AAR: Franco's Folly [Spoiler Alert]

[Reckall]

Vince < I see your point, and you do have something there, but I think you're treading mainly on the gray area. Cases usually classified as "cheats" tend to focus on the black & white areas of straining the game rules. Tournament and MBX umpires go to great lenghts to draw a firm line between what is acceptable and what is considered cheating.

Also, on your reference on real-life military endeavors that constitute "cheating": In real combat, the commander does not have the benefit of hindsight, he cannot view the situation with ScenEdit (wouldn't that be nifty? :smoke: ) and usually he's taking an immense and uncertain gamble which, more often than not, ends badly. Thus he cannot be put on the same spot with a cheater, whose primary motive typically is a safe, easy and sure-fire "victory".

I still do not see where the "cheat" is in the offending AAR. Modern air-naval warfare is, for most, based on theory, the practical examples being quite limited. This can lead to all sort of debate and personal opinions regarding what is "realistic" and what isn't.

To use again my favourite example, just remember that in a wargame played in the '30s a player winning a battle using carriers over battleships would have blamed for using "unrealistic tactics", since, in the unproved theories of the time, it was the BB the queen of the sea, not the CV.

Having said that, what I still do not understand is: if you judge that using planes to draw away AA fire is unrealistic, just don't do it. If the scenario designer feels that it is an important point of the scenario, just write it in the orders paragraph. I *do* like to use unconventional tactics in my games, buy I also obey the instructions given by the designer. I do not wish to be branded as "a cheater" only because I thought about something unexpected: military brilliance should be about this.

BTW, speaking of WWII, I wonder how would have be judged, in a "formal" wargame, using jeeps to raise dust in the desert and simulate a fake tank attack. But in the real world it worked.]

One last think: I'm a published writer since 1987, I wrote a lot of things, attended two writing schools and spent countless months sweating blood on reviews, scripts and other writings, many of them, by talent or luck, succesful. But I still respect words of someone who reads my work and gives his opinion, even if he is a plumber and the opinion is negative. In my book "what you have done in my field?" is not excuse for refusing criticism, since each one of us judges daily things in fields outside his job and/or hobby - like the movies.

 

[JMS]

Those aircraft were assigned to just that, flak supression (today called SEAD/DEAD). Just like other planes were assigned to strike or fighter escort. They were not part of the fighter screen.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

So? fighters used to strafe ground targets when no air targets were found, is that cheating? Fighters dump air to ground ordnance when opposition in the air is found, is that cheating too? What about inflatable suicide boats that drive themselves into the flank of moored destroyers? All of that's real life, that a designer cannot predict every player's behaviour is a given, if you feel it's unrealistic, you have to adapt the scenario, not blame the players.

 

[JMS]

Okay I can understand what you are saying but I suspect you have never created or released a Harpoon3 scenario. If you knew how much effort that is put down into every single one of the scenarios posted on the HarpoonHQ, only to have it cheated to pieces in public, I'm sure you wouldn't have made the above statement.

Cheating in chess will ruin that game! How would you feel if the games played in Chess Championships contained nothing but cheats, weird moves and yet more cheats? Would you lose interest?

The same goes for Harpoon3.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

No, that's true, have only tried Harpoon classic and TOAW, which happens to be more complex, and while I agree that cheating does ruin the game, the use of a tactic that wasn't envisioned by the designer is not cheating. Either adapt the scenario or assume that's a fact of life that people has an imagination.

 

[Reckall]

So? fighters used to strafe ground targets when no air targets were found, is that cheating?.

"Don't worry about losing AA cover, their manuals say that they cannot draw away an elephant with their figh..."

 

[JMS]

Why? Well-written AARs by people who played a scenario without back-hand tricks (regardless of whether they won or lost - often the defeat-AARs are the most fun!) are a scen designer's nirvana.


And pray tell, how exactly do you do that? Locking the scen file so that it cannot be opened in ScenEdit? (Not possible). Limiting the options/assets available to the player? Then realism _and_ playability go out of the window. Which defeats the whole purpose of making good scenarios in the first place.

Unless you've found a way that the guys who design scens for 10+ years now haven't come up with.



It's the jerk's problem if he does it in private and tells no-one. It becomes the designer's problem the moment these tricks start being circulated by any means (forums, emails, IRC, IM etc.). At that moment, all the effort put by the designer goes down the toilet. If you don't see this then you just don't get the problem.



Missing the point _completely_.



You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

Now show me the last thing you've contributed to Harpoon. A scenario, a database, a software tool, a serious publication, an OOB collection, a collabo with a person doing anything of the above. Show me you've put real effort, sweat, time and/or money into making something for Harpoon and sharing it with the community.

In other words, show me that you know what you're talking about.

What a load of tripe! Once again, are only people who have played and designed in Harpoon for 10+ year allowed to have an opinion? guess I didn't check the licensing agreement...

 

[emsoy]

All of that's real life, that a designer cannot predict every player's behaviour is a given, if you feel it's unrealistic, you have to adapt the scenario, not blame the players.

Hehe yeah you know that's the funny part. In the past we designed the scenarios for maximum realism. That was our only concern. It was generally understood within the community that one should try to use realistic tactics and not exploit weaknesses in the model. After all, we're playing to enjoy naval warfare and maybe learn a thing or two in the process.

After this Herman guy showed up we now also have to design the scenarios with the 'Cheatos' in mind, and implement all kinds of safeguards to counter the largest and most damaging cheats. Had he kept his crazy tactics and cheats to himself it wouldn't have been a problem, but when he posts in public is suddenly is. Preventing cheating doubles the scen designer's efforts really, and we can never make a scenario foolprof since this guy continously comes up with new ways to exploit the game engine...

So, yes, we adapt the scenarios allright, but the Cheatos will always win in the end.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

 

[emsoy]

All of that's real life, that a designer cannot predict every player's behaviour is a given, if you feel it's unrealistic, you have to adapt the scenario, not blame the players.

I could not agree more, well said. But rehearsing a scenario to make sure you will not lose, and pulling off weird if not totally crazy moves simply because there's an opportunity to exploit a certain part of the game engine, well, that's cheating.

And lets not forget that little thing called Doctrine. You fight the way you train, right. I don't think I've ever seen fighter pilots train to be SAM bait... hehe.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

 

[Sunburn]

I still do not see where the "cheat" is in the offending AAR. Modern air-naval warfare is, for most, based on theory, the practical examples being quite limited. This can lead to all sort of debate and personal opinions regarding what is "realistic" and what isn't.

To use again my favourite example, just remember that in a wargame played in the '30s a player winning a battle using carriers over battleships would have blamed for using "unrealistic tactics", since, in the unproved theories of the time, it was the BB the queen of the sea, not the CV.

Actually, both the USN and the IJN used wargames extensively in the 1930s to prepare (knowingly?) for the coming war. And both sides saw the writing on the wall. The big difference was that the US admirals refused to believe what the wargames were showing them, while the Japanese officers embraced them (it's a well-known fact that the Perl Harbor raid was refined through successive wargaming).

BTW, the very same wargaming system that predicted the success of Perl Harbor also showed that the IJN fleet had a serious probability of suffering heavy losses at Midway. The admirals refused to believe it. You know the rest.

Having said that, what I still do not understand is: if you judge that using planes to draw away AA fire is unrealistic, just don't do it.

It's a fact of human nature that, when offered a hard way and an easy way of doing something, we'll usually pick the latter. Even if the former is the right way. This is all the more true in the case of non-seasoned Harpoon players still learning the ropes and not having sufficinet experience to tell the legit real-life tactic from a shenanigan that would likely land its real-life practitioner either a court-martial or a hasty grave.

And again, the critical point is not the act of doing it on one's own. Privacy is sacrosanct. It is the act of telling everyone within earshot "Hey kids! By using this "clever" trick you can beat that tough scenario that's been giving you nightmares until now!". To use a consciously over-the-top analogy, it's the difference between using an illegal drug and trafficking it.

If the scenario designer feels that it is an important point of the scenario, just write it in the orders paragraph. I *do* like to use unconventional tactics in my games, buy I also obey the instructions given by the designer.

A serious designer has enough in his hands already, refining the scenario to real-life conditions. Charging him with the additional responsibility of imagining every little trick the player _may_ come up with and writing it on a "For God's sake DON'T DO THIS, in a real war that will likely get you dead or court-martialled!!!" list is a bit much, IMHO. It may be the proverbial last straw as far as his energy is concerend. He has to trust that the player has done his homework on the subject and is not going to screw around with the scenario flow (and if he does, at least he won't brag about it in public).

I do not wish to be branded as "a cheater" only because I thought about something unexpected: military brilliance should be about this.

Unexpected? Sure, go ahead. Do a multi-axis attack where common sense calls for a single direction. Load Su-27s with iron bombs in lieu of AAMs and use them to strengthen the attack of a Su-24 regiment instead of A2A-screening it. Penetrate a strong ASW screen with a submarine instead of thinning out the ASW escorts with ASMs first. Use Backfires and Blackjacks as distant feints (NOT AAM-bait!!!) to draw away NORAD F-15s while sub-launched SS-N-21s deliver the real blow. All these (and more) are examples of legit experimentation.

But using ScenEdit before playing the scen, to peek at dispositions and strategy? Using unlimited air ordinance when the designer _explicitly_ states that Air Logistics should be enabled? Knowingly doing things that would earn you a firing squad in real life? (e.g. sending pilots to certain doom in a sitaution other than "grave-danger-to-motherland-we-all-sacrifice-ourselves"). Sorry, but I cannot put this in the same category.

BTW, speaking of WWII, I wonder how would have be judged, in a "formal" wargame, using jeeps to raise dust in the desert and simulate a fake tank attack. But in the real world it worked.]

IIRC you can do something like that in POA-2. And HC has several decoy units, complete with fake EM emissions (Kusnetsov & Kirov IIRC, and some others). Nothing wrong with this.

One last think: I'm a published writer since 1987, I wrote a lot of things, attended two writing schools and spent countless months sweating blood on reviews, scripts and other writings, many of them, by talent or luck, succesful. But I still respect words of someone who reads my work and gives his opinion, even if he is a plumber and the opinion is negative. In my book "what you have done in my field?" is not excuse for refusing criticism, since each one of us judges daily things in fields outside his job and/or hobby - like the movies.

Guilty as charged. This is a gun I don't pull unless my BS-o-meter crosses a certain threshold. Notice the difference in tone between your objection and JMS's. Also notice the difference in tone in my response to you and him. Each of us reaps what he sows :devil:

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Resolution

Okay Boys and girls,

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AND TAKE IT IN.

We need to end this "discussion" on the root of the problem, whether or not Herman cheated.

Firstly I would like to thank everyone for their opinion, and say I respect everyones notes on this subject. However, I believe we have exhausted it and can put it to bed.

Herman, what Ragnar is saying is "he feels that for the benefit of playing the game it would help if you did your AAR'S in a way that allows people to gain from it. In specific, so the designers dont feel their work has been wasted". I believe you can sympathise with this.

Ragnar,You have presented your case well, although Herman from my view has not cheated. Nor has his actions warranted your response by posting this on every thread. He can play the game how he likes and write the report how he likes. He clearly states "Spoiler" in the thread title. I believe this to be his position on this matter.

Please understand that I sympathise with both your view points, but this type of activity is not what this forum is about. you are entitled to your view and in no way am I discounting that, and please dont hesitate to post in the future, although limit yourself to saying it once. I understand you are all passionate about this, but lets get on with it!

if this line of posting continues then I will lock the thread.

Jim.

 

[Sunburn]

Fair enough, James. Request respected.

 

[emsoy]

Yes fair enough James.

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

 

[Reckall]

Actually, both the USN and the IJN used wargames extensively in the 1930s to prepare (knowingly?) for the coming war. And both sides saw the writing on the wall. The big difference was that the US admirals refused to believe what the wargames were showing them, while the Japanese officers embraced them (it's a well-known fact that the Perl Harbor raid was refined through successive wargaming).

BTW, the very same wargaming system that predicted the success of Perl Harbor also showed that the IJN fleet had a serious probability of suffering heavy losses at Midway. The admirals refused to believe it. You know the rest.

Which, for this discussion sake, could be translated with "that you could use fighters in an unconventional way was predicted, but someone refused to believe it; we know the rest."

It's a fact of human nature that, when offered a hard way and an easy way of doing something, we'll usually pick the latter. Even if the former is the right way. This is all the more true in the case of non-seasoned Harpoon players still learning the ropes and not having sufficinet experience to tell the legit real-life tactic from a shenanigan that would likely land its real-life practitioner either a court-martial or a hasty grave.

But, again, what in the largely unproved field of modern naval theory can be considered "legit"? We are not talking about exploiting a simplification of the game engine, here, but about using assets given to you within the laws of the physical world. Countless books have been written about theory, doctrine et all, often confuting and disproving each other. If there is one thing that a simulation like Harpoon should allow, it is experimentation in a largely debatable field.

And again, the critical point is not the act of doing it on one's own. Privacy is sacrosanct. It is the act of telling everyone within earshot "Hey kids! By using this "clever" trick you can beat that tough scenario that's been giving you nightmares until now!". To use a consciously over-the-top analogy, it's the difference between using an illegal drug and trafficking it.

Again, it is not the condemnation of “cheating” that we are debating, but the definition of what is defined “cheating” within the context of H3. And, sorry, but having different opinions about doctrine is very different than exploiting weaknesses in the game system – or we would have an AI perfectly programmed to follow one chosen doctrine playing the game for us.

A serious designer has enough in his hands already, refining the scenario to real-life conditions.

Real-life conditions, I might add, that for the vast majority of the scenarios written for H3 are actually imagined, interpreted and/or and defined by the designer, since only a few of them recreate real-life episodes which can allow a reality check with what actually happened. In the “reality” of “Red Storm Rising”, for example, the Russians mauled a Carrier Task Force by doing something out of the blue, and “not in the books”, and I think that Larry Bond (who co-authored the book) thought about it as a neat trick.

Charging him with the additional responsibility of imagining every little trick the player _may_ come up with and writing it on a "For God's sake DON'T DO THIS, in a real war that will likely get you dead or court-martialled!!!"

Again, there is a grey area in the definition of “little trick”, since one could define the very same action as a “brilliant idea”. And history is full of people who lose because the other side did something truly unexpected.

But using ScenEdit before playing the scen, to peek at dispositions and strategy? Using unlimited air ordinance when the designer _explicitly_ states that Air Logistics should be enabled? Knowingly doing things that would earn you a firing squad in real life? (e.g. sending pilots to certain doom in a sitaution other than "grave-danger-to-motherland-we-all-sacrifice-ourselves"). Sorry, but I cannot put this in the same category.

But it is not what is being discussed here. What we are discussing is if using unconventional tactics can be associated with “cheating”, and about who is the final judge regarding what can be defined “unrealistic” in a mostly theoretical field.

BTW, should Spain win the scenario, the political victory would be enormous, and the dead pilots would receive posthumous medals and commendations for their “heroic and decisive sacrifice”, IMHO

 

[emsoy]

BTW, should Spain win the scenario, the political victory would be enormous, and the dead pilots would receive posthumous medals and commendations for their “heroic and decisive sacrifice”, IMHO

Okay..... maybe that is what the history books would have said.

But what they didn't say was that the commanding officer (you) was taken away and shot for his incompetence?

Within that context, is it still a valid tactic?

__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

 

[Reckall]

Okay..... maybe that is what the history books would have said.

But the commanding officer (you) would have been taken away and shot for your incompetence?

For *winning* a decisive military (and political) battle against England??? O____o

 

[emsoy]

For *winning* a decisive military (and political) battle against England??? O____o

Man...


:nuts: :nuts: :nuts: :dead:


I'm outa here.






__________________________________________________
The Harpoon HeadQuarters: By the Players, For the Players
http://www.harpoonhq.com

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

A realists perspective (ergo a woman's)

War is War.
Its not nice and no one will ever say in combat face to face with the enemy "no, no, your turn, you shoot first, i'll wait".
You use what ever means you have at your disposal to minimise losses and cause maximum damage in line with your goal. Unconventional tactics in the past have created war heroes that we now fete. I am no expert but tactics are indifferent, it's alright to say "cheat" when you are on the losing end.

Jim's Fiancee

 

[Sunburn]

Let's see......on one hand, I'm extremely tempted to respond to that......

...but on the other hand, I stated that I'll respect James' call for giving it up.

Ah, choices, choices :cheeky:

 

[Secret Agent]

That's OK. People respect those who keep their word.

Just a comment...if an AAR was done in a slightly different manner than intended (e.g. settings were changed), maybe the author could put AAR: NAME (Modified) or something, and everyone would be happy. Personally, I like experimenting with the "what ifs," especially if it is a "fair fight" (i.e. I don't have more firepower than the enemy :devil: ).

 

[CV32]

Man... :nuts: :nuts: :nuts: :dead:
I'm outa here.

There's not much that needs to be said in response to that. The content of this thread speaks for itself.

As a longtime Harpooner, I don't see any "cheating" here. Its really a poor word to be used in the context of a single-player naval warfare simulation. Everybody plays the game differently. If someone exploits a deficiency in the model in order to win a scenario, they "cheat" only themselves. But if they use a non-textbook or unexpected tactic, or engage in asymmetric warfare, for example, is that "cheating" ? I really don't think so, and its just silly to try and dictate their manner of gameplay.

As a fairly prolific Harpoon scenario writer, I likewise don't see any insult to the author if a player tries something new that I didn't anticipate when I wrote the scenario. Everybody designs scenarios and writes AAR's differently. I cannot honestly expect each player to play my scenario exactly the same way, or stay explicitly within the strict confines that I have set up. Instead, I look forward to the AAR he will hopefully write, so that I can see where and how he viewed the scenario differently than I did. And, hopefully, everybody enjoys the experience.

Herman is perhaps the most prolific writer of After Action Reports (AARs) that the Harpoon community has ever seen. I know for a fact that many scenario writers (being one of them) are grateful for it. He should be encouraged, not denigrated, or dictated to. I enjoy his AARs, and I'm confident the overwhelming majority of Harpooners and non-Harpooners alike feel the same way.

 

[VCDH]

As another long term member, I have been watching this thread with intrest.

But not that much intrest. However I feel compelled to post about this. Before I start I want to make it clear that I'm speaking for myself and NOT for the HHQ or AGSI.

The trick to writing good AARs is to portray the action during the scenario without giving anything away. To this affect Herman has done a good job in this. I'm not going to comment on the quality of the writing because I'm no better. And I'm not an English Prof

As for the 'cheating' issue. Vince and Dimitris are both correct after a fashion IMHO. This isn't a FPS like Counter-Strike where cheating is easily detected and dealt with accordingly. Cheating is a rather broad issue that I don't think really applies here because of the type of game and style of playing. If Herman went into the scenario editor before he played this scenario to find out how he could defeat the game then yes it's cheating. At the same time, there are difficulty levels that some players might consider cheating because of the amount of information that it gives the player. However, it would be wrong to expect all players to begin at the expert level. This is perhaps (???) what JMS is refering too when he posts about being told how to play.

As for myself, I will play a scenario in SP and if I have questions about the scenario (as I usually do) then I will dive into the scenario editor to answer my question. Most often the question I have is a variant of "WTF did he come from?". Some people may consider this cheating. Others won't.

So it truly is a gray area.

I think it should be up to the scenario author to determine if player actions in a scenario constitute cheating.

As for the comments about tactics, it is trivial nitpicking. The fact that someone plays Harpoon doesn't mean that they have Vego's 'Soviet Naval Tactics' or Hughes 'Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat' next to them ready for instant reference. I have Fleet Tactics but I rarely refer to it and never use it when playing because each situtation is different. There will never be a game that is a text book battle, and this especially applies to a computer game like Harpoon3 which may or may not reflect real life in an accurate manner. Textbooks, like regulations, are there for the guidance of the individual commander and should not be strictly adhered to because no regulation will fully cover all situtations.

Finally, Jim's fiancee is correct in that it's war. And that there is only one rule in war. Win. It doesn't matter how you win as long as you do so. As far as I am concerned, as long as that victory doesn't involve making ships disappear using the delete command or some other form of digital modification then it's legal.....for single player.

Of course when MP comes out (we have one bug to address and then we're going Open Beta BTW), this issue is going to have to be addressed. Espically regarding exploits in the various scenarios and DBs.

What a load of tripe! Once again, are only people who have played and designed in Harpoon for 10+ year allowed to have an opinion? guess I didn't check the licensing agreement...

Ok that is simply not true. We entertain all kinds of people on our forum (I am refering to the HHQ forums, but I'm sure Jim will agree with me regarding this forum as well). If people do not wish to post for whatever reason then we can't force them to do so.

Just like the game.... :cheeky:

Of course we can't help them if they choose not to post either. The most stupid question is the one that is never asked.

Later
Dale Hillier
<speaking for himself in this case>