Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Gentlemen of the Colonial Campaigns Club,

I am going to apologize for the tone of this post right now, because I am quite angry and I intend to rant about an issue that has been coming up more and more recently; just what constitutes 'unhistorical play' and 'cheating' as well as bad sportsmanship. If you do not feel that this post refers to you then, by all means feel free to ignore it. If on the other hand, you feel it does apply to you, please feel free to hate my guts. I'm too angry to give a damn right now.

Yes, I am quite ****ed. I was just informed by a member of my army that he is considering withdrawing from Club play because of accusations made against him by an opponant. It appears that this 'gentleman' is upset at the tactics used being used against him with regard to cavalry attacks in his rear are 'not historical' and are therefore against the rules and constitute 'poor conduct' and even <i>cheating</i>.

My response to this is simple: Get stuffed.


1. This is a gaming club. We are here to have fun. If you are getting beaten by an opponant and it is causing you such distress that you feel the need to lash out at him-then I suggest that it's you who need to get out and take a breather...not your opponant.


2. It is known that some of us have expressed concerns about meleeing in column because we consider it to be unhistorical. <i>However,</i> nobody ever suggested the players who used it were 'cheaters' (in fact I think they end up hurting themselves in the long run) or guilty of bad sportsmanship. We merely had some questions about it's validity. Some players in response stopped using the tactic...some did not. No harm no foul.

3. If you have qualms about your opponant using some tactics, then the time to bring it up is BEFORE the ruddy game-not in the middle of it.

4. There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING ahistorical about using dragoons to hit enemy formations in the rear. This is exactly what they were used for-raiding supply and artillery trains. I have had an opponant use this tactic on me recently and as he will attest (should he feel like naming himself), I was perfectly fine with his use of it.

5. The practice of calling another player a cheater when you do not like the result of a game is something I fine odious and highly questionable. It is simply not done by a gentlemen and a sportsman and it is <i>my</i> opinion that an apology is owed.

6. We all lose games. My advice is to get used to it or start looking for another hobby. I suggest do it yourself lobotomies. You can borrow my sword to get started.

I beg the pardon of the assembled Club. By all means, please do carry on.

Well, <cough>, it would have been better to write this after you had calmed a bit, but with that said - you did a decent job of holding your tongue. [:)]

I agree with your comments, especially the item about discussing rules and methods of play BEFORE the game begins. What is described here is by NO MEANS cheating, or ungentlemanly...in fact, if you play against me, and I get forces in your rear, you can count on me attacking you from that direction! [:D]

The bottom line is, if you get into a game where you don't like an opponents methods or style, then you need to complete the game and not play the person again. There's plenty of people to choose from here and absolutely no reason to lash out and cause hard feelings.

Regards,
Rich

I'd have to agree with almost all what Phil says. If you don't agree with something your opponent does, do be careful with terms. There are vast differences between unhistorical tactics, "gamey" play, poor sportsmanship, and cheating.

<u>Unhistorical tactics</u>--nobody will deny that this is a matter of interpretation and personal opinion. No-one of us was actually there. Remember the column melee discussion. I was and still am strictly opposed to deliberate use of columns in melees, and I think with good reason, but I perfectly appreciate that there are equally good reasons that brings others to the conclusion that the use of columns in melees is historically valid. Moreover. I have played some games with a very respected member of our community who uses one certain and very successful tactics that I consider perfectly unhistorical, and hence I have stopped playing him. However. That has nothing to do with poor sportsmanship, and I have the highest regard for his gentlemanly behaviour, personal integrity, dedication to our hobby, and contributions to club. Our styles just don't match; that's fine. If your opponent accuses you of unhistorical play a perfectly legitimate (though curt) answer would be "so what?". Nobody is supposed to play historical unless he wants to.

<u>"Gamey" play</u>--exploiting weaknesses in the game engine for the own advantage--it's always a borderline case. Some "weaknesses" may not be perceived as such by other players; some may consider ZOC kills as such "gamey", while I don't. It borders on the historicity debate and I'd be very carefully to call tactics I consider questionable "gamey".

<u>Poor sportsmanship</u>--well, ain't it obvious. Slowing down a game so much that the opponent loses interest just because you're losing; accusing the opponent of unhistorical or "gamey" play only because you don't like what he's doing; in short, not being able to accept defeat; and of course curt or rude replies in e-mails when the situation is becoming unfavorable for you. It's poor style, period.

<u>Cheating</u>--tampering with game files, replaying portions of your turn, watching your opponent's turn, that, and only that, is cheating. Nothing of the things mentioned above is. Everything of the above is questionable, but only cheating is an offence for which you can be, and deserve to be, banished from the club. Calling someone a cheater unless you can prove that he has actually and deliberately done these things is inacceptable and in itself harmful to the club. And yes, if you have done so without good proof then the opponent deserves an apology. Very definitely so.

Re the case in question. Independent moves on the enemy flank or rear are always likely to become a matter of contention between opponents. I do think that there is no definite answer to the question of historicity here. Usually my gut feeling will tell me if an action is historically plausible. A flank attack by an infantry brigade or a regiment of dragoons will never be questioned; a deep penetration raid by 20 infantry is ridiculous. In between these extremes, I would maintain that the action becomes more plausible
--when it's executed by cavalry rather than infantry;
--the larger the independent force is;
--the closer it remains to the main body;
and furthermore, that actual raiding (attacks on supplies, artillery, leaders) is the more plausible the further away the target is from own formed support. Picking up a lone leader or wagon on a road in the enemy rear is a lot more historical than snatching out a brigadier from among his regiments. Maybe Cossacks and Indians would do such things, but nobody else would.

The only point where I would disagree with Phil is his (3). I do think that in an ongoing game there can occur a situation where something happens that needs to be discussed although none of the opponents thought of it before game start. If that happens, then by all means do so--talk about it. Two gentlemen will always find a solution agreeable to both. Don't call your lawyer and don't call your opponent names. Behave like grown-ups. If you can't find a solution, the best thing is to terminate the battle with a draw result and move on. If that's not acceptable to one or both parties, then contact your commander-in-chief <u>privately</u> and he will try to help.

British officers are hereby requested to read the "Message from the C-in-C" accessible from the British Army pages.

<center>Just a little tidbit to digest which may or may not relate.

I used cavalry to try and sneak up from the rear and attack my enemy in my Indian Uprising match with Malcolm Hunt.

<font size="3"><b><u>Result: </u></b></font id="size3"><b><font color="yellow"><font size="3">He caught me, surrounded me, destroyed all my cavalry and is now kicking my butt!</font id="size3"></font id="yellow"></b></center>

<center>These things have a way of evening out in the end.</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Philbert</i>
<br />Gentlemen of the Colonial Campaigns Club,
4. There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING ahistorical about using dragoons to hit enemy formations in the rear. This is exactly what they were used for-raiding supply and artillery trains. I have had an opponant use this tactic on me recently and as he will attest (should he feel like naming himself), I was perfectly fine with his use of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
[:I]That was me, and I am losing the Indian Uprising because of it, as most of the raiders were surrounded and cut down by reinforcements. Had I waited until now.....

But to your main point(s), I agree with you and Dierk. The middle of the game is no place to accuse some one of being a cheater. Objectionable tactics might be discussed mid game, but without prior agreement, there is no recourse.

One needs to watch their choice of words, especially in the impersonal arena of email and the internet, as intent is often miscommunicated. A simple remark may easily be blown out of porportion.

Cavalry was the eyes of an army. I have more than 20 situations I can cite where they were used to go around the other army and raid wagons and so on.

However, whenever these kind of things occur in the future (we all) you should take it to your HQ. Let them go over the situation. Even though language may not have been an issue I have seen two players (in the case I remember it was German and French!) get into a row over the wording in their messages and when neutral parties intervened one of them noted that the other had not understood what the message said! Thus a wild attack broke out. And a perfectly fine relationship was broken off and many bitter feelings ensued.

Better to let HQ put out something on the issue of the use of cavalry rather than air it on the boards. Perhaps Dierk could have put up a short article on the use of cavalry to inform the members of their use. Rather than making a direct mention of any incident, Dierk's article would have brought historical interest to light on the subject.

In my games my opponents and I have made up a House Rule that basically says:

1. I will not act on the intel that my cavalry gives me by their sigthing units which my main army cannot see. Thus we dont use them as the 'INSTANT eyes' of the army. I wait until they RETURN and then I make my plans and change of direction in case they just found a large enemy body. It takes massive amounts of patience to not turn your army and go hold the flank that you know is about to be hit. You could also have a die roll. One a roll of 1-4 a bugle is sounded or a cavalry courier is dispatched back to your HQ and you know of the menace. Its fun to play this way and it is VERY historical too!

2. We dont allow players to dispatch small sections of a battalian to go scout around the board and then have 'instant intel' such that you can now move to counter or take advantage of your enemy. Instead we use the above rules but only on a roll of a 1 can you do anything in reacting to the menace or opportunity.

Other ideas in order to create a feeling of "we cant control all events" are unplanned marches by small contingents. Make up a Random Events table. Something like this:

Roll a d20 each hour:
1-15 nothing happens
16 - dispatch one regiment (or in smaller games - two companies - your choice) that is nearest any mapedge off of the battlefield - he has been dispatched by your HQ to counter a supposed move by the enemy. His loss will not count for VPs but on the other hand he doesnt come back either. (would be nice to have a Withrdrawl option in this system to allow for units to leave and then reappear).
17 - one of your guns barrels have just split due to a freak accident or from over use. Remove from play as soon as possible one gun.
18 - a threat to your rear or flank exists. Pick the flank or your rear whichever is FURTHEST away from your enemy's army (if there is a tie you pick) and detach one brigade (one regiment in smaller games) to see to the threat. They must guard the map edge (within 10 hexes) for 4 turns. They will then report back to you after that time and be available for combat. Any enemy threat the comes within 15 hexes of their location will automatically cancel their mission and return them to your control. Set the AI for them to be on a Defend order such that you do not control how they set up.
19 - same as 16 but you must remove one brigade (regiment in smaller games).
20 - instant victory! A freak tornado (or plauge/disease!) just went through the ranks of the enemy's army. They are scattered to the winds and thus you can achieve your mission.

Its good of you to stick up for your friend. I tried this once in another club and got my head cut off for making it public. Here we honor those that honor their friends! I understand your outburst - we all have been there.

Calvary are expensive troops and as has been pointed out their use can result in complete loss, turning what were gains into negatives very quickly.

That doesnt mean that they should sit idly by in the game, though most would say why take the chance. Their expense was part of the game design to keep people from using them in frivolus ways.

My tactics are to scout the enemy and hit and RUN! When an opponent has made no preparations for calvary the results are there. The flip side is when a wise player has made preps for calvary the results are expensive and make you wish you had parked them to watch the game safely.

To call someones respectability into question because they chose to use the troops given them, thats where I have a problem. I wouldn't presume to make comments on how you decided to play your game anymore than I want to hear them from others. Nor would I call anything you gain in a game unrespectable or cheap because I was unprepared. I would simply say touche'and learn from my mistake.

Last thing, yes the internet and email are very inpersonable. It is possible to mis-interpret someones meaning. However repeated mailings of the same message and it starts to ring clear.

As commander of the French Army I feel I need to say something as well here. I agree completely with what Phil said, and Dierk did a fine job denoting exactly what is and isn't cheating. I am aware of the situation which occurred and I believe this matter should be closed. The member of my Army did not cheat. The player accusing him of cheating was wrong to do so, but he is rather new from what I gather. In the future, and this applies to anyone, any accusations of this kind should be directed to your Army Commander, and ONLY to your Army Commander in a personal e-mail. Cheating is a serious thing, and you should not accuse someone of this before knowing exactly what constitutes cheating and having solid PROOF that this is happening.

My take is this, before you start discuss what you both think is right and not right, come to an agreement and play. I like to be historical as much as I can, but it is a game, and as Dierk pointed out none of us was around back then to say what did and did not happen. I for one hope I have never gave anyone reason to doubt my level of sportsmanship and gentlemenly conduct, as I am sure most would want in thier play also. This club and our sister clubs which many here are members of others as I am, are great places to make friends and enjoy a great hobby. I hope no one will take Phil's original post the wrong way, as I am sure he meant it as an eye opener to a problem that can araise at times. As for myself I get burned using my cavalry here and in the NWC, but usualy get away with less bad results in the ACWGC, lucky I guess.

I don't know if this is currently being done but if not, perhaps our already overburdened (well not overburdened lately) [:I] Training Department could mention these iffy matters to new recruits for their consideration. Better yet, maybe someone (Dierk did a fine job with this below already) draw up a formal "one size fits all" form that would easily apply to <b>all</b> new members and be distributed to them automatically before or during training. Better to nip the accusatory bud before it's allowed to blossom on it's own maybe?

How about withdrawing surrounded units (or how about routed units not yet surrounded) off the board edge? This has been a touchy subject for as long as "board edges" have been around. Just curious if this was thought as unsportsmanlike? I know it might be quite unethical...

Phil Powers - good point. This came up in ALL of the clubs! For instance in my game of Market-Garden 44 the Germans are 'pinned' against the boardedge and the player is asking me if he can pull his troops off.

I see that this issue begs for some questions:

1. Is the boardedge a place of safety? Does it lead to a dead end whereby the player could get nailed anyway (like alot of the rivers in the CCC games - many of them are dead end locations to head to).

2. Was this discussed prior to the start of the game?

I see a combination of player responsibility coupled with club experience provided to new members (and us old guys too) as being the key.

Lets go forward with Dierk's idea of compiling a form. It would help in other clubs too! Lets also build more individual responsibility as well. If a player starts a game up with another bloke it is his responsibility to inform his opponent of all of the little things that bother him BEFORE the game starts up. If it happens that player A is doing some gamey things that player B doesnt like then B has it to not play A again if he cant get satisfaction through negotiating the matter.

Tossing charges around like cheating is a serious matter. Keep the matter between the players if possible. If not then see your HQ folks.

Glad to see that this thread didnt get red hot with angry members! If it does please lock it.

Thanks Bill, I discussed this matter in another club, and MG44 was exactly the topic. Should the hammered Brit 1st paras be allowed to leave the north board edge?...towards Germany???... thus starts the ethical part...like you said that's when the house rules come in.

This is a subject that does crop up from time-to-time.

The responses in this thread are an excellent example of how we SHOULD discuss things, rationally and without rancor.

That the situation (AND I HAVE, literally, NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAPPENED) escalated to the point that a member considers withdrawing from the club is very unfortunate. I hope that does not happen.

At the suggestion of the British Army Commander (Dierk), I wrote to the British Army Left Wing the below email exerpt, which I think is appropriate for everyone. It has been said in different form in the posts, here.

"There has been a series of communications and miscommunications by two members of the CCC. The result has been a disruption in the orderly processes of the club.

If two people have a dispute about a game, they (one or both) should contact their immediate commander, via email, and apprise him of the situation. Do this before the problem escalates to a pushing and shoving match.

Please read the Club Rules at: http://www.wargame.ch/1776/rules.html and you will see that we tried to address this very subject in the "Poor Game Conduct" section. We cannot anticipate all instances of member problems, but most, if not all, can be solved to everyones satisfaction by DISCREETLY involving your immediate commander (me) in the discussion.

Before you start to accuse an opponent of cheating (which is a very strong term in our neighborhood), please allow your commanders to explore the situation and mediate as needed. Almost all of the time, we can resolve the problem by discussion. Sometimes the only solution is for the members involved to NOT play each other in future games. More often than not, it is poor use of the game or "gamey" tactics that are the root of the problem

Generally speaking, the TAVERN is not the proper place to initiate your discussion. Sometimes it is a good idea to make the problem public knowledge and be able to discuss the merits or non-merits of various positions, AFTER the matter was been resolved and without acrimony. "

Ernie Sands, President, Colonial Campaigns Club

BRAVO !!! BRAVO to each of you gentlemen.

When things like this come out into the open maturity such as displayed in this thread is a welcomed thing and does this old heart good.

It is my utmost hope that the "combatants" in this situation can reconcile and that neither sees a necessecity to "leave" because of this. Guys, you two can count on my (our) help as you move forward. Just ask.