Gamey Recon?

[Kingfish]

A while back i played a particularly vicious PBEM game of CE in which i was the amis. The fight for the VL atop the German ridge became a real meatgrinder, with squad after squad from both sides being sucked in and spat out in pieces.

Towards the end of the game, after battling each other to a standstill, my opponent rallied his remnants and charged, eventually breaking my lines. In that charge he included a crew from a KO'd Stug to his infantry force. In no way did i believe that to be a gamey tactic, in fact i could picture the German CO gathering all able bodied men for the final push, and the Stug crew just happened to fall under his command.

In various other games i've had crews of KO'd vehicles guard and escort prisoners to the rear, and also hold onto key rear positions (VoT-hill 209) until help arrived.

Although i do agree that crews should not be used as scouts, nor as line infantry when there is enough line infantry to do the job, i do think there are situations were they can be employed after their vehicles are KO'd.

FWIW, I'm against the AI taking over.

Just my thoughts

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Kingfish:

Sorry but I see both uses you outlined above as 'gamey'. Sure they were less 'gamey' than crews used in recon, but unrealistic and 'gamey' none the less.

I don't think you will find many historical accounts of VEHICLE crews from knocked out AFVs guarding POWs captured by INFANTRY units during a battle. Perhaps escorting them to the rear...but that can still be done with the TacAI controlling them as your exit your POWs.

I also don't think you will find too many examples of these same bailed crews taking part in last minute charges with their pistols drawn, for any reason.

Sure, you may find one or two examples in the entire war, but my point is they were VERY, VERY, rare. But how often are these 'tactics' employed in the game? In CM it is done ALL THE TIME. I have read posts by Beta testers that the best thing to do is to use crews to guard POWs. But, was it common for this to happen in real life? And if not, why should it be allowed to happen in the game when it could be fixed?

Done in the game but not done in real life = 'gamey' by definition (IMO)

Just because we as gamers are so used to have God-like control over all of our units all the time does not mean this is the best way to go in order to make the game more realistic.

I know it will be like pulling teeth getting people to give up ANY control, but I have yet to here a single example of their use (other than exiting them) that is realistic. Can anyone REALLY buy into the use of these crews like this in reality???

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Shep]

I'm not sure of the historical grounding of crews fighting often as infantry. I'm sure that some over the course of the war did just that. Hey, at Bastogne even the cooks fought, and from what I've read gave a fair account of themselves.

I was both a 19E (gives away my age... I even manned M60A1s) and a 19D. Thinking back it's hard to say whether we would have tried to fight on the ground after losing our vehicle, because losing the vehicle was something you didn't think about too much. As scouts, we were trained to fight every way we could once engaged, but mostly the point was to avoid decisive engagements.

Perhaps upping the point value of vehicle crews could be a good thing, so that any infantry function would have to be on a desperation basis. Make them so valuable so that a player would only use them as a very desperate measure.

But that still doesn't talk to the recon gathered, even by crews moving to the rear like they should, and that was my purpose for the thread. Why not just turn off spotting feedback for crews? Is this a hard thing to do? Just make it so that the spotting info is not displayed, period.

One Marine on this board suggested the honor system, and to a certain extent I agree. I have direct control over my opponents most of the time, so I just play against those trustworthy guys as my choice, and no problem. But that approach can't be applied in a tournament. Instead of coming up with house rules about crews, and trying to enforce them through examination of replay movies, why not just turn it off? Then it's no hassle for all of us, and no one's tempted to be gamey in the first place.

I realize that there will be some who will always be gamey and look for the (unreal) edge, regardless of how well the game is programmed against such tactics. But if it's a simple thing to fix, why not do it? BTS?

It may be that I'm missing the point about one thing. That there are so few instances of crew abuse occur that it's not worth the effort. But I have the impression from reading this thread that this has at least moderate significance.

Mark

------------------

Scouts Out!

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why not just turn off spotting feedback for crews? Is this a hard thing to do?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I understand correctly, yes. This would be very hard to do.

How about a compromise from letting the TacAI assume control. How about just restricting 'bailed' crews to using ONLY the "WITHDRAW" command?

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Kingfish]

Scott,

Although i agree with you that the examples i mentioned are few and far between in real life, we must consider other things too...

1)The majority of the gamers playing CM do not have an extensive knowledge of what did and didn't happen in WW2, thus their game tactics will relect less historical accuracy and more of a practical approach (i need these prisoners guarded, who can i use for the job). Some might find that 'gamey' but that is a matter of personal prefs between the two opponents.

2)The big reason why i oppose giving the AI control over tankless crews, and forcing them to exit the friendly map edge, is that they would do just that - make a beeline for the edge regardless of enemy fire. I've seen too many squads wiped out when they broke from cover in a rout running for the edge, and bailed out crews should not automatically act like routed troops.

Likewise, if you only let the crew accept the withdraw command then whats to prevent the player from withdrawing them to a rear feature to defend (see my example-VoT hill 209)

What this is basically boiling down to is a difference of opinions between us as to how these units should be used. This could be worked out prior to starting a game and still leave the control of the crews in the hands of the players, rather than losing them forever if the code is changed.

If you think about it, there are numerous 'gamey' tactics that people have discussed on this board and have worked out between themselves rather than having the code reworked (Edge hugging, setting ambushes at your opponents re-inforcements arrival area, smoking or laying down arty on your opponents arrival area, just to name a few)

Your thoughts?

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Joe Shaw]

The real problem here is one of perception. In some people's minds one thing is "gamey" in another's mind it's not only acceptable but logical. I'm playing a guy now who prefers to view the battlefield only from his side of the map. Does that make me an unfair player if I chose to look back at my lines from the enemy side? I don't think so and neither does he, he hasn't put any restrictions on me but simply plays the game the way he wants.

Until or unless the game is modified to change the way in which crews are used, may I suggest a bit of forbearance? Don't automatically assume that an opponent is trying to "gamey" or take unfair advantage just because they don't conform to your idea of how the game should be played.

While I intend to refrain from using crews as combat units, I see no reason I couldn't use them to guard prisoners or keep watch on an open flank. Furthermore I'm certainly not going to have my bailed out HT crews trek through that open wheatfield to the rear when I've got a perfectly good house they can hide in (forget about it Arien, I'm not giving you any free targets). Am I being "gamey"? Perhaps, but that is, as I've said, a matter of perception.

Joe

[aka_tom_w]

OK.....

I have been having some difficulty with this thread as some of the things that are being labeled "gamey" here are not really that offensive to me. If you need to use your crews to do recon to win the game and save the lives of your other troops than I say that's your call and it is just the "maximum ultilization of available resources", like "adapt and over come".

I post here with this story most recently (like 30 minutes ago) from another thread. Please read this....

If this is what the AI will do to me when I'm defending, using a bailed crew than I might just be become the "gamey-est" PBEM opponent you have ever seen!

read this AAR account of the recent Heroism of a bailed crew under AI command:

Red Dog

Junior Member posted 06-28-2000 03:39 PM            

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a quick battle I was commanding a small British force making a probe of a village. In the house to house fighting an entire rifle platoon was pinned down by a pair of MG42's in a heavy building at the end of the street, so I decided to move my Wasp up to clear the building. As soon as my Wasp came within range of the MG42's a Volksgrendier SMG squad popped out of hiding in a nearby building and fired a panzerfaust... it was a near miss, but the crew of the Wasp bailed out anyway.

The three man crew then proceeded to charge the SMG squad and wiped them out! The next thing I knew the two MG42's in the building next door had surrendered to the Wasp crew... sadly one of the valiant crewmembers was taken out in the fighting.

I'll definately be recommending the Victoria Cross for the whole crew.

IP: Logged

gaffertape replies:

Member posted 06-28-2000 03:43 PM            

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Red Dog:

Did the AI make the call to charge the Germans, or did you call the shots? Either way, I second your VC recommendation.

IP: Logged

Red Dog replies:

Junior Member posted 06-28-2000 03:49 PM            

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was the AI; it all happened in one turn, the Wasp was fired on in the first few seconds of the turn. Took them about 30 seconds to take out the SMG squad, and then at the end of the turn I noticed that the MG42's had surrendered.

I wish there was some way to record the turns. "

End Thread.

So...

Now if the AI is going to use a bailed out crew to do that to me, you bet I'm going to get VERY "gamey" with those crews if I really need them in order to gain the advantage to win !!

comments?

-tom w

(Still Waiting in Toronto for my game to arrive!)

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-28-2000).]

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

OK.....

I post here with this story most recently (like 30 minutes ago) from another thread. Please read this....

            <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I read Red Dog's post as well, plus I can relate something I also encountered in a Quick Battle. I had moved halftracks in for machine gun support on some small houses that my German squads were trying to occupy as part of a 'Meeting Engagement'. One halftrack was knocked out, the crew bailed, and I moved them into a small patch of woods and told them to hide. There was no good way for them to move further back, no cover, and I'd purposely made the Allied side way strong, and they were consequently overrunning and trashing my positions. So I just tried to put these guys out of harms way. Well, it turns out this 2 man halftrack crew was 'fanatical'. When the rest of my squads in the forward position had been destroyed or routed out, this crew unit, which I'd had hiding, came up and started duking it out with the advancing allies.

I issued them no orders for the rest of the game, concentrating on trying to rally and 'escape' the rest of my force off the map. Actually, their actions (again, totally under AI control) held up quite a few Ami units who ended up trying to root them out rather than pursuing my other shattered units. I didn't bother to try and move them out, because they would have been cut down in seconds, figured, hey, they're heroes, let them do their thing.

As to gamey use of crews, I'm in two minds. I don't really see any problem with having them guard prisoners, but I won't use them as 'combat' troops, and certainly wouldn't use them for recon work as described here. Both in single player and PBEMs, I figure I move them out if I can, or put them somewhere safe and have them just stay hidden. But I'm not sure I just want to turn them over to the AI, and I sure don't want them just beating feet towards the horizon, especially if they get ventilated in the process.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

I have seen some crews go "fanatical" on me. I think this is only more realistic sometimes.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

<FONT SIZE=2>

Kingfish:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

1)The majority of the gamers playing CM do not have an extensive knowledge of what did and didn't happen in WW2, thus their game tactics will relect less historical accuracy and more of a practical approach (i need these prisoners guarded, who can i use for the job). Some might find that 'gamey' but that is a matter of personal prefs between the two opponents.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

I agree, and this is another perfect reason why the game's TacAI should handle these units. In order to prevent players through ignorance or intention from committing 'gamey' behavior.</P>

It is quite clear (to me ), if this game is supposed to be a historical simulation and something contrary to history is happening...and happening...and happing AND it can be fixed then it should be. Look at these same crews. We all agree that many crews DID in fact bail out with SMGs, yet most think it is a good thing that they don't have them in the game to reduce the possibility of gamey behavior. It was a trade-off. What I am talking about will lose NOTHING and gains historical accuracy. No one has shown me yet where allowing the TacAI to move these units would make the game less historically accurate or less realistic nor less fun for players that really want to play an ACCURATE W.W.II tactical wargame. And if you don't want this level of realism then IMHO you are playing the wrong game. :razz:</P>

Kingfish:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

2)The big reason why i oppose giving the AI control over tankless crews, and forcing them to exit the friendly map edge, is that they would do just that - make a beeline for the edge regardless of enemy fire. I've seen too many squads wiped out when they broke from cover in a rout running for the edge, and bailed out crews should not automatically act like routed troops.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Why do you think the TacAI would be so stupid? It seems to me from my playing that Charles is quite capable of coding the TacAI to handle the fairly simple behavior for crews to head for safety, whether that is deep in the woods or the board edge or to stay put near where they bailed out. I think you completely wrong in your assumptions on this one. I am not saying they should act as "ROUTED", they should just head for safety/head home.</P>

Kingfish:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

What this is basically boiling down to is a difference of opinions between us as to how these units should be used. This could be worked out prior to starting a game and still leave the control of the crews in the hands of the players, rather than losing them forever if the code is changed.</P>

If you think about it, there are numerous 'gamey' tactics that people have discussed on this board and have worked out between themselves rather than having the code reworked (Edge hugging, setting ambushes at your opponents re-inforcements arrival area, smoking or laying down arty on your opponents arrival area, just to name a few)</P></DIR>

</DIR>

It COULD possibly be done that way. But so could the crews with SMGs issue and about two dozen other things that CM does not allow that other games like CC and SP do allow. But CM is coded in such a way as to prevent or discourage these same behaviors. Just because there is a possible 'work around' does that mean we should not 'fix' the problem? I have played with 'house' rules for two decades, why use them when the game can fix it for good? Why rely on personal perspectives during the heat of play when it can be fixed? It is one thing to debate 'rules' now, but to do it prior or (God forbid) during/after a game is a pain in butt. </P></FONT></BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

<FONT SIZE=2>

Joe Shaw:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

While I intend to refrain from using crews as combat units, I see no reason I couldn't use them to guard prisoners or keep watch on an open flank. Furthermore I'm certainly not going to have my bailed out HT crews trek through that open wheatfield to the rear when I've got a perfectly good house they can hide in (forget about it Arien, I'm not giving you any free targets). Am I being "gamey"? Perhaps, but that is, as I've said, a matter of perception. </P></DIR>

</DIR>

The TacAI could handle this (are we playing the same game? ) Do you guys REALLY think the same person that coded the AI in CM can't handle this little (simple) behavior??? And, yes I do say using bailed out crews to guard prisoners IS gamey. Did it happen in 10% of the battles in the ETO? NO. Does it happen in 90% of the battles in CM? Yes. That is gamey IMO, no doubt about it you are 'freeing' up units that you would otherwise have to use to guard prisoners.</P></FONT></BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Red Dog et al:

Perfect example of how the TacAI can handle these situations. But if you let players do it this will happen ten times more often. Let the TacAI do it and it will be kept where it should be in the realm of rare events that we all talk about.

Good debate guys, I am enjoying it!

Now, if I can only 'convert' a few of you....

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Fred]

No way Scott,

this is simply a matter of play style. I do not like to give up control to the AI; if I decide to move the crew out of harms way, I want to decide about their route of retreat.

Your solution of a forced, hard-coded limitation because you call it 'gamey' does not convince me, nor others here.

Oh, by the way...this is a game, not a war academy simulation...

More realism is NOT automatically more fun...

So, no artificial limits to player interaction for me.

Fred

[Red Dog]

I agree with Scott, let the AI handle the crews. Personally, I tend to just ignore bailed out crews. Usually they'll head for the nearest cover when they bail out and 9 times out of 10 I'll just leave them there for the rest of the game. Unless I'm falling back, then I'll have them withdraw with the rest of my troops.

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The TacAI could handle this (are we playing the same game? )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Golly Scott, maybe that's it, maybe I've been playing Shogun ... nope it's CM all right, I just checked.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you guys REALLY think the same person that coded the AI in CM can't handle this little (simple) behavior???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The issue at hand isn't whether or not the AI can handle it, the issue at hand is that it isn't handling it RIGHT NOW and what do we do about it? Since BTS has not yet changed the code I feel no obligation to follow YOUR "house" rules ... especially in my own house. Now in the future, with a patch that accomodates these changes, then fine. In the meantime, as I said, let's show a little forbearance if someone does something that the game allows, even if we personally disagree with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And, yes I do say using bailed out crews to guard prisoners IS gamey. Did it happen in 10% of the battles in the ETO? NO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? And what is your source for that? Anecdotal information? Or do you have hard evidence of what happened to bailed out crews? If you do then I would suggest you share it with BTS so they can improve the game, otherwise ... it's just your opinion of what happened.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Does it happen in 90% of the battles in CM? Yes. That is gamey IMO, no doubt about it you are "freeing' up units that you would otherwise have to use to guard prisoners.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does what happen in 90% of the battles in CM? Crews bail out, they are usually shocked for a period of time. After that they are in BAD shape for the rest of the game and if they are eleminated it results in a points penalty. As to "no doubt about it", I refer you to previous phrase in which you stated that it was gamey IN YOUR OPINION. There is a difference between an something that is an opinion and something that is beyond doubt. BTS, in their wisdom, left the crews on the board and capable of accepting orders. I'm willing to live with that. If I choose to limit the orders I give them, that's my right, it's not your right to tell me what I can and can't do if the game allows it.

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with you that the game allows certain things to happen that might not have happened in real life. That's because it is ... A GAME! It's not real life, thank God. And there is no way that any game can perfectly reproduce real life. I don't necessarily disagree that BTS might be able to apply a patch that would "cure" these supposed evils. I DO disagree when you, in essence, state that I and others are cheating by doing something that the game allows and that we feel is perfectly logical.

Let's make a logical extension here, you have a mortar crew that runs out of ammunition. Do they have to run away? How about a rifle squad with one guy and low ammo, surely he's even LESS effective at combat than a crew? Where do you draw the line?

Honestly, I don't really care what the game ends up doing, crews can stay or leave and it will affect my play hardly at all. I do care when someone accuses me of something that I don't think is justified and that's the tone this "debate" has taken.

Joe

[aka_tom_w]

Again....

As Mikeydz points out, this is the way BTS has chosen to deal with this "gamey" crew play. I agree with it completely, and prefer that the control of the crew remain a choice that that player has. There is a cost to that player's victory points in two ways, if the enemy eliminates the crew, they get extra victory points for killing them and when they die I imagine the player/commander who wasted their lives is penalized by losing extra victory points. They are fragile so they break easy. BUT the player retains control of them and makes the choice about how they act after they bailout, their effective use in a tight situation (i.e. the cooks fighting in Bastonage, after all, they are still soldiers) could mean the difference between winning or losing that scenario, their control and orders should remain that of the player. I completely support the way Steve and Charles have decided to deal with this issue in the game as it is coded now.

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikeydz:

The simplest solution to the problem is the one BTS took, make it worthwhile to not use them as scouts or front line troops, by...

A. Having them very lightly armed (which is realistic)...

B. Fragile morale...

C. Having them be costly in terms of victory points if they die in battle...

D. In Operations, allowing the possiblity that an abandoned or knocked out (but not brewed up) vehicle can be repaired in between battles, if the crew survives.

So while you might be tempted to use them to gather recon, you will pay a very high price for that info.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

Joe,</P>

First off lighten up. You appear to be the ONLY one here with a chip on his shoulder.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

The issue at hand isn't whether or not the AI can handle it, the issue at hand is that it isn't handling it RIGHT NOW and what do we do about it?</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Right...and I suggested that BTS fix the game. What do you suggest? From what I can see, you suggest nothing; you just 'cop an attitude'. </P><DIR>

<DIR>

Since BTS has not yet changed the code I feel no obligation to follow YOUR "house" rules ... especially in my own house.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

I don't have any "house rules" and I said as much. I also stated I don't like them and proposed a method through which they would not be needed by anyone (at least for this issue). I think you are mixing messages posted by me with those posted by others.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

Now in the future, with a patch that accomodates these changes, then fine. In the meantime, as I said, let's show a little forbearance if someone does something that the game allows, even if we personally disagree with it.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Forbearance? Sorry, I miss your meaning here. Did I attack anyone? Flame anyone? No, I did not. What are you referring to, exactly?</P><DIR>

<DIR>

Really? And what is your source for that? </P></DIR>

</DIR>

Every single book I have read on the ETO in the last 30 years. Do you want a bib? Is that required now to post here?</P><DIR>

<DIR>

As to "no doubt about it", I refer you to previous phrase in which you stated that it was gamey IN YOUR OPINION. There is a difference between an something that is an opinion and something that is beyond doubt.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Like I said, lighten up and lose the chip on your shoulder. It is without a doubt gamey IMO. Read the sig man! Wouldn't EVERYTHING I post be based upon my opinion anyway??? Geeeeeeez, it is because of responses like this that I made that damn signature to begin with! </P><DIR>

<DIR>

I DO disagree when you, in essence, state that I and others are cheating by doing something that the game allows and that we feel is perfectly logical. </P></DIR>

</DIR>

I say it again, lighten up. I did not say ANYONE was cheating. I think by definition that if the game allows it, and you do it, it CAN'T be cheating. Right? I guess if you agreed not to before hand, then perhaps... But still, IMO, if the game allows it and you do it, then it is fair play. Gamey does NOT equal cheating by any means!</P><DIR>

<DIR>

Let's make a logical extension here, you have a mortar crew that runs out of ammunition. Do they have to run away?</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Me, personally? Yes, I do. I exit them ASAP. Should the game do this also...perhaps? Perhaps not, because their basic weapon system is still fully functional. Perhaps ammo is on the way...but that is another issue.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

How about a rifle squad with one guy and low ammo, surely he's even LESS effective at combat than a crew?</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Different entirely, in this case you have an infantryman performing his assigned role, in the manner he was trained, using the equipment he was issued. Not even close to pistol wielding crewmen (IMO )</P><DIR>

<DIR>

I do care when someone accuses me of something that I don't think is justified and that's the tone this "debate" has taken.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Accused? If you did it, then it was 'gamey behavior' IMO. I think you have a problem with that, not me. You seem to equate 'gamey' with cheating. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Hell, half of the best tactics in ASL don't even work in CM because they were so 'gamey'! </P>

As for the 'tone' the only one I feel is the one YOU are emitting.</P></BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Tom:

I see and respect your opinion about "the cooks fighting in Bastonage" but this was something that happened OUTSIDE the scale of a single CM battle. And I would think in most cases outside the scale of a CM operation also. And wouldn't the cooks be armed better than pistols?

To top it off, how many times did this happen in the ETO? How many times will it happen in the game? You don't see any disparity here? I sure do.

I too respect what BTS has done with this issue. I just think there is a better way.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-28-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

Fred</P><DIR>

<DIR>

Your solution of a forced, hard-coded limitation because you call it 'gamey' does not convince me, nor others here. </P>

Oh, by the way...this is a game, not a war academy simulation... </P>

More realism is NOT automatically more fun... </P>

So, no artificial limits to player interaction for me.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

So, why not give them back thier SMGs then? Quite a few people wanted that IIRCC. </P>

Why not give them back thier 'normal' morale then? Why not do any of 101 other things that have been done in CM to make it more of a "accademy simulation" and less of a CC or SP? </P>

What is fun about movin bailed out crews toward the map exit or cover anyway? Really! </P></BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First off lighten up. You appear to be the ONLY one here with a chip on his shoulder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well frankly Scott I was thinking the same thing about you. Your arguments came across to me as loaded with attitude and dripping with sarcasm. If I misjudged you, well it wouldn't be the first time.

I'm glad that we agree on many points, again I didn't get that impression from your previous posts. And as I mentioned earlier, it all has to do with perception. It was my perception of your arguments that you were essentially saying that "gamey" tactics were the equivilant of cheating. I'm glad to see that you didn't intend that and that my perception was incorrect.

No I don't expect you to provide a bibliography, I just don't care for it when someone (anyone) starts making claims that aren't backed up by hard evidence. It's awfully easy to say "everyone knows ..." and then go from there. It's much harder to prove it. And I certainly have no evidence the other way, I'm not claiming I do.

Finally, it was never my intent to provide a solution, only a suggestion about how to handle the issue until a solution is found, if indeed one is ever needed. So I'll be happy to lose my attitude and knock the chip off my shoulder ... it's getting in the way when I aim anyway.

Joe

[Rick614]

Wow, a lot of heavy stuff here. I just agree with Scott and Red Dog. I haven't had as much time to play CM as I would like but I have had plenty of bailed crews and I like Red Dog just kind of leave them be, I hope they just head for cover so I don't have to worry about them. Fred said he wants to play the game not the AI but control already is turned over to the AI when you have units panicked and beyond. Lets do away with any gamey temptations and just head them to the rear.

Or maybe this. One crew in 100 or 200 or 500, whatever comes up as HEROIC and you can issue them orders. They help you out in all sorts of ways but if they come to a breaking point, yes they head for the rear or advance in a different direction.

Steve and Charles you have created a monster, lets all have fun.

------------------

Rick614

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

<DIR>

<DIR>

One crew in 100 or 200 or 500, whatever comes up as HEROIC and you can issue them orders.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Now THERE is a damn fine idea! </P>

And if this is done, by all means give them thier SMGs back (or at least a portion of them...say the first guy to bail gets a SMG, the rest get pistols?)</P>

I like this, I really do.

And for the record, I must be right 'cause I now have TWO whole people that agree with me and that is 100% more than ever before! </P>

</BODY>

</HTML>

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[venbede772]

Cautiosly entering this now heated thread....

I still don't quite understand the point of changing the game for bailed out crews. Those who want to move them to the rear immediately can do so. Those who want them only to be able to withdraw can follow that condition. And so on.

When I have a bailed crew I like to get them back to the rear as quickly as possible. At a minimum I want them in cover ASAP. In very rare cases I may want them for a last ditch stand. This is in my opinion perfectly legitimate. I am not going to use them for recon, or assaults, but I just might want them in case of an emergency. Troops under my command are not going to go running off into the distance without my permission.

Most of the time( actually, so far, everytime)I have a bailed crew they will be sent to the rear out of harm's way. Others might not do this. They should be allowed to in my opinion. If you want to use them for recon or attack I think you should be allowed to. So long as those you play against feel the same.

I for one would hate losing control of my units to the AI. I cannot prove it, but I think the majority of CM players hate this too. Routed or broken units are an entirely different story, and I agree I should have no control over these units. But bailed crews....I want to control them. My SOP as a commander would be, your vehicle gets all blowed up, you come back to me for further orders as soon as possible.

So, again I am confused by the argument for changing this part of the game. As far as I can tell all options: withdrawing only, running off map, reconning and fighting, etc are all available as the game is. Everybody can do as they wish. By taking away control the net result would be that some could not play as they see fit, with no benefit to those who want the AI to assume control.

Semper Fi

------------------

"You'll die in combat."--DI Sgt. Nixon, Parris Island, SC---Feb. 1990

[Fred]

I said it once, and I say it again.

Scott, you are not in a position to decide how I or others play the game (even if you think so...)

Your are not, at least not for me, an authority about what is 'gamey' or not.

I'm into wargames for 20 years now, and never had any problems of finding decent opponents. So, if you are afraid, that people play gamey tricks on you, hmm, ... your problem.

But do not try to dictate other players how they have to play! Who are you? What is the name of the last game you designed or programmed?

Hard-coded restrictions on player control are just this; irreversible, artificial limits for 'rules lawyers'.

You totally miss the point with your permanently repeated argument about "realism" (i.e. what you THINK is realism).

I speak of game balance, design decisions and fun, and the majority, I guess, will not accept that you want to force them into playing your game style!

I therefore totally agree with Tom_W; no need for a change in the code.

Fred

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 06-29-2000).]

[Mikeydz]

With all this fuss about "banning" gamey tactics, let's consider this. For the most part, IMO, I belive that BTS's philosophy on how to combat "gamey" tactics is not to ban them, but to make them so costly, that you will stop using them. After all, BTS loved to say that you will have to unlearn what you had learned before in other wargames. You can't unlearn something that you aren't allowed to do. You are just hamstrung and forced into doing what some think is the right" thing to do.

As for the specific case of infanty, if BTS were to do anything, perhaps the should not count those units for calculating the status of a Victory Location, and maybe code in a chance that if the only unit within the "guarding" radius of a captured unit is a crew unit, then the chance of the unit "escaping" increases.