Gamey Recon Technique?

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lewis,

Spotting is done on a partial second basis during the resolution part of the game. In the Orders Phase this information is already known, i.e. that x unit is spotted. There is no code in the game that tracks who spotted who. What you are talking about is pure LOS, which is already in the game. In other words, you can not figure out who spotted what during the Orders Phase unless it was done on the fly during the resolution process. And that is where the major recoding effort lies. All other issues about gameplay effects and user interface impact still remain on top of this.

Lewis: I apologigize for calling you obtuse. Its evident that you are in fact stilted. I have no clue what you just said here.

Relative spotting WILL happen at some point. But it can not be hacked into the game quickly or easily. One reason why CM is what it is now has to do with our resistance to slap stuff into the game without carefull planning, execution, and testing. This is a huge and fundamental change for the game and therefore needs to be done right or not done at all. For the moment it will not be done at all since we do not have the time to do it propperly.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, again, what?

Its going to be in CM2? Not a patch for CMBO? Good luck

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Henri]

Again, although the discussion on jeeps is interesting, it is being used as a straw man: the original question was not about using fleets of jeeps to recon, but about using a single fast vehicle (no type was mentioned).But still I feel the need to expoind...The arguments about jeeps are

1)It is not reasonable because the jeep would be sent on a suicide mission and the crew is sure to get killed (most crews are not killed when their vehicles are destroyed);

2) It is not reasonable because the jeep is so fast that it cannot be hit

3)It is supposed to be gamey because it uses the game "telepathy" , seemingly oblivious of the fact that ALL units in the game have such telepathy. More importantly, it disregards the possibility that the jeep could be carrying a radio. Am I to believe that no jeeps in WW2 ever carried radios and that if they were sent on recon missions, they did not have radios?

4) Critics of the gameyness of the fast jeep recon keep referring to running jeeps "within meters" of enemy positions, which seems to imply that if it is not within meters, it would be OK? Or is this just rhetoric to bias the discussion?If the distance from enemy positions is irrelevant, why do people keep mentioning it to bolster their argument?

Anyway the whole argument about jeep fleets is beside the point, because it is much more effective to use a single vehicle than a fleet of them, and it is a lot cheaper.A single Puma is a lot cheaper than a half-dozen jeeps, and if it is lucky it can bag a Sherman from the rear or side (the last two times I did a fast recon with a Puma, I DID bag a Sherman each time)

Now I have never used the jeep rush recon nor have I ever seen it; I HAVE used single halftracks and armored cars, and the only times that I have had recon vehicles survive the recon mission, they were fast-moving halftracks (Pumas tend to draw enemy attention a lot faster than halftracks )! Just yesterday, I had a fast-moving halftrack run halfway across the map tghrough enemy fire and hide behind a house, from where it was invisible to enemy tanks but fromwhere it hit a distant advancing enemy platoon on the flank with machinegun fire, forcing it to turn back (I'm probably gonna lose anyway...). Now according to what I'm reading here, if that halftrack had been hit before it reached cover, it would be gamey, but since it played a major role in the defensive, it should be OK. The only difference is in the INTENTION, which only I am aware of.

Finally I have no problem with changing the game to make it more difficult for jeeps to reconnoiter, I have never used a jeep in this manner, preferring to use armored cars or halftracks. There is usually a profusion of unused halftracks lying around; are we now going to be told that it is gamey to use halftracks for recon? Or that it is OK, but only if they are traveling slowly?

Henri

[Mannheim Tanker]

Some good arguments, Henri, but I think you've completely missed the point of some of us anti-gamey guys (at least mine). -Sigh- I've attempted to articulate my position several times, but at this point I'll just concede that not everyone will "get" it and leave it at that. Thanks for the good discussion, though!

MT

[Banshee]

I was watching "Weapons at War: Mechanized Forces" last night on the "History Channel" and it was very topical on this discussion I thought, they had a whole section on the development and testing of the Jeep. They showed many times Jeeps barreling around plowed fields and the like (maybe 30 mph's , my estimate), and it was funny to see how hard those people were trying to keep from flying out of the jeep (no seatbelts ya know!).

And my "great" realization as to why Jeeps were so great in the "fast recon" role was that they NEVER could get into a "Buttoned Up" status, which would severly limit spotting. Using any other vehicle (ok not kubelwagons ) you could make the vehicle button up and it would have severly limited spotting capability. Anyways I've enjoyed the discussion here and will be interested to see the changes that BTS discussed, I think they would be minor (15% reduction on speed, maybe 20-25% reduced effectiveness on spotting).

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Sturm Furie]

First I just wanted to say that I am new to this game and it is awesome.

I agree with both sides of the coin on this one. Coming from RTS games such as War Craft and Star Craft, I see the rush as a viable strategy. I can see how this may not fit in with the perdiod the game is played in though. I agree with the need for a patch that will make the "rush" a harder strategy to use, but I think that the "rush" should not be considered a cheat or even gamey if done right. This game allows an increadible amount of balance for both sides< unlike RTS games, and the rush can be stopped if you know you are playing some one using this tactic. After all, I even tried it before I knew that this Topic was here and I got my #$@ handed to me, and didnt learn anything really important about the other side.

oh well, just wanted to say I love this game and hope everyone plays to have fun..It is still a game!!

[Smoker1]

Henri,

Your bold maneuvers with halftracks, Pumas, etc. are not gamey IMO. They are gutsy and risky. This brings up the one problem I have with thoughts put forth in this thread. People talk of suicide attacks being gamey. You pointed out at least twice that many, if not most crew members survive the so called suicidal maneuvers.

To all:

Who can say what is and is not a suicidal maneuver? What may be suicidal to one soldier, may be just a calculated risk to another. Soldiers were routinely asked to do very dangerous things. It's the nature of war.

No good commander would risk the lives of his men needlessly, but there is a job to be done. The men and equipment are the tools to do that job. They are trained to obey orders and will most likely do so until they panic, break, or rout. They are taught to trust those in charge and to obey without question. It is the responsibility of the commander to see that none of his assets are NEEDLESSLY placed at risk. This is a judgement call for the commander to make.

Sending a few poor guys on a very high risk mission may save the lives of many in the end, be pivotal in getting the job done, AND they may come out alive. Who can say when a bold maneuver crosses the line and becomes suicidal. Lady Luck is always around.

Kamikaze pilots were on suicide missions. They intended to die and tried hard to die. In CM, any truly suicidal order would violate common sense (just like the Kamikazes IMO). Even a novice wouldn't give a truly suicidal order. For example, nobody would order an AT team to run into a building they know is occupied by an enemy platoon.

Some may say that soldiers would disobey orders they deem as suicidal. I say this is already modeled in CM. A regular or green troop may start out trying to obey, but as soon as the shooting starts they do what they want if you ordered them to do something too dangerous for their liking. Also, quite often the unit assigned to a dangerous task would not know how dangerous it really is since the unit is not privy to the big picture like his CO.

To sum up, I don't think any tactic should be deemed gamey based solely on the fact that it MAY be suicidal. If your opponent does something truly suicidal you will get a free kill. Are you going to cry "Gamey" then?

Smoker out.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Smoker: Nobody is saying that it's gamey because it's suicidal. It's gamey for other reasons, which are explained ad nausuem in the 100 preceding posts.

[Henri]

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

Smoker: Nobody is saying that it's gamey because it's suicidal. It's gamey for other reasons, which are explained ad nausuem in the 100 preceding posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is begging the question; the reasons you are referring to is that it didn't happen in real life and therefore it is "gamey"; now this can only mean that it was not standard operating procedures, otherwise it could only mean that it NEVER happened that a lone jeep was sent out on a fast recon mission, which is ludicrous.I just spent a couple of hours unsuccessfully searching through my books for such cases, but I don't have the right books for that (Von Mellinthin and Tom Clancy don't go into that kind of detail).

The counter arguments are mostly bolstered by arguning about a FLEET of jeeps zipping by METERS from enemy positions, when what is being discussed (see the first message) is the validity of sending a SINGLE fast vehicle (not necessarily a jeep) zigzagging through enemy territory keeping away from dangerous ambush positions and using as much cover as possible.

Although this discussion is interesting, I find that there is enough fuzzy reasoning in the debate to confuse Aristotle himself .

Since I have the spitoon, let me add more, hopefully not confusing the issue even more.

First of all, has anybody ever seen an opponent send a fleet of a half-dozen jeeps into his territory in order to smoke out the enemy positions? If not, why the hell is this being brought up all the time?

Second, no competent player would use a jeep for fast recon when he could do it with an armored fast recon vehicle. Players use what they have, and if a real-life commander did not have recon assets, he would use whatever gives him the best chance of getting the job done with the least risk.

It beats me why some people here think that sending a fast vehicle on recon risking to lose part of teh crew (typically one in my experience) is more suicidal than sending foot infantry with the quasi-certainty that half of them will probably be killed at best when they contact the enemy.

Actually sending foot infantry into KNOWN and unseen enemy positions is way more unhistorical than sending zigzagging vehicles; in WW2, the procedure used would be to call in a massive artillery strike on the enemy positions before advancing in order to soften up the enemy. The way that infantry is used to scout in CM is strongly biased by three factors: 1) the limited time duration for a scenario;2) the flag-objective-based nature of the game; 3)the one-minute duration of moves during which units cannot be ordered and the lack of the ability to give what-if orders (standard opetating procedures).

As the game stands, it is not possible to give orders to a unit to recon cautiously and to hightail it out of there if it meets opposition.

I am not criticizing the game, it is the best wargame available, but I am not blind to the limitations due to the fact that it IS a game.

There is nothing wrong with players agreeing to a certain kind of game, although this is ahistorical to the extreme -armies did not agree beforehand with their opponents on force composition and on permissible tactics. For my part, when I recently found myself facing five ubertanks and no infantry with a balanced force, I took my pill and fought them to the best of my ability (actually if I had not been so unlucky as described in an earlier post, I feel confident that I had a more than even chance to win). If one does not care for the scenario that he is given, he can always surrender and take the loss...

Henri

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"It beats me why some people here think that sending a fast vehicle on recon risking to lose part of teh crew (typically one in my experience) is more suicidal than sending foot infantry with the quasi-certainty that half of them will probably be killed at best when they contact the enemy."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Henri,

My recon vehicles, troops etc are sent to make first contact, and engage the enemy. They have the ability to threaten the enemy with their presence, through tactical means. They also have a chance to survive, regardless of what some people here have claimed.

This is a gray area, and apparently hard to find wide-spread agreement. But, within the confines of the CM, trading a SINGLE (not fleet) jeep costing 17 points for the enemy positions is not as is intended, and gamey aka ahistorical. It does not matter if someone can find a book where one guy, one time drove a jeep into the enemy positions, CM is about simulating STANDARD ww2 combat.

The debate regarding 'how many angels can stand on the head of a pin' can continue for another 3000 posts, but there is no getting around the absolute spotting issue.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri,

As I and others have pointed out... FLEETS OF JEEPS is not the issue here. ONE SINGLE JEEP, used in the way that has been described, is every bit as gamey as 20 or 30. Obviously 30 Jeeps is more effective, but the core principle is the same. So I ask you to please acknowledge what I am saying here and cease creating a straw man where there is in fact none.

The point is that a single vehicle can not drive, at top speed, and report back everything that it sees to the rest of the force with instant and totally accurate (within the degrees of FoW) locations, type, stance, etc. To purposefully seek to gather this type of information, through the sacrifice of a vehicle, is gamey. Period. If the crew survives or not is totally, and utterly, irrelevant.

The simple fact is that this sort of Wild West rodeo style recon NEVER happened in WWII. Why? Because in the real war it would yield no borg-like information gathering and transmission. So in the real world sending vehicles and crews to go into known enemy positions, at top speed and zig-zagging courses, to gather such information would be suicide AND yield very little intel information.

Finally, there have been comments from several people with real life military experience, including one who serves in the Cavlary (recon). They have stated, in no uncertain terms, that what this recon tactic being discussed is "gamey" because it is simply something that exploits limitations in Combat Mission and would never, ever work in real life.

I am at a loss as to why this is so hard to understand...

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

What you are asking for is technically not possible as a quick fix. I don't know how I can explain it any better. What you are asking for involves a fundamental change to the code and the way the game works. Since you have an unrealistic and simplified view of how code and game interact I can understand how this has left you in the perplexed state that you find yourself in now. Can't help you there.

Sturm Furie, welcome. The problem here is that if someone uses this tactic, the other player is either forced to counter act it or suffer the consequences of not doing so. Since the tactic itself is unrealistic, and can be quite effective, this means the other player is obligated to change his ways (i.e. playing in a realistic way) in order to not be taken advantage of. Many people, myself included, think this detracts from the point of playing in the first place. Others might differ on this point, and they are welcome to, but I (like many others) don't want to play against someone who forces me to play Combat Mission like it was Red Alert and not a simulation of WWII. When I want to play Red Alert it is easy enough to do that since I own a copy

Steve

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Because in the real war it would yield no borg-like information gathering and transmission.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the good news is that CM is ready for a Star Trek port, No design changes needed!

P.S. BTS can you look at the

"Nice & Courteous PBEM Challenge Thread: Post Here" thread and comment on the feasability of getting a dedicated PBEM/TCPIP forum?

Thanks.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[aka_tom_w]

Perhaps these points were over looked the first time I posted them:

Ok I think we all here welcome these changes and they look like a great solution to deal

with this kind of gamey recon with fast jeeps.

I would like to humbly suggest that when coding this patch there might be an awareness

of how some folks might find a work around and still use the same deep fast recon tactic

with some other cheap fast vehicle.

For instance (off the top of my head) what about cheap fast bren gun carriers and

universal carriers? What about the fast light AFV's like the Pzk 11 or the Stuart? Some of

us, and I am admittedly one of them, will still want to find the fastest cheapest unit

available and send it on a suicide mission to gather valuable recon info knowing full well its

not coming back. I suspect that this kind of waste of a unit that, no matter how the game

is coded, will be considered "gamey". But thats OK because some of us here don't mind

playing against other gamey palyers.

I am FULLY supportive of Steve and Charles' proposed solutions to limit spotting ability of

fast moving jeeps, and other wheeled vehilces, but lets also not forget about every other

light fast cheap vehicle there is in the game because I'm sure there will be other folks like

me who will find the fastest cheapest vehicle they can that has not been re- programmed

(in the next patch) to limit its spotting ability while going fast and then send that unit in

the recon role of the jeep to (well, basically) die for the greater good of collecting as much

recon intel before it gets nailed.

Green crews are alot cheaper the Elite crews, can we also make the green crews spot less

or much more poorly than Elite crews?

I guess what I'm saying is that from years of 2D board game playing the min/max theory

or attitude, (and quite honestly amongst my friends I was not that good at it and not at

the worst offender of the always using the Min/Max tactics when calculating battle odds)

leads to tactics which figure "how can I get the most recon intel, by risking the least

amount of my force?"

Taken to extremes, that is all the deep fast jeep suicide recon joy ride is.

The most recon Intel for the least cost.

All I'm suggesting is that that kind of thinking should be applied when you attempt to

tweak the jeep suicide recon tactic and code them so they can't spot while moving fast.

Naturally I will also point out that it has been suggested here somewhere that putting a

'zook team in a jeep and racing them to their perfect tank killing destination will still be an

effective tactic as once the jeep stops or moves slowlly it will still be able to spot and the

'zook team will still be able to relay all that intel recon.

I'm really not trying to be negative here, I'm just continuely exploring loop holes in the

spotting rules/code (whatever) that we are trying to close.

I will also ask, what about passengers in fast moving jeeps? (no spotting for ANY

passenger in any vehicle that moves fast?)

What about an infantry squad in the back of a fast moving truck, halftrack, light tank

attempting the same deep suicide recon trick? No spotting for them either?

Basically to do this right do you not have to not allow spotting by ANY unit in any vehicle

that is moving fast?

Even Recon vehicles themsleves?

I'm not trying to be silly here just pointing out that even after this patch, there will be

min/max players that will do what ever they can to gain recon intel by sacrificing there

cheapest quickest units in suicide recon roles to get the most results for the cheapest

cost.

I do sincerely hope these fiddly little "where the spotting loop holes are, and how do I exploit them"

discussions aid in the coding of a better CM for all of us.

Sorry again to any of you I've offended with my ranting and discussions of clearly

"chincy", min/max wargame "gamey" play tactics.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-20-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom,

The code change applies to all light and/or fast moving vehicles, not just Jeeps. Halftracks and armored cars are much slower already and, as others have noted, not nearly as good for doing this tactic because of it.

We can not totally prevent gamey tactics in general, or this one specifically. But the unrealistic recon move is something that is serious enough to merrit special attention. If we find that the above mentioned changes do not go far enough, we will look at it again and try to identify the reasons why it still works. Then we'll have another go at it

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Tom,

The code change applies to all light and/or fast moving vehicles, not just Jeeps. Halftracks and armored cars are much slower already and, as others have noted, not nearly as good for doing this tactic because of it.

We can not totally prevent gamey tactics in general, or this one specifically. But the unrealistic recon move is something that is serious enough to merrit special attention. If we find that the above mentioned changes do not go far enough, we will look at it again and try to identify the reasons why it still works. Then we'll have another go at it

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great

That sounds good.

Thanks for the prompt reply

-tom w

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The point is that a single vehicle can not drive, at top speed, and report back everything that it sees...

..Because in the real war it would yield no borg-like information gathering and transmission.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so does everyone agree it wouldn't be gamey to send a

Jeep zigzagging front of possible enemy locations, IF you

have another team observing what happens to the jeep?

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Perhaps. But the "no" part of it can't be prevented in the game. What I mean by that is...

It is very unlikely that a commander, not to mention the driver!, would knowingly drive RIGHT IN FRONT of enemy positions just to see if they had anything else in there. So doing this in a game would be gamey IMHO.

However, if the Jeep happened to be going along its merry way and was opened up on, and someone else saw it, then no... that would not be gamey at all. Nor would it be if the Jeep was trying to do something else other than draw fire, like get out of more imediate danger, go warn HQ, driving unaware of enemy positions, etc.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

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

OK, so does everyone agree it wouldn't be gamey to send a

Jeep zigzagging front of possible enemy locations, IF you

have another team observing what happens to the jeep?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do indeed enjoy this discussion...

On a philosophical basis of course

This is a new wrinkle now, and a VERY good question.

It seems feasible and realistic to expect other stationary units with LOS to that now infamous jeep, to be able to watch what happens to it and who fires at it and from where if that jeep (which realistically, and now in the next patch in the game cannot spot anything while going fast on that suicide recon run into enemy territory) is sent to draw fire.

Now it is labeled gamey not because it would not work in real life, suppose it was a remote control drone jeep sent out to darw fire and everyone sat back and watched it, I suspect this tactic would work very well in real life(the remote control drone jeep with two dummy human figures in it)

My issue is the now this tactic of watching the jeep with stationary units from a safe distance is gamey because a commander has decided the jeep is expendable and should be sacrificed for the greater good.

I fully support all efforts to reduce borg-like intel gathering and anything that can be done to reduce the effects of absolute spotting and the telepathy amongst units when cheap fast units are sent on suicide recon runs BUT I'm uncomfortable, (honestly) when I'm told that even though the jeep will not spot anything when its is moving fast, if I have units watching what happens to it on its deep penetration suicide joy ride, I'm STILL gamey because I have ordered a unit into a VERY risky situation where I ordered it into harms way with the intention that it would run around in the open and get shot at.

If it is realistic to expect that a stationary unit, (with a radio) has good LOS to my suicide jeep then the problem of the borg like intel gathering is negated but the issue is still considered gamey because I have chosen to expend a unit on a suicide mission with blatant discard for the lives of the crew, that's the problem I have.

I'm sure some here will disagree with me, but I still don't think that sending one jeep on a suicide joy ride, while it is in LOS of a friendly (stationary) unit with a radio is really a gamey thing to do, sure it may be calous and some what cold hearted to my troops but hey, who knows maybe some of my guys actually volunteered for the task??

Again it is the cheapest way to gather the most recon intel by risking one of the most expendable units at my disposal.

Is the tactic gamey now because of the very high risk of loosing the unit or is it gamey now because it would not work? In my opinion it would work just fine in real life if some units sat back and watched the "drone" jeep take fire, but there are no drone jeeps so when we introduce the factor of wasting human lifes the tactic now becomes unpalatible?

Like someone here said, you have to break a few eggs to make an omllet.

let the ranting continue.....

-tom w

[Henri]

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

I'm not trying to be silly here just pointing out that even after this patch, there will be

min/max players that will do what ever they can to gain recon intel by sacrificing there

cheapest quickest units in suicide recon roles to get the most results for the cheapest

cost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your questions are well taken and the reason for my reticence to invoke artificial rules in CM. As in real life, the player is trying to maximize his results with minimum risk, and the challenge is to do it better than the opposing player. If a player is continuously distracted by the worry that a given tactic may be gamey, his play will suffer.

Despite its qualities, this great game already suffers to some extent from the "slugfest" syndrome, where most games degenerate into a slugfest.

The essence of strategy is to unbalance the opponent and to dislocate his position by means of surprise and other psychological shocks. There is a tight limit on strategies of this kind in CM, and I am afraid that adding layers of house rules will make it worse, not better.

For example, slowing down fast vehicles will decrease their value as recon vehicles, but it will also make them more vulnerable. Now halftracks moving units forward will become more vulnerable to enemy fire and will be more likely to drive right into enemy positions without seeing them, which will unbalance the game in favor of the defender and which may well lead to situations that are much more unrealistic than the "jeep recon".

For the record, I don't use jeeps for fast recon and I have never had an opponent use one against me, so it doesn't bother me that BTS removes the ability of jeeps to recon at all! Bult it DOES bother me that fast vehicles will be slowed down.

Yes, the telepathic transmission of spotted units to all units is unrealistic, but jeep recon is only one of the possibly gamey tactics that it allows. If I didn't have work to do, I could cite a number of them. I take the game as it is, and I don't believe in curing a sore throat by cutting off one's head is good any more than I believe that changing the recon rules is going to cure the problems associated with the telepathic nature of spotting.

Henri

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lewis,

What you are asking for is technically not possible as a quick fix. I don't know how I can explain it any better. What you are asking for involves a fundamental change to the code and the way the game works. Since you have an unrealistic and simplified view of how code and game interact I can understand how this has left you in the perplexed state that you find yourself in now. Can't help you there.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

I didnt ask for a quick fix. I was just pointing out a missed opportunity. My abstraction is as good as any in the game.

I think my abstractions lead to more realism. Perhaps you dont. I have no idea what your code even looks like and you wont even release what alot of it is based on.

I see things clearly. I was hoping you would explain a previous post by yourself. It was murky at best.

As for you jeepsters. The name of the game is combat mission. It aint recon mission. If BTS put in some rule like "until the time that shooting breaks out you can willy nilly your jeepy or willys till it gets blowed up real good", we have to live with all the bad abstractions. The best that can be done is to follow advice from vets like me and the others that KNOW you cant see squat from a moving vehicle in WWII.

So BTS can severely limit the sighting even beyond whats realistic CAUSE THATS A GOOD ABSTRACTION!! They could also make it ALOT DEADLIER to be driving a jeep/truck/etc in the battle zone. Discourages even the most heartless commander.

My point is that there are good abstractions and bad abstractions and there is determined arrogance and useless pettyness and intentional vaguery and some other stuff too.

Lewis

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My issue is the now this tactic of watching the jeep with stationary units from a safe distance is gamey because a commander has decided the jeep is expendable and should be sacrificed for the greater good...In my opinion it would work just fine in real life if some units sat back and watched the "drone" jeep take fire, but there are no drone jeeps so when we introduce the factor of wasting human lifes the tactic now becomes unpalatible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you still fail to understand what gamey means.

This would NOT happen (with any frequency) in reality because the driver would not do it. Real soldiers are not robots. They have wives, kids and lives that they would like to keep. Sure, some may volunteer to commit suicide...but that is an exception and it simply should not be modeled. But because it is not feasible to 'fix' CM to where it is not modeled without breaking something else...the use of this tactic takes advantage of a game limitation and thus is by definition "gamey".

Also, the one of the most important aspect that you seem to fail to address here (IMO) are consequence to this action that are simply not modeled in CM because these consequences go beyond the scope of this 30 minute firefight, when that jeep is gone. So...when you need it tonight to run your wounded to the aid station...they die...when you don't have it the next week to haul ammo, you run out of bazooka rounds as the PzIVs roll in...etc....etc... I hope you get the point. CM can not model this as it is way beyond the scope of the game.

I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Steve and others have made both of these points several times. Real people are not robots and 30 minute firefights like those portrayed in CM did not happen in a complete vacuum.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[CavScout]

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

I do indeed enjoy this discussion...

Now it is labeled gamey not because it would not work in real life, suppose it was a remote control drone jeep sent out to darw fire and everyone sat back and watched it, I suspect this tactic would work very well in real life(the remote control drone jeep with two dummy human figures in it)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Question is would anyone open fire on it? IRL one will usually have priority targets for which they are to engage and would be unlikely to give away a position to attack a jeep. Do you think a defensive force would give away half of its positions by firing on a jeep?

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

My issue is the now this tactic of watching the jeep with stationary units from a safe distance is gamey because a commander has decided the jeep is expendable and should be sacrificed for the greater good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If using living troops I would think it would be as who would willing drive a jeep to be destroyed for the "greater good"? Using a remote jeep may not be but both still beg the question if they would even be effective at all. In CM units open fire on targets you'd likely [not want] them to. I beleive fire dicipline in RL would be much better.

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

I fully support all efforts to reduce borg-like intel gathering and anything that can be done to reduce the effects of absolute spotting and the telepathy amongst units when cheap fast units are sent on suicide recon runs BUT I'm uncomfortable, (honestly) when I'm told that even though the jeep will not spot anything when its is moving fast, if I have units watching what happens to it on its deep penetration suicide joy ride, I'm STILL gamey because I have ordered a unit into a VERY risky situation where I ordered it into harms way with the intention that it would run around in the open and get shot at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think in RL soldiers would accept a "deep penetration suicide joy ride" you are crazy.

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

If it is realistic to expect that a stationary unit, (with a radio) has good LOS to my suicide jeep then the problem of the borg like intel gathering is negated but the issue is still considered gamey because I have chosen to expend a unit on a suicide mission with blatant discard for the lives of the crew, that's the problem I have.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "gamey" part is the "suicide jeep". It's "gamey" because you can order suicide mission that would likely not be followed in RL and unlike RL in the game you don't have to worry about conserving your force for future operations. Doing something in the game because it is a game and not based on any realistic tactics, strategy or feasibility is "gamey".

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

Again it is the cheapest way to gather the most recon intel by risking one of the most expendable units at my disposal.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Expendable in what terms? GAME points?

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Jarmo]

Ok, let's replace the Jeep with M20.

Now, if they just zip by a POSSIBLE enemy location, they'll

have a good chance of seeing if someone's there.

And they have a very good chance of surviving too. Even if

there's enemy in there.

On future "fixed" version MMG carriers will be used, BTW.

And hey, if it's gamey and unrealistic to send a jeep zipping by

a suspected location, because they "wouldn't do it". Or because

it's just inhuman, then why would it be accepted to send

a half squad running in there? After all, they'd have no

chance whatsoever, if the location is held by enemy.

Because Jeeps are so precious?

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Jarmo, you're STILL missing the point of what's gamey. I agree with Cavscout to some extent, but he didn't mention what I (and some others) think is the key issue. The type of vehicle you use is completely irrelevant - you could drive the Graf Spee in there for all I care. What makes it gamey is because you're doing it soley to telepathically send recon reports back to your units in a manner which CANNOT be done IRL. It boggles my mind why this is so hard to comprehend...people have mentioned to me in emails that they cannot understand why some people do not get why this is gamey...In my real life experience as a tanker, I never was able to telepathically communicate with my crewmates, let alone other unit members. Consequently, we never made mad rushes purely for recon means, because if you're dead, you can't tell your mates where the enemy is! (Maybe if I shout this next point you'll hear it )

I'm not saying that you can't use a tactic just because it's gamey. All I'm saying is that it's gamey, and despite 180 posts, nobody has been able to offer evidence to the contrary.

[Daveman]

For the record, I agree that "Jeep rush" recon is gamey... but I'm leery of any attempts to "fix" this through changing the way wheeled/light vehicles operate in the game.

The perfect fix for me is to simply stop playing with anyone I might encounter usign this technique (haven't seen this yet). If someone pulls this and I lose, I won't feel so bad. If I win, it'll be an even more satisfying victory... especially after I take a flamethrower to any bailed Jeep crews

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

“Out in front every one is holding out. Every one. My grenadiers and my engineers and my tank crews – they’re all holding their ground. Not a single man is leaving his post. They are lying silent in their foxholes for they are dead.” – Gen. Fritz Bayerlein on an order to hold his position