Dr. Brian
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Dr. Brian
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:
Now... does ANYBODY have a problem with a person who finds and reports such a problem?
OK, so why can't players identify other problems in the game, like blatently ahistorical use of crews, and present that as a problem that needs fixing? Why the big outcry from people AGAINST even identifying the problem, not to mention having it be fixed (I know that not everybody is against it being fixed, even if they exploit it now).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Steve, fix the use of crew rushes. It is not historical.
With that said, I think I get peeved when the "simulator" crowd says I'm playing the game wrong, or, that they will never play me, etc. Actually, I'm somewhat sad about it. I'd love to play some of these people cause they seem like they'd be good opponents. However, even if we agree to some pre-game code of conduct, there is certain to be an instance where there could be a possible "gamey" act and the game would be ruined for him through no fault of my own. And I understand that the "simulator" crowd shouldn't have to put up with that. They want to enjoy their game, their own way.
When you have the "anything goes" style like the "game" crowd, you are never disappointed. Just upset that you didn't think of that new tactic first. And that's what it's all about for me. Coming up with new and exciting tactics to win, within the WWII simulation model.
Steve, even if BTS somehow made CM the EXACT simulation of WWII from air power to the use of latrines, I know that I would still create an unorthodox approach to use to try to win the game. That is the challenge of being a good commander. That is what I rise to. Beat my opponent senseless that they go home crying.
Of course, it never ends up that way. 
No need to really respond to this if you don't want to, it's just to try and give some insight as to how a "game" crowd person like myself feels. To be honest, the impression that I feel from the "simulator" crowd is not a good one. I can't place my finger on what to call it, but, it feels somewhat condescending. (This is not true for everyone, such as yourself, but it's a general impression from the "crowd.")
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Jumbo writes:
"Can anyone say if these "gamey" tactics actually work?"
Jumbo,
My answer is yes. However, just like "historical" tactics, sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. More interesting though is that they work more often against the "simulation" crowd. They tend to work less against the "game" crowd. It is the unorthodox use of the game pieces and unorthodox tactics that the "simulator" is not prepared for, causing what is sometime called the Boyd Cycle. This leads to his defeat, and therefore "simulator's" disappointment that he lost not to WWII tactics, but by some unorthodox approach to the game (or simulation).
Does it happen all the time? Of course not!
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 01-05-2001).]
-
Funny thing about this "gamey" vs. "non-gamey" debate. Until I came to this discussion group, it was never a problem (playing gamey, that is).
In every game tournament I've been in (a lot of ASL with that), in the hundred or so different opponents I've played against (computer and board), there was always one objective. It has been to win the game, by whatever is allowed by the rules (or game engine). Historical or ahistorical, does not matter.
From my perspective, which is outside this forum, the "play the game historically" crowd, to me, was non existent. When I think about it, it's like, "Where were all you guys hiding all this time?"
Funny how information-exchange like this… changed that view.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Manx,
I have some impressions about the Sherman. What made it valuable to the US/Brits was the fact that it was a mass production AFV. The chasis was used on numerous models which all helped.
Was it outgunned? Sure was.
But, was it USED properly? Sure was.
It was a infantry support tank, and also used for exploitation. When used in those roles, it worked wonderfully. When matched up in a tank battle in the ETO, it found itself in trouble.
Only numbers, speed, and the gyrostablizer (when employed by trained crews) allowed it to over come the enemy.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:
Jumbo Sherman glacis resistance is same as a single 179mm plate at 0° slope. 88L71 penetrates about 175mm 0° plate at around 2000m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, not sure what direction you're going. But, if 175mm penetration is less than 179mm of armor, then it should not penetrate at 2000m (give or take the rare occurances).
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:
Reagan's response? "I don't know and I don't care."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that was the 3rd Baseman and Shortstop.
Who's on first?
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar:
Very few victories (or whole wars for that matter) are won conventionally. The winner, more often then not, has been the guy willing to do something different.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Joe, this is sooooo true. It goes along my thoughts that a "good commander" will do what it takes, whatever it takes, to win attitude.
Again though, I'm more than convinced now that there are two trains of thought.
Simulation first, then a game second. (Therefore, winning is not importnat, modelling WWII is).
The other, is a game first, and simulation second. (Winning by whatever means the game allows is the driving force, and it models WWII makes it cooler).
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
"Gamey?" It's already been defined.
Steve (of BTS) has said in another thread that CM is more than a game. In fact, it is not a game, but a simulation. He, as well as others, firmly believes that. I'm going to therefore group them into:
"CM is a simulation that can also be a game" category.
On the other hand, there are the:
"CM is a game that is also a simulation of WWII combat" category.
That is the fundamental difference in beliefs, and why everyone is so vehement about them. Take a second to read each one again, and think about it. Simulation first, then a game. Or, a game, that is then a simulation.
The "CM is a game crowd" get upset when they are told they are "not playing the 'simulation' right." They then say, "who on earth are you to tell me how to play the game? (not simulation) I'm not breaking any rules. In fact, I'm doing a lot of great, innovative stuff, to win."
It is clearly clear that I am in the "CM is a game crowd." However, I also realize it simulates WWII combat, but, it's not an accurate representation (admitted by everyone here). Borg control, LOS for each unit, etc., that is why it is a game to me, the perhaps the rest of "the CM is a game crowd."
Jumbo stated that:
"Playing to only win, win, win, win, & win. Sure its a game and someone has to win, but how you win is more important."
Jumbo, you make this sound like a "bad" thing. Since I'm in the "CM is a game" crowd, the whole object is to win against your opponent. I'm trying to out think and out smart my opponent, and that means to use the game engine, and exploit whatever you can to win. I'm playing against "Mike" not against the "Germans."
I'm sure this is viewed the almost the opposite from the "CM is a simulation crowd" and why to you, it is the simulation that drives your game style of play.
Now, let me just say, if BTS changes the game engine that in some way takes away my 18 th level Wizard Platoon HQ (i.e., makes it simulate WWII better), then I will find another way to exploit the "game I call CM" to win.
If BTS removes "crew" rushes somehow, I'm not going to cry, or even tell them to stop. In fact, I wholly support making CM more of a true WWII simulation. I'll be the first to say, "Hey, that never happened in WWII." However, to me, it is still a "game" where I play to win, just like in "real life." You fight to win.
Win or lose, I enjoy CM immensely. It is a game (to me) during a period in history I love to immerse myself in.
I will play anyone, even the "simulation" crowd. The only thing that I would need from them, is that if I can't use the game engine to the fullest, then I would need to know beforehand. Remember, I'm out to pummel you, to win. Any "limitation" doesn't matter to me. It's still a game first, and a simulation second.
If you've read this far, thanks for reading. If we can agree to disagree, then there is hope.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Jumbo,
Thanks. It's such a decisive issue, that I can see why it happens. In fact, I can be very emphatic about "gamey" play, just like the many other members of the discussion group. In fact, I'll drop my $0.02 in later in this thread.
(Oh, thanks for considering to write offline. By not including my e-mail address, I am protecting myself from spam'ers, as well as the immature people that if you disagree with their opinion, they put you on junk mail lists, and you get flooded with porn spam, etc. I hope you understand).
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Horncastle:
Anyone recommend any good war novels? Ones with tanks in would be good!
Cheers
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Red Army Tank Commanders.
I don't have it in front of me, so I can't give you the ISBN.
Sorry.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Haven't played with any 1MT vehciles yet, but, you are right. It should be BU if it's going to fire its MA or CMG.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<sigh>
I was hoping that this was going to be a good topic on different tactics used, and depending on your outlook, you could take them as non realistic, or the other side, innovative ways to win.
Since this is devolving into whining about winning or realism, etc., maybe BTS should just lock it up.
BTS? Please lock. I don't want to get into the same old argument like where Jumbo is heading. Everybody has different opinions on this, and this was not meant to be a topic to sway anyone's opinion.
It was to be hopefully a source of what we can see, or will see in CM.
For those of you that participated early, and in good spirit of the topic, it is appreciated.
<sigh>
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo:
A real solution must be reached or this thread just looks like a bunch of whining.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, please refer to the first post.
It can be:
You can use this as a resource for:
1) Finding out new and innovative ways to win; or
2) Find out new and "gamey" things to watch out for or agree not to do with your opponent.
This is NOT about whining. It's a SOURCE of information.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Aww, Jumbo, everything was so good, then #4 was "politcal."
Please, no statements regarding why or why not gamey, just list the tactics.
(Also, submitted with respect)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer:
I have used gamey tactics myself only in retaliation or to test the game system vs the AI.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Slaps your wrist.
SLAP
No posturing, please.
-
Then there is using the board edge as "cover," protecting to your flank.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Here's a recent one for me.
A MG armed vehicle (such as a halftrack or carrier) has a crew casualty. Well, the vehicle can no longer target an enemy unit, as the MG is not manned. If you are in need of foot infantry, run the vehicle in front of some of your enemy's antitank assets. Bam! You have a wreck, and now some foot infantry.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Please do not post how you hate or love "gamey" play. That's been done elsewhere. This topic is NOT about that.
It is about identifying all the different types of tactics you use or hate to be used.
All we're interested in, is what type of "gamey' play you use, or have been subjected to.
You can use this as a resource for:
1) Finding out new and innovative ways to win; or
2) Find out new and "gamey" things to watch out for or agree not to do with your opponent.
Please remember, just post a favorite OR hated "gamey" tactic. We don't need to discuss the validity of each one. That's been done elsewhere too.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:
Many of the people pressing us to correct the suicide crew reality problem are in fact hardcore ASLers. They apparently have had the same problems with competitive play with that game as they do with CM.e<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm, I haven't surveyed ASLers that play CM, so you could be right. However, I play ASLers in CM (but they don't participate on the BBS here, so my pool of reference is outside this group). Nevertheless, my use of "gamey" tactics (crews as infantry, board edge cover, scouting AT teams, etc.) is probably due to the competitive play in ASL Tournaments that I grew up with.
I still go to tournament year after year.
When you sit face to face across a table at a convention, in a 125 man ASL winner take all tournament, you are going to try EVERYTHING that is legal (i.e., not specifically prohibited by the rules) to win.
"Just win baby."
Should the "rules" of CM change, I'll modify my tactics and game play. Really simple for me, and no big deal.
I think it's the connotation that "gamey" can be interpreted as bad. I look at it as another way to win (re: pound opponent into submission, out think him, out smart him, etc.).
Just some more though
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
I'm sorry I should have been more specific, I was refering to video games or computer games only.
ASL, the board game, is of course an exception.
-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope then... I know of no computer games. BTS is the exception, that is for sure!
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
Gamey ...
I think using the map edge to cover your flank is gamey. Do I do it, you bet.
I think using Baz or Pzk teams for scouting, when no enemy AFVs are in your opponenets OB, is gamey. Do I do that, you bet.
Hell, I even made a halftrack go in front of an AFV so I could make the crew foot infantry. The crew has a casulity, and so it wouldn't shoot it's MGs. I figure the crew on foot would help me win more than a halftrack that couldn't shoot. Is it gamey? You bettcha!
But, I play to win. This is not a study in history for me. I read books and study for that, conventions, travel, etc. CM is a contest to outsmart, out think, and beat your oppoenent into submission... basically, win the game.
To me, THAT is the best commander. One that takes his assets, and uses them to win. And since these are NOT real men, I don't have to have a conscience about them either.
I guess the list goes on and on.
Sorry if I upset anyone, but, that's how I like to play, and the people I play like it that way too. Just find people with similar interests... and, if it's going to be a problem, ASK BEFORE you play.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
Here's a good question, Name just ONE other game or game designer that has gone to this length to balance real life realism and deal with "gamey" use of crews?
any games come to mind?
None that I know of.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Advanced Squad Leader by Avalon Hill. They developed Red Barricades where the "mad rush" was sheer maddness, as the units today, would be needed tommorrow.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:
Think about it. If you knew that you would have to fight the enemy in another hour's time, would you send your mortar crews off to near certain death <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Umm, Steve, CMBO does not model this, specifically, the fact that there is no battle in another hour.
Unless, of course, you do a campaign game (operation).
This is a MAJOR problem is ASL. You have the same situations. A set turn scenario, where all you have to do is win. Funny though, ASLers have no problems using crews as "fodder." (I don't either in ASL, or CM). But, that's because I play to win the game. I expect my opponent to do the same to me.
But, to correct that problem of "that mad rush," ASL developed the hisotrical campaign games. 20-30 scenarios, where the at the end of each scenario, the troops would HAVE to be used the next day.
In scenarios however, that is not the case.
In CM scnearios, it's the same thing. A campaign game where past performace is accounted for the following day, and you'll get rid of the "mad rush."
Solution then is a compromise. Scenarios for people who like the mad rush. A campaign game were it's sheer madness to do a mad rush since you need everyone the next day.
Pretty simple, actually.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 01-02-2001).]
-
My take ...
If you want to use crews for any purpose, go right ahead.
If you want to use AFVs in suicide rushes, go right ahead. If you want to use AT-teams or sharpshooters as scouts, go right ahead.
You are trying to win the game, and I respect that. You are plaing a game (a game, a game, a game) and using the tools of the GAME, to win the GAME.
I respect your talent and your use of every weapons platform available to you.
In chess (another war game), it is certainly "unrealistic" to have your queen enter "battle," but they do it anyway. Using crews/sharpshooters/AT teams, etc., in CM is no different.
If that doesn't bother you, then using your CM game peices in any way to win shouldn't bother you either. Just remember that they are both games, and you'll be fine.
If you're still stuck on "realism," then maybe you should just join up some army or mercenary outfit, and find a war somewhere in the world. That'll give you the realism you want.
It's a game people. Enjoy it as a game. It's not real, or is it meant to be "real."
Okay, slam away.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!
Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
Dr.Brian - I understand your frustration at the fact that some good opponents may not want to offer you a game. But that is the way it is, pre-game rules or not, it is a question of the spirit behind the game. Some people like to go for a beach holiday, others like to go skiiing. Although they may have a great time with each other, the circumstances are not such that it is likely to happen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Andreas, I'm with you. It's just a shame. Sort of limits the game pool of potential players, through no fault of my own or anyone elses.
Sometimes, I just wish there was a better way.
------------------
Doc
God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!