Gamey Game Play

[GreenAsJade]

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.

There are answers to each of these "why not" questions - perfectly good answers.

Different answers suit each person differently.

It's arrogant twats who think that their answer is the only one who end up hunting forums for H2H opponents, because they get kicked out of clubs.

GaJ

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Most restrictions on units as made to avoid repetitiveness. Otherwise every game becomes Fireflys vs. Jagdpanthers and the US Army might as well not be in the game.

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

Do you just want to win, or do you also want to have fun? Winning the game on the first turn by taking advantage of a situation your opponent has no control over and no defense against may be fun for you (although I would find it boring), but I doubt your opponent will enjoy it.

[sburke]

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.

Before this gets too out of hand and you begin to think the forum is a bunch of nut cases, there are as MikeyD noted different styles of play or more accurately there are different objectives to finding a human opponent. In your case it is to find a truly competitive opponent period. Nothing wrong with that, it is a game after all. However some of the reaction you are seeing is from folks who have a somewhat different perspective. You'll see it for example in the games Broadsword and I play. My goal is not to beat Broadsword, but to experience in playing the game some of what the combatants of the time may have experienced. In a way it is more the game play itself that is the objective and winning or losing while still an objective is relegated to a secondary role. It also carries no "breaking my opponents will" concept as I am not actually playing to "beat" broadsword. It's more like a casual game of cards played over beer while chewing over the events of the day versus a competitive high stakes poker game. I suspect you would find our version of gaming just as unappealing as I would find yours. This is one of the reasons it is so darn important to clarify in advance what you are looking for in a pbem. As a footnote, Broadsword and I have no real "house rules" for our games, we simply have a shared outlook and therefore have no real need to set rules.

[Apocal]

People who hammer the entire attacker's setup as a US defender with a massed barrage of rockets deserve a special place in Hell.

[RT North Dakota]

Before this gets too out of hand and you begin to think the forum is a bunch of nut cases, there are as MikeyD noted different styles of play or more accurately there are different objectives to finding a human opponent. In your case it is to find a truly competitive opponent period. Nothing wrong with that, it is a game after all.

Thank you. I was beginning to wonder. Clarity at last.

Clearly I made the mistake of assuming that when folks complained about "gamey play" they meant in competition, ----- when in fact they meant any recreational use of the game at all ----- but then why would that be an issue?

Actually, I mostly play H2H with a good mate, and we aim to have fun, BUT (FOR US) that means trying to win by pushing the game and each other to the limits. - the limits are in the game, QB or Battle - and the mind of the opponent - because (FOR ME) the most fun is the toughest fight.

I will admit to not being entirely objective on this issue, as having played online games for over 20 years, I see them get ruined by people whining that their favourite aircraft of tank isn't "mega-enough" for them or that the game is "too difficult" for players that suck. - thus games become degenerate into a set of politically regulated behaviours.

[poesel]

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.

If you are really good at breaking the will of your opponent you probably have never seen the result screen in a H2H game.

I might also suggest other tactics:

- play huge battles and make it so that the other has to buy OOB first. Then tell him the file is corrupted three times in a row - you could win before you started!

- same tactic in the game: let him redo the turn especially if its unfavourable for you

- be late with the turns

- ridicule him with emails or in a forum

All this helps to grind him down and make you win. Hope it helps.

[RT North Dakota]

If you are really good at breaking the will of your opponent you probably have never seen the result screen in a H2H game.

I might also suggest other tactics:

- play huge battles and make it so that the other has to buy OOB first. Then tell him the file is corrupted three times in a row - you could win before you started!

- same tactic in the game: let him redo the turn especially if its unfavourable for you

- be late with the turns

- ridicule him with emails or in a forum

All this helps to grind him down and make you win. Hope it helps.

.... but those things are cheating or being abusive. Are you suggesting that this is what I suggested, or are you just making stuff up?

When I said "breaking an opponents will" I very clearly meant within the rules of the game. How could you not understand that?

Is there a "Surrender" option in the game? YES/NO?

Do you aim to make your opponent hit that button? YES/NO?

[Lt Belenko]

From my original post regarding the knocking down a building for improved LOS/LOF that battle is over.

My opponent was pissed what I did and I spotted him before he did me. My opponent (mostly inexperienced in CMBN) and I started using throw away passwords a few battles back and share them after the battle for critiquing. One sided victories are not all that fun.

The building, 60 meters away, went down the final second of the previous turn - I didn't see that much dust in the air. I set a narrow Armor Cover Arc on my buttoned up ShermM4A3(76). His Pz4 (110 meters) was closed and had no orders. I spotted him 18 seconds into the next turn and fired 4 seconds later. His unit spotted mine at the instant of muzzle flash. First hit the stun meter thingy at the bottom went up pretty high. 2nd hit, at 30 second mark, resulted in flames - everybody got out.

He knew where my Sherm was and expected quicker engagement - the root cause of his anger. This was a learning moment of CMBN realistic spotting vice the old CMBB borg spotting he was used to.

And BTW he won't be demoralized and lose his spirit to fight/play because I taught him Panzer Blitz in 1975. He owned Jutland and got Russian Campaign soon after. We've been at this a long while.

[Apocal]

I will admit to not being entirely objective on this issue, as having played online games for over 20 years, I see them get ruined by people whining that their favourite aircraft of tank isn't "mega-enough" for them or that the game is "too difficult" for players that suck. - thus games become degenerate into a set of politically regulated behaviours.

These are, in fact, nothing like anything anyone in this thread is talking about.

[RT North Dakota]

These are, in fact, nothing like anything anyone in this thread is talking about.

I beg to differ. They relate directly to my concern, and my opinion.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Clearly I made the mistake of assuming that when folks complained about "gamey play" they meant in competition, ----- when in fact they meant any recreational use of the game at all ----- but then why would that be an issue?

Unless you're getting paid to play it's all recreational.

Do you and your regular opponent really drop arty on each other's setup zones, even on the attacker's in attack/defend? Does the Allied player ever not pick British? I'm genuinely curious how a no rules barred system would work out.

[dpabrams]

The compiled list of PBEM types:

Manic/Depressive turn Guy- His enthusiasm for PBEM games is based solely on his success and failures. If he is prosperous he will send turns at an accelerated rate. If he is failing, his rate of returned turns will be diminished or cease all together. Once the turns stop coming, this animal is very challenging to locate. Some believe this creature will withdraw from the PBEM battlefield altogether or go in search of other opponents. A player’s turn production is proportionate to his success. (Successful turns + perceived victory=higher rate of return).

Tiger/Panther Guy "zoo directors (credit Shorker)" - Now this is a fascinating creature. He will forgo all military manner of combined arms and tactical doctrine. He will invest all his capitol in expensive weapons, albeit not many of them, with no supporting infantry or artillery. He struggles to cover the map with so few assets but man he looks good doing it. Ounce he loses one or two of these expensive beasts, he usually withdrawals and calls for a ceasefire. Tiger/ Panther guy seems to romanticize that his superior tanks will be assaulted by mindless hordes of inferior tanks across a 2000m billiard table. He fantasizes that his tanks blaze away at the hapless attackers and he achieves a 10:1 kill ratio, leaving the battlefield littered with dozens of Sherman’s. After all he has superior optics, armor and weaponry. Great expressions of surprise have been observed as well as the gnashing of teeth and gouging of eye sockets when this creature loses a superior weapon an inferior one.

Elite/Crack team Guy-This animal is rare but does exist. Fueled by books and CD’s on “Sniper’s, Sniper’s and more Sniper’s) this creature cannot get enough precision shooting and surgical removal of threats at 1000m. He watches the Sniper Channel (Military Channel) and all manner of Whisper Channels (Hunting Channels). He is convinced that one man and his rifle can decapitate an enemy consistently from 500m and win a war. He is known to also possess scout, observer and AT teams with exceptional abilities. In the event that a volume of fire is needed he will resort to artillery strikes or cheap rockets, which are never as timely and accurate as imagined. Transformation Warfare in WWII will always be an impossible goal for this animal. Once his few elite weapons teams begin to suffer loses this animal will typically withdrawal to Operation Shockforce or Call of Duty.

God of War Man-As we all know artillery is the greatest killer on the battlefield. It is thought this creature believes that by peppering the map with artillery and efficient use of TRP’, he will crush his unseen enemy quickly. Should the enemy escape annulation by artillery he will typically set elaborate defenses of mines, AT guns, specialized teams and fortifications. Again if his tactics fail he will usually withdrawal.

The Unbroken Ignorant (credit Shorker)" - This type of player never wins a battle (or only very, very seldom), he doesn't seem to know anything about tactics, combined weapons and gameplay and he is resistant against any good advice but he always stands up again and is asking for revenge.

Flower Arranger (credit Yenodathon) - a preoccupation bordering on a fetish, to examine all the nice graphics and pieces and arrange them on setup in beautiful and artistic ways away from any danger without any regard to doctrine or tactics and then proceed to protect them at all cost from the opposing player's line of sight. This player is not interested in combat but the collection of pretty, shiny things and a rather gleeful satisfaction in watching, turn after turn, a growing sense of alarm and frustration from the opposing player as nothing seems to happen. The apogee of delight for the Flower Arranger is watching the aimless and uncoordinated rush of the opposing player's assets in every direction in a futile attempt to find something while remaining hidden in original form proving that ugliness can only enhance the pristine perfection of something heavenly on a CM map.

Professional PBEM Man-Truly a rare find. This creature is well versed in combined arms warfare. His penchant for tactics is only exceeded by his ability to return PBEM turns at a reasonable rate. He is truly a worthy opponent, a man who has studied his history and tactics. His turns are usually followed with interesting email comments and notes. He shares his observations and experiences with his opponent, usually slathered with some self-deprecating humor and personal history. While personable and likable, this man is deadly. It has been noted that he does not coexist for long with all the creatures listed above.

Perhaps some of you have observed these creatures and/or phenomena. If so can you confirm and/or dispute my findings? Flower Arranger - a preoccupation bordering on a fetish, to examine all the nice graphics and pieces and arrange them on setup in beautiful and artistic ways away from any danger without any regard to doctrine or tactics and then proceed to protect them at all cost from the opposing player's line of sight. This player is not interested in combat but the collection of pretty, shiny things and a rather gleeful satisfaction in watching turn after turn, a growing sense of alarm and frustration from the opposing player as nothing seems to happen.

[RT North Dakota]

Perhaps some of you have observed these creatures and/or phenomena. If so can you confirm and/or dispute my findings?

You are a class act Sir. Very good. I'm going to print that.

[RT North Dakota]

Do you and your regular opponent really drop arty on each other's setup zones, even on the attacker's in attack/defend? Does the Allied player ever not pick British? I'm genuinely curious how a no rules barred system would work out.

We sure as hell used to. We no longer do, because we both expect it, and because the set-up zones are configured to make it very hard to get away with..... plus, if you don't have a lot of arty, and there is a low pay-off, then it's actually bad tactics.

Point being, we DO PLAY by rules - but they are the ones in the game!!

If he wants to do "RECCE" by Jeep Death, then fine by me. Is that "GAMEY?" Is RECCE by Fire "GAMEY?"

What we DO NOT do say in a a QB is "OK, no Tigers." If I pick King Tigers he just has to deal with it, and as we all know there are plenty of ways to deal with King Tigers.

[Apocal]

I beg to differ. They relate directly to my concern, and my opinion.

Nobody is in this thread talking about taking away your precious Tiger. Nobody is saying the game is too hard. Stop building strawman arguments to knock down.

FYI, the only house rule I play under is "don't use 55 point US rocket artillery to blanket the entire setup zone" because there is absolutely no defense against it except playing a larger map with less than 500 points. And it doesn't even represent a reasonable tradeoff, being so cheap.

[Doug Williams]

No point in harrassing RT North Dakota. He and his friend choose to play in a particular way (if the game allows it, you can do it). As long as they both agree to this, I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem playing someone who wanted an "anything goes" type game, as long as we both understood it from the beginning.

I also have no problem with players who have a lot of "house rules", as long as we both know them beforehand.

The players I have a problem with are those who "disappear" once they start losing. Since I usually only play members of my club (and people trying to join), I seldom meet these people anymore.

[Tarquelne]

House rules/pre-game negotiations exist because CM isn't a perfect game. The QB purchace rules aren't nearly sophisticated enough to ensure a fair (not one-sided) and interesting fight over every force/map combination. VAB mentions several key game-play reasons why house rules can give a better - more interesting, more fun, tougher - game if some restrictions are adopted. And that's without even considering realism. Just because CM isn't a perfect simulation is no reason to embrace the flaws.

I became interested in house rules when my first QBs were spoiled by gamy QB purchases. And by spoiled I don't mean the other guy beat me in a gamy way. I mean I beat the other guy in a gamy way. For example: Buying a TRP and having a 105-prox fuze barrage over the ME's single victory zone seemed like a clever idea during set up, but it made the match much easier for me and less interesting to-boot.

Of course my opponent could have anticipated that, or done it himself. That's a possible route: You can start by shelling the hell out of set-up zones for awhile, develop counters, move on to other purchase strategies and opening-tactics that leverage CM's flaws...

Or you can keep the game-play focused on the map and/or history rather than the purchace screen and the game-engine's quirks: Set a house rule banning the shelling of set-up zones if the map/scenario isn't suitable. Add rules restricting any other items that make for a less fun or interesting game. That allows you get on with playing tough battles rather than looking for, or accidentally stumbling across, the next gamy tactic.

It's not like this is a laborious process. Most of the dangerous things - purchases likely to lead to poor games - are pretty obvious once you have a little experience. It may not be worthwhile if you're playing quick RT games. But where a good PBEM might last months it's worth exchanging a few e-mails.

If trying to leverage the most out of what the game allows is what both you and your opponent enjoy then of course there's nothing wrong with it. I've done the same in other games. But I think it should be easy to understand why many players like house rules: It's not because they want to make things easier or want to reshape the game. It's because they desire tough battles and/or like to see a WWII simulation played as a WWII simulation.

[simast]

I became interested in house rules when my first QBs were spoiled by gamy QB purchases. And by spoiled I don't mean the other guy beat me in a gamy way. I mean I beat the other guy in a gamy way. For example: Buying a TRP and having a 105-prox fuze barrage over the ME's single victory zone seemed like a clever idea during set up, but it made the match much easier for me and less interesting to-boot.

Correct me if I am wrong.. but on the Attack/Defense QB game the defenders have a deployment zone that is covering like half of the map? And if your opponent stuck everything he had in a single victory zone during the deployment phase.. that's his fault.

[poesel]

.... but those things are cheating or being abusive. Are you suggesting that this is what I suggested, or are you just making stuff up?

When I said "breaking an opponents will" I very clearly meant within the rules of the game. How could you not understand that?

This may got lost in translation. But you said that you were bombing spawn points in that other game to get your opponents to disconnect. Translating that to CM equals to annoying your opponent so much as to discontinue playing. Hence my comment.

If you meant that you want to 'break the will of the opponents TROOPS' - then yes, everyone will agree here. That's the goal of the game (mostly).

Another goal is entertainment for both sides. If you and your opponent are happy with 'anything goes' - good for you. But you will not find many other players.

You said that you configured your setup zones to be more resistant to shelling. That is exactly the same what house rules do: stop the players from using certain (boring) tactics.

Is there a "Surrender" option in the game? YES/NO?

Do you aim to make your opponent hit that button? YES/NO?

The answers are 'YES' and 'NO'.

Why 'NO'? Because I like to play a battle to the end. A surrender is IMHO for cases when one side simply can't do anything any more.

Games should be balanced (by player skill and/or points) so that this is a very seldom occurrence. That has been the case for all games I can remember.

[womble]

No point in harrassing RT North Dakota.

No, probably not.

[Apocal]

Correct me if I am wrong.. but on the Attack/Defense QB game the defenders have a deployment zone that is covering like half of the map? And if your opponent stuck everything he had in a single victory zone during the deployment phase.. that's his fault.

ME in this context means "meeting engagement."

A common enough strategy for new players is "racing for the points" and swapping to defense with an extremely high ratio of forces for the task. I personally don't consider bombarding a victory zone during a ME all that gamey since it is a direct, hard counter to anything but AFVs racing for the points and there is nothing uncommon about finding the enemy occupying key terrain and reaching for artillery as a solution. Put your troops on known ground, that's fine. Leave them there long enough, that's fine too, just don't be surprised when the weather changes to steel rain.

[Doug Williams]

ME in this context means "meeting engagement."

A common enough strategy for new players is "racing for the points" and swapping to defense with an extremely high ratio of forces for the task. I personally don't consider bombarding a victory zone during a ME all that gamey since it is a direct, hard counter to anything but AFVs racing for the points and there is nothing uncommon about finding the enemy occupying key terrain and reaching for artillery as a solution. Put your troops on known ground, that's fine. Leave them there long enough, that's fine too, just don't be surprised when the weather changes to steel rain.

Well said, Apocal. As for myself, I personally don't consider an artillery barrage on the VL in a meeting engagement as "gamey", but I do kind of consider TRPs "gamey" in meeting engagements, which are, after all, supposed to be random, uh, meetings.

[WynnterGreen]

but I do kind of consider TRPs "gamey" in meeting engagements, which are, after all, supposed to be random, uh, meetings.

Just because a meeting is 'random' doesn't mean a location is.

I'd happily play 'with' or 'without' TRPs as an agreed rule in any QB ME.

There's no reason why a chance encounter can't happen in an area with a fire plan.

[Tarquelne]

@simast

I think the others mostly cleared that up - ME not A/D. And by "victory zone" I mean the objective area, not a defender's setup area.

In the ME I was talking about the TRP was the essential problem. That it resulted in a 105-prox barrage underlined it. Bringing in an on-time and on-target 105 strike on that map without a TRP would have been a laudable achievement. The TRP, btw, was placed toward the rear of the objective area toward my opponent: As we fought over the objective his half was taking 105 fire while mine wasn't.

(Isn't it nice that my pixeltruppen commander anticipated so exactly where his opposite would chose to make a stand!? I've one regular opponent who doesn't even like to play with objective areas. And I've come to see his point.)

I'd happily play 'with' or 'without' TRPs as an agreed rule in any QB ME.

Yeah - I've since played MEs with TRPs and big guns allowed. But only after agreeing first. I've also played US vs. German games on large open maps where the Germans had access to Big Cats - but after each side agreed.

Setup areas - along with objective zones - can vary quite a bit from map to map. And the larger the "battle size" - the more points each player gets - the smaller, relatively speaking, any given zone is.

Generally speaking hitting an attacker's set-up zone seems to lead to poor gameplay. They're often both rather small and easy for the defender to locate. Where historically the defender would likely only know the direction and time of an attack, in CM the defender often has it down almost exactly: That map edge over there, and *right now*.

Setup zone bombing is also a problem with MEs: Your opponent's set-up zone is probably no larger than your little area, and in the opposite corner.

The guidelines I usually use are:

The defender shouldn't use pre-prep arty. But TRPs are generally OK.

Pre-prep and TRPs are fine for the attacker.

Don't use pre-prep in a ME. TRPs are OK if both players agree.

Look at the size of the QB, the size of the map, and consider restricting arty.

A Medium-all infantry battle on a Small map could easily have the attacker win during his pre-prep barrage.

I'm leery about unrestricted arty in all-infantry games. While raining steel on your foe until you "break his will" is quite historical, it's not as much fun as games that revolve more around fire and maneuver.

[Doug Williams]

Just because a meeting is 'random' doesn't mean a location is.

I'd happily play 'with' or 'without' TRPs as an agreed rule in any QB ME.

There's no reason why a chance encounter can't happen in an area with a fire plan.

Good point, WynnterGreen, and I agree. Like I said earlier, I'm easygoing as far as what my opponent wants, as long as we both have foreknowledge of the "house rules" (or lack thereof).