Jumbo

Holy Smokes! I have certainly learned a lot since I began this thread. I read every post and I have to say that it would an be honor to play against all who contibuted. ( No, not all at once, mind you. ) I personally play to win in as historical a manner as possible -if I can. I'm also open to inspiration and trying something new. The ability to adapt has been illustrated as one reason why the allies won in western Europe. I mirror that when I can. I'm also willing to learn more. I cannot agree that "gamey" is an insult and I feel that no one should take offense at it's mention. All that it means is that someone simply didn't know. To me, its an opportunity to learn something new. I know bad sportsmanship enters into this somewhere. If someone continues to knowingly play in a "gamey" way, shouldn't they be shunned until they change? They aren't gamey, they're just bad sports. Are ANY of the so-called gamey tactics even successful tactics? Thanks. Jumbo

Yes, nice idea Wolf^. Personally, I might not use it -a lot, but I'd use it, for sure. Jumbo

Well said Crank_GS. Has all of this competition on these ladders numbed us? Do we only want to reach out and crush someone so much that it spills onto how we interact here in subtle ways? Soon the newbies here will far outnumber the oldbies! Like an old soldier, will they just fade away? It would be a terrible loss if the oldbies did. They have a lot to share and pass on. The way that I see it, even when we are trying REAL hard to defeat our opponent, we must still have a high level of basic respect for them. We wargamers are a dying breed afterall. We have to stick together. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gremlin: Seriously, T-shirts would be cool for all of us unabashed computer geeks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yes, T-shirts are an excellent idea. Jumbo

Manx, I lost a Tiger once, when it was going down a hill. The top of it's turret was penetrated by a great shot from a British Challenger tank. Also, a single Jumbo Sherman tank that I had took out two Tigers in one turn when they were buttoned up & (fortunately) busy with infantry. Yeah, they don't seem to be the feared monsters that I thought they were. It was from this game that I chose Jumbo as a Username. Another time, I had great success against allied infantry with one when I used it with lots of infantry to look out for it. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: So pat yourself on the back, Madmatt, and knock down a drink or two. God knows you deserve it, my boy. Maybe your new sig should be "Semper Fidelus Big Time."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I second the motion! Jumbo

Wow, great idea Atlas. Thanks. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: I most liky use Gamey tactics Hay I don't have a clue whast gamey and whats no. Other then buging the people who want guns in bildings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rob/1, If you haven't already checked out Dr. Brian's thread about gamey tactics, please do so. There are some classical ones listed there and the list is growing -thanks to Dr. Brian. Jumbo

I first of all want to apologize to Dr. Brian for screwing up his thread. Technically he is correct. I should've read his original post more closely and followed his rules to the letter. Too bad that he cannot be conacted off of the discussion boards. I'd then offer my apology in person. So people can share their ideas regarding gamey tactics and the word "gamey" itself, I offer this thread. Only the already accepted discussion board rules apply. We have to remember something very important. (We all hope at least) that there will be an increasing influx of Combat Mission players and hence an influx of members to this discussion board. Communicating about gamey tactics can only increase awareness and good sportsmanship. Why did I ever do something gamey? I did it because I simply didn't know it was gamey and I wanted to win. I admit that I may yet have more to learn. It is the responsibility of the senior members to educate the junior members. Were replacements ignored when they arrived from the US during WW II? Individually -maybe, but on an Army wide basis, they recieved various amounts of training. The better units put their replacements through rigorous training programs near the front lines. This subject must continously be revisited for the sake of the newbies and for our own enjoyment when we play against them. Telling someone to do a search can alienate them. We as wargamers must stick together and not be divided. Technically, we are a dying "breed". So, here is my idea as to why gamey tactics exist and my "therefore". Playing to only win, win, win, win, & win. Sure its a game and someone has to win, but how you win is more important. This is hard to express and yet it is very profound. What kind of win is it if you use gamey tactics? Or search the game to find a tactic that never was used or even thought of during the war. BTS themselves say that this is more of a simulation than a game. Get deep into the part and really simulate WW II. In all of the fighting were all the troops the best? Were all the tanks the best? Was victory always certain before an action even started? Test your limits and them improve upon them. Use all Regulars for a change and adapt to making it work. Most of all have fun. Thank you for reading this. Jumbo

I've looked over at the TGN and there doesn't seem to be any. Thanks. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumbo: Mr Clark, I know exactly what you mean. I experienced it to. I think that the CHANCE ENCOUNTER scenario is a parody. Once that I saw the absurdity of that first turn, I stopped playing it and went to another. Jumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ooops. I didn't mean CHANCE ENCOUNTER. I meant the scenario that Mr. Clark was referring to. Sorry. Jumbo

Mr Clark, I know exactly what you mean. I experienced it to. I think that the CHANCE ENCOUNTER scenario is a parody. Once that I saw the absurdity of that first turn, I stopped playing it and went to another. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: 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) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where do gamey tactics come from? Our attitude about the game and how we approach it. A real solution must be reached or this thread just looks like a bunch of whining. (I'd email you this, but you've made your email address unavailable.) Jumbo

IMHO, 1. Playing with an unrealistic mix of experience levels for your troops like all veterans, elite, or crack troops. Or simply not having the majority of your troops being regulars. See the top of page 78 in the "good book" (I mean the CMBO Manual) and look under the heading "Regular". 2. Always ignoring how rare a tank type was. During WW II there were only 254 Sherman Jumbos ever made. Or if you line up with only JagdTigers (of which only approx. 77 were produced). 3.) Always using Airborne, Sturmgruppe, or some other elite unit type of troops. What, can't you win without them? 4.) Lastly, playing to only win, win, win, win, & win. Sure its a game and someone has to win, but how you win is more important. This is hard to express and yet it is very profound. What kind of win is it if you use gamey tactics? Or search the game to find a tactic that never was used or even thought of during the war. BTS themselves say that this is more of a simulation than a game. Get deep into the part and really simulate WW II. In all of the fighting were all the troops the best? Were all the tanks the best? Was victory always certain before an action even started? Test your limits and them improve upon them. Use all Regulars for a change and adapt to making it work. Most of all have fun. Submitted with respect, Jumbo

Seahawkvfa201, My friend and I came up with something that might help you. We play Meeting Engagements and we turn off the victory location flags and ignore them. We instead play to then find and hopefully defeat our opponent in detail. An exact knowledge of the victory points is unimportant. If you're honest with yourself, you can tell if you are losing and its time to withdraw or surrender. Sure the situation is similar initially, but I don't want to strung out racing towards the center. My opponent may not be moving towards the center. He may be moving on one of my flanks and catches me unprepared. This encourages the use of recon and formations where units can hopefully support each other. I hope this helps. Jumbo

I believe that it has been talked about before. I'm not sure what the answer ended up being. If there was an answer that is. Still, it is an excellent question. Jumbo

How about: The Battle of Kursk 1943, The Soviet General Staff Study, Translated & edited by David M. Glantz and Harold S. Orenstein When Titans Clashed, How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, by David M. Glantz & Jonathon House Enjoy!

Jim Crowley is only exercizing his sense of humor. There was absolutely nothing about his post that was mean spirited. ROTFLMAO! :0

Many thanks to you Jackal. I had the same questions.

LOL. He sounds serious. Jumbo

My last question should read : If they (meaning the experience/ morale of the individuals/ units who fought WW II) weren't all the same, why do they have to be the same (or just restricted to two choices) in a CMBO Quick Battle? Sorry for the typo Jumbo

Originally posted by David Aitken: Freedom is about choice. The point is that if you don't have a choice (in a certain area of the game), then there isn't much freedom (in that particular area). Is there? Not much choice equals not much freedom. I don't want to combine weird forces to come up with some sort of gamey "solution" to beat someone with -that won't work anyways. What sort of win could that be? In gaming, the end doesn't justify the means. To me, it is the joy of gaming, learning from mistakes and doing better next time to be able to have a higher quality experience, the camaraderie and friendship. Thats why I game. Not to just win! I want a little more versatility to accurately simulate an historical action that could've taken place in WW II and not know the map or the OOB of my opponent ahead of time -without a third party being involved. To do that would mean a very minor option has to be added to the QB. An option that would have very little impact if any. Why? It would be gamey, not tollerated, AND a fools errand because they would find out quickly that it wouldn't work. I want to VERY clear here. Overall (and in many, many ways), I'm extremely happy with CMBO. TCP/IP multiplied my feelings of gratitude. No one & no product is perfect. I, along with others are simply commenting (with respect) that it could be improved in a tiny area. That is all. You might remember the subject that I used to start this thread. "Were they really all the same?" It was a question and the real answer is that they weren't -all the same. So, David I'll ask another question that you'll probably ignore. If they (meaning the experience/ morale of the individuals/ units who fought WW II) weren't all the same, why do they have to be the same (or just restricted to two choices) in CMBO? Jumbo

Originally posted by David Aitken: Quick Battles were never intended to simulate any kind of historical action. Too bad. I thought CMBO was a historical simulation. Originally posted by David Aitken: As I have said, competitive games need to be fair, for general consumption and not just for the benefit of fanatics. How could the ideas that I and others have possibly be unfair? Unfair to whom? Besides, whom do you consider a fanatic? Originally posted by David Aitken: For those who care more about the details, the scenario editor is very easy to use – and can even generate terrain for you like the Quick Battle function. Can the scenario editor create a Meeting Engagement where neither player knows the map ahead of time OR the other player's OOB without a third party participating? I'll answer that. No, it cannot. So, it's use is somewhat limited. [bTS, I'm still glad that it is there. Don't get me wrong. } Originally posted by David Aitken: To make the Quick Battle function any more versatile would be to ruin its functionality. Now that is truly speculation if there ever was any. We're talking about a very minor option that doesn't have to even be used. The host sets up a QB. Even if the host enabled what we're asking for, it would be gamey, not tollerated, AND a fools errand because they would find out quickly that it wouldn't work. All conscript infantry coupled with a few elite AFVs? Are you kidding? Our ideas wouldn't hurt you (or anyone else) a bit and you write as if it would. Jumbo

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kollos: Jumbo, FYI, I brought this same topic up a few months ago. I got same replies you are now, no one from BTS responding, some players liking it, and some others not liking it. I hope BTS can add this as an OPTION to use in their upcoming games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> kollos, Thanks for responding. It is a weird discussion for sure. I don't see what people are afraid of. A so-called abuse of our ideas with Conscript infantry & Elite armor is not only gamey. It is a tactic that wouldn't work well if it was tried. As a programmer, I know that it wouldn't take too much work. "Freedom" can be a word that makes people quiver in their boots. It presupposes responsibility and being accountable. Unfortunately, it seems like those two ideals are shunned all too often these days. But hey, I'm an optimist. Maybe someone will get brave. This is a discussion board afterall. Jumbo

Originally posted by David Aitken: In other words, what you seek is already modelled, and this is explained in the manual. David, I disagree. On pages 76-79 there is nothing that clearly supports your statement. It is under the headings "Green" & "Regular" on pages 77 & 78 that only briefly mentions any kind of mix. The other four experience ratings don't have a mix even mentioned. Is it somewhere else? Page 77 says under the heading "Green", -"Can also simulate troops used outside of their usual role, e.g. artillery crews used as foot soldiers." As it stands now, we cannot simulate an accurate action in the Battle of the Bulge (The largest battle that the US forces faced)in a QB because Green troops (that would be necessary to use) would fall outside the scope of the "Medium" Quality parameter. "Medium" only covers Regular & Veteran troops. Veterans (also necessary for a Bulge QB) would be excluded if you try to use the "Low" Quality parameter. It only covers Green & Conscript troops. Right now things are exclusive. My sincere hope is that things would become more inclusive. Originally posted by David Aitken: CM does not model encounters where half of the men on one side are trying to surrender. I wouldn't even want to try. You missed my point entirely. Maybe, what I'm hoping for is to have the power of the scenario editor merged with the power of the QB and let the scenario editor (or human players) pick the forces, map, etc... similar to QBs -with the freedom of the scenario editor as it is now. If they were merged, would less overall programming be required? You know, one comprehensive feature instead of two lesser features. Freedom is always good. Afterall, it is worth risking your life for to get. Jumbo