we were playing blind there would be questions. Come to think of it even in a mirror match that would not really be fair since it would mess up the scenario balance.
(03-11-2014, 10:42 PM)Westland Wrote: [ -> ]That's why always mirror matches play! This is the best way against unfair scenarios.
What are "mirror matches"?
(03-12-2014, 12:38 AM)General Colt Wrote: [ -> ]What are "mirror matches"?
Mirror match is if both teams play both sides.On the same map or scenario.
(03-11-2014, 10:42 PM)Westland Wrote: [ -> ]That's why always mirror matches play! This is the best way against unfair scenarios.
I kinda think that playing mirror in this case would give the players the exact intel to do what Cargol has just complained about. Playing blind (on both sides of course) this would not happen or if it did would be a fluke.
Very unsportsmanlike if you ask me and this is so obvious not to do that it really does not need to be in "house rules".....just common sense to fair play.
Were you playing this scenario on the expectation of playing it blind or did you know beforehand that he played it out before?
(03-12-2014, 04:23 AM)Herr Klopek Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2014, 10:42 PM)Westland Wrote: [ -> ]That's why always mirror matches play! This is the best way against unfair scenarios.
I kinda think that playing mirror in this case would give the players the exact intel to do what Cargol has just complained about. Playing blind (on both sides of course) this would not happen or if it did would be a fluke.
Very unsportsmanlike if you ask me and this is so obvious not to do that it really does not need to be in "house rules".....just common sense to fair play.
Were you playing this scenario on the expectation of playing it blind or did you know beforehand that he played it out before?
I wasnt expecting that my opponent will play blind the scenario as we dindt agree this beforehand.
I found out that he wasn't from our in-game chat but you know that replaying a scenario is one think and using your knowledge to get an unrealistic advantage is sthing different.
What i ll do from now on is to clear those things beforehand and this is why i ve posted this message as it will save much time to just say ''a game following Blitz house rules'' than writing and clarifying every single thing.
(03-12-2014, 05:20 AM)cargol Wrote: [ -> ]I found out that he wasn't from our in-game chat but you know that replaying a scenario is one think and using your knowledge to get an unrealistic advantage is sthing different.
True, one would think that shelling reinforcement areas is equal to shelling set up areas in the first turn.