Gamey Game Play

[Vanir Ausf B]

No point in harrassing RT North Dakota.

No, but he did invite it by implying that rules are for "timid souls" who are just trying to rig the game in their favor. I think it's perfectly appropriate to call bullsh!t on that one.

RT North Dakota says:

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

but, for example, most people can look at the QB point values for US rocket artillery and see that there is something seriously wrong with them. And for those who can't see it I have proven it mathematically. So no, rules are not just for timid souls. They are for people who recognize that the play-balance features in the game have limitations, and in some cases are poorly implemented.

[easytarget]

Where's the heat on this one?

You and your opponent can agree to any set of rules you can reach mutual agreement on.

[c3k]

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.

^^^

Agree, especially the bolded (my emphasis). Arty on a known setup zone - AT START - is a universal no-no. A gimme for first time players. They may be in a bubble. Explain it, and press on.

I've had two experiences with newbs. I told 'em it'd be a learning experience, gave 'em my password, and explained what I would do. When the games got ugly, they both disappeared. It sucks when you find out even Rommel didn't win every time.

Shrug.

Different folks have different thresholds.

I assume no holds barred unless previously discussed. (I will NOT use rocket arty, or bombard setup zones. I don't hold my opponent to the same unless we agree. I don't like using rare gear, but, again, don't mind if the opponent has nothing but King Tigers.)

But that's just me.

Ken out.

[Vinnart]

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.

That is how I prefer to destroy the will of my opponent vs putting an arty srtike on his start up location in set up turn to ruin the game before it starts. The pattern I have experienced is this:

Turn frequency starts at one, or two a day.

Dude starts losing, and turns come a few days a part.

Dude is really getting arse kicked, and sends a turn once a week or every two weeks, or disappears. Not finishing I count as a win by forfeit.

The other is consistently defeated who after a half dozen defeats in a row loses his will to battle anymore.

[sburke]

That is how I prefer to destroy the will of my opponent vs putting an arty srtike on his start up location in set up turn to ruin the game before it starts. The pattern I have experienced is this:

Turn frequency starts at one, or two a day.

Dude starts losing, and turns come a few days a part.

Dude is really getting arse kicked, and sends a turn once a week or every two weeks, or disappears. Not finishing I count as a win by forfeit.

The other is consistently defeated who after a half dozen defeats in a row loses his will to battle anymore.

Ha vKleist is wiping the floor with my butt right now as I didn't pay close enough attention to the briefing of the scenario we are playing. It was listed as allied attack which is why we selected it, however even a cursory perusal of the briefing would have told me different and I am paying the price for my incompetence. The scenario is Breaking the Panzers (Gee sburke, you think the title might have given you a clue...sigh). I am still blaming the designer for it saying allied attack, the alternative is to admit I didn't give the briefing a look nor bothered to consider the title.

Anyway the point is I am still sending turns back as quickly as I normally would despite my vision being blurred by tears as I watch my poor bloody infantry getting slaughtered. Oh the inhumanity!!!! Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear plays "who's your daddy" with you hunched over some fallen tree with mud and leaves in your face. Oh and bears stink something awful. I know, I've had one in my car.

[Vinnart]

Ha vKleist is wiping the floor with my butt right now as I didn't pay close enough attention to the briefing of the scenario we are playing. It was listed as allied attack which is why we selected it, however even a cursory perusal of the briefing would have told me different and I am paying the price for my incompetence. The scenario is Breaking the Panzers (Gee sburke, you think the title might have given you a clue...sigh). I am still blaming the designer for it saying allied attack, the alternative is to admit I didn't give the briefing a look nor bothered to consider the title.

Anyway the point is I am still sending turns back as quickly as I normally would despite my vision being blurred by tears as I watch my poor bloody infantry getting slaughtered. Oh the inhumanity!!!! Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear plays "who's your daddy" with you hunched over some fallen tree with mud and leaves in your face. Oh and bears stink something awful. I know, I've had one in my car.

There you go sburke take your beating like a man! If your are getting trashed then I think you should either surrender, or go on the sneaky defensive and take as many of the bastards with ya till the time is up. No quarter given, non taken. I would not except a cease fire if I was your opponent.

The important thing is to learn from this mistake. In any battle though I would say that the person with more experience with the scenario/map has an edge in foreknowledge, and a better chance of the win. Rarely do two people play a map for the first time at the same time. That will teach you to always look at the objectives, and read the briefing at the very least of understanding the map especially 1st time playing it. I have gone against people who did not look at the objectives, and did your mistake so you are not alone.

[sburke]

surrender? Pffft I have reinforcements coming, I have plenty more guys I have yet to get killed. Besides, it is when the whole plan is in the latrine that you get to see how you can turn the situation around. Besides vKleist is entitled to his pound of flesh and the best way I have to make sure I don't make this mistake again is to make it brutally painful.

RTFB Read the F"in Briefing - my new motto

[Vinnart]

surrender? Pffft I have reinforcements coming, I have plenty more guys I have yet to get killed. Besides, it is when the whole plan is in the latrine that you get to see how you can turn the situation around. Besides vKleist is entitled to his pound of flesh and the best way I have to make sure I don't make this mistake again is to make it brutally painful.

RTFB Read the F"in Briefing - my new motto

I'm sorry. It sounded like you were getting slaughtered. By all means go get em! Sometimes one can recover, and still come back for the win. I had that happen my very first cmx2 PBEM. I had a total abortion of an ambush go wrong. I mean all my dudes totally freaked and ran off a hill from cover, and I still got the win with a come back down to the wire of the last turn. Things like that make for good battle drama.

[Vinnart]

Where's the heat on this one?

You and your opponent can agree to any set of rules you can reach mutual agreement on.

I think that is sum of it. As long as both players are cool with the perameters then it works out good with no one upset over whatever.

[sburke]

I'm sorry. It sounded like you were getting slaughtered. By all means go get em! Sometimes one can recover, and still come back for the win. I had that happen my very first cmx2 PBEM. I had a total abortion of an ambush go wrong. I mean all my dudes totally freaked and ran off a hill from cover, and I still got the win with a come back down to the wire of the last turn. Things like that make for good battle drama.

I AM getting slaughtered, but heck I have more cannon fodder on the way. Once more into the breach!!!

[RT North Dakota]

No, but he did invite it by implying that rules are for "timid souls" who are just trying to rig the game in their favor. I think it's perfectly appropriate to call bullsh!t on that one.

What I actually said was:

"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."

So I categorically never said that "rules are for timid souls." I said timid souls were those "who wishes to negotiate success prior to playing." - likewise I pointed out the converse was being a jerk.

[RT North Dakota]

They are for people who recognize that the play-balance features in the game have limitations, and in some cases are poorly implemented.

FOR ME (not everyone else... so relax possums.) this is a big so what? The play balance feature that matters is tactical skill of the player. As I said in my original post it is the player himself that creates the mutual respect by his own conduct.

If I invite someone for a QB and give them "Assault" at +150%, I am deliberately inviting them to "do their worst." The QB point is the QB points. Deal with it.

The reason I say I want to fight someone who has a +150% assault advantage is that I know/believe I have the tactical skill to render his best effort less effective. The MAP settings have all the other conditions to balance the game. It's ALL IN THE GAME.

Now, if the person I am playing says "Yes I will +150% advantage, but you cannot have any Tigers, Panthers, or King Tigers and you cannot use artillery on my set up, etc etc," I am clearly not playing the most confident rabbit on planet earth. Such a person could perhaps best be called a "timid soul."

....and profuse apologise to all those who find this "attitude" way to aggressive and offensive.

[MikeyD]

I recall back in CMx1 days there was a fledgling "cult of the typical" developing. You couldn't use Tigers because Tiger's wouldn't typically be fighting in the Ukraine in October 1943. And StuGs wouldn't typically be accompanying SS on anti-partisan patrols. Meeting engagement were considered the most atypical form of fighting there is! How often do entire tank companies simply blunder into eachother? People play the game for different reasons. And for a lot 'em being chased around the map by yet another ubertank for the umpteenth time doesn't provide what they're looking for.

[Michael Emrys]

Oh and bears stink something awful. I know, I've had one in my car.

That seems an odd choice for a date, but to each his own...

Michael

[$Pec5]

Are rockets in general considered gamey?

[SlowMotion]

I recall back in CMx1 days there was a fledgling "cult of the typical" developing. You couldn't use Tigers because Tiger's wouldn't typically be fighting in the Ukraine in October 1943. And StuGs wouldn't typically be accompanying SS on anti-partisan patrols. Meeting engagement were considered the most atypical form of fighting there is! How often do entire tank companies simply blunder into eachother? People play the game for different reasons. And for a lot 'em being chased around the map by yet another ubertank for the umpteenth time doesn't provide what they're looking for.

Yes, there is no one game that all players want. One of the things I'd most like to add to CM engine is a way to force these QB buying limits for those players that want to use rules. The way I'd like to do it is:

a player could see the list of ALL buyable units. He could then mark if some unit is totally banned or if there are some limitations. Like only 1 such unit allowed etc. Then the list could be saved to a file. When starting a QB against someone you could send such limitation file and ask if those rules are ok. If not you could change this rule file until both agree. This way there would be no assumed buying rules - you could always check from the limitation file what is ok and what is not.

Using such system you could have very interesting special QBs where many of the most common units are banned. Those who don't like ubertanks could ban them all.

There has been discussion about all this many times before, so I know BF has no plans to implement this and no intention to open any APIs either which would allow third parties to implement it either. But still it would be so cool thing to have

[Sgt Schultz]

I usually game within that grey area between ahistorical/fictional, and what some would consider gamey.

I may tweak a platoon or two in a battalion, but they will all have a global Regular/High/0 soft setting. No Elite/Fanatic/+2s for me. Just because I may jump the gun a few months and create an SMG toon before BFC "gives" us one... does that make one gamey? A dozen MP40s are just too tempting for certain maps.

Tactics such as immediately throwing any crews, ammo bearers, support units, etc into the fray can be construed as gamey. This did happen in WW2, but only after actually gathering the troops into ad-hoc units somewhere to the rear, not just throwing them out of the frying pan and directly into the fire unsupported and out of any C2. This can be countered somewhat by assigning destroy points, but takes QBs into another level of commitment.

It seems to me that battle size has a very real effect on perception of "gameyness". A "huge"(7200+ point) battle may tend towards a more lenient perception, since there is room to bring counters to everything in at least some amount.

A "small" or "medium" though, could present some genuine play-ability/enjoyment issues without a little understanding between opponents in regards to numbers and distribution of unit types.

Pre-battle communication can reduce or eliminate any issues one may have in this area, so try to make sure both are singing from the same hymnal as it were.

[Ranger33]

I think the big difference in opinion here is whether you play the game as a game or as more of a simulation. When I play I want to see a plausible scenario play out, since all of the units are based as much in reality as possible. That's the whole point of buying a CM title as opposed to Company of Heroes or Starcraft or whatever (both fine games in their own way). With CM you can take realistic forces and duke it out with realistic tactics (more or less). It's more about the experience than the destination. Although winning is always a bit more fun

"Playing to win" with tactics like loading up on rocket artillery or Tigers just defeats the whole purpose of buying a CM game in the first place, in my opinion. There's a reason you don't see very many grossly ahistorical scenarios in the repository, that sort of thing isn't really the draw here for most (I would think).

[sburke]

That seems an odd choice for a date, but to each his own...

Michael

I think you could consider her a stalker, only she was after food not me. Took out my driver side window, crawled all over the car, chewed a hole through to the trunk, found some food she considered inedible (quaker instant oatmeal pack) and left. Ahh the wonders of Yosemite.

As to destroying your opponents will, I think she'd have chewed my ass up if I'd suggested my rocket battery bombing her set up zone. Not that she'd understand that, she'd just chew me up over the instant oatmeal.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Are rockets in general considered gamey?

No. Just US rockets, and only because of their going-out-of-business-sale price. German rockets are actually very expensive, maybe even a little overpriced, so if someone wants to buy them I see no reason to prohibit it.

[hoolaman]

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.

I agree to a point, a no-holds barred match can be interesting and fun. Even an unfair and unbalanced game can be fun.

But the big one that is a game wrecker and is impossible to switch off in the game settings is the pre-planned arty that starts falling in the first second of the first turn. Totally unrealistic in almost every situation and there is literally nothing the player can do about it by using their playing skills.

[SlowMotion]

Has there been any official comment about the price of those US rockets?

If BF agreed I assume they'd changed the price in 2.01 patch.

[easytarget]

....and profuse apologise to all those who find this "attitude" way to aggressive and offensive.

No need to apologize really, you provided the lol post of the day for me, and for that I thank you.

Such an over the top bragging with all your bluster about 150% nonsense was good fun, it's clear you're excited and proud of your prowess at this niche PC wargame thingy.

Good for you.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Has there been any official comment about the price of those US rockets?

If BF agreed I assume they'd changed the price in 2.01 patch.

Long thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97433

To summarize, BFC does not agree or disagree. They have a rather nihilistic view of QB unit pricing. To them there is no such thing as a correct value, which is fair enough, but they take it a step further by claiming any value is as good as any other value.

[Tarquelne]

To summarize, BFC does not agree or disagree. They have a rather nihilistic view of QB unit pricing. To them there is no such thing as a correct value, which is fair enough, but they take it a step further by claiming any value is as good as any other value.

It's my impression the nihilism is a pose to hide a deeper apathy: The QB points system isn't something Battlefront really cares about, so they tossed us a working point-based system and now just want to get on with what they want to get on with.

The US rocket price might be some suppressed anger or resentment coming to the surface.

(In fact I'm working on a paper that puts forth a psychological profile for Steve based entirely on CMBN's engine and contents. It's provisionally titled "75mm is Big Enough." If anyone has other suggestions...?)