is this gamey?

[Jard]

Well, we have two lines of thought here.

1) We accept CMBO as a game and adjust our way of play accordingly...

2) We try to abide to a "realistic feel" and adjust our way of play accordingly...

In either way, it's the player's conscience that matters because the game engine doesn't restrict some gamey (or not) situations.

Pedro

[Fellonmyhead]

I don't feel it is a matter of conscience. I feel it is more a matter of adjusting your tactics to the situation.

Perhaps the only solution to the alleged 'gamey' tactics is to produce as scenarios situations where 'gamey' tactics just will not work (perhaps more flags further apart and/or the use of dynamic ones will offset the tactic of rushing them all, for example). A scenario with a single low-points flag will work just as well, I suppose; as unit losses incurred would outweigh any objective points scored.

The other solution is to just accept it. If as others (such as Chupacabra) have stated the objectives are not defended well enough, then the weakened attacker deserves to win. And there are many historical examples to support this:

D-Day: Despite heavy losses on the beaches, Allied forces consolidated their landings because German reserves were not pushed to the tide line to meet them.

Falklands War: A numerically inferior British Parachute Regiment force fought Argentinian forces to a surrender at Goose Green through consolidating their objectives.

Vietnam: Despite successful operations, territory was frequently lost to the irregular enemy because strategic gains could not be tactically consolidated.

So if this is still considered 'gamey' perhaps scenario times should be extended to allow the opposing player to snatch them back?

But then shouldn't we extend it further to allow the player who loses them second time round to get them back again?

Fellonmyhead.

But not recently.

[KiwiJoe]

Your missing the point. Its got nothing to do with the VL's not being defended properly and thus u never really held them anyways. I could put 10 hmg with 2 vet platoons and an assault gun around the VL. All the attacker needs to do is drop 81mm foo smoke on the 2nd to last turn totally smoking the VL and area around it. Then run in 1 reg platoon split into half squads on the last turn. Some of them WILL make to within the VL's "area of control" and will turn it to "?". Thats crap... total crap. If the game went 5 more turns we know what would happen.

Last turn VL rushing needs to be discussed before the game starts so the players can work out something they are both happy with. Personally if I feel like my enemy is holding back their attack for the last turn I'd be very pissed. (not u NZPete).

[Chupacabra]

One platoon isn't going to shift a flag that's that that well-protected.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[KiwiJoe]

I disagree, it seems you need very little to affect its status.

[Jard]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One platoon isn't going to shift a flag that's that that well-protected<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe not but a fast moving tank will change the flags with a full company surrounding it...

Pedro

[Fellonmyhead]

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

I disagree, it seems you need very little to affect its status.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then in that case use fewer objectives, so that scoring is affected less by them.

[KiwiJoe]

Ummm I play ALL quick battles 1500-2000 point, mostly ME's. The VL's are set, nothing you can do about it. Village maps seem to have 1x small VL worth 10% and 1x major VL worth 75%.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

It's not gamey, or not any gamey-er than playing CMBO is. VLs -- and more to the point, timed VLs -- are an *abstraction* that reflect a lot of different circumstances under which one side or the other historically won tactical victories. For example, it was very common in the first several months after D-Day for Allied troops to almost -- but not quite -- close a pocket around German troops. Again and again, either a last-minute German counterattack would permit the surrounded units to escape, or Allied troops would not quite be able to close the pocket in the face of fierce German resistance.

These situations are, I think, very well represented by timed VLs. That is, maybe your troops could destroy the tank if the game went one more turn...but in the turn they would be doing that, they would not be stopping other (theoretical) units escaping the pocket, which may be why the village/hilltop/crossroads was a VL to begin with. Admittedly, my example is somewhat theoretical, but so are VLs.

Holding the VL on the last turn of the game is part of the game's victory conditions; if you don't do that, you haven't satisfied the victory conditions, or in the example above, many real-life victory conditions.

I mean, when the commander of the allied truck convoy containing large quantities of tungsten ammuntion for use by spearhead troops radios to see if you have the crossroads so he can push through and deliver the shells to frontline troops, the answer that, "well, we held it really well five minutes ago, but right now there's an enemy tank sitting on the crossroads," he's not going to care about what happened five minutes ago.

[Fellonmyhead]

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

Ummm I play ALL quick battles 1500-2000 point, mostly ME's. The VL's are set, nothing you can do about it. Village maps seem to have 1x small VL worth 10% and 1x major VL worth 75%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, pal; not here to get in an argument, just saying that a scenario can be set up to counter this problem.

I agree there is a problem if players are allowed to 'cheat' their way to victory, but I also believe that objectives should not be randomized, nor should whole maps.

If you do play QB's all the time, then this is something I feel you should live with

it, or else try and persuade the BTS team to either up the points for kills, or lower the points for objectives, or allow players to set up their own objectives in a QB. Perhaps another patch???

Fellonmyhead.

But I've almost recovered.

BTW, how's the weather down under? It's appalling here!

[Fellonmyhead]

Excellently put, Andrew; couldn't have put it better myself!

Fellonmyhead.

Hopefully the helmet protected me.

[Randy Mauldin]

I don't know, I played a scenario once where I held NO objective flags,(there were three of them) but caused a lot of casualties to the enemy with artillary and tanks. I got a Minor Victory out of it.

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

It wasn't MY company..It was the Armys' or so they told me.

[Fellonmyhead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy Mauldin:

I don't know, I played a scenario once where I held NO objective flags,(there were three of them) but caused a lot of casualties to the enemy with artillary and tanks. I got a Minor Victory out of it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely my point! Scenarios exist or can exist where the VL is not 100% crucial to victory.

Your example validates all points made in support of things not being 'gamey' from what I can see (don't know if you agree).

I don't know if your battle was a QB, but by totally eliminating enemy opposition you would automatically control the VL's given time to move on them.

But was it a minor victory because the few stragglers the enemy had remained in control of one or more VL's?

[Maximus]

In terms of a game, yes, that tactic is gamey. In terms of real life, no, because in real life battles don't absolutely end at ~35 turns (minutes). In real life, if an enemy unit were to retake an big objective, the other side would not just say, "Oh well, the HQ said we are only allowed to fight for 35 minutes." Hell no! The army would continue to fight to drive off the stuborn enemy.

[crocky]

It is gamey but that is the nature of the beast you own the VLs and must protect them

I had an opponent rush a 1/2 track with a squad of infantry at a VL on the last turn got hit bailed out took fire and had 4 surviving squad members, another turn and they would be history but the VL still became disputed. Pissed me off immensley but once i thought about it should have protected it properly.

[Mikeydz]

Can I refer people back to the title of this thread? The question put forth was whether this was gamey or not. That answer is easy. It most certainly is gamey. Is it also absurdly easy to defeat, especially if there is an imbalance in the size of the opposing forces. Though not impossible, I doubt that I would normally put myself in a position to lose to this tactic. But that's not the point. It is gamey because it utilizes a totally artificial game design limitation.

The most frustrating part of arguing with people about what is gamey or not is that most of the time, the "defenders" seem to have the idea that the "anti-gamey" faction is attacking them as cheaters. We aren't. We are just pointing out that sometimes, because of game design limitations, there are things that you can do in CM, that would not happen in RL. I don't think there are very many people that are saying that is you play using gamey tactics, that you suck, and are a lousy no good cheater, or anything like that.

The "pro-gamey" faction needs to be a little less sensitive when it comes to these debates.

[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Vanir]

As has been stated, this issue has been debated for as long as there have been wargames. The only way to minimize this is to randomize what turn the game ends on. Steel Panthers had an exellent system for this. Under the SP system a 30 turn QB would always go at least 30 turns, but may go for 1-5 more after that.

Under the current system I think whether a late game rush is gamey is too subjective. It's the nature of the beast and you just have to deal with it. For example, in a 30 turn game you say rushing the flag on turn 30 is gamey. Ok, fine, so what if I rush it on turn 29 instead? Or turn 28? Just how soon before the time limit do I have to attack without being gamey?

I will agree that moving a single vehicle onto the VL on the very last turn is pretty low. I would not do that.

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

Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". Thus, the Medium Tank M4 Sherman would be the "Model #4" Medium tank. This is incorrect. The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. - Bullethead

[aka_tom_w]

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

Can I refer people back to the title of this thread? The question put forth was whether this was gamey or not. That answer is easy. It most certainly is gamey. Is it also absurdly easy to defeat, especially if there is an imbalance in the size of the opposing forces. Though not impossible, I doubt that I would normally put myself in a position to lose to this tactic. But that's not the point. It is gamey because it utilizes a totally artificial game design limitation.

The most frustrating part of arguing with people about what is gamey or not is that most of the time, the "defenders" seem to have the idea that the "anti-gamey" faction is attacking them as cheaters. We aren't. We are just pointing out that sometimes, because of game design limitations, there are things that you can do in CM, that would not happen in RL. I don't think there are very many people that are saying that is you play using gamey tactics, that you suck, and are a lousy no good cheater, or anything like that.

The "pro-gamey" faction needs to be a little less sensitive when it comes to these debates.

[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 11-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

In addition to this I would suggest that there is nothing more "gamey" than the whole idea of the Qucik Battle. I would suggest that the concept of random VL's combined with the gamey "purchase" system is gamey to being with.

I REALLY don't like QB's where players "buy" units based on the point system. I think the concept that two players can buy any unit they desire within their "budget" is the beginging of where the term "gamey" starts. There are PLENTY of good well balanced, and largely unplayed scneario's out there to choose from that you can play double blind with your opponent. Its the concept of 'buying' units within a budget based on points must be considered a contributing factor here.

VL's and the late VL's rush and flag grab are just another example of gamey, but if you ask me in a well ballanced custom designed scenario, the late VL flag rush is a little less likely.

I also agree with Maximus when he says, with some degree of certianty, "you will always win if you destroy all the emeny forces", then they have none left to hold VL's or to counterattack, the VL's you may be holding on to by a thread.

BUT since we are playing a game I prefer to play to win and since the AI feels perfectly comfortable to do the same to me to deny my victory if it can I will and do feel perfectly comfortable attempting the late flag rush to throw whatever I have left in the dieing minutes to win the game, no problem. I know the AI will do it to me given half a chance.

-tom w

[Chupacabra]

Tom - it's quite possible to play QBs, and to purchase your own forces, using historical OOBs. It takes a bit of research, but nothing that can't be found on the web.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Tom - it's quite possible to play QBs, and to purchase your own forces, using historical OOBs. It takes a bit of research, but nothing that can't be found on the web.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK

Thats sounds good but I think that it only works if you know your opponent will do the same research and use a similiar historical OOB.

I still like the idea of trying other people's custom designed sceanrios there are now so many of them out there, two players should find it EASY to locate one they have both never seen or played. I advocate this because then you can have scheduled reinforcements, (which might actually help the late flag rush as both players may now have a sizable reserve) REAL rivers and roads and bridges that are well thought out and VL's that were planned out AND if your are lucky good recon intel from the scenario briefing. I just prefer a scenario that has been designed with a little more human thought behind it than the quick and easy random map QB.

But thats just my preference.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Hans]

For Kiwi Joe

"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".

I would agree with you but there was at least one (somewhat)real world example of this:

In WWI on November 11, 1918 at 10 AM just 1 hour before the cease fire was to begin the A Squadron of the 4th Dragoon Guards conducted a mounted cavalry charge thru German lines to seize the bridgehead at Lessines. Just as they finished their 10 mile gallop they were entering the streets of the objective village. The village clock was chiming away and the Germans...

The Germans obligingly ceasing firing and halted the formation of an overwhelming counter-attack against the blown and isolated unit.

The General who ordered it got a DSO

go figure

[Keith]

In the old Steel Panthers war game scenarios were randomly padded with a variable number of extra turns (usually 1-3). This helped to discourage the gameiness associated with last turn "flag grabbing" tactics. I think this would be a nice addition to the CM game.

[Dr. Brian]

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

my troops try a massive assault and i win. is this gamey? tnx. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. You played the game well. Excellent use of forces to win a scenario.

If someone complains about it being "gamey," don't worry too much. Just tell them, "duh, it's a game! Of course it's gamey"

The only time I wouldn't use that tactic, is when you need the forces for the next day/scenario in a campaign game.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Fellonmyhead]

Good answer, Doc.

The whole 'gamey' whinge is a pointless exercise.

Keep VL's by defending in depth; if a fast tank gets through there is something wrong with your defences.

Capture VL's by whatever means necessary. If the scenario hasn't been set up so that the defending force has the required elements at his disposal, then the Axis player should receive a bonus/penalty accordingly to reflect this.

And finally, don't play QB's if you think this randomness produces the opportunity to take advantage of the so-called 'gamey' flaws in it's setup.

VL's aren't just there to give you points, they are supposed to represent key areas of the battlefield which must be taken/held for the success of the overall campaign/war.

To allow the enemy to even get close to one when the timing is critical is careless; to allow them to take it at whatever stage deserves the battle to be lost.

Fellonmyhead.

It's still sore.

[DanE]

But Doc, you left out the first part of the question:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer this question: If a player feels the battle is already lost, why order a last turn attack on a VL?

Bonus question: If a player is capable of launching a "massive" assualt on the last turn, why would that player be convinced that the battle is already lost?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

No. You played the game well. Excellent use of forces to win a scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Excellent" use of forces? He even admitted that he thought the battle was lost and he had suffered many casualties.

This is why I do not like gamey tactics; they teach players the wrong way to try to win battles. But this has all been discussed before...

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

Dan