How much should be forgiven?

[Young Grasshopper]

It states in the rules that it is the responsibility of everyone to point out convoy disruptions (even if it is against your own power). That’s fine, however some think that this curtesy should be extended to include obvious mistakes by the enemy before their turn ends. I think we can all agree that allowing your enemy to collect their income, place their units or even deploy a unit out of turn sequence, is the gentleman thing to do as you yourself will surly need the same treatment, but where does it end?. If your US fleet enters the sea zone off Tokyo, are you obligated to remind Japan to use their Kamakaze attack? If your enemy left 7 defenseless transports in a sea zone that your sub or bomber could reach, would you tell him before his turn ended?.

I believe that one of the greatest attributes of becoming a good A&A player is to minimize your mistakes. Personally I would prefer not to be told about blatant errors because I would rather lose my units and learn from the experience. On the opposite side of the coin, I don’t feel as though it is my responsibility to point out the mistakes of my opponent, especially if I need a break in a war I am losing. Some my say that I am not really winning by playing that way.

Example: when I was playing the allies last weekend, I left 3 full defenseless transports in a sea zone that I thought was safe, well my enemy didn’t say anything and I lost them to a lone sub I didn’t see. Later my opponent left 3 strategic bombers alone on an empty west Germany. I landed 4 land units and wiped them out. In both cases, neither of us blamed the other for not warning us about our mistakes, to us that’s just the fortunes of war. Personally I don’t understand why I should remind my opponents to attack my convoys, but I will obey any rule thats a real rule. The question is more about the unwriten rules that some feel are the gentelman rules. Are my games played with bad ediquete or is all fair in love and war?

[captainhook]

I most definitely believe that people should behave in a gentlemanly manner, meaning that, as you said, I see no problem in someone changing their purchases half way through the combat movement phase (as long as no combat resolution has taken place), placing his units during a turn that his not his, if he forgot, ect… That just makes the game easier for everyone. Also, if we miscounted IPC, we do change the total, both in favour of against a player, EXCEPT for convoy disruptions. If one forgets to remind his enemy not to lose income from convoys, it is his own fault.

Regarding letting people know their mistakes, I think it is fair to warn the other person when he is about to make a clear game-changing mistake.

For example: Thinking that american troops are out of Japan’s reach, the Japanese player leave the Island barely defended.

For smaller mistakes, like the ones you described, players have to live with it. However, if I feel that I have the upper hand in the game, I will tell my opponent, because I don’t want them complaining later.

Furthermore, as I said in another topic, it is common within our games that I player will ask things like “we are all in agreement that no planes can reach these transports?!”, as it is often hard to see absolutely every hidden fighter on the board, without taking 10 minutes of everyone’s time to do so.

[Young Grasshopper]

I agree totally with forgiving what I call “common blunders” which are the classic, “sorry but I forgot to”……However, if Japan leaves their capital open and I have a large US fleet within range, I’m sorry but I’m on that like a beaver on a hydro pole. If you were playing chess for 9 hours and your opponent made a move that would allow you to announce “check mate” would you warn him not to, in order to continue the game? I wouldn’t.

[JimmyHat]

I guess it depends on what your goal is in playing the game.  Is it to win?  Or is it to get better?  I play to improve my game, so I appreciate when my opponent points out my mistakes and I try to do the same.  It is the same along the lines of cheating.

So you can cheat, and possibly win the game.  I’d rather win the game with superior strategy, cheating cheapens the win.  For this reason we will usually find easy fixes, so for instance we would try and find a way to save those German bombers, either by changing where they land or more likely changing German’s placement so that they have 2 inf or so in WGerm.

[Young Grasshopper]

@JimmyHat:

I guess it depends on what your goal is in playing the game.  Is it to win?  Or is it to get better?  I play to improve my game, so I appreciate when my opponent points out my mistakes and I try to do the same.  It is the same along the lines of cheating.

So you can cheat, and possibly win the game.  I’d rather win the game with superior strategy, cheating cheapens the win.  For this reason we will usually find easy fixes, so for instance we would try and find a way to save those German bombers, either by changing where they land or more likely changing German’s placement so that they have 2 inf or so in WGerm.

I understand if you disagree with how I play the game but calling it cheating is just not accurate. Cheating is when you break rules, and there are no rules that say , I have to make players aware of their mistakes (apart from the formentioned convoy rule).

[JimmyHat]

It is the same as cheating, but it is not cheating.

But when cheating, you are bending the rules in order to win.  Winning is the ultimate goal of cheating.  I play for a tough game, I don’t want to win because my opponent made a mistake.  In fact I’d rather lose knowing I made no mistakes then win because of an error of my opponent.

[Young Grasshopper]

I play in 3 different games per month with 3 different groups, and we all play the same way as I mentioned in my posts above, and no one has ever had a problem with it, and no has ever accused each other of cheating. I will ask my groups formally if it is an issue and if we should point out big mistakes. Is there any one out there who agrees with me on this issue?

[Shakespeare]

If you make a mistake, you make a mistake and you live with it.

I’ve made plenty of mistakes or oversights in Axis & Allies and I expect that the other players will pounce on them.

Occasionally as we play if I pick up on something, I’ll point it out.

But I also expect to pay the price if I make an error.

That’s what makes me a better player.

In these marathon games, if you falter becz of your tiredness then too bad.

That’s part of the game too. Endurance. Attentiveness over time.

But, I expect the same right back at me.

So long as you are consistent with this then fine!

But I am not going to point out “errors” “blunders”; that’s part of the game. For me too.

Forgetful stuff like not moving that tank from South Africa towards Egypt, no problem.

But not seeing that my 8 bombers from France can sink your US fleet off Spain, No Way!

I’ve done that and it cost me the game, I did not blame the Germans.

[Young Grasshopper]

Thank you Shakespeare, I was beginning to think that I was in the twilight zone. In a nut shell, I think that we both agree, that making a mistake and paying for it dearly makes you a more improved player than, being forgiven immediately and moving on. I remember when I made a huge mistake that cost my whole team the game, but I learned a great deal from it and won my next game convincingly playing the same power. I would never have wanted to be treated with baby gloves and allowed to reverse my blunder, because a win wouldn’t have felt like a win if we were given game saving advice from the enemy.

[Jennifer]

If your opponent’s mistake is going to alter the course of the game significantly, then I feel it is good sportsmanship to warn them.

For example:  Italy has 62 IPC in the bank and does not build units in S. Italy (leaving it bare.)  They failed to notice that the French infantry in Syria can take Jordan and open the Suez canal.  Since Germany has no units in place to close it again, the 4 British Transports in SZ 81 (with control of Egypt) can sneak in and take S. Italy.  I would warn my opponent in this case.

For example:  Japan lands 2 strategic bombers on Java.  America is able to open an attack route for Australia and Australia can hit this with a transport in SZ 62.  There are no other units in Java but the two strategic bombers and no naval ships to prevent an unescorted transport from landing troops there.  This is a grey area.  If Japan has a winning stance on the board, I probably would not warn them, if they are getting their butt kicked, I would probably warn them.

For example:  Italy leaves a destroyer picket for the German fleet.  Russia has a submarine that can attack this destroyer allowing the Allied navy to sink the German fleet and invade W. Germany.  I would not warn my opponent in this regard.  1)  It is not a capitol.  2)  It’s the Red Oktober man!  Give it a job function of some value!  3)  Can Opening is a standard practice in the game, players should be more than aware of this.

Essentially, I think, it all boils down to:

1)  Are you winning or losing?  If you are winning, then there is no harm in warning your opponent.  If you are losing, there is still no harm, but you might want to take advantage of some smaller mistakes.
2)  How big is the mistake?  No one wants to win because Germany didn’t defend Berlin enough to stop a solitary Russian transport from taking it.  Then again, if your main goal is to have America invade Japan and the Japanese forget a path into SZ 6, then you might want to rub salt into that wound.
3)  Do you want to play this person again in the future?  Hey, you might scoff, but no one wants to feel cheated and animosity can effect future game play.

[Young Grasshopper]

Ok, so there may be some gray areas, and I think it matters more if the players are the same experience level rather than, 1 game being lopsided or not. However, the thing about leaving a capital bare, and warning them that they have done so, is really baking my noodle. Are you saying that after Hittler tours Paris and after Germany pounds England during sealion, capturing London, that the US is suppose to ignore it’s victory condition of taking every axis capital. I’m sorry, but in this case Germany has taken two of my capitals and I’m not going to let them off the hook, I don’t care if its 1 infantry against my 50 fighters and 2 tanks. If they were smart enough to successfully implement sealion, surly they can use all that money and defend their own capital.

[Gargantua]

A good trick I use, is to ask an opposing player,  “Is it possible for you to capture my capital?  Or sink these transports For example?”

Either they have to LIE to your face, which some people can’t do. Or say whats possible,  and at the same time, both you and they usually check all possibilities regardless at that point.

In a gentleman’s game that’s how it’s done anyways.  And if you don’t ask - than you might receive :P

[Young Grasshopper]

@Gargantua:

A good trick I use, is to ask an opposing player,  “Is it possible for you to capture my capital?  Or sink these transports For example?”

Either they have to LIE to your face, which some people can’t do. Or say whats possible,  and at the same time, both you and they usually check all possibilities regardless at that point.

In a gentleman’s game that’s how it’s done anyways.  And if you don’t ask - than you might receive :P

You must be one hell of a poker player.

[Jay]

I take advantage of mistakes . But I always forgive minor missed things. LIke moving a space or such . Me and my friends ask “if anything can atttack these pieces” questions . Bottom line is I want to win because of good strategy and solid play not because of a stupid mistake.  Would i warn someone they under defended their capitol , depends how expierieced they are . We usually warn no one unless they ask for help reading the bored then questions are answered as honestly as we see. In one on one it’s a lot to look at .

[Jennifer]

Oh, I forgot to mention, in a tournament or league game, your toast!  I am NOT warning you in those games even if you do something REALLY stupid.  It’s for prestige anyway, not for fun at that point.

[Dylan the Canadian]

Everyone’s way too nice. If they do something stupid that bastard has to pay for it. If they leave stupid things open, they die.  :evil:

[Young Grasshopper]

Wow, such different views, I should have attached a poll to this thread.

[suprise attack]

Some of our players will ask the question “is there any way for you to hit this spot with your Boats,Planes,Tanks,etc.” or we’ll ask are you sure you want to do that? Then there are times when you gather up your teammate’s and have a conference in the other room.
   One reason why I like at least 2 on 2 is that you have someone who might notice something that you may have overlooked.
   One of the best way’s to learn is by loosing  like our first or second Global ALPHA+2 games and Russia bought a small Navy that had a Transport in it and Germany wasn’t paying attention and we had a reset pretty quick that night, and ya know what nobody on our board has ever made that mistake since that night
  I’ve noticed on our boards that if you have a win steak going (at least 4 games in a row) sometimes your teammate will point out where to attack you or try to convince them that your a better target than they are.
     Good luck and find the hot dice

[Young Grasshopper]

@suprise:

Some of our players will ask the question “is there any way for you to hit this spot with your Boats,Planes,Tanks,etc.”

When one team asks this question, is it expected that the other team participate fully in the answer every time it is asked?

[cts17]

It can’t be used as a crutch. You need to be aware of the board. My group will never point out mistakes as they’re being made, especially if it’s a juicy mistake like a lone strategic bomber that can be nailed, or can openers that can be hit.

We generally make our opponents think about their moves, especially in these cases, when we ask them if they’re sure if that’s a good move. We also think aloud about the consequences, and if he’s thinking that nothing can hit his unit when there is, we will ‘straighten’ out their thoughts.

But if they’re not thinking about it, it is a logistical game that encompasses the entire world, so our “intelligence reports” are only given when they’re being brought up by the opponent.