is this gamey?

[jshandorf]

One thing I believe is that infantry should count more towards holding a VL then any vehicle should. This would prevent the gamey rush of the HT or Tank to make the VL neutral. In reality given one more turn that vehicle would die a flaming death but since it is the last it stays.

If you try to rush with infantry they are much slower and given enough fire put on them they will turn back our route. Vehicles don't act this way therefore it is hard to stop them from rushing. Yes, they will die next turn but for that one turn the stay put.

Jeff

[Fellonmyhead]

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

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...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what about the 'gamey' tactics you employ at the outset of battle, or are you telling me the aim is to AVOID VL's?

I mean to say, the VL's are there to be captured or else prevented from capture.

As I have stated repeatedly, a VL is a primary or secondary objective to be held at game end to win the points required.

If the scenario designer (or QB system) does not take this into account during the design/creation of the battlefield and scenario, then the so-called 'gamey' tactics are going to work (regardless of whether or not you take them as acceptable).

VL's are just part of a scoring system; how well used that is in design will ascertain how achievable it is to score winning points.

You shouldn't be surprised if a 'gamey' QB scenario results in a 'gamey' victory. But I am going over old ground again; this has been said umpteen times, including cited examples of real world parallels.

Good evening

Fellonmyhead.

Nothing broken, I think.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

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

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?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it is gamey for a person to make a last-minute attack on a weakly defended VL in the last turn of the game, wouldn't it be just as gamey for the person holding the VL to win simply because his opponent was unable to launch his "massive assault" until the turn after the game ended? I think so.

In fact, I think that's sort of what bugs me about a lot of VL gameyness discussions -- they're one-sided because they declare last-minute attacks to be gamey, but for some reason don't find it gamey that the defender is considered to have "held" the VL if an overwhelming attack was about to take place, but the game ended just before the massive assault coule be launched.

Along those lines, it would also gamey if a defender is considered to have "held" a VL when they held it so loosely that a halftrack and dismounted crew could just walk right into the VL. IMO, it's just as gamey to win with a barely held VL as it is to mount an attack in the last minute with a tiny force. If the VL is held so weakly that a small, unsupported attack can take it, then it really is disputed.

Just as it seems that the accusations of gameyness are directed at the attacker, it also seems like many of the proposed solutions to gameyness are designed to weaken the attacker; time limits for last minute attacks are a good example.

In real life, there were historical reasons for holding VLs, some of which -- holding open the pocket for troops to escape, keeping the road clear for the convoy to pass -- were also very time-dependent. While abstract, I think the VL system models these type of actions very well -- because it doesn't matter if the attackers could have retaken the crossroads after the convoy was forced to reroute its trip, or if the attackers captured the crossroads after the last troops escaped the pocket.

Now it may be that there is something unrealistic about how the computer calculates when a VL is disputed, i.e., a sharpshooter and half-track with no ammunition left probably shouldn't cause a VL garrisoned by two full platoons of infantry, a scattering of machine guns, and an infantry gun to become disputed, but I don't know enough about how that happens to comment meaningfully. But it does seem to be a more useful discussion than how last-minute attacks are gamey.

[KiwiJoe]

There is nothing wrong with last min attacks on defended VL's. My problem is with people who hold off attacking around the VL's for several turns and then launch their attack on the last turn to exploit a game limitation. They know their attack with either fail or they will take massive hits attacking during the middle of the game, so they deliberately hold off till the end.

I'd actually be all for a QB ME option of no flags - simply 30-40 turns and who evea does the most damage at the end wins.

[Stuka]

I gotta agree with kiwi joe on the no flags option.

I've often thought just a simple 'search and destroy' QB would be a refreshing alternative to the VL situation.

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

Torture you? That...That's a good idea.

[Dr. Brian]

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

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

One would order a last turn attack on a VL in order to win the game. After all, it is a game, and the object is... to win.

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

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?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why/ He perhaps took to many causlties thinking he could not win? Ask him. But, he was smart and clever enough to see his mistake, and use an excellent tactic his oppoenent did not account for.

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

This is why I do not like gamey tactics; they teach players the wrong way to try to win battles.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your "complaint," but as I said, it is a game. To me, this doesn't "teach" much (from actual combat). There are rules, and limits in every game. And, to be honest, a good "commander" will EXPLOIT every option in order to win. He did that, so hats off to him. He did well. If you want "realism" one should do the "real" thing and get shot at (not for everyone though, especially me! ) and become a major or general, or dictator...

Point is, he saw he could win, and used his game peices at his disposal to accomplish that. His oppoenent didn't. Good game by his part.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[DanE]

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

I understand your "complaint," but as I said, it is a game. To me, this doesn't "teach" much (from actual combat). There are rules, and limits in every game. And, to be honest, a good "commander" will EXPLOIT every option in order to win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is a game. But when a player EXPLOITS known game limitations in an effort to win, that is gamey.

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

Why/ He perhaps took to many causlties thinking he could not win? Ask him. But, he was smart and clever enough to see his mistake, and use an excellent tactic his oppoenent did not account for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't trying to make a point with my Bonus question, just asking a question. I was just curious how a player could have the forces available at the end of the game to make a "massive assualt" but think there was no way for him to win.

And how do we know that his opponent did not account for this tactic? Perhaps the VL was properly defended for the massive assualt. Perhaps the only thing the assualt hoped to accomplished was to dispute the VL for one turn (the LAST turn) of the battle before being crushed after a couple of minutes. Hard to really say since we don't have much info.

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

Point is, he saw he could win, and used his game peices at his disposal to accomplish that. His oppoenent didn't. Good game by his part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still say, based on the original description, PershingII did not think he could win. He launched a meaningless assualt on the last turn and he won the game. Lucky? Yes. Great tactics? Not enough info. Now, if he knew that taking/disputing the VL would give him the victory then it was a good move. Still GAMEY but a smart move to "win" the game.

Have a good day.

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

Dan

[Dr. Brian]

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

Yes, this is a game. But when a player EXPLOITS known game limitations in an effort to win, that is gamey.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess this is the part I don't understand (not just about you, but everyone that makes "gamey" play negative).

To me, no rules were broken, and he played the game, within CMs rules and limits. There is nothing wrong with that. He used an option that was available, and won. Traits exhibited were cleverness, resourcefulness, and proper execution, at the right time. Seems to me, he has a great grasp of military strategy by meeting those criteria.

Oh well. Let's agree to disagree.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[DanE]

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

I guess this is the part I don't understand (not just about you, but everyone that makes "gamey" play negative).

To me, no rules were broken, and he played the game, within CMs rules and limits. There is nothing wrong with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not use "gamey as a negative term. "Gamey" is just one way of playing the game. The best way I can try to explain how I look at this issue is this: Gamey players will use any tactic allowed by the code to win the game. Non-gamey players will try to adhere to RL tactics to try to win the battle.

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

He used an option that was available, and won. Traits exhibited were cleverness, resourcefulness, and proper execution, at the right time. Seems to me, he has a great grasp of military strategy by meeting those criteria.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From his description it sounds more like this: He got into a nasty fight, suffered heavy casualties and was beaten back. He looked at the turn counter and saw it was the last turn. He then decided to throw what little force he had left in a meaningless "massive assualt" against a superior enemy.

Good fortune and a lucky break? Yes. Great grasp of military strategy? Perhaps so but not in this case.

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

Oh well. Let's agree to disagree.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, there is nothing wrong with that idea.

So much has been said about this already that I am willing to leave this dead horse alone.

Have a good day.

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

Dan

[Guest wwb_99]

I think I will embark upon designing several MEs sans flags. Instead, I will employ exit zones on opposite sides of the map, thereby making the objective to advance while prohibiting the enemy from doing likewise. These scenarios will have to be 2-player only, because the PO is very lost without flags.

WWB

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

I think I will embark upon designing several MEs sans flags.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, how about making VLs different for each side, AND, make them unknown to their opponent. That way, you're only guessing at what his "true" objectives are.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest wwb_99]

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

Hey, how about making VLs different for each side, AND, make them unknown to their opponent. That way, you're only guessing at what his "true" objectives are.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you make 'secret' VLs. I was thinking much more in terms of maintaining the integrety of the front rather than tactical objectives. I will look into this tonight.

WWB