Cheating or just bad at game.

@CWO:

I once read a book about tabletop wargaming (the kind that uses painted miniatures) in which the author made an interesting comment about player honesty. He said that in his experience of wargaming, which is extensive, he’s found that dedicated wargamers are ingenious and resourceful people who will sometimes find imaginative ways to push the rules to their limits…but that they would be horrified by the notion of actually cheating. Hardcore gamers are able to appreciate a dangerously clever opponent who does unexpected things, as long as they’re done honestly, but nobody wants to play with a cheat. �

I can totally identify with this, I was defending Sydney from a Japanese landing one game years ago. I scrambled 1 fighter to negate 4 bombardments which helped me save my capital with 3 units left. The game went on for about a half hour at which time I realized that I made a mistake and couldn’t have scrambled due to the fact that there was no airbase on Sydney. No one else saw this but me, and even though I could lose the game… I hardly hesitated when I said to everyone “we have to reroll the Sydney battle”. I guess Karma was on my side for being honest as I rolled amazing and still saved Sydney  :-)

“Hardcore gamers are able to appreciate a dangerously clever opponent who does unexpected things, as long as they’re done honestly”

This should be the A&A code among gamers… not only can we appreciate a dangerously clever opponent, but we can become one ourselves… cheating robs us of that honor.

@Young:

cheating robs us of that honor.

Well said.  A victory that’s earned honestly is satisfying in ways that a dishonest victory can’t deliver.  Winning by cheating is basically the gaming equivalent of consuming empty calories.  It’s a bit like that line in Citizen Kane in which Mr. Bernstein scoffs at Mr Thompson’s reference to Mr. Thatcher, a deceased Wall Street tycoon: “Thatcher? That man was the biggest darn fool I ever met!”  Mr. Thompson notes that Mr. Thatcher made a lot of money, to which Mr. Bernstein replies, “Well, there’s no trick to making a lot of money…if all you want out of life is to make a lot of money.”

we always announce our builds and put them in the middle of Russia or the south atlantic(depending what side of the board you are on) so that everyone has a chance to see & count the IPCs.  I also use paper money that is put into the bank and announce any change remaining after the buy.  I’d suggest doing that in the future so you dont have to ask these kinds of questions

another thing that we do when we are chipping units out is announce what we are doing as we do it IE, i say"Removing 5 units" (show them in my palm) then, “and placing a red”… (then place the red chip down)  We all trust each other and could do it silently but this saves people from having to stop anyone when we’re doing something and allows the game to flow naturally.

Best strategy against the bulk of BB’s is mass Subs combined with Bmbrs.
Good luck and

TORPEDO LOS, LOS, LOS! (go, go, go) :-)

Just be patient with him and show him how honesty pays off everytime.

@Guymyer:

yeah I guess next time I see that happening I’ll ask the India/ANZAC and US player to pump subs out. ANZAC usually does NOTHING in our games.

ANZAC’s role is to be a pest… they at least have to be a pest.

@Guymyer:

yeah I guess next time I see that happening I’ll ask the India/ANZAC and US player to pump subs out. ANZAC usually does NOTHING in our games.

Well, ANZAC has to treat an early loss of India as a threat.

If Japan is going after Russia, ANZAC should be shuttling defenses to India so that India can shuttle defenses to Moscow and also contesting the money islands. If Japan is going over India, ANZAC should be contesting the money islands and building ANZAC defenses so that after India falls ANZAC is not ripe for the picking.

In short, whatever Japan is trying to do, ANZAC should make it harder for Japan to accomplish that. Same thing with China.

Marsh

@Marshmallow:

@Guymyer:

yeah I guess next time I see that happening I’ll ask the India/ANZAC and US player to pump subs out. ANZAC usually does NOTHING in our games.

Well, ANZAC has to treat an early loss of India as a threat.

If Japan is going after Russia, ANZAC should be shuttling defenses to India so that India can shuttle defenses to Moscow and also contesting the money islands. If Japan is going over India, ANZAC should be contesting the money islands and building ANZAC defenses so that after India falls ANZAC is not ripe for the picking.

In short, whatever Japan is trying to do, ANZAC should make it harder for Japan to accomplish that. Same thing with China.

Marsh

QFT -  I actually took all 3 dutch money islands plush french indo from japan as anzac in my last allied game, managed to get anzac income up to about 32 or 33IPC(with bonuses) by the end of the game.  It was fantastic lol

@Guymyer:

Yeah, I’m in agreement I’d rather lose fair than cheat. So this leaves with a hard decision. Not inviting said individual would cut group in half down to 2. His brother also plays so if I say no to one the other wouldn’t come. Gotta figure out a way to ensure no cheating.

The second, third and fourth chapters of the novel Goldfinger, in which James Bond is hired by a rich American businessman to figure out whether or not Auric Goldfinger – who’s been fleecing the businessman for a week at double-handed canasta – is cheating, make the point that in order to devise effective countermeasures against a cheat you first have to determine exactly how he’s cheating in the first place.  You’ve mentioned that you’ve caught your opponent a few times, so you must already have some idea of what you need to guard against, but your question “Could there have been some cheating on buys and dice play?” suggests that there’s still some uncertainty about what kind of tricks this fellow might be pulling.  Reading “Scarne on Cards” for advice (as Bond does in another novel where he’s trying to catch a card cheat; I think it was Moonraker) isn’t going to be of any help to you in an A&A context, but perhaps some of the folks here can offer a few pointers on what types of deceptions they’ve run into in their own A&A games.  If (which you indicate is a possibility) there’s some dice-rolling trickery going on, a dice tower might help to eliminate that part of the problem.

Nice post CWO Marc, and I agree. If you suspect someone cheating, don’t confront him without proof. Allow him to keep cheating while you watch and document his activities. Than present your case and kick him to the curb.

@Young:

and kick him to the curb.

Or at least out of the League of Nations.

Some suggestions;

1. Roll where everyone can see you.  Not with the box or tower away from the group; with it visible to everyone at table level
2. Everyone is welcome to use your die and watch you roll, no limitations.
3. use a dice tower.  I don’t, I use the box lids.  The tower isolates several forms of dice based cheating;  lying, blocking, trapped die throws, quicksweep (pick dice up before others can see).
4. All hits are announced by the roller verbally
5. all hits and casualty taking are narrated by the person whose turn it is and all the other players confirm what you lost and what you killed by paying attention at those times.
6. all buys are pre-prepared, placed for all to see, and are counted by two persons or heard by everyone, verbally
7. player team counts all income then another independent player silent counts along (I block my ears so I cant hear their count) until both players announce the same result
8. clean game no messy stacks
9. roll in the box;  one rule;  in box, it counts, out of box, it doesn’t.
   10)  no arguing, no disagreements;  just a consensus on what the rules are (or aren’t) and then if there is no consensus, ask Jake or Smorly or Krieghund or YG not your mom
10. no one cheats to lose, so if someone is doing poorly, its not likely that they are cheating (much)
    12)  once cheaters know they are being watched they are deep crap because the deficiencies of skill become much more apparent.
11. cheaters want to win more than they want to excel and so they either have to up their game and get honest or quit
12. don’t accuse anyone of anything without proof.
13. Just follow these rules and then it makes it much harder to cheat and they are forced to a) stop cheating b) quit playing

Taamvan has very valid points that exist in our group as well. Especially “not in the box doesnt count”. Also we play similar to casino craps tables that all dice must be thrown in a way that attempts to hit the short side of the box lid.

If cheating is of such a concern, maybe remind everyone at the beginning that you aren’t playing for money, just pride! Unless you are playing for money? Wouldn’t that be cool? A real paying league…

@taamvan:

9. roll in the box;  one rule;  in box, it counts, out of box, it doesn’t.

The only thing I would add to  your list is that cocked dice must be rerolled as well. The one leaning against another die is not a hit; it’s a die that’s needing a reroll.

Marsh

I use dice towers that I built. The tray can be seen from most angles around the table. When rolling, the players are standing and at one end of the table. My house rules are for dice rolling are pretty simple.

1. Dice that bounce out of the tray or are leaners are re-rolled.
2. All dice are removed from the tray before re-rolling. (This prevent the re-rolled dice from tipping an existing dice)
3. All hits are counted by both players and tallied
4. If too many dice are accidently rolled, that roll doesn’t count and all dice are re-rolled.
5. If too little dice are accidently rolled, only the additional dice needed are rolled.
6. Start with the smallest numerical units first, then work your way up. (in other words, roll all 1’s first, then all the 2 or less units, then all the 3 or less, etc.)

Here’s a funny quote from a site that talks about dice towers:

“Historically, the Ancient Romans used dice towers to control their dice, this being a natural outgrowth of the Roman penchant for building siege towers to control the Greeks, etc. Somewhere along the line – probably around the invention of gunpowder – sappers came into favor and dice towers fell out of fashion.  […]  Dice towers have the added advantage of forcing a minimum level of randomization to the throw of each die, which is a very good thing if you’ve ever gamed with one of those guys who likes to let the die slide off the edge of his palm and cry out, “Another six!” (This is a technique that the ancient Romans called “signor cheatypants”.)”