Gamey Game Play

[Lt Belenko]

I remember the old CM1x gamey maneuvers like Recon by Death of a Jeep, Final Moment Flag Rush etc.

I just leveled a building to get at the PzIV on the next block. Took him out when the dust settled. Is that "gamey" tactic or legit skill and cunning?

Also feel free to share any gamey tactics in CMx2 you're using or have deemed forbidden.

Of course the pre-planned arty strike in the Attacker setup zone is always outlawed.

[Michael Emrys]

Wasn't the setup zone, but I was sure I knew which way he'd be coming, so I targeted three batteries of rockets on the path and wiped out virtually to the last man an entire company in the open. Next turn brought an automatic surrender. Possibly the most satisfying CM moment of the last year.

Michael

[Gekkibi]

1) Start a battle

2) Save

3) Ceasefire

4) Look where the enemy units are

5) Load

6) ???

7) Profit

PS. Extremely forbidden!

[GreenAsJade]

Gekkibi, I think the Lieutenant is referring to gamey play between two human adversaries, not fiddling around cheating against the AI.

GaJ

[nik mond]

I remember the old CM1x gamey maneuvers like Recon by Death of a Jeep, Final Moment Flag Rush etc.

I just leveled a building to get at the PzIV on the next block. Took him out when the dust settled. Is that "gamey" tactic or legit skill and cunning?

Also feel free to share any gamey tactics in CMx2 you're using or have deemed forbidden.

Of course the pre-planned arty strike in the Attacker setup zone is always outlawed.

Leveling a building to get at a unit behind it is done IRL, and was certainly a legit tactic in WW2. So not gamey.

[Sublime]

Buying about 20 TRPs, 3-4 FOs with Jeeps, and all arty?

Buying exclusively KTs and Jagds?

Using tank crews as assault troops?

[MikeyD]

I recall there's an old Patton qoute where he told one of his commanders to hop in a jeep and drive up the road until he got shot by the enemy, then come back and report their location. So much for gamey Recon by Death.

[Vinnart]

Buying about 20 TRPs, 3-4 FOs with Jeeps, and all arty?

Buying exclusively KTs and Jagds?

Using tank crews as assault troops?

Easy,

Have an agreement no TRP's before the game. I think TRP's should be scenario only. What will the FO's fight off my tanks, and whatever infantry that survive the arty with? Diversity prepares for any unexpected circumstance. The important thing is to agree upon certain things such as no targeting artillery in the set up turn unless it is the attacker in a attack/defend battle only, No purchase of air, TRP's and such.

I Haven’t played agaisnt KT's so I can't comment, but I'll say tigers with no infanty can be beat by superior #'s of allied tanks with infantry. Not saying it might be easy, but certainly possible.

ALL soldiers are infantry first, and specialty MOS second, so why not. Basic training/boot camp concentrates on this. I have heard of times where even cooks were thrown into the line. A better use of tank crews is as medic teams first, then have them as overwatch units. Have them pick up some different types of ammo first from a vehicle if you can before picking up weapons.

I say adapt to the uniqueness of the game environment because that is the reality, as it will not adapt to your reality.

[agusto]

I just leveled a building to get at the PzIV on the next block. Took him out when the dust settled. Is that "gamey" tactic or legit skill and cunning?

I do that all the time when i have enough ammo. Sometimes even if there would be other options left, I just love to blow up stuff so much.

[Vinnart]

As far as last minute rushes to a flag I recall cmx1 had it who ever had more power over the flag if was contested got it. This made for better play vs the entire VL must be cleared system IMO. I had a PBEM not long ago where I got a tactical win vs a total victory because he got one squad on the VL, and I had a whole company. This happened because the VL was very big. In this regard as the game is with this system smaller VL’s would limit this so it is up to the map maker’s to make good VL’s.

Despite what the official outcome said in the game described both my opponent, and I know It was a total win on my part so that is what I go by. I would look at it more that way in dealing with contested VL space with last minute rushes. Was it legit win, or B.S. win.

[A Canadian Cat]

I just leveled a building to get at the PzIV on the next block. Took him out when the dust settled. Is that "gamey" tactic or legit skill and cunning?

I am currently playing a game where I had little choice. My PzIVs could not enter the town square - too wide. So I had to level a few buildings to get at the Shermans that were there and provide support for my very broken and messed up infantry.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The Gamey Jeep Rush was gamey in CMx1 in large part because soft-skinned vehicles were unrealistically hard to kill. That seems to be not the case in CMx2.

[womble]

Easy,

Have an agreement no TRP's before the game. I think TRP's should be scenario only.

They cost points, still. Nothing's free. Just because it's a "Quick" battle for us, the players, doesn't mean it's not had prior planning and preparation from the forces involved. Sure, disallow them in MEs, since they're almost by definition "spontaneous" occurrences (though having TRPs in the VL would certainly help mitigate the "race to the VLs, then fight a defense with even numbers" issue.

What will the FO's fight off my tanks, and whatever infantry that survive the arty with? Diversity prepares for any unexpected circumstance.

This is the best reason to not buy all arty, FOs and TRPs: Arty can't deal with everything, especially mobile troops. My current FI PBEM, I thought briefly about, and tried on for size, an all infantry, with as much rarity points of arty as I could get, force because their armour is so wimpy, but realised that it simply wouldn't be able to nail the enemy armour, so I needed to field a counter.

The important thing is to agree upon certain things such as no targeting artillery in the set up turn unless it is the attacker in a attack/defend battle only, No purchase of air, TRP's and such.

Certainly, it's vital that any such restrictions are explicitly agreed beforehand, and not assumed by one side or the other to be in effect.

[kensal]

I recall there's an old Patton qoute where he told one of his commanders to hop in a jeep and drive up the road until he got shot by the enemy, then come back and report their location. So much for gamey Recon by Death.

Indeed and if you read up on the quotes on Operation Goodwood (the quote may even be in the Colossal Crack briefing) you will see that a British officer was told to drive through Sollers (or one of the other towns in the way of the advance) in a bren carrier, to see if it was occupied. He did, drove all the way through without being shot at. He turned round at the other side to see his armoured regt being shot up behind him

[kensal]

I am currently playing a game where I had little choice. My PzIVs could not enter the town square - too wide. So I had to level a few buildings to get at the Shermans that were there and provide support for my very broken and messed up infantry.

There's a lot of this in Surrender Invites Death - all the Canadian Shermans are waiting behind buildings.

Realistically it is gamey because the pile of rubble from a destroyed building would almost certainly still block the line of sight

[GreenAsJade]

There's a lot of this in Surrender Invites Death - all the Canadian Shermans are waiting behind buildings.

Realistically it is gamey because the pile of rubble from a destroyed building would almost certainly still block the line of sight

Back in the day, it always used to block sight, didn't it? CMx1 at least.

I wonder why it doesn't any more. Is it the case that it always doesn't? Or are there some piles of rubble that do?

GaJ

[womble]

Back in the day, it always used to block sight, didn't it? CMx1 at least.

I wonder why it doesn't any more. Is it the case that it always doesn't? Or are there some piles of rubble that do?

GaJ

Rubble piles do block LOS a bit. Mostly at the corners where there's still some standing parts.

[RT North Dakota]

I have some real issues with folks saying something is "gamey."

15 year ago, the old "Warbirds" online community got destroyed by a bunch of weenies who got all upset about "gamey" thinks like bombing spawn points of camping over airfields. As far as I was concerned the object of the game was to break the will of the other players so that will log-off and we won. It was about winning, not handing out medals to every kid in the class or giving a cup to the team that lost.

As concerns H2H, if you can do it in the game and you can win, do it! The second you start placing arbitrary restrictions on an opponents behaviour you are negotiating in a game which is about breaking the will of your opponent to play on. You want to do things that will cause him to give up.

As far as I can tell, the game contains all the play balance configurations you need (points, rarity, inf-only etc). I think we can all tell when our opponent is a jerk, and likewise when he/she is timid soul who wishes to negotiate success prior to playing. Mutual respect is not something you write into a set of rules.

[MikeyD]

There seems to be (at least) two gameplay personality types. The 'virtual war movie' players who want historical accuracy and realistic adventure, and then there's the 'win at all costs' player who would take a screwdriver to his computer's innards if he though it could win him the game.

[womble]

...The second you start placing arbitrary restrictions on an opponents behaviour...

So, the moment you start up the game. They can't leave the game map. They can't setup outside their setup zone. If it's a QB there can't be any reinforcements. May as well not play, it's that artificial.

...a game which is about breaking the will of your opponent to play on. You want to do things that will cause him to give up.

Arrant nonsense, and deeply metagamey. The game has nothing to do with breaking anyone's will. There are already stipulated victory conditions, and if you reckon you can't attain those and have to "break the opponent's will" instead, then you're not playing the game. You're playing your own mind games. Not something you can do to the AI, so the AI will be your toughest opponent. How strange.

As far as I can tell, the game contains all the play balance configurations you need (points, rarity, inf-only etc).

Which totally ignore any "issues" with whatever map you're playing on, like tiny, obvious, setup areas for the attacker, FUBAR points values like american rocket batteries, "operationally unlikely" possibilities for TRPs in Meeting Engagements and so on. You know, flaws (tiny ones) in the way the game represents what we're expecting it to represent, which can result in differing understandings of the game.

So your appreciation is limited.

Sure, you can play it without agreeing any house rules, but it will be a very different style of game. For example, when mortars were magic auto-killing death tubes, you'd set your QB force up quite differently to how it "ought" to have been, historically, if you wanted to "win". Most CM players have at least a passing interest in historical verisimilitude though, and don't want to play with a force of armour and mortars with no HMGs and very few infantry, even if it will blast the heck out of a "historically" constituted force.

I think we can all tell when our opponent is a jerk...

Hmmm. Perhaps we can.

...and likewise when he/she is timid soul who wishes to negotiate success prior to playing...

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Mutual respect is not something you write into a set of rules.

No, mutual respect comes from interaction. Positive interaction. Not "breaking your opponent's will" by exploiting artefacts of the game environment.

Oh, by the way, attitudes like yours are among the factors that keep people away from playing HvH games. Well done.

[RT North Dakota]

No, mutual respect comes from interaction. Positive interaction. Not "breaking your opponent's will" by exploiting artefacts of the game environment.

Oh, by the way, attitudes like yours are among the factors that keep people away from playing HvH games. Well done.

Clearly plain English is my second language...... Womble -you've missed the point, and apparently chosen to misrepresent what I actually said. - sadly.

A Battle has fixed parameters - play or don't. Even if you loose, you aim to make is cost. QBs also have set parameters - once you hit start, then PLAY the rules inherent to game, not some "code of behaviour," aimed at making it more likely your opponent will win.

Yes, mutual respect does come from interaction. You can respect people who hand you your hat. - Respect does not mean "like."

The game is about combat. Inherent to combat is the breaking of will an opponent. Even in football. Keep scoring and the other side will give up. The "Ceasefire" button exists for a reason. Most of the folks I play against are good friends. I play for fun, but it sucks to loose.

"Attitude?" Well if wanting to give my opponent the hardest possible chance of winning (whatever the parameters we agree on) is "attitude," then why would you want anything else.

[RT North Dakota]

There seems to be (at least) two gameplay personality types. The 'virtual war movie' players who want historical accuracy and realistic adventure, and then there's the 'win at all costs' player who would take a screwdriver to his computer's innards if he though it could win him the game.

Well I am neither. PLAY THE GAME. The rules are in the code. Play to win, based on mutual consent to fight the conditions the GAME ALLOWS.

a.) Don't pick Tigers? Why not? Don't you have Sherman Fireflies?

b.) Don't arty my set-up? Why not?

c.) Don't use TRP's? Why not?

The game allows almost endless victory and set up parameters. Why impose more.

The whole gamey thing make no sense. It's a simulation. It is an APPROXIMATION of reality.

[Michael Emrys]

There seems to be (at least) two gameplay personality types. The 'virtual war movie' players who want historical accuracy and realistic adventure, and then there's the 'win at all costs' player who would take a screwdriver to his computer's innards if he though it could win him the game.

You virtually took the words right out of my mouth.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Oh, by the way, attitudes like yours are among the factors that keep people away from playing HvH games. Well done.

Yeah, it's always worked that way for me. That's why I've always avoided competitive play like a bad virus. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but emphatically it's not my cup of tea, thanks just the same.

Michael

[Seedorf81]

So, the moment you start up the game. They can't leave the game map. They can't setup outside their setup zone. If it's a QB there can't be any reinforcements. May as well not play, it's that artificial.

Arrant nonsense, and deeply metagamey. The game has nothing to do with breaking anyone's will. There are already stipulated victory conditions, and if you reckon you can't attain those and have to "break the opponent's will" instead, then you're not playing the game. You're playing your own mind games. Not something you can do to the AI, so the AI will be your toughest opponent. How strange.

Which totally ignore any "issues" with whatever map you're playing on, like tiny, obvious, setup areas for the attacker, FUBAR points values like american rocket batteries, "operationally unlikely" possibilities for TRPs in Meeting Engagements and so on. You know, flaws (tiny ones) in the way the game represents what we're expecting it to represent, which can result in differing understandings of the game.

So your appreciation is limited.

Sure, you can play it without agreeing any house rules, but it will be a very different style of game. For example, when mortars were magic auto-killing death tubes, you'd set your QB force up quite differently to how it "ought" to have been, historically, if you wanted to "win". Most CM players have at least a passing interest in historical verisimilitude though, and don't want to play with a force of armour and mortars with no HMGs and very few infantry, even if it will blast the heck out of a "historically" constituted force.

Hmmm. Perhaps we can.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

No, mutual respect comes from interaction. Positive interaction. Not "breaking your opponent's will" by exploiting artefacts of the game environment.

Oh, by the way, attitudes like yours are among the factors that keep people away from playing HvH games. Well done.

I agree.

My fun at playing multiplayergames (Operation Flashpoint for instance) has been totally destroyed by people who, in their near obsessive desire to win, used cheats or other tricks to become invincible.

Even so that a naive (?) but fair player like me didn't understand why his adversaries wouldn't go down after taking multiple hits. Ofcourse, one might say that it was all in the game, just like shelling the hell out of someone's setup zone in Combat Mission, but for me that takes the fun away.