Gamey?

[Volcano Man]

The only problem with sneaking around fixed units is that you probably wouldn't normally know, as a commander, that the opposing unit would be cemented in place unless it had an LOS to one of your units. So, naturally you would bump into the unit if you advanced. But it all depends too. If "sneaking around" the unit entails moving through swamps, across cliffs and over rivers just to move in and isolate the enemy then yes I think it would be gamey.

But really it does not matter. If this is even possible then it signifies a somewhat poorly designed scenario in that regard and it should be changed to where the unit is released about the time that the enemy unit is able to do the "sneaking". Unless of course it is all intentional. :)

[jonnymacbrown]

"In a Bulge game my German-playing friend abused the crap out of my allied units that were fixed in position by staying just out of activation range and sliding around to isolate and destroy them."

That would mean he was also peeking at the original set up during play, noting the exact hexes where your units were, and thus avoiding them by this foreknowledge. That's actually cheating. von ege :whis:

[HMCS Rosthern]

That would mean he was also peeking at the original set up during play, noting the exact hexes where your units were, and thus avoiding them by this foreknowledge. That's actually cheating. von ege :whis:

So in your opinion, if I've played a game a number of times and I know where the units/minefields/wire are (without referencing a new game in normal mode), and I use this to my advantage, am I cheating? For example, I am playing a T41 Battleaxe game as British. I've played as German a few times and I know where the minefields are, especially around Helfaya pass. I have purposely avoided these hexes in my moves. Is this cheating?

If I am playing a game for ladder points, especially if it is a HTH rated game indicating a good balance, I think that studying both sides is necessary to have a chance to win. In the tournaments, I am willing to bet that players study both sides in order to have a chance winning. However, I do agree that for enjoyment purposes, not knowing about the other side gives the ultimate fog-of-war affect.

[jonnymacbrown]

"So in your opinion, if I've played a game a number of times and I know where the units/minefields/wire are (without referencing a new game in normal mode), and I use this to my advantage, am I cheating?"

IN MY OPINION THIS IS NOT CHEATING.

"If I am playing a game for ladder points, especially if it is a HTH rated game indicating a good balance, I think that studying both sides is necessary to have a chance to win. In the tournaments, I am willing to bet that players study both sides in order to have a chance winning."

This is the inherent problem with competition. Again, you are not cheating in my opinion. The situation I am talking about is referencing the original set up more than once during play. I've played B44 a lot and still run into surprises, still run into the same obstacles and minefields again and again. I wouldn't do that if I referenced the map before every move. I've played some games going in completely cold and it's hard. I guess what you need to do is get a new game like B45 and make an agreement with an opponent that you'll both go in cold. von ege:whis:

[HMCS Rosthern]

Thanks for the clarification. The players should agree before hand that it is considered cheating/gamey to refer to the starting positions in manual mode without FOW once a game has commenced.

As a side, an interesting modification to the game engine would be have the system randomly generate field work positions as well as unit placement. There would have to be restrictions to this. Obviously, one would not want units dispersed willy nilly. Perhaps there could be base locations and then (if the option was selected) a low probability random variance by a few hexes.

[Sgt Barker]