Mikeydz

Jarmo is absolutely correct. It's not cheating (unless you agreed at the start of the battle to not use flag grab tactics), but it is gamey. The main question to ask yourself is this? 1. Am I PURPOSELY using a limitation of the game engine to my advantage? 2. Would this tactic normally fail in real life? For your specific example, the answer to #1, is yes. You are using the fact that there is a hard coded end time limit to the game. Once the time limit is reached, you can pull out a win, even if your enemy has superior forces. Question #2 is again yes. From what your implying with your question, you sound like you are saying that you don't have sufficient forces to hold off a counterattack. What that means is that in real life, since there is no artificial time limit, then your opponent would recapture, and defeat you within a couple of minutes. There are times when capturing a VL toward the end of a game isn't gamey, but your description of the situation (which was a bit vague) doesn't seem to apply.

Here goes.... Is it cheating to use gamey tactics? Do you consider players who use tactics like the jeep rush to be cheaters? In general, no. To illustrate the difference for me between cheating, and using gamey tactics. Using "fast vehicle rush" to exploit the relative spotting model used in CM is using a gamey tactic. It's taking advantage of a limitation. It's playing within the "rules", if not the spirit, of the game system. Using Pillars "Turn off LOS" bug is cheating, because you are giving yourself an advantage by using a unknown flaw in the code. Is it cheating if a player decides not to abide by house rules? Strictly speaking, yes. If Player A agrees to play under a house rule that bans something, then violates that rule, then he is cheating. This is about the only way I would consider the use of a gamey tactic cheating. Do you always clarify the situation vis a vis house rules with your opponent before the game starts? Most of the time, I don't get to picky about house rules. Because of that, if someone does use what I would call a gamey tactic, then I'm not going to bug them, or gripe on the board, about it. I look at it sort of like politics and voting here in the USA. If I don't bother to go out and vote, then I have no right to bitch when the other party wins and does something I don't like. Do you see a player who prefers to allow the use of gamey tactics as an inferior kind of gamer? Not inferior. I think they are a different style of gamer. To each his own. The only gamer that I look down on is cheaters. Some people seem to be upset by the word "gamey". What other word would you use as an alternative that would not hold any negative connotations? It doesn't matter what the word is. The issue is this. If the "anti-gamey" players argue that "gamey" players are by definition cheaters, then I think those players have a right to feel slighted, no matter what you call it. Are house rules a good thing in themselves or a necessary evil? There is no good or evil inherent in a house rule. They are a tool for players to use to control the style of play that they are looking for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crumply: thanks hof. Any idea why wider is better? I don't think they are in much danger of rolling over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because Pontiac thinks so... More than likely, because there is more surface area in contact with the ground, ground pressure is lower, so less chance of bogging. I'm sure there are other benifit, but that's my guess as the main CM benefit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: I can definately offer a good Russian name if anyone is taking notes...Madmatt? "Khrapovitski" Sgt. Khrapovitski nah Lt. Khrapovitski maybe... Major Gen. Khrapovitski <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So what's his nickname??? Major Khrap? (Hint... sound it out...)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cuchulainn: It's seeming that setting up a dozen or so computers may be complicated... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nonsense.. The only problem is finding a sucker, ers... volunteer to agree to host the thing. Since the only way you can play right now is HotSeat, you only really need 1 computer for every two people. And say by some miracle, TCP/ip comes out before this weekend (don't count on it) setting up a lan setup is relatively straightforward. More than likely one of the guests will have some type of networking experiance, so as long as everyone has a network card in thier system, your set. And if they don't, make the cheapskate go buy one, you can get a good card for 20-30 bucks. I help out with a semi-regular LAN party here in Houston every couple of months. We have had 20+ computers going at once. LAN parties are great. BTW, the reason the host is a sucker is when the monthly power bill comes due, and he has to choke on the big boost all those computers gave to his power bill.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: I have REPEATEDLY said that I don't object to programming changes to make the game more realistic, but that I do object to "house rules".Show me a simple statement by me where I said the contrary. Cripes, how many times do I have to repeat it? So please stop whipping a dead cat and attributing to me positions that I do not defend.How many times have I repeated "The game is what it is"? If we do have some differences, it relies on what is or is not possible in the real world and on whether or not "house rules" need to be followed BY ALL players (broken record)! Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fine... You support BTS making changes to fix errors in the code. That's a dead issue.... If you don't want to agree to not use gamey recon, or whatever the house rule is, then don't play that person. I don't see what the argument is anymore. You can't force anyone to play without using house rules, just as no one can force you to play with house rules. I just don't get what is the problem anymore. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 10-02-2000).]

First of all... Just how man squads are you stuffing into these buildings?? If you have more than 2 squads in any building, then you are asking for it. Most buildings, even light ones, will not blow up within 1 or 2 shots, unless you blast it with a huge gun. And to claim that CC's representation of houses that can never be brought down, no matter how many rounds it take, being more realistic is just silly. Houses provive good cover from small arms fire, but I know that if a Sherman rolled up to my house and started lobbing rounds into it, I'd be out the back door fast.

While it would be nice for BTS to e able to concurrently deal with design issues, bug fixes ect, I support BTS's current plan to not release any more patches until TCP/ip is in the bag. The main reason for me is not because I want it badly. I do, but the reason is this. TCP/ip was a promised feature for CM. I think that until TCP/ip is done, BTS isn't going to do any major coding for CM2. So the sooner that they finish up TCP/ip, the sooner that can start crafting thier next masterpiece.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Why single out only jeeps when you can get the same results using ANY unit in a Hail Mary style pass ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why are jeeps being singled out? 1st. The initial message used a jeep as the example vehicle type. 2nd. Because of an error in judgement, BTS set the speed to high for jeeps when moving at fast move off road. 3rd. Because of the speed error, it makes it very hard to kill at jeep if the player lays out an extended set of waypoints that zig-zag, and spiral around, so as to avoid the jeep stopping and having a command delay. These are the Jeep specific issues. Other issues that were brought up, which apply to all vehicles... 1. Borg spotting. 2. Units moving at fast move had thier spotting ability set to high. So yes, any vehicle could be used, but the jeep was singled out in this example because when you combine it's speed, and cost, it's the best vehicle to carry out this tactic. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 09-28-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: You are whipping a dead cat by insisting on my alleged opposition to making changes inthe game to make it more realistic -make whatever changes you want. I DO have objection to forcing players to play in a so-called historical manner by additional rules that are not programmed into the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And just who is forcing anyone to play in a "so-called" historical manner? If you and I set up a PBEM game, and I ask that you not use "jeep rush recon", you have 3 choices. 1. Agree to play me using my request. 2. Agree to my request, then violate it by using "jeep rush recon". 3. Not play me. At no point has BTS or anyone else said that you MUST play using "house rules" that attemp to add realism, or return the game, since you aren't worthy. No one has said anything like this, and no one will. You are free to play the game as you wish, exploiting any loophole or bug in the code that you wish. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Let us assume that CM is a perfect historical simulation (which it is not as you admit)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where, in the 100,000+ posts, on any page on this website, or any interview given by BTS, did they evey say this was a perfect historical simulation of anything. This stamement makes it sound as if you finally got BTS to reveal some secret that they were trying to hide. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our difference of opinion does not lie with whether or not you should try to improve the program: it lies in whether or not players should be constrained to follow so-called historical tactics when the game mechanics cannot constrain them, and it lies to some exten on how good a simulation of WW2 combat mission really is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As far as the first part of your statement, I think it is safe to state that almost no one disagrees with you. Like I said before, no one wants to force you to play with any rules tahat are not coded into the game, if you don't want to. But the inverse is also true. I can't be forced to play someone who doesn't want to play with "house rules" either. Just what is wrong with this? So far as the original point of this topic, the only thing BTS has done is state... 1. A mistake was made on just how fast a vehicle could move over terrain. This error will be fixed. 2. An mistake in the spotting ability of a unit that is moving at max speed using the Fast move command. This also will be fixed.

Tcp/ip-LAN (ie Internet play) is the current focus of programing, so far that I know. Work on CM2 more than likely is in a very preliminary stage. Sorting through data, some early graphic work for units and such, but I doubt any significant CM2 specific programing work has started. Don't worry. We'll hopefully see Tcp/ip before sometime in October, or possibly early November, it will come. After that, unless a major game breaking bug rears it's ugly head, I'll bet programming will shift toward CM2.

Correct on the LAN issue. LAN and Internet play will both use TCP/IP. This is the main focus of programing right now, so I'm hopefully that we'll see it sometime in October.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: (Though I would love to someday see "Infantry Platoon leader simulator") <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't that planned for CM6??? BTW guys... we're doing a great job on this thread. Keep it up... Only 1990 more posts till we pass the Peng challenge thread. Mikey

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1: I think BTS should put another beta tester to work. They need a guy whose natural approach to a computer game is to look at ways to take advantage of the program in order to maximize his chances of winning. I do not mean this to sound like a negative quality. The more familiar a person is with the "rules" of a game the better they can use the rules to their advantage. This is a legitimate gaming skill for all games that aren't aiming for realism. This type of thinker might really be able to help BTS prevent unrealistic (gamey) tactics from creeping into future CMs by using his ability to discover them. Such a person could play PBEM against one of the other beta testers such as Los using every trick he can come up with, without regard for realism, through his understanding of the program. Los would then recognize an unrealistic tactic that could never work in the real world and blow the whistle. I recommend Tom W for the job, a self proclaimed "gamey" thinker. Again, I don't mean this in any negative way, Tom W. With all the experts in various fields that BTS has doing the testing, why not a Gamey Tactics Specialist too. Smoker out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was thinking about making this point also. Especially considering the fact that since one of the main design ideas centers around the fact that "gamey" tactics should not work, it's pretty sound that the best person to root out gamey tactics to squash is a "gamey" player at heart. You should hear some of the war stories from the past about screws in differnt game systems that some of my old gaming buddies would tell. They would learn every rule and permutaion of a game, then figure out stuff that no one could even think of to exploit a loop hole. Those were the days...

Old topic, but basically, the "better" German tank optics are not simulated. Mainly because BTS didn't have any good data on exactly how much of an advantage, if any, those good sights gave German tank crews, especially considering the relative short range of engagements we see in CM.. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001449.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003178.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001375.html This thread, while old, contains some of the rational on why running over troops with your tanks was not included, including an official BTS response.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I must disagree strongly with this point "while the LOS calculations do not." When one off my tanks can shoot directly through one of my own tanks AND directly through one of my opponents tanks there is something very wrong with realism. I raised this LOS determination issue precisely because it DOES indeed to lead to a lack of realism. If I can trace the LOF of a round from the main weapon of one of my tanks directly through one my tanks, and a concrete pillbox and wooden bunker and road block AND any enemy tank to actaully target that round to hit the farthest enemy target of my choosing I think there is something VERY fundentally wrong with the way reality is modeled in Method 2 for LOS detemination. Now I may be ranting about this but I do fully understand that nothing can be done about this at this point, (which is why I introduce the hope for the future being Moore's law). I still content the BOTH absolute spotting and Method 2 LOS determination need to be looked at to make the future versions of CM2 MUCH more realistic. Sorry to single out LOS determination Mikeydz, but in my opinion when pillboxes, bunkers, road blocks and vehicles over NO cover because of LOS determination based on the cpu time save Method 2 it does indeed compromise the degree of reality we can expect from the game. -tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point is that while method 2 does compromise some reality, with vehicles/fortifiations offering no cover, it isn't comparable to the lack of reality that absolute spotting introduces. As BTS has stated, they felt that the processing power saved by using method 2 outweighed the generally rare instances where the failings of method 2 are evident. Of course, when BTS decides that there is sufficient horsepower to be able to LOS method 1, then I'll be thrilled. Too put it this way, you get an incredible boost in "realisim" when BTS makes the change from absolute to relative spotting, compared to the minor, but welcome, increase we will see when BTS goes from Method 2 LOS to Method 1. Mikey

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: OK I've been thinking, yes actually intellectualizing, the entire conceptual basis, of this jeep recon issue. Lets start with the premise that MANY players like to play CM to model, excersise and explore Real World Military Tactics ™ (RWMTs). And to these players the the use of other effective tactics in the game that are not viable RWMTs, like the deep fast suicide jeep recon joy ride (DFSJRJR), represent "gamey tactics" which they find unrealistic and offensive when they play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is pretty accurate. It's also unfortunate that some players give the immpression that they are offended if someone uses a gamey tactic against them. The real issue is not whether we should be labeling tactics as gamey or not, or if players should use gamey tctics or not. The real issue is players need to clarify from the outset whether they prefer a no-holds-barred game, or one where "RWMT's" rule the day. If people included this info with other obvious items like scenario size, ect, then almost all friction generated because of gameyness issues would be wiped out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BUT, the premise that RWMTs can be accurately modeled, excersised and explored is compromised at the Most fundamental level by two game design decisions that I now understand and support. The foundation of this GREAT game is fundamentally build on top of two fundametally non-Real World principles, (this is not new and Steve and Charles Designed this game with these issues in mind from the start) #1 Absolute Spotting (the borg-like instant tranmission of ALL recon intel to all other friendly units) #2 LOS determination according to Steve's "Method 2" "#2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't" Here's a refresher: Quoting Steve: "Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween. So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine. So we can see here that two of the fundamental foundation priciples that the game was designed around are at their VERY core, abstractions or approximations of the physics of REALITY to begin with. I personally think these approximations of WWII Combat reality are the VERY BEST approximations and abstractions I have ever seen in a War Game so I am by no means complaining about them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's the problem using these two examples of abstrations together. While both abstractions were made because of hardware issues, the spotting abstaction gives rise to realisim issues, while the LOS calculations do not. As Steve pointed out, both methods produce identical results in alsomt every situation, but method 2 was done because it puts a lighter burden on the CPU, which alows them to lower system requirements for the game, with little effect on the game. The spotting method used in CM was chosen because, at the time the decision had to be made on which way to go as far as spotting, there was no way to even contemplate getting relative spotting in, from a development time and hardware capability viewpoint. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So this leads me to wonder why so many other players and folks who post here EXPECT so MUCH more REALITY out of the game when these two fundamental prinicples compromise the actaul degree of integrity or reality this game can actually offer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Speaking for myself, as a non-gamey advocate. I think it is precisly BECAUSE of the spotting abstraction, that I want to look for ways to work within the limitaions of the system to plauable real world results. As you point out, it's mainly a philosophical difference. I look for ways to make up for limitations presented by the system, while you look for ways to work the system to give you the upper hand. Absolutely nothing wrong with either game play approach. They just are generally incompatible, which is why players need to emphasize from the start what kind of game they are looking to play. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seems like any attempt to model Accurate WWII Combat reality on top of this contruct that is inherently unrealistic to begin with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like I stated above, it all depends on the player. If they want to work with the limitaions to try and simulate RWMTs, then realistic results can be easily had using CM. Since it is patently impossible to ever make a totally realistic game, we have to make do the best we can. And CM is the best game to come along that allows the realistic player to get realistic results. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Its a GAME! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly why people should not get overly worked up if someone doesn't have the same outlook as another player. If I don't make clear at the start that I'm looking for a "non-gamey" game, then I shouldn't get PO'd. Just bite the bullet and finish the game in style. And even if someone does pull a blatently gamey tactic, even after we agree on a "non-gamey" game, just use it as incentive to kick his butt in the game even more. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> IT attempts to model the reality of POST D-Day WWII small unit combat tactics, it does this BETTER than other game out there! Some one else said it best, No other game models the "Holy Crap! Where the Hell did that come from!" factor like CM currently does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All I can say to this is 100% on target. No argument from me on this... [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 09-23-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: Two examples of fast recon with a single vehicle (a Stuart in this case), one in unknown territory and the other in KNOWN enemy territory: "...I decided not to wait for reinforcements to come up, but to press on as fast as possible and to get some real information that would be of value to the commanders behind me. ...I gave my driver the order to advance, and told the crew to be ready for practically anything." (Major Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, p. 49) Note the words "as fast as possible" "...I signaled to my other tanks to stay where they were. I was going to make dead sure what those two vehicles were before attacking them. Telling Whaley to speed up, I rushed headlong toward them on a diagonal course at about 30 miles per hour. If they were jerry and they saw me, I would have plenty of speed to play with and my course would make me a difficult target". Brazen Chariots, p. 189 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, but in CM, jeeps and light vehicles move faster than "is possible". That's why they will be given slowed speeds when moving over terrain instead of road. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTW, CavScout, thanks for printing out the manual text spelling out the standard way of scouting.Unfortunately this manner of scouting is usually not feasible in CM scenarios and in the situations that we are discussing. I don't think that anyon wuld scout with a jeep or halftrack if he had armored cars (at least I wouldn't). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume your saying here that if your only choice was to use a jeep for your mounted recon, then you would have to use the jeep? I have no problem with that, but the catch is this. in a QB, you do have the choice. You can spend a small amount to get the jeep to do your "recon", or you can spend more for better armed and armored halftracks or better yet ACs. But if your hold recon plan is to run him into the rear, with no expectation that the unit will survive, then you would chose to use the cheap jeep for the suicide recon, instead of the more expensive AC. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BTW, about "experts" and fast recon supporting your position, here is what Mannheim Tanker replied to the ORIGINAL QUESTION about whether fast zigzagging recon was gamey: "No. That's exactly what I was taught to do at Ft. Knox. Only idiots and those with death wishes take a straight-line, Sunday stroll into enemy territory." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When under fire or moving in an area possibly covered by the enemy, you would of course do "erratic mauneuvers" since it complicates your enemies ability to put effective fire on you. That isn't the issue. Because the now famed jeep moves to fast, it's harder to kill in CM than it should be. When you couple that with the spotting issues in the game, the difficulty in enforcing fire disipline amongst your troops, ect... That's what causes this to be a gamey tactic.

More than likey, if BTS did anything, once CM2 (or 3, and so on) was released, they would patch CM up to include relevant features. I doubt they would just make it to where the CM2 engine would be able to load and create files compatible with CM. I'm sure there will be desing and gameplay changes to CM2 so it better simulates the different battle conditions on the east front. I'll bet that if it is feasable, they will continue to support the CM engine with updates, such as the relative spotting issue, ect. Mikey

Ok, I ran some tests... I'm no expert, but have loads of free time so this is what I did. Total Number of Test Runs: 1000 Test Ground Condition: Mud Test Vehicle: Basic US M4 Test Vehicle Speed: Fast Move I ran 20 tanks of each experiance level (Green, Reg, Vet, Crack, and Elite). I had them race at fast move over open terrain over a course 1000 meters long. The totals I'm giving is the percentage of tanks that completed the course. I repeated the test 10 times, for a total of 200 runs for each experiance group, or 1000 tests total. Green: 37% Regular: 39% Veteran: 36% Crack: 35% Elite: 34% I guess if you factor in margin of error, then more than likely this can be considered close to a dead heat. It does not look like experiance helps at all as far as preventing a tank from becoming immobilized due to ground conditions. BTW, for you statistical types out there, how do you figure out what your margin of error is? I know the large the sample, the less the margin of error, but how do you figure it? Mikey

Pacific CM, if it is ever done, would not be seen for quite some time. Current plans are (IIRC)... Eastern Front (CM2) North Africa/Mediterannian (CM3) Early War Years (CM4) So if they did a PTO version, as EM mentioned, it would be at least as far back as CM5. BTS has, from what I know, made absolutely no promises, but they haven't ruled it out 100% either.

troll, ban, nuff said.

What range was it from the Lynx to the Sherman. Just looking at the charts, the best the Lynx can penetrate, with 0 deg slope, using AP ammo at 100 meters is 32. The weakest armor value on any Sherman is 38. A. Either the Lynx has a miniscule chance at a "standard" penetration at extreme close range, though I doubt it... or... B. The Lynx gunner was hoping for a penetration hitting a weak spot on the armor, which may be possible... or... C. Perhaps the Lynx was hoping to help by getting a track hit to immobilize the Sherman. You also can't rule out that perhaps the TAC-AI canceled you move order and created it's own reverse order. If it did, I think your Vehicle suffers a command delay, just as if you had canceled and replotted the order on your own. And since the gunner knew he wasn't going anywhere a at least a few seconds, might as well take a couple of pot shots at the M4. I actually tested this kind of stuff a while back, and the AI almost always will retreat a tank that was in the same boat at your Lynx. As far as the smoke goes, that is under control of the Tac-Ai for defensive purposes. I would have guessed that at least 1 of your Lynx would have popped smoke, but that's not a certainty.

I guess you can say I'm the polar oppisite of Mr. Johnson. I tend to go with Veteran tanks supported by Regular infantry. I'll usually go with higher experiance support units, but the grunt platoons normally stay at Regular. In fact, I wouldn't even consider, given a choice, getting less than Veteran status for snipers. or anti-tank teams. Since these troop types have very limited firepower, I don't mind spending the extra points to help insure that every one of thier shots count.