Is this bad sportsmanship in FoW? (different issue)

by **william.paul** on Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:32 pm

I don't think communicating such things is poor form at all. Just remember to follow Wheaton's law while doing it.

Actually, just follow Wheaton's law in general and everything should be alright.

by **mkcummins** on Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:29 pm

The Cheat wrote:If the condition of the game is FoW, then the participants should respect this condition and not reveal information that breaks the conditional. If one holds a view of diplomacy or sportsmanship that requires the breaking of this conditional, then perhaps that person should stick to playing sunny games. Call it a rule, call it a condition, call it whatever you want to ... if one point of playing a foggy match is remain shrouded under fog, then it is, in fact, poor form to reveal the locations of others, even if it can be deduced from the log. It should be obvious to everyone who plays this game that reading the log and calculating your next move based on the information you are given (FoW or not) is the baseline for good strategy, on par with looking at the map.

I agree with the sentiment that it is good strategy to mislead the locations of others in a FoW match, but if everyone would actually abide (Dude!) to the condition of FoW, then it would be pointless to provide location information in an attempt to mislead others since everyone would immediately recognize it as misleading information.

I prefer FoW because most do abide to this conditional, and it makes the triumph or treachery more meaningful and significant. Playing sunny gets boring when everyone can see what ought to happen on the board next for their survival/chance at victory. I'll make the argument that FoW requires more strategy and sportsmanship because, when given less information, more must be done to ensure your rate of success.

l8r

nothing to add to this. perfectly said.

and if any newer players aspire to ever elevating their game to a level that's on par with, or good enough to be in, a clan then you'll want to adopt and abide by this "unwritten" rule.

if you're just here to point, click, and blow stuff up then none of this really applies to you anyway.

by T7 on Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:57 pm

I've gotta start signing up for FoW games again because I want to see more people crying about an "unwritten" rule that doesn't exist!! Ho ho!! Good times.

"Unwritten" rule is pure comedy gold. You can have a preference, but there is no rule saying we can't talk about what's going on in the map in FoW - just as there is no rule that you're not allowed to bring your pink flower guns with you and cry about your made-up rules being broken.

by **I_AM_BOGEY** on Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:13 pm

squishyg wrote:I think it is bad sportsmanship, even though it's available in the log. I think a classier way to handle it is by drawing attention to the log in a more general way. For example, "by golly! I'm seeing some big numbers in the log!"

I agree 100%. I am a fan of silent FOW games, just my opinion. I like to play my game and would prefer if people played their own. Not saying I am right, just my preference. I was in a game where me and 1 other player were strong and the 3rd was weak. I was battling with the strong player who kept breaking my bonus. After 4 or 5 rounds, I held him off and he proceeded to tell the third player that he needed to go break my bonus as he came up short. The other player would not have figured that out by just the log. True, his "diplomacy" won him the game and I thought it was a dirty move, plain and simple.

by **yourientete** on Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:50 am

It is your responsibility to win the game, whatever others players do or say. If you lose, you've conducted your soldiers to defeat.

by **liamrisksmart** on Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:40 pm

no rules against it, as far as i know. the only reason it is frowned upon is because some cranks want to play a game their way and feel like you can be blamed if they are impacted negatively. Key point is you are entitled to play the game as you wish. if you think its to your advantage go for it and shout out every territory/owner/troop count you want.
You are only being a bad sport if you do it to intentionally annoy somebody or in spite.

What is more, you can do it and rate players fairly by leaving a negative rating if they react badly to your 'fair' game chat.

I know this opinion will upset many players here but fact is that if they want to play their way, they should petition to administration for a game option with the rules they wish to play specificly, or for a blanket ban on giving away positions.

just for the record, i prefare when positions are not given away on game chat, but as any intelligent person is aware to change your sense of right and wrong for what you personally prefare is wrong.

by **The Cheat** on Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:54 pm

Wallyz32 wrote:"then the participants should respect this condition and not reveal information that breaks the condition.'

Respect the condition? The condition exists, regardless of whether you discuss location of troops in the comments.
You have to demonstrate how discussing coordinated attacks in the comments is unsportsmanlike.
Your argument here gets to the crux of the matter: "...If the point of playing a foggy match is remain shrouded under fog, then it is, in fact, poor form to reveal the locations of others, even if it can be deduced from the log. "

It is not the point to remain shrouded in the fog. The point is to win the game. Fog is a condition of the battle. By your logic, people should avoid getting bonuses in no spoils games, because the point of no spoils is to excessive accumulations of troops. Alliances in 8 person games are unsportsmanlike because its easier to win when everybody fights everybody else.

The central question for this dispute is whether open diplomacy is part of the game. It's should be obvious that it is.

Wallyz32, it should be obvious to you that the point is to win the game, with the conditions of the game. If one of them is fog, the point is to win the game and adhere to that condition (same applies to spoils, excessive amounts of troops, and diplomacy between players who can see each other ... your brand of logic is poor form too:)

by **Frued1** on Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:03 am

The Cheat wrote:
Wallyz32, it should be obvious to you that the point is to win the game, with the conditions of the game. If one of them is fog, the point is to win the game and adhere to that condition (same applies to spoils, excessive amounts of troops, and diplomacy between players who can see each other ... your brand of logic is poor form too:)

By this logic, truces or in-game alliances are also poor form. If you want to team, join a team game. There is a certain level of trust or mistrust when revealing someone's position in FoW games, just as there is in making a truce, alliance, border alliance, etc. If you think about it, you are really at more of a disadvantage because just as making alliances in individual games, it all must be in public chat. It is a risk revealing another player's position because not only do others know the information you have, but you also potentially made yourself a target. Just as making an alliance in individual games may make you a target (and in team games you at least have private team chat, which is illegal in individual games lol).

I can respect those who don't believe in giving away positions, troop movements, etc in FoW games, but hopefully those people can respect that it is a valid strategy. It may suck, just like playing a 6 man game and having 5 people ally against you sucks, but it is a valid strategy and not against the rules (nor is it poor sportsmanship, it just feels like it when you are on the losing end...). In fact, it adds more of a challenge to the game because you have to make sure that if you do have something to hide, you rely on more than the settings of the board to do so....

by **The Cheat** on Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:46 pm

No, they are not ... a truce or lack thereof isn't a condition of the game. The point is to win within the parameters and conditions set for the given match. If one is fog, then let it be foggy. Respect that. But that doesn't mean one doesn't employ diplomacy or alliance to dominate the game. I respect others whether or not they believe it is kosher to give away position, troop movement, etc in FoW games ... I just don't respect the act of doing it. It's not within the condition of the game, and I completely disagree that it is a valid strategy (be it against the rules or not). Win, within the conditions of the game. If you can't play within those conditions, play matches where you can. While I completely agree with your last statement, the fact remains that if someone reveals information about you in a foggy match and people decide to act on it, one better be in a position to refute the attack if there is even a mere hope of survival (let alone victory) from that point forward. The same is not the case if folks live within the conditions of the games that they participate in.

by T7 on Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:24 pm

Incorrect. I'm quite certain the condition of the FoW game includes a chat box. It's most certainly there.

Personally, I'd like to see a FoW option to turn the chat box on or off in game set-up. I think that's the only way to keep the people who follow their own imaginary rules happy.

by **KraphtOne** on Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:43 pm

I don't do it, kind cheap to me...

I also don't tell people "hey he's in barbarian because he's cashed and got a plus 2 and i know he's not in imp or northern plains"...

but i mean... some people read the log some don't...

by **yourientete** on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:13 am

I understand that some people don't like the use of game chat in fog of war. I understand. But the fact that some don't like it doesn't make it bad sportmanship.

by **Frued1** on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:33 am

The Cheat wrote:No, they are not ... a truce or lack thereof isn't a condition of the game. The point is to win within the parameters and conditions set for the given match. If one is fog, then let it be foggy. Respect that. But that doesn't mean one doesn't employ diplomacy or alliance to dominate the game. I respect others whether or not they believe it is kosher to give away position, troop movement, etc in FoW games ... I just don't respect the act of doing it. It's not within the condition of the game, and I completely disagree that it is a valid strategy (be it against the rules or not). Win, within the conditions of the game. If you can't play within those conditions, play matches where you can. While I completely agree with your last statement, the fact remains that if someone reveals information about you in a foggy match and people decide to act on it, one better be in a position to refute the attack if there is even a mere hope of survival (let alone victory) from that point forward. The same is not the case if folks live within the conditions of the games that they participate in.

I just don't see how you can consider FoW a condition but not individual rather than team games. Same thing in my opinion.

by **anonymus** on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:47 am

hey i out people in villages in feudal every now and again.. in my mind if you are stupid enough to take a village (or do another obvious move) you deserve that people know..
part of the game..
/ :?:

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:43 am

I remember an argument from another topic about Fog of War. I think it went something like this:

Those who see anything as fair game within FoW, often tend to see not using any information/tactic to their game-benefit, as poor sportsmanship---in the sense they are not giving you the best effort they can muster as your opponent to win the game. To play halfheartedly in their eyes, the argument went, is to be a poor sportsman (I.E. you should give it your all).

Those who see certain types of tactics/information off limits for FoW games tend to have configured a different definition of poor sportsmanship.

In the end, as usual, I think it comes down to definitional issues at the individual level.

--Andy

by **The Cheat** on Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:33 am

When one starts a game, the creator is given many options ... conditions for the game he or she wishes to start.

For example, a game can be:

- automatic or manual
- sequential or freestyle
- spoils can be escalating, flat, nuclear, or nonexistent
- reinforcements can be chained, adjacent, or unlimited
- it can be sunny or foggy
- casual or speed

The game log, game chat, and diplomacy are conditions of all matches, so they aren't really part of this conversation. Apples and oranges, as they say. All of these conditions, save one, requires competitors to oblige by the conditions of their match (for most, if one doesn't; they lose). Yet, for some reason, keeping a foggy match foggy is left up for debate? That is entirely illogical.

Certainly, people are entitled to hold illogical opinions. But I couldn't respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree more.

The solution isn't to remove the game log or chat ... the solution would be to include not revealing the location, troop movement, information of others, etc. as a general rule (for all matches). Why it is not a rule is perhaps as mysterious as the number of licks it takes Mr. Owl to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop.

Good day!

by T7 on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:07 pm

Cheat, you present your debate like it is pure logic itself which is so strange to read since you are defending a totally made-up rule.

When I play assassin games, I find it completely unsportsmanlike for people to use the chat... because what sort of assassin would chat to other assassins during a hit?

Likewise, when I play FoW games, I know every war has mis-information put out by the enemy in both directions. Are you saying that we *shouldn't* replicate the concept of the fog of war?

This boils down to:

If you want to constrain your play by following your own made-up rules, you are welcome to - but leave the cry-baby flower-gun whining at home about other people playing by the actual real rules.

by **Frued1** on Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:01 pm

The Cheat wrote:When one starts a game, the creator is given many options ... conditions for the game he or she wishes to start.

For example, a game can be:

- automatic or manual
- sequential or freestyle
- spoils can be escalating, flat, nuclear, or nonexistent
- reinforcements can be chained, adjacent, or unlimited
- it can be sunny or foggy
- casual or speed

The game log, game chat, and diplomacy are conditions of all matches, so they aren't really part of this conversation. Apples and oranges, as they say. All of these conditions, save one, requires competitors to oblige by the conditions of their match (for most, if one doesn't; they lose). Yet, for some reason, keeping a foggy match foggy is left up for debate? That is entirely illogical.

Certainly, people are entitled to hold illogical opinions. But I couldn't respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree more.

The solution isn't to remove the game log or chat ... the solution would be to include not revealing the location, troop movement, information of others, etc. as a general rule (for all matches). Why it is not a rule is perhaps as mysterious as the number of licks it takes Mr. Owl to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop.

Good day!

I think you are conveniently leaving out some options:

Number of players:
Game Type: Standard Terminator Assassin Doubles Triples Quadruples
Map:

3 versions of individual games, 3 versions of team games....

Interesting how you can use part of the information to form a "logical" argument....use all of the information and we are back to comparing apples to apples. I guess it's just more widely accepted to do border alliances, X-turn truces, etc in individual games but it's really not that different from chatting about troop placements and movements in fog of war.

Note:

Under Game Options in instructions--# of players then map. Then Game Type. Let's take a look:

"In a standard game each player fends for himself and there is only one winner."
"To play a team game, try doubles, triples and quadruples."

Seems that alliances would be in direct contradiction in individual games.

"The fog of war masks enemy positions that are not adjacent to your forces (or your team's forces). It also masks region and zone names in the log."

I see nothing about not revealing other positions, just about positions being masked from your adjacent forces. So chatting about troop movements can be equated to a border alliance, X turn truce, etc. It's teaming in a way in an individual game, but instead of teaming with someone it is more like teaming against someone. I am not advocating for either, just pointing out that if you respect one, you should respect the other because they are the same (although I still hold that informal or temporary truces, alliances, etc are more in direct contradiction to the conditions than revealing chat in FoW games)

by **Renee_W** on Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:29 pm

The arguments about it not being poor sportsmanship because it's not against the rules totally fail to grasp the concept of sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is a community consensus of what additional conditions beyond the rules are required for a "fair" challenge. Sportsmanship/honor/fairness exist or have existed in nearly every activity where humans have competed including war. It's certainly within the rules to tell positions just like it's within the rules of war to shoot from the trees. But currently there is a solid argument that community consensus exists to make it unsporting just like it used to be considered dishonorable to shoot from the trees. Your welcome to make arguments that what's considered good sportsmanship in FoW should change(and it might), you're welcome to play as you please(and your opponents are welcome to rate you for cheap tactics) but to argue that anything within the rules is good sportsmanship is an argument of pure ignorance.

by **40kguy** on Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:45 pm

after playing a lot of fog of war games its very very easy to learn how to read the log. Like honestly i can play you in any map and tell you what bonus you have. There might be an occasional brain buster, but honestly its not hard at all. Now if your playing an 8 player game and fog and you give away a region, that is cheap, but what you do, no its not cheap.

by **AndyDufresne** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:44 am

Renee_W wrote:...but to argue that anything within the rules is good sportsmanship is an argument of pure ignorance.

I'd agree with this statement, which is why a few posts ago I posted an older argument from another topic that I recalled about FoW and how an individual views sportsmanship as giving their opponent their best shot to win.

--Andy

by **SirSebstar** on Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:52 am

Lets bring this back on topic as defined by the OP.
Is relaying information that is more or less clearly visible (like someone getting an auto-deploy of 3 in feudal therefore he has a village) bad sportsmanship on FOW. The OP thinks the majority of the people have said that relaying tactical information is poor sportsmanship. Although I'd like to content that statement, it falls within the group of players who concur with his view to argue whether or not chatting about information in the log that is accessible by all is also bad sportsmanship.

I think that if you feel displaying bordering stacks and locations is not nice in FOG, then adding, (read clarifying/explaining) what is in the log would most likely also be regarded the same. Again I do not support that view, but it seems to make sense to me based on previously expressed views.

by **yourientete** on Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:14 am

AndyDufresne wrote:
Renee_W wrote:...but to argue that anything within the rules is good sportsmanship is an argument of pure ignorance.

I'd agree with this statement, which is why a few posts ago I posted an older argument from another topic that I recalled about FoW and how an individual views sportsmanship as giving their opponent their best shot to win.

--Andy

but one behavior is not bad sportmanship just because you don't like that !

by **SirSebstar** on Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:58 am

yourientete wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
Renee_W wrote:...but to argue that anything within the rules is good sportsmanship is an argument of pure ignorance.

I'd agree with this statement, which is why a few posts ago I posted an older argument from another topic that I recalled about FoW and how an individual views sportsmanship as giving their opponent their best shot to win.

--Andy

but one behavior is not bad sportmanship just because you don't like that !

actually yes it is.
In sports there are various tactics you can use, like the dutch kicking players in the face instead of in the balls.... eh instead of the ball....
Some might be allowed, but even if it is allowed, it is unsportsmanlike. It is sporting to negate advantages that might be percieved as unfairish and proceed from there to see who is the strongest.
Providing information in fog is usefull legal but unsportmanslike, if done to gain an advantage and sportmanslike if not done to gain an advantage but simply help the other party involved.
e.g. the CLA's 12 hour fog rules where you denote the areas taken in turn one if you joined last and get to start first.

all in all, i think there is too much talk here. It should better be spend on playing the game, but yea, i am one of those who thinks fog is interresting, and talking is a good way to influence a player, so more chance for me to win = good

by **Metsfanmax** on Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:49 pm

Renee_W wrote:The arguments about it not being poor sportsmanship because it's not against the rules totally fail to grasp the concept of sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is a community consensus of what additional conditions beyond the rules are required for a "fair" challenge. Sportsmanship/honor/fairness exist or have existed in nearly every activity where humans have competed including war. It's certainly within the rules to tell positions just like it's within the rules of war to shoot from the trees.

All of this is exactly right...

But currently there is a solid argument that community consensus exists to make it unsporting just like it used to be considered dishonorable to shoot from the trees.

...but this is entirely wrong. Based on this thread alone, you couldn't even say that the majority of people who have voiced their opinion believe it's unsportsmanlike to share that information; forget having anything close to a consensus.