is this gamey?

[PershingII]

PBEM Game, is my last turn, the game is lost many casualties. my troops try a massive assault and i win. is this gamey? tnx.

[Diceman]

Since you did this because 1: it was the last turn therefor the consequences of this otherwise foolish action would be mute, and because your sole motivation was to grab points disregarding the tactical situation yes I'd say that was very gamey. Granted Quick battles are gamey by nature as opposed to some scenarios which attempt to simulate a historical event, but that was cruel.

Cheers

------------------

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Chupacabra]

This question comes up quite often. Try searching for "VLs" or "flag grabbing."

IMO, no, it's not gamey. If an assault is so desperate and so poorly organized that it would inevitably fail, it shouldn't be any harder to snuff it in one turn than it would be to stop it in two. If you hold the VLs, it's your job to control them. If you can't, and the other guy can take them, well, sucks, better luck next time.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Herr Oberst]

On the one hand, "Oh my God, it's turn 30 and I gotta go grab that VL so I can win." looks, feels, sounds, and smells gamey...

On the other hand, "Division said that we need to have this bridge under control by 2:00pm today. A tank corps plans to use this route to beat up on [insert enemy here]. It's 1:55, and the bridge is right there. Let's get a move on Ladies..."

[Jard]

Let me put this situation :

In one of my last e-mails I had inflicted a lot of casualties to my adversary and took control of the majority of the VP's in a town on the center of the map...

On the final 3 turns, a Challenger tank appears on my right flank, and at full speed reaches the center of town evading my shreck's protecting it. The battle ends imediatly without giving me the chance to try to destroy it. I thought I had winned the battle ( 60-80% victory on the last turn )but the 3 VP's had gone neutral and I lost with a minor victory going to my opponent.

I'm not saying that my opponent had the fault but the current game rules allow for this kind of plays.

Opinions wanted...

Regards,

Pedro

[Bruno Weiss]

Sounds questionable. I'll say this though, that sort of tactic, or strategy has been seen as far back certainly as Panzerblitz. I remember articles dealing with the subject in the Avalon Hill mag The General. To me, if it is some sort of organized effort, a last desperate push or assult then no, but if a single unit or so comes Kamikazi down the road at full speed, last seconds of last turn or something then, the mechanism of the software becomes the opponent and that would then, by defination I think. be gamey.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 11-05-2000).]

[Tiger]

It is not gamey. Both you and your opponent know there are victory flags: where they are, that they're worth victory points. If you can not defend vs a last turn rush like this then your defense was not adequate to start with. You can also do the same thing to your opponent, so it's not like he's doing something that you can not. If the game is reaching it's artificial time limit, I'm going to do all I can to secure the victory locations. The victory flag locations have not changed since the game started have they?

-jmtcw

johnski

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

It is not gamey. Both you and your opponent know there are victory flags: where they are, that they're worth victory points. If you can not defend vs a last turn rush like this then your defense was not adequate to start with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not cheating. But it's still gamey.

[Mikeydz]

Jarmo is absolutely correct. It's not cheating (unless you agreed at the start of the battle to not use flag grab tactics), but it is gamey.

The main question to ask yourself is this? 1. Am I PURPOSELY using a limitation of the game engine to my advantage?

2. Would this tactic normally fail in real life?

For your specific example, the answer to #1, is yes. You are using the fact that there is a hard coded end time limit to the game. Once the time limit is reached, you can pull out a win, even if your enemy has superior forces.

Question #2 is again yes. From what your implying with your question, you sound like you are saying that you don't have sufficient forces to hold off a counterattack. What that means is that in real life, since there is no artificial time limit, then your opponent would recapture, and defeat you within a couple of minutes.

There are times when capturing a VL toward the end of a game isn't gamey, but your description of the situation (which was a bit vague) doesn't seem to apply.

[Harold]

The last minute rush for the victory locations is nothing new. It has been an in wargames (the paper kind) for decades and it is not going to go away now. Same thing for the last minute rush to make it offboard exit zones or board edge creep. As a defender you must always prepare for these possibilities and setup or fight accordingly. At least now there is the possibility of a victory level anywhere from 1-100. Used to be either you won or lost.

Harold

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once the time limit is reached, you can pull out a win, even if your enemy has superior forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. If you have superior forces, why are you allowing something like this to happen? Don't start screaming "gamey! gamey!" just because you did not use a sound plan.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What that means is that in real life, since there is no artificial time limit, then your opponent would recapture, and defeat you within a couple of minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not real life, it's a game. There are objectives and time limits. *Both* players know this before starting. You could postulate various reasons for the time limit in the scenario. Reinforcements moving up, higher command calling off the attack, your troops being needed elsewhere.

It sounds more of being a sore loser because of an inadequate tactical strategy. Someone rushing late like this and NOT capturing the VLs is going to lose by a much wider margin due to the casualties you'll inflict, if you have a sound strategy.

If you're not guarding victory flags that you've secured....time to rethink your strategy. If you're saying that "well I took that VL early on and held it the entire game till my opponent rushed", I'd say you weren't holding it.

-johnski

[RokSS]

The ol' rope a dope. Muhammed Ali used it to lull opponents into a false sense of security to steal the victory in the final rounds.

I recently lost a PBEM QB in which I had controlled the VLs throughout the game until last turn. With about 3 turns to go, I was so confident that I advanced beyond the VLs to wipe out the enemy, who I had figured was ready for the knockout punch. I was in shock when Sturmgruppe squads emerged from wooded areas (which I had hit with arty and MG fire the entire game) and took both lightly defended VLs on the final turn! Lesson learned: once you take those flags, make damn sure they're secured for good.

QBs with artificial time limits/ the existence of victory locations which determine winning and losing/ VLs which don't make tactical sense in relation to the map/ setup zones which include VL locations on one side in meeting engagements- all unrealistic and gamey by nature IMHO.

Rope a dope or desperation rush strategy- not unrealistic or gamey (actually very commendable if it works) IMHO.

[lassner.1]

I must say that i agree emphatically with Tiger and RokSS. Once you have the Voctory Locations you have to *hold* them and this means that you have to have a credible defense to prevent someone grabbing them even at the last miniute. Next time keep some HMG and Bz/Psk in the vicinity maybe some 1/2 squads too. . .

[Hans]

I would suggest that the best way to avoid

"last minute desperation moves" is to make the actually end of the game unknown.

You could do this in a QB by having a function which when 30 turns were selected it would add or minus 10% ie 27-33 turns.

ie fuzzy game endings, not a perfect solution but it makes it hard to time "last minute grabs"

[MERC]

A solution to this is to make sure when setting up the QB, choose a turn number that is much more than will ever be needed.

[Guest AggroMann]

It's a game, not a real life event. Your cybertroops aren't real life men who's lives would be wasted by such a foolish act as an all out charge.

The object of the game is to capture and hold flags within a certain time limit (usually).

In real life you would probably have much more time than maybe 40 minutes to conduct an attack and so desperate lunges at strategic patches of lawn would more than likely not happen.

But CMBO being the game as it is, I say play whatever style you'd like, even if it is 'gamey'.

------------------

AGGRO-MANN

[Pvt. Ryan]

MERC, the problem with this is that there the players can still sit back and wait for the last turn. I played a good PBEM where both of us advanced close to the VLs. I held some and he held some. Our armor traded some long range shots, but the infantry remained hidden until the last few turns when we both rushed the flags. There was much carnage and the inevitable result was a draw.

I don't think an infantry rush during the last few turns is gamey because unless the woods are extremely heavey you can see the enemy approaching and can set up a defense. Infantry can also move only so fast even when running. They have to be somewhat close to the objective to be able to get there before time runs out.

What I do consider gamey is rushing armor high speed towards a VL at the last minute. It seems that one armored unit in close proximity to a VL has the ability to change possession of that VL at least to neutral, if not to the other player's possession. Armor can cover a lot of ground and can be brought in from far away in just a turn or two. The real reason I find it gamey is that the player holding the VL with a decent force would likely destroy the solitary tank on the next turn if time had not run out. I think it is commonly understood that armor can take ground, but infantry secures and holds it. Rushing armor without infantry support to take or deny possession of a VL at the last minute uses the limitations of the game to defeat that theory.

[Rebane]

TOAW used the variable game ending very successfully.

The game went on a turn or even two when the situation was on the edge and it could ended a turn earlier when all was clear.

So Battlefront guys should implement variable ending. But what they have to say about this?

------------------

In the flat field I get bored...

[OGSF]

I guess I don't like it when my opponenet tries to rush the VL, or scouts with crews or whatever. But in the end my task is to defeat him (her) whatever he tries. When I kill a scouting squad I think of the points I am gaining. When I take a VL in a meeting engagement, I consider myself the "defender" from that point on and set out to defend the area. If I am defending and my opponent tries a rush in the last few moves, either I am able to retain control of the VL or I lose.

C'est le guerre

OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer

[Jard]

Pvt. Ryan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I do consider gamey is rushing armor high speed towards a VL at the last minute<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree...

Pvt. Ryan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The real reason I find it gamey is that the player holding the VL with a decent force would likely destroy the solitary tank on the next turn if time had not run out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats my whole point. As I told in my previous post, the Challenger broke through almost a full company ( 'shrecks included )at full speed and reached the center of town in the last seconds of the last turn. I didn't even see the flags and score change until the debrief screen.

Pvt. Ryan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think it is commonly understood that armor can take ground, but infantry secures and holds it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

let's consider this :

To secure the VP's infantry had to be placed nearby. In that way, Armour would be used to support attacks, but Inf would be needed to gain control of the terrain ( IMHO as it should be most of the time, specially in Urban or wooded areas )

Pedro

[MERC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

MERC, the problem with this is that there the players can still sit back and wait for the last turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO, if a player sits back and waits for the end of the game, then he has just sacrificed the "initiative", and if your playing a meeting engagement - its just became a assualt (for him, without the extra forces) because you should have time to set up a defense of those VL.

I personally think that some are focusing to much on VL at times. Generally in a QB, a VL location is usually not located at key terrain area. What really matters is killing the enemy. If you destroy the enemy, he can't take your VL.

Bottomline is if you don't like the way someone plays the game, then don't play them again. Personally, I see it more as sour grapes because usually those who are subjected to what some term as "gamey" have made a mistake that have allowed it be effective.

[Pvt. Ryan]

MERC, yes, it is pretty foolish to wait until the end to make one's move. However, I have played it both ways. Sometimes my priority is to secure the VLs and set up a good defense, but then I wind up getting pounded by artillery and can't resist a strong counter attack. Other times I will advance my forces as far as the terrain will allow without revealing my positions and then launch an assault near the end. If my opponent does the same thing a draw is the likely result. The time limit and VLs in unrealistic locations are both factors of the game which must be taken into consideration when planning a strategy, but both players are aware of this and have an equal opportunity to deal with it. Killing the enemy should be the most important factor in determining victory, but if you chase your opponent all over the map he can still rush a hidden unit to take a VL at the last minute and VL points do matter as far as the game is concerned. As has been pointed out before, a gamey tactic isn't necessarily cheating, and in my opinion isn't necessarily bad either. There will always be limitations when playing a game, and if an opponent does something you don't like, gamey or not, just don't play with that person again (like you said).

[Harold]

A variable game end option certainly has merit and it would be interesting to see it in CM2. Still, it's a damned if you do damned if you don't. You could be the attacker whose nicely grinding down the defense only to have it end three turns early or you could be the gritty defender holding out only to have it go three extra. Anyway you look at someone will feel cheated.

Slightly changing the subject. Has anyone tried any PBeM scenarios with no flags or exit zones? Are victory points even awarded just for enemy casualties? If so then games could be played with casualty victory points only using the axis point bonus row in the battle parameters as a balancing mechanism.

Harold

[KiwiJoe]

Its hellisly gamey and heres why...

It explots a limitation in the game... ie the fact that both players know at a certain time the battle ends - full stop. This would NEVER happen in a real life situation... "quick we have 1 min before every1 stops firing, lets make a dash for the VL, as long as some of us can survive 60 secs of fire we could snatch a win". Total bull****.

This is the rule I use: Would I do this attack if there were 5 turns left in the game? If no, then its a gamey suicide flag rush and shouldnt be done.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

This is the rule I use: Would I do this attack if there were 5 turns left in the game? If no, then its a gamey suicide flag rush and shouldnt be done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

6 in one, half a dozen in the other. How can you measure someone's intent? "Er, yep, you know what, I thought about it, and I would've made this assault five turns ago, yep yep, now off to polish my shiny victory..."

Life is much easier if you just assume that the other guy's going to do his best to win for the entire length of the game, and not just till turn 15, or 25, or 29, or whatever. If you're winning so convincingly that an assault on your positions would inevitably fail, there's really no excuse for not stopping it cold. If you can't do so, you don't control the VLs, which the game recognizes.

If someone holds back until the last turn and waits to rush the VLs, I'd be a bit stupid if I didn't cover his possible approaches. If he's been fighting the whole time, his men are most likely torn up enough that I can stop him in his tracks.

Even so, I usually play with at least 10 more turns than the game absolutely needs, because it avoids all of this sillyness.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.