Gamey Recon Technique?

[Smoker1]

How does the CM community feel about plotting extensive movement paths (several minutes of movement) for fast moving vehicles that weave all over the enemy side of the map? I've found that even an unarmed jeep can often survive for quite a spell and gather valuable information as to the whereabouts of enemy armor and vehicles as long as it does not suffer from the new orders delay while exposed. Is this a gamey tactic?

Smoker out.

[Mannheim Tanker]

No. That's exactly what I was taught to do at Ft. Knox. Only idiots and those with death wishes take a straight-line, Sunday stroll into enemy territory.

[Mikeydz]

Well, considering that you wouldn't realisticly expect to ever see a jeep crew go on a suicide recon mission in real life, high tailing it in enemy territory like that, then technically, yes, it would be considered by most players as gamey. some players would look kindly to you playing this way, but then there are others how won't care.

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

No. That's exactly what I was taught to do at Ft. Knox. Only idiots and those with death wishes take a straight-line, Sunday stroll into enemy territory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think he's talking about zig zaging to different area of cover, using erratic maneuvers. To me it's sound like he's talking about sending a jeep to haul ass around in enemy areas, causing enemy troops to fire at the jeep, which of course reveals thier location to the player. He's expecting the jeep to die, but to hopefully spot some enemy. More than likely he'll call in artillery or mortar fire on the newly found troops.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Scouts use Humvees in today's (US) army, so I don't see why they wouldn't have used jeeps in WWII. In fact, I seem to recall accounts of them doing so (if I'm motivated enough I'll dig through some books to find some quotes). True, you wouldn't see them driving 100kph down the autobahn, but you would use a bounding overwatch tactic. I don't think it's gamey, since it's a real-world tactic.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Whoops! You must have posted your second post while I was doing mine. I agree that a suicide charge is gamey. Then again, I think you have to be a bit suicidal to be a 19D anyway

Former 19k...

[Mikeydz]

Exactly... It all depends on exactly what Smoker is doing with the jeep. If he's doing what beople on the newer .50 cal threads are talking about, then I would call it gamey. If he's using a jeep to haul to a point behind cover, and maybe while hidden drop off a zook teem then haul butt to another hidden area, then no, not gamey. Risky, but not gamey.

[Grognerd_Fogman]

Lol, you loser Smoker. Are you feeling a little bad in our current ladder game by finding my lil kittens this way? Come jus a lil closer, yeah that's it...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

How does the CM community feel about plotting extensive movement paths (several minutes of movement) for fast moving vehicles that weave all over the enemy side of the map? I've found that even an unarmed jeep can often survive for quite a spell and gather valuable information as to the whereabouts of enemy armor and vehicles as long as it does not suffer from the new orders delay while exposed. Is this a gamey tactic?

Smoker out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO,

A) The tactic is very effective.

The tactic is very gamey.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Smoker1]

OK fellas, thanks for the feedback. After using the tactic a couple of times and realizing the effective nature of it I began to wonder. Mikeydz is right. I'm not inserting teams into positions. I'm roaming wildly at high speeds in search of enemy vehicles. I've rarely discovered infantry with this tactic, but lots of armor.

My apologies to my PBEM opponents. I won't use this tactic again except on Grognerd Fogman who deserves to be beaten in any way possible, preferably in an unfair manner. Grognerd! I've got three more jeeps coming your way at top speed.

Smoker out.

[howardb]

Yeah gotto agree... if you expect the vehicle to be a casualty it's gamey. Let's put it this way if you were in that vehicle and your CO told you to do it would you ? If the answer is yes go on with what you're doing.

[Vanir]

I wonder if hiding your tanks using the hide command would not negate this tactic. Will "hidden" tanks open up on a jeep without orders? If they do, they shouldn't (since a jeep is not a threat) and an adjustment to the hide command would fix this problem.

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-16-2000).]

[silentsniper]

Look at my sig.

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

"The way of my school is the spirit of gaining victory by any means." -Miyamoto Musashi

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

How does the CM community feel about plotting extensive movement paths (several minutes of movement) for fast moving vehicles that weave all over the enemy side of the map? I've found that even an unarmed jeep can often survive for quite a spell and gather valuable information as to the whereabouts of enemy armor and vehicles as long as it does not suffer from the new orders delay while exposed. Is this a gamey tactic?

Smoker out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I brought this up in my linelength limitation thread. It was met with such an open minded intelligent response that I was moved.

As I see it, joyriding has to be preserved at all costs. The hit on reality must be maintained because there is no other way. In battle everyone can have telepathic knowledge sharing abilitys and also have fore knowledge of what they will do several minutes into the future. This is a must. All abstractions aimed at reducing this must be met with obtuse rhetoric.

(sarcasm mode turned down 4 notches)

Trying to reason with Steve about fundamental game changes gets a frosted reception. Thats my take. He is basically a civilian. He is a die hard individualist and sees the game from that viewpoint. He doesnt have a "unit" viewpoint.

(inane mode put into hyper drive)

He also takes things too personally (I couldnt have a lack of tact or diplomacy could I?) and is anti-obsequious. He takes bubble baths. There are strong feelings of delusions and paranoia flowing through his subconscious that jutt out and ruin his relationships. He collects GI Joes without kung fu grip.

Other than that, He is an OK guy and will even exchange emails.

Lewis

[Valdor]

Having spent a fair amount of time running around Germany in a jeep I can tell you it wouldn't work in real life.

Although CM's 3D replication of terrain is very well done, it does leave a lot out. In real life there are lots of obstuctions that would bring your jeep to a screeching halt---which would be followed very quickly by it's destruction!

Most roads have drainage ditches along their sides (perfect anti-jeep ditches!); there are miles and miles of fences and small walls; holes, rocks, deadfall (logs, branches, etc.) and even plowed feels (try driving a jeep more than a few miles an hour across the 'grain' of a plowed field) are all serious obstructions, not to mention soft, mucky, jeep-swallowing bogs!

Also, in CM you automatically see whatever your units see---imagine in real life trying to plot all this information on a map and calling in spot reports on the radio while bouncing around in a jeep moving erratically (to avoid machine gun fire!) cross country at 30-40 mph! Good Luck.

At the NTC we had a Recon Company commander who would often brief, "Sir, about 0200 I'm going to haul-ass down East Range Road---even if they're awake, they'll never be able to hit me!" About the only time he didn't get shot was when he hit a minefield, concentina, or other obstruction. (See, even the OPFOR can do some pretty stupid things!)

[Vanir]

I took a bubble bath once.

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[Henri]

I disagree about sending a vehicle running around through enemy territory as being gamey; I did it yesterday with a Puma: he shot out of the woods and zigzagged at "fast" through enemy territory. Three enemy tanks were shooting at him, but as he spotted a Sherman in front of him, he let him have it in the side and killed the Sherman (a bonus I didn't expect and that I coldn't count on)! After a few more zigzags, he was killed by a Jumbo, but he had exposed the whole enemy position, killed a Sherman, and had thrown the enemy into confusion.

The argument about the crew refusing to do this in real life is specious; doesn anybody think that ordering a platoon to assault an enemy position protected by entrenched machineguns is "gamey" and that the soldiers would refuse to advance? Of course not, so why should it be any different for vehicles? Besides, the crew is unlikely to be killed if the vehicle is disabled, some have a good chance of escaping.

There are many examples in WW2 of soldiers abeying orders to advance against impossible odds; the case that comes to mind is the Canadian Black Watch Regiment in Normandy, who were ordered to advance through clear terrain against entrenched German machineguns and who did so without flagging, most of them being ahhinilated in the advance.

In war, you do whatever needs to be done, and sending units into enemy territory to scout out enemy positions was not an exceptional activity.

Henri

[Mannheim Tanker]

I think the key difference in gamey vs realistic is whether he is racing nonstop, hellbend for leather (gamey) or dashing between cover with short pauses to report (realistic). It's a small difference, but an important one. I actually like using the second (which is maybe why I'm biased towards it!)

[aka_tom_w]

Gamey My Ass!

Sorry....

I will happily state my opinion that running the jeep all over the enemy backfield is a perfectly good, non-gamey, effective tactic in my opinion.

The ends justify the means, and the game does not prevent you from doing so. Crews in jeeps are not "blinded" by the same 25-50 meter spotting limitation now programed into bailed crews (a great solution I fully support).

So what, now we can't use jeeps for recon?

What else can't we use for recon?

Are we now actually asking for a new 25-50 metter spotting limit on Jeeps tear-assing around the enemy backfield?

I don't understand this "gamey" nonsense, as soon as someone finds a good new effective tactic someone else calls it gamey because they didn't think of it first.

Gamey?

Is this jeep recon trick taking advantage of some programming over sight, loophole, or bug in the way the game was designed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Gamey? I thought using unlimited spotting rounds by constantly changing the targeting location, now that was TOTALLY gamey and it has been fixed.

If using jeeps for recon is gamey then does any one here have any positive constructive suggestions to actually change the way the game is written or programed to make this "gamey" tactic not so gamey or not possible?

I have no suggestions and I would say that if someone used this tactic against me I would say they are likely planning to write off that unit to gather valuable recon info as it will likely eventually get killed before it gets back to safety. I think that is a decsion a player in CM can make, and to label it gamey just sounds like sour grapes to me.

How about this, suppose as the Allies I want to do the exact same thing with a quick unbuttoned Stuart and sent it, surely to its death, in a suicide recon mission to scout out enemy armour by running it deep into enemy territory to see what will shoot at it? Is that Gamey?

So what is gamey and not gamey when it comes to recon?

Seriously, sometimes you have to pay for valuable recon information with the lives of your men and the destruction of some of your vehicles, I don't think there is anything remotely gamey about that tactic.

If it annoys my opponent, well I guess he won't want to play me again. But to suggest that is a form of cheating is simply beyong me.

I've said this before, ALL'S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR and in this case I understand we are simulating war so I have no problem simulating "ALL"s FAIR".

In war you should be able to do what ever you need to do to win, you know like they tell you in some militery training, its the commander's decsion and he might figure that such a suicide jeep recon mission is just the "maximum use of his available resources"

Labeling this Jeep recon in the enemy backfeild as a gamey tactic seems rather unfortuate to me.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So what is gamey and not gamey when it comes to recon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gamey recon is using the vehicles to do something blatantly unrealistic.

Henri. The argument against suicide recon is not so much that the unit wouldnt obey, it is that the information he gives you as a player is very unrealistic. Just because he can see the 5 Shermans shooting at him, that were hidden a moment ago, doesnt mean that evry unit on your team would even have a clue, especially if the firefight was taking place far behind the front line. All your front line troops and commander would know is that Mr. Jeep didnt come home that night.

Most of us are trying to simulate behavior and things that really happened, and that is what makes it fun.

Its a very effective and unrealistic habit, and I intend to enter into VOLUNTARY agreements with my opponents not to do it, in efforts to make CM more enjoyable..

[This message has been edited by *Captain Foobar* (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Grognerd_Fogman]

I agree with you here Tom. If people don't want to expose their troops to initial scouting then hide them with short range ambush markers set. As long as your vehicles are in a good visual hiding spot they shouldn't open up unless the recon gets super close. If this is a gamey tactic then you could consider Fionn's latest AAR kinda gamey. In the beginning he throws a platoon of half-squads out there in the open running from cover to cover directly at the enemy to scout out his position. I realize he is attempting to cover his guys with some tanks an stuff but he even states in certain words that "hey, if I lose a platoon to exposing and wiping out of a company (usually more for him), then I consider that an acceptable trade-off". Obviously he has to know that when he does this, his whole "recon" platoon is pretty much going to be doomed even before his reinforcements take up the slack. Same as poeple with recon vehicles. But it definitely is worth it's weight in gold more times than not. Of course when I send out recon troops, I end up spotting only armor, get wiped and end up begging to break even by the end of the battle I've also noticed that most of the people that don't like so-called gamey tactics (not bugs/exploits), are usually the ones that got beat by it. Too many people worry about the perfect real war etiquette and playing under severely controlled conditions. Well, I have read many, many accounts about WWII tactics/politics that would shock the average non-grognard ethical person. This game even makes many non real-life abstractions so it is not even close to the real stuff anyway. It's just awesomely fun and addictive. Lets just have a ball, bash eachother with insults and artillery and remember that wars are not run by gentleman with morals and nicely laid down rules...

Oh, except for Smoker1 of course...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Valdor]

I don't think the objection is to recon, or even doing recon with jeeps---the objection is Jeeps reconning using constant fast movement. Recon is usually a stealthy affair using cover and concealment as much as possible and fast dashes between cover when needed.

As Grognerd_Fogman pointed out (even though he was making the opposite argument), Fionn had "half-squads out there in the open running from cover to cover" (emphasis added.)

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

A66

1st MRB

[Grognerd_Fogman]

Sorry Valdor, I didn't get my point across too well. What I meant was that I really don't consider it gamey using certain recon units in whatever way people want to use them, even knowing that almost surely they're going to get slaughtered. Almost every game I have played either me or my opponent lose all recon units in the first few turns, especially if they've been effective. No matter if they try an use cover or not, eventually they get waxed due to the nature of what recon units do and are. They're fast, under strength and under armored vehicles used for scouting. I do happen to keep them a little longer if I try hard to go from cover to cover but then I usually don't accomplish much. No matter which method you use (run or duck) ya gotta figure that the process of uncovering the enemy almost always involves them seeing you at some point and almost everything on the battlefield is willing to fire on them if allowed These vehicles just can't withstand even so much as a gerbil coughing at them before they die. If people run around willy nilly and try and use cover to preserve them (like real life?) then how much can they really uncover? Usually not much. Hmmm, lets see, I've found that no-one is here out in the open, super!, now I'll go park back at HQ. I've used several recon techniques and have no problem with what my opponent does as long as he's not exploiting a bug or not following an agreement made etc... The anology to Fionns game was that he was certain that the recon platoon was most certainly going to be wiped out but was worth it if it produced the desired effect. Also it's worthy to note that he doesn't always have them in cover. Sometimes they're on a bare naked hilltop or running for long distances in the open. As long as it serves a tactical purpose people will use it. We do this all the time in real life and in games. Even in real war, commanders will knowingly sacrifice the few for the greater good. I really wonder what the turnover percentage for recon outfits were in WWII? I'm sure it was way higher than even the frontline troops. No game is ever gonna be what we perceive to be like "real life". If I truly wanted real I would step outta my house an take some VD infested hamsters down to the inner city here and let them loose on the drug dealers...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[:USERNAME:]

In my game its handled as such:

If a unit either loses command control (an abstraction based on communications, LOS, etc) or is not in good order, any visability to enemy units, artillery strikes, smoke, terrain is severely limited.

I would like to have certain areas of the playing area go "map" instead of terrain.

So go right ahead and send the rat patrol down the road. If they trip an ambush, and are out of LOS of any other friendly unit, they will disappear from view or be replaced with a question mark, etc.

If its an armored car section, well maybe you will get a quick screaming status report before they blink off and maybe you will get a report of smoke columns.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-17-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Since CM is a warGAME, we obviously accept a certain level of abstraction of reality in the game. I believe that most discussions on gamey tactics focus on those that are a gross abuse of the game mechanics and take advantage of the abstractions at the expense of real world tactics. Nobody is suggesting that real battles are run by "gentlemen". I'm sure that the generals would send hoardes of jeeps forward at full speed if they could telepathically inform their comrades of the locations of enemy positions The fact is, they can't in the real world, and that is why this is a gamey tactic. If real recon tactics are utilized, then it isn't gamey.

Now, I think many people here are making the mistake of assuming that those of us opposed to gamey tactics are saying "You can't do this in any PBEM!". Not so, at least in my case. I don't expect BTS to change the code to "fix" most of these gamey tactics. It's probably best just to clarify your view of what is gamey before starting a PBEM with a new opponent.

There are obviously lots of players that have no problems with some of the gamey tactics out there; I'm just not one of them. I view CM as more of a simulator than a game. If I want to play a game, I'll boot up CC or Panzer Commander. Fortunately for me, I've found plenty of players to play against use "real-world" tactics (define this how you will). To each his own...