Standard PBEM Etiquette

[Dominae]

Hi all.

Do you like to play PBEM? Do you prefer it when you and your opponents are "on the same page" with respect to what's "okay" and what's "not okay" when playing head to head versus other humans? If your answer is "yes" to both these questions, read on!

The purpose of this thread is to lay down a semi-standard set of guidelines for PBEM players to follow. The goal is to end confusion and resentment in PBEM games where each player may come to the table with different views as to what constitutes "fair play".

Here I will only be referring to PBEM games where all your opponents are human. A mixed game (AI and human opponents) opens up a whole other can of worms which I'm not going to go into here.

Please not that these are my suggestions only; call it "Dominae's Etiquette", if you will! However, I think that many of you will have no problem adhering to the guidelines below.

This brings me to my first guideline, the "Golden Rule" of PBEM play (of all multiplayer gameplay, if you ask me):

The Golden Rule

You will play to have fun, with knowledge that your opponents are doing the same. You will therefore play a "clean" game, one in which you and your opponents agree prior to starting what is permissible and what is not. If ever a gameplay situation arises which potentially be controversial in this regard, you will halt the game and inform your opponent of it immediately. You will respect your opponent's point of view, and try to work out a solution, or (failing that) simply leave the game.

The remainder of this post lists several points which are "controversial", and a recommended etiquette for ending this controversy. The next post will list several game "exploits", and it is up to you and your opponents to determine which of these are allowed in your game.

1. Playing to win.

You will begin each game with the intention and desire to win. You will therefore not put all your resources into "hating" one player out of the game (out of some grudge) if this is not conducive to your victory. You will similarly not "throw" the game by becoming someone's vassal, unless you are clearly beaten or this is somehow part of a larger plan to secure victory.

In short, you will be predictable in your ultimate goal of seeing the victory popup.

2. Pre-game "baggage".

You will begin each game on a clean slate with respect to the other players, that is, without any preconceived alliances or grudges (unless, of course, you specify these in the game set up). This obviously ties in with #1 above.

In short, you will not make diplomatic decisions until you meet the other players in-game.

3. Honoring agreements.

You will honor or break agreements as you see fit. You will, however, accept the fact that this may hurt your reputation in future relations (either in the same game or subsequent ones). Note that this is not contradictory to #2: a player's reputation cannot be forgotten, but acting on it before the game begins is improper. For instance, if Player A broke a Non-Aggression Pact with you in the past, you are entitled not to trust him, but you should not make a point to gang up on him with Player B in any future game.

In short, you will be dishonorable when need be, and accept that others will do the same.

4. Renaming units and cities.

You will not name units or cities with the sole aim of misinforming your opponents.

With respect to units, you will: 1) use a unit's old name in full when creating a new name, and 2) not couple a unit's old name with another unit's name. For an example of the first point, 'Warrior' can be changed to 'SuperWarrior' or 'Grog the Warrior', but not just 'Grog'. As an example of the second point, 'Settler' can be renamed to 'New York Settler', but not 'WorkerOrSettler'. The idea here is to be able to tell what type a unit is at a glance when right-clikcing on a stack.

With respect to cities, you will not rename cities to names that mimick items that could be offered in trades. For instance, a city cannot be renamed to '22 Gold', 'Monotheism', 'Peace Treaty', etc.

You will also not name units or cities in a way that could potentially offend your opponent. You will make sure your opponents are open to trash-talking, if that is your cup of tea.

In short, you will not rename units or cities for nefarious purposes.

5. Combat reports.

You will send (via email, or any other convenient and timely medium) a log of all combat that occurred in your attack of an opponent's units. Such a log could resemble something like this:

American 4/4 Swordsman defeats Greek 3/3 Hoplite, 1HP remaining
American 5/5 Horseman attacks French 2/2 Warrior, retreats
American Artillery bombards Berlin, Marketplace destroyed
Etc.

Typically there is no need for any further information, but you will, on request, also provide a log of your unit movements within an opponent's visible range. Conversely, if your opponent makes it clear that this level of detail is not necessary, the log may be abbreviated. If this seems like a hassle, note that all this information is standard in a SP game.

In short, you will not leave your opponents "in the dark" concerning what happens unit-wise during your turn (within the limits of what their would normally see).

[Dominae]

Exploits

You will agree with the other players before play begins which of these are permissible in the game to follow. If ever you learn of a new exploit, you will halt the game immediately and poll the other players concerning its admissibility. If you are not sure whether something is an exploit or not, you will in good faith bring it to the other players' attention.

An exploit is defined as a oddity in the rules that was not intended by the designers and that will probably be fixed in a future patch. An example of an exploit in this sense is Ring City Placement.

This section to contain a list of game exploits.

Non-Exploits

This section to contain a list of non-exploits, according to the definition above.

[self biased]

sounds good so far. though this applies more to SMAC, there should be some things allowed for playing a civ 'in character.'

[notyoueither]

Renaming units and cities

Why? to this whole section.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Renaming units and cities

Why? to this whole section.

Because the mechanics of the game can be abused by doing these things.

Imagine you are negotiating and are offered what you think is the tech of Republic and then discover what you have got is a size 1 town called Republic in the middle of your opponents territory. Not nice and I would not stay in a game with someone who pulled such a stunt.

Similarly with units because you don't see your opponents units move, all you see is the stack so half a dozen medieval infantry all renamed as Warrior and covered by a pikeman looks a lot less dangerous than it is because the only information you have is the top unit you can see and what is listed when you right click on the stack.

I suspect Dominae didn't want this to be a "how to bend the rules" guide but maybe it does need to be explicit to protect those who would never think of such things.

Nice idea Dom. Certainly the way I want my PBEM games to be.

[ormuzd]

good points, really

[GhengisFarb™]

I don't like 5 that adds tons of extra work and takes away the fun of the game if I have to keep a log and spend an extra hour writing down every miniscule detail to send to him in an email.

[CerberusIV]

True, I would have reservations about the amount of work involved in 5 as well. Losing units and not knowing what hit them is just an unavoidable effect of the way PBEM games work. The only response is to pay close attention to what you can see. At least you are not under time pressure so if you miss something that is your own responsibility.

[Harovan]

Combat reports are positive in general, as long as it's about ancient age skirmishes with 10 or so units. But they can be a pain in the butt if big armies are involved. In one of the GS PBEMs I fought a big war with Conqueror, with 100 units or even more involved on each side. Turns took an hour without combat reports. They would take twice this time (at least!) with combat reports. This is inacceptable. Either an easy abbreviation system is introduced, or even better: A combat summary, that tells the # of forces involved, # of own forces lost, # of enemy forces killed, # of workers captured, # of leaders generated

[vondrack]

I would also agree that #5 is not necessary, unless agreed on by everybody in a PBEM game (read: not a principal part of a "universal etiquette", but rather an optional inhouse rule). If it's not done, everybody suffers/benefits the same way, so that's pretty much equal ground - I have found it to be kind of fun figuring out what happened inbetween my turns and trying to hide as much as possible from my opponents.

Otherwise, to the effort.

[GhengisFarb™]

I agree with Vondrack, 5 should be listed as an OPTIONAL rule. Kind of like sandbagging in spades. There are those that like and those that think its a pain in the but. Personally, since you only play one turn then send it on, I feel that players pay more attention to the turn than in SP and can pretty much figure out what happened to their units.

[Dominae]

Note that this an "etiquette" guide, not a "rule" guide. Each and every item in this guide is, of course, purely optional.

The idea with combat reports is this: players should be open to do these if their opponents request them. As the aggressor it's very easy to say "it's a waste of time", but as the defender you're always glad to have a combat report. I do not subscribe to the argument that having no combat reports is "fair for both sides": if you've played a few PBEMs you know that it always favors one side or the other in a war (usually the defender).

The goal is simply to give everyone peace of mind.

As to the time it takes, I think that if you're willing to play a PBEM you're the type that is willing to write a combat reports. The report need not be as detailed as in the example I gave above; as long as the defender knows more or less "what happened" during your turn, everything should be fine ("I attacked your stack with 5 Swordsmen; won 3, lost 2"). Obviously an even more abstract report, as described by Sir Ralph, is required for the later stages of the game.


Dominae

[Dominae]

I would appreciate it if you guys (and gals?) could post here any and all game exploits that are still present in Play the World. I'll update my second post with them in order to create a complete list. I think this is necessary for PBEMs because all players should know about them and agree on which ones to use and not use. I strongly believe that exploiting an opponent's ignorance of an exploit is unsportsmanlike.

Oh, and no AI exploits (those belong in the Strat forum).


Dominae

[SirOsis]

There is an exploit the last player in a PBEM can make. There is a thread somewhere but I can't find it.

Basically it allows you to move units twice as far in one turn so you could move a defender into a city to reinforce even though you are 2 turns away. It is done by putting in a move order that will take more than 1 turn to execute.

You can also still see other players empire if you load the PBEM game in the middle of another game.

I'd also say that reloading of the turn should be not allowed. Far too many exploits can be done by reloading.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Dominae
Note that this an "etiquette" guide, not a "rule" guide. Each and every item in this guide is, of course, purely optional.

Dominae

But you titled it as a "standard" and I agree that it would be nice to establish an etiquette standard. I do not agree that combat reports should be part of that standard.

Especially with modded Hidden Nationality units. The whole point is to attack other civs with them not knowing who you are. Unfortunately in the Create a Civ pbem the person I'm attacking knows exactly who I am.....

[Harovan]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Unfortunately in the Create a Civ pbem the person I'm attacking knows exactly who I am.....

Could it be because you're bragging about it in the turn tracker?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Could it be because you're bragging about it in the turn tracker?

I haven't DONE anything. Well, not much of anything. I do find it funny that the Ghauls started in the wilderness north of the Romans though.

[BigFree]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


Because the mechanics of the game can be abused by doing these things.

Imagine you are negotiating and are offered what you think is the tech of Republic and then discover what you have got is a size 1 town called Republic in the middle of your opponents territory. Not nice and I would not stay in a game with someone who pulled such a stunt.

Similarly with units because you don't see your opponents units move, all you see is the stack so half a dozen medieval infantry all renamed as Warrior and covered by a pikeman looks a lot less dangerous than it is because the only information you have is the top unit you can see and what is listed when you right click on the stack.

I suspect Dominae didn't want this to be a "how to bend the rules" guide but maybe it does need to be explicit to protect those who would never think of such things.

Nice idea Dom. Certainly the way I want my PBEM games to be.

Unit stats are including in the 'right click' information, so while the may be called "Warrior's", theie stats will be that of MI's. No way to hide that. Settlers/Workers can be hidden though....

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BigFree
Unit stats are including in the 'right click' information, so while the may be called "Warrior's", theie stats will be that of MI's. No way to hide that. Settlers/Workers can be hidden though...

With modded rules (and with Conquests, but I'm not going to go into that) there will be situations when the ADM values will not be enough to distinguish between units. If the ADM is the same, what does it matter, you ask? Well, if one unit is a UU and the other is not, I bet you would want to know which is which.

The idea here is not only to remove the Settler/Worker renaming exploit, but to make things easier on your opponents. There's still plenty of room for creativity in the sysem I've proposed.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
But you titled it as a "standard" and I agree that it would be nice to establish an etiquette standard. I do not agree that combat reports should be part of that standard.

I think PBEMs would much more enjoyable if you knew what the heck was going in defensive battles. I think this outweighs the fact that I may have to do a little extra work for this to be a reality. I feel strongly enough about this (and I've thought about it enough) that I'm including combat reports in my standard. If you disagree, you can simply find opponents who agree with you.

Really, what's the big deal? Just write down a brief report of which units you defeated and which you lost, and approximately where.

Especially with modded Hidden Nationality units. The whole point is to attack other civs with them not knowing who you are. Unfortunately in the Create a Civ pbem the person I'm attacking knows exactly who I am...

Yes, that is a problem. But it's an exception. The simple solution is to agree that combat reports are not necessary for Hidden Nationality units.


Dominae

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dominae
The idea here is not only to remove the Settler/Worker renaming exploit, but to make things easier on your opponents. There's still plenty of room for creativity in the sysem I've proposed.

I disagree that it is an expolit. Now you know who thought of the idea (not really, I read it elsewhere) and who on GS did it.

The ruse of renaming units was being asked for prior to PTW. It adds uncertainty to the game. In short, it adds choices and depth.

I don't want things made easier on me. I want a game that is a challenge. When I have the advantage, I do not want everything reduced to cut and dried mathematical equations. I want my oppo to have the means to do things that could screw me up, and take me by surprise.

I am not advocating people reloading, or doing anything else that 'cheats', but surely, using a function that is built into the game (renaming units) is not cheating. If that is cheating, then so to is going into a city display and adjusting where the governor placed labour/wf; you are modifying what is set by the game. And if you cannot recognise that a 4-2-1 unit is not a warrior, or that a unit of set stats could be that persons UU, then perhaps you deserve to lose.

[notyoueither]

I agree that trading 'Chivalry' as a 1 pop berg in a jungle without your trading partner knowing that is a real dirty trick, and I would agree not to do such a thing.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I agree that trading 'Chivalry' as a 1 pop berg in a jungle without your trading partner knowing that is a real dirty trick, and I would agree not to do such a thing.

But renaming a Worker to a Settler is okay?

We could debate this point endlessly. Why not just agree not to use any of these tricks?

I hope we're not reduced to measuring the skill of a Civ3 player by how well he bluffs the contents of his stacks. I want to win by playing Civ3, not exploiting any silly little advantage I can find.

There will be two types of players: those that say "I can do whatever I want according to my own ethical code, and my opponents have to deal with it", and the others that say "I want to know up front what my opponents think is fair play, because I hate complications". This thread caters to the second type.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I disagree that it is an exploit.

Incidentally, I never said this is an exploit (by my definition of it...see above). This is why it's not listed in the exploits section (which is still empty, ahem, sorry).

Again, what's the big deal here? Does it really ruin your PBEM experience not to be able to rename a Warrior to anything outside of 'X Warrior Y'?


Dominae

[CerberusIV]

To put it bluntly I don't want to be confronted with a stack of 20 units all named "Fred" and have to try and work out what they are from the stats. I can do that, I'm just not prepared to play that way.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Dominae
Again, what's the big deal here? Does it really ruin your PBEM experience not to be able to rename a Warrior to anything outside of 'X Warrior Y'?

I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to rename their units, like if I wanted to rename my Galley to the "Soggy Biscuit" or "USS Driftwood".

I agree that intentionally misleading renaming should be considered bad etiquiette, as in attempts to con in trade deals or renaming Settlers to "Worker" and the what not.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I don't see why someone shouldn't be allowed to rename their units, like if I wanted to rename my Galley to the "Soggy Biscuit" or "USS Driftwood".

Or "Floundering Fish".

EDIT: On a sidenote, Ghengis, did you get my PM?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Or "Floundering Fish".

EDIT: On a sidenote, Ghengis, did you get my PM?

Did I use "Floundering Fish?" I'm pretty sure Limp Biscuit and Beached Whale are still sailing around somewhere.

Yes, I just noticed it a few minutes ago.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dominae


But renaming a Worker to a Settler is okay?

We could debate this point endlessly. Why not just agree not to use any of these tricks?

I hope we're not reduced to measuring the skill of a Civ3 player by how well he bluffs the contents of his stacks. I want to win by playing Civ3, not exploiting any silly little advantage I can find.

There will be two types of players: those that say "I can do whatever I want according to my own ethical code, and my opponents have to deal with it", and the others that say "I want to know up front what my opponents think is fair play, because I hate complications". This thread caters to the second type.


Dominae

To your first question, yes, renaming units is fine by me because you are not screwing a trade partner over.

And yes, we could debate this endlessly. If the point of this thread is to agree on etiquette which people will then be asked to abide by in certain games (like RAH rules for Civ2) then I think it is right and proper that we discuss these things. Don't you?

[GhengisFarb™]

Renaming a Settler to a Worker in order to trick opponents into NOT attacking it doesn't seem evil.

Renaming a city to Chivalry to con an opponent into paying a large some of money definitely seems evil.

Some of the stuff you people come up with is very scary.