Gamey Recon Technique?

[:USERNAME:]

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

Lewis, I didn't say EVERYTHING in CM was Fuzzy. I said that the core of the game is. And it is. But just as my car's spedometer only goes up to 85mph, has only 5 forward and one reverse gear, 4 doors and a trunk, 2 bucket seats... etc. there are cutoff points for various aspects within CM. So your point is... what exactly?

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that ambush markers (from guns/tanks) being a go/no go depending on 300 meters isnt a realistic abstraction, fuzzy-wise or not.

Putting one down should depend on the units experience, C&C, etc. It shouldnt be a given and it shouldnt be a step function.

Its just irking me to no end that its modeled the way it is. And its stickiness now is to the point of robotism. Ive had tanks get ricochets off their armor and still stare at the marker. Since the game doesnt have a defend right or left command, the ambush marker is used as a substitute. Please fix this.

Lewis

[Mannheim Tanker]

Henri: That's great that you have experience with expert systems, but you're not the only one here with that qualification Anyway, the point I wanted to make with this post is that there ARE "rules" in real warfare: natural laws. If the enemy barricades the first floor of a building, your men can't simply leap 4 meters to the second story to bypass the obstacle. The gravity "rules" and human abilities prevent this. I realize that this is a painful, and inane analogy, but I used it to make the point: There ARE rules. An armored division cannot advance without fuel, and a battery can't fire for infinity using spotting rounds. I think you are confusing the "rules" of doctrine with what we're talking about (natural laws). I wholeheartedly agree with you (enough to give you a heart attack, eh?) that doctrine can and should be challenged every step of the way. The gentlemen's rules we're discussing are those that constrain a player such that he follows the natural laws that are not enforced by the game engine. If a player wants to use ahistorical tactics (those that go against historical doctrine), and those tactics follow that laws of nature, then great! This is one of the wonderful ways of trying out what-if scenarios. I think the problem comes in where players use ahistorical tactics that can only be used under unnatural conditions (enter my superhuman leaping-squads).

[aka_tom_w]

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

Henri: That's great that you have experience with expert systems, but you're not the only one here with that qualification Anyway, the point I wanted to make with this post is that there ARE "rules" in real warfare: natural laws. .

...

The gentlemen's rules we're discussing are those that constrain a player such that he follows the natural laws that are not enforced by the game engine. If a player wants to use ahistorical tactics (those thtactics follow that laws of nature, then great! This is one of the wonderful ways of trying out what-if scenarios. I think the problem comes in where players use ahistorical tactics that canat go against historical doctrine), and those only be used under unnatural conditions (enter my superhuman leaping-squads).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi MhT

We have found a few things to agree on so I don't want to rant too much here. But....

The reason I wrote the long post on the double whammy effect of Absolute spotting when combined with Method 2 LOS determination is that is was my position that these two factors lead specifically to: "The gentlemen's rules (that) we're discussing (that) are those that constrain a player such that he follows the natural laws that are not enforced by the game engine." (I pointed out two of these "natural laws in physics, Absolute Spotting and shooting right through AFV's)

It was my point to identify why and where these gentleman's agreements originated.

I would be interested in Henri's response to your post. Henri and I have (I think) been advocating a similiar position but of late, I have not been sure exactly where Henri stands on this.

I think we all want More Realism and more Fog of War and a more accurate Relative spotting model and a more realistic Method 1 LOS determination method (I know we won't see it ANY time soon)

In the mean time players that prefer to use RWMT's will be happy to PBEM with each other using gentleman's agreements to compensate for the effects of Absolute spotting and its borg like intel info omniawareness.

Do we really have anything left to discuss or disagree about here?

comments?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Henri]

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

Henri: The gentlemen's rules we're discussing are those that constrain a player such that he follows the natural laws that are not enforced by the game engine. If a player wants to use ahistorical tactics (those that go against historical doctrine), and those tactics follow that laws of nature, then great! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only mentioned my qualifications because I have been told a number of times during this discussion that I don't understand what a simulation is. For the record, that does not make me any more authoritative than anyone here.

Then great, we don't have a difference of opinion; I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but what I object to is FORCING players to follow certain rules of play because they are ahistorical. Many participants in this discussing object to ANYONE using tactics that were not used in the real world, and I am glad to see that you are not one of them.

And just to make sure, I DON'T object to two players agreeing to ANY rule for the purpose of their own play, but I do object to the implication by some that this is some form of cheating. For example, it might well happen that two players would agree to play a game to see how infantry would fare in a suicide charge against entrenched machineguns in order to determine how many it would take to overwhelm the defence. I don't have a problem with that.

Like Tom and a few others (we seem to be in a minority) I DO object to homemade rules to enforce someone's conception of what are legitimate tactics, mostly because it is against the fundamental principles of maneuver warfare, which is to continually look for ways to surprise your enemy by doing the unexpected.

With over 300 messages inthis forum, it is understandable that for any of us, it is difficult to remember what somebody said 200 messages ago. As one of my professors used to say, we don't say exactly what we mean, and people don't understand exactly what we said, and so on. His conclusion, which I disagree with, is that there is no point in discussing anything.

henri

[Mannheim Tanker]

Hehe. This IS beginning to look like a legal document, isn't it, Henri! I guess I never interpreted any of the preceding posts as implying nobody should pursue ahistorical tactics that were feasible in real life. I would venture that the majority of ahistorical tactics that didn't take advantage of the game engine would be doomed to failure. After all, there is probably a good reason why armies did what they did given the equipment, men, and terrain of the time period. I think a lot of the earlier arguments boil down to disagreements over apples and oranges.

While this specific gamey/ahistorical/{insert acceptable adjective here} tactic has been discussed to death, I think there is still some merit in Slapdragon's theory that there are two types of wargamers.

In reality, there is going to be some blurring along those lines, but the dichotomy exists. The question is: since these two schools of thought will clash on many more occasions, how do we handle their resolution? I agree with Steve's view that the Historical Wargamer (HWG) viewpoint should override the Videa Gamer (VG) viewpoint when a decision must be made, but I also realize that this may alienate many CM fans at some point. Any thoughts on this?

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

"The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the heck was THAT' factor." - Dalem

[aka_tom_w]

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

Hehe. This IS beginning to look like a legal document, isn't it, Henri!...

In reality, there is going to be some blurring along those lines, but the dichotomy exists. The question is: since these two schools of thought will clash on many more occasions, how do we handle their resolution? I agree with Steve's view that the Historical Wargamer (HWG) viewpoint should override the Videa Gamer (VG) viewpoint when a decision must be made, but I also realize that this may alienate many CM fans at some point. Any thoughts on this?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slapdragon has made a very useful contribution to this issue by identifying that dichotomy, and giving the two factions names. I think this is VERY helpful and I think Steve et al at BTS have made it clear they prefer to design and code up games (CMBO) that are as realistic and historically accurate as they can make them. This is GREAT too.

What then remains is the fact that there is still a huge Video Gamer market out there that they (BTS) can still sell their games too (and this is GOOD for everyone) so by doing all the things they have done so far (and one good example is the QB where gamey players (if you let them) can "cheery pick " (great term and thanks to Slapdragon) their favourite kick-ass instant, will defeat any comers "I'll take the Germans on Defense on an open map with no air" OB unit combo's, that may be ahistorical, (actually to be fair, and I could be wrong, in real life WWII I thought the Germans actaully did WIN most of the time under those conditions " Germans on Defense on an open map with no air") will provide those VG players with ways enjoy their idea of how the game engine can be exploited.

Anyway, I have not really seen any one here post suggestions supporting making the game more video game (gamey tactics) friendly (OK, ok.... I was one of the first to suggest a Warcraft video game paradigm and propose the Warcraft fog of War Shroud of grey they exists all over the battlefield that you do not have LOS to)

And Yes I was LAUGHED and/or booed out of the thread for it, I think Fionn and a few other were quite out spoken regarding the suggestion of such a SILLY notion as a fog of war over the map that you could not see through.

And I now completely agree that such a shroud like the Warcraft fog of war has no place in Combat Mission. Maybe CM2 (relax, just joking!)

Anyway the Point is the game was always, and, from the sounds of Steve, always will be designed and coded to model and simulate, as realisticaly possible (given hardware constraints) historical accuracy and RWMT's for the fun and enjoyment of the HWGer audience and market. I think the VGers are really just along for the ride. And do they (some here may feel I should say WE ) ever get a GREAT ride!

I think the way this dichotomy of interests has been balanced out by BTS so far has been quite admirable!

Keep up the good work, more historical accuracy and more realism and MORE fog of war is ALWAYS better !!

-tom w

[Henri]

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

Hehe. I agree with Steve's view that the Historical Wargamer (HWG) viewpoint should override the Videa Gamer (VG) viewpoint when a decision must be made, but I also realize that this may alienate many CM fans at some point. Any thoughts on this?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a small nitpick; I object to the characterization of those who don't like rules as video gamers; my motivation is to leave the player as much freedom as possible for creativity in a game whose scale and object-oriented victory conditions tend to push all battles to attrition slugfests. it is always dangerous to try to pigeonhole people, but here goes anyway.

I do agree with you that people tend to fall into two classes, those who want their games to look as historical as possible, and those who like to put more emphasis on creativity, either because they object to additional constraints, or because they believe that the game already has so many unrealistic aspects due to programming limitations that adding additional constraints is useless frills.

But even this may be a gross over-simplification. And to make things even more complicated, there are the underlying debates among the military themselves about the best techniques for warmaking, plus the debates among the artificial intelligence community and others about the limits of simulations' ability to model reality. Finally there are the game programmers themselves who want to make the game as good as possible and understandably tend to be defensive about what may be interpreted as criticisms of the game.

One thing that everyone finds difficult is avoiding characterizing the opinions of those who disagree with them with words that have negative connotations*.

As Einstein once put it, everything should be as simple as possible, but not more.

Henri

*Which reminds me of the story when a member of parliament said that half of the members present were idiots (meaning members of the other party), and was forced by the President to apologize for his unparliamentary language or be expelled from the room. So he said "I take back the words that said that half of the people here are idiots; half of the people here are NOT idiots!" he was thrown out, but it was probably worth it...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just to clarify our stance on ahistorical tactics...

In general we have *no* problems with this if for no other reason than we can't prevent it. However, if Combat Mission were such an open book that anybody could do anything they can think of to achieve victory then we have failed miserably to simulate WWII combat. What I mean is that CM is a WWII simulation of WWII tactical warfare.

The degree that CM allows non WWII tactics to take place degrades the very notion that the game is in fact WWII based. This is why, inidentally, so many "wargames" suck. They are too generic and don't constrain the player enough to the era being simulated.

Some of these contstraints are more or less scientific, like the ballistics equations. Some are pure historical, like the size and equipment of a particular unit. Some are proceedural, such as the C&C model assuming that there is one radio per platoon and therefore limits reaction time if the HQ is not in contact.

When some sort of tactic is developed that works in spite of the above, we must look and see WHY it works. If it works because there is a flaw in our modeling we will try VERY hard to squash the tactic. If it couldn't be done in WWII then it has *NO* place in a WWII game. If the flaw that allows the tactic to work is a simple oversight/flaw in our modeling, then it is easy to fix. Such is the case with "Jeep Recon".

Jeep Recon could NEVER happen even today in the year 2000, so it is absolutely ridiculous to have it be able to take place in a WWII setting. So we are going to try and stop the tactic from being able to work. Not by coming out of left field and assigning some randomly designed control to prevent the tactic, but going into the guts of the simulation and fixing a FLAW or two so the tactic will NATURALLY no longer work.

Anybody that objects to this should not bother buying Combat Mission 2. Why? Because the Soviet forces are going to have all sorts of stuff going on to restrict their tactics. Why? Because in the real world of 1941-1943 the Soviet forces had absoluetly horrific time controlling their forces at the tactical level. They had, at time, superior numbers and equipment, but their ability to direct these assets was very limited. So we either try to model these real world limitations or we rename the game to "Generic Combat Mission" and dispense with all claims that we are trying to simulate WWII.

People can't have it both ways. Either CM is a game designed to simulate WWII as realistically as possible, or it is a strategy game that simulates abstracted combat with little or no attempt to constrain the player's tactics. I really is that simple.

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

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

Anybody that objects to this should not bother buying Combat Mission 2. Why? Because the Soviet forces are going to have all sorts of stuff going on to restrict their tactics. Why? Because in the real world of 1941-1943 the Soviet forces had absoluetly horrific time controlling their forces at the tactical level. They had, at time, superior numbers and equipment, but their ability to direct these assets was very limited. So we either try to model these real world limitations or we rename the game to "Generic Combat Mission" and dispense with all claims that we are trying to simulate WWII.

People can't have it both ways. Either CM is a game designed to simulate WWII as realistically as possible, or it is a strategy game that simulates abstracted combat with little or no attempt to constrain the player's tactics. I really is that simple.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should hope so. I was thinking that soviets might only have a company HQ and no platoon HQs (except in later years). Also delay is a function of the amount of orders that a HQ gives.

Example: Sov gives out a bunch of orders but if he goes beyond, i dunno, 3 orders for units under a company HQ, then the delays get longer and longer. In effect you can "force" the sov player to "square off" (highlight) bunches of units at a time and count this as "one" order. His command and control gets kludgey.

So the sov player would slowly move his units into a battle line and when formed up to a decent shape, highlight em all and throw them at the germans . Hurrah! Kind of a neat abstraction I think.

Are you really that simple steve? I am refering to the last line from your quote above.

Lewis

[Henri]

For a bit of comic relief, here is some very recent experience where I was on the receiving end of what some would consider "gamey" tactics (map-edge hugging and fast recon); for the benefit of my pbem opponents, let me say that I have absolutely no objection to what they did. But I kicked myself in the butt for getting caught with my pants down.

In this particular pbem, a particularly tank-heavy operation over terrain with a lot of wooded and especially scattered trees terrain, I as the Germans had to assault the US holding a town. So I moved forward massively with two Schwerpunkts, not too much bothered by glimpses of enemy armored cars and halfracks moving rapidly along a road along the map edge on my left, since I had more thanks coming up from the rear in the center.

Very soon our tanks spotted each other, and a vicious firefight erupted where I got first blood as I missed a tank and hit another unseen tank behind it. But that was the end of my good luck, and after a couple of exchanges one for one, my opponent destroyed all three tanks on my right flank and two tanks in the center.

Suddenly an armored car appeared behind my tanks and killed one before it could react; I quickly tried to regroup, but as I did so, another enemy armored car picked off another of my tanks from behind. I sent three tanks after the ACs to the rear and made a move to my left hoping to catch his forces there on the flank, but a Chaffee killed two of my tanks in succession as they came within sight of each other.

Finally I had a single immobilized PZIV left, and I could see at least six remaining enemy tanks all around. I offered to concede the operation, but my opponent convinced me to continue until the next battle of the operation.

Believe it or not, the immobilized tank killed 4 of the enemy tanks as they approached piecemeal from all directions, as fate probably rolled on the floor with laughter. My infantry was in tatters as enemy infantry supported by tanks ripped them to pieces.

When the next battle of the operation began (a night battle), I was relieved to see that I had a sizeable bunch of new tanks.

My opponent apparently tried to repeat his flank run, but two halfracks running at full speed ran smack into my group of tanks that were getting ready to advance. He said that he was satisfied anyway because they had given him the information about location of my forces.

I did a mapedge run of my own with an armored car, who right now is aiming down the tailpipe of one of his tanks who was coming up behind the halftracks.

Gamey tactics? Maybe according to some, but it sure is fun!...

Henri

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks for the AAR Henri

that was a good laugh and sort of sounds like the kind of battle and tactics like to use.

If you are playing the Allies, deep quick penetrations that will expose the flanks or, better yet the rear aspect of those heavy German tanks, is in my opinion, one of the sure fire ways to make the game instantly tense and exciting. Run and Gun I Say!

I just love those fly by the seat of your pants tactics. Sometimes you choose to take a really big risk and advance a few units quckly, sometimes this really pays off but I know many would counter here, that in the face of good defensive tactics by your opponent, in many cases it does not pay off at all, especially if you don't know where all those pesky 'shrecks and 'fausts are hiding.

Thanks for the update Henri, that was an entertaining account of your current PBEM.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-25-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

OK Steve has posted that the fast jeep recon tactic will be fixed. this is GREAT!

"And therefore, two tweaks will be made to

CM with the next patch:

1. Light wheeled vehicle speeds will be reduced when offroad. Not sure how much, but

significantly.

2. Light wheeled vehicles won't be able to spot jack squat when going Fast. I never

really thought about this, but in all the footage I have seen of guys in Jeeps tearing

around offroad, they generally are concerned about flying out of their seats and staying

on control of the vehicle. They are most certainly NOT spotting the same way a tracked

AFV with a seperate driver and commander do. At the moment there is no difference.

The results of these changes will make off road speeding vehicles easier to hit and less

likely to spot anything. This adds realisim to the game and, as one can guess, reduces

the effectiveness of a gamey tactic."

BUT.....

I would like to ask another question here about gamey recon tactics?

I know the next patch has not been released yet but even after this patch is released, what if one player chooses to order one of his or her tanks or AC's which is unbuttoned to move as fast as possible into a very dangerous situation to determine (in a recon role) what is there and try to get behind whatever it is and take a few pots shots at it before it surely gets nailed its self?

Is sending one tank or AC (deemed expendable by that player ) while it is unbuttoned for better spotting ability, on a knowingly suicidal joy ride into a possibly hot enemy held position, a gamey tactic that will offend other HWGer's here?

If it is a gamey tactic how can it be prevented?

In chess I think there is a strategy called a gambit where a player chooses a move or a stratedgy that will involve a trade of pieces not in the player's favour or the loss of a playing piece to gain a superior strategic position on the board or in the game.

I'm somewhat concerned that the (questionable?) military tactic (? Ok it might not be a good tactic?) of the suicide "gambit" may be coded right out of CM. Now don't get me wrong, I fully support the changes BTS will make to the spotting ability of fast moving jeeps, no problem there.

Again I know I'm really just being a pain in the butt, or I could just be taking my duties seriously as a nominee for the prestigious position of Gamey Tactics Specialist in the Dept. of the Devil's Advocate

comments?

(I didn't think a new thread was necesary here as I think this question is still on topic)

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-24-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it is a gamey tactic how can it be prevented?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are asking about what Henri described, it is most certainly and absolutely "gamey". Find me one description of an armored engagement that had something like what Henri described. I bet you that you can not. So, using the definitions we have kicked around about what "gamey" is, this tactic qualifies.

But how in God's name are we supposed to prevent it? There is NO, and I mean absolutely NO, way for Combat Mission to second guess what the player is trying to do. The only thing we could do is prevent armored cars and tanks from being in the same scenario, which is drastic and unrealistic itself.

Unlike the Jeeps, the Armored Cars are being used according to their designed specifications. The problem is that their application is not realistic. Just like we can't prevent people from using Jeeps in unrealistic ways, we can't prevent the unrealistic use of Armored Cars.

If we can identify something that is unrealistic about the way Armored Cars are being used, from a simulation standpoint (like the Jeeps), then we would certainly go about changing the code.

Bottom line is that we can not prevent all "gamey" tactics. The Jeep recon problem might not even totally go away after our fixes, but we can make the incentive to do this tactic so low that most people won't bother with it. I haven't a clue what can be done to prevent wild charges by light AFVs into the rear with the intention of knocking out tanks from the rear. All I know is that this DID NOT HAPPEN in real life, and therefore it is "gamey".

Steve

[Mannheim Tanker]

Quick question for BTS: when the jeep recon patch comes out, will there be an additional speed modifier for snowy or muddy terrain? I just had an opponent attempt one of these fabled jeep drivebys in a winter scenario. I'll leave his name out of this post to save him the embarrassment, especially since he is an actual servicemember! I'd love to see a jeep do 30mph through snowdrifts! It seems to me that if a jeep must slow down in clear terrain, it must slow down even more when there's a foot of snow on the ground...

In case you're interested, the turn ended just as the jeep made its appearance, so I'll have to wait and see if he survives.

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

"The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the heck was THAT' factor." - Dalem

[aka_tom_w]

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

If you are asking about what Henri described, it is most certainly and absolutely "gamey". ......

Bottom line is that we can not prevent all "gamey" tactics. The Jeep recon problem might not even totally go away after our fixes, but we can make the incentive to do this tactic so low that most people won't bother with it. I haven't a clue what can be done to prevent wild charges by light AFVs into the rear with the intention of knocking out tanks from the rear. All I know is that this DID NOT HAPPEN in real life, and therefore it is "gamey".

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the quick response Steve, looks like we're back to square one with those "house rules" and gentleman's agreements I guess, even after the next patch.

I laughed when I read Henri's account of his current PBEM as it might be the same situation I would find myself in.

So if I understand this situation correctly, EVEN if the move or tactic (Like the situation Henri described above) does not specifically exploit the game design like exploiting Absolute Spotting, (The light AFV or the AC would have a crew and they would have a radio and be unbuttoned) the fact that, a move or quick dash to death or glory of that nature (described above), did not occur in WWII means that it will be labeled a gamey or ahistorical tacitc.

I guess I'm not so offended by the use of the term gamey anymore, the tactics Henri described above sound like "Run and Gun FUN"! to me.

I guess it is just my chess playing mentality getting me in trouble here. I figure if there is a way to move one if my tanks in a quick dash to glory that will give me a good chance to get a rear aspect shot on a couple of tanks, then have them both turn their turrets and if I'm lucky thier hulls too, towards my dash to glory (in their backfield) tank, then maybe I can use my other tanks or anti tank teams, in their non-gamey hanging back positions, to knock out one or two enemy tanks with flank or rear shots, for the cost of my one quick dash to "glory" tank loss, then it was a good "trade off". Any time you can trade two german AFV's for one Allied AFV you must be doing something right.

When it comes to taking down big bruts like those Tiger and King Tiger monsters with quick little things like Stuarts, and that FAST Hellcat this does not seem like such an unrealistic tactic. I guess I think this way because I usually prefer to play the Allies, and most of their tanks are (very realistically) modeled to be largely inferior to the better more well equipped and heavily gunned German tanks like the Panther or King Tiger.

But, we now know these dash to death or glory deep penetration runs by ANY vehicle are still gamey tactics none the less.

I'm still loving playing every minute of CM!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-24-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-24-2000).]

[Henri]

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

Unlike the Jeeps, the Armored Cars are being used according to their designed specifications. The problem is that their application is not realistic. Just like we can't prevent people from using Jeeps in unrealistic ways, we can't prevent the unrealistic use of Armored Cars.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure that this was your intention, but this is an admission that the game is so imperfect a simulation of reality that "rules" of what players can and cannot do are necessary to make it realistic. This has been Tom's main point all along (and has been denied by some, so I am glad that your last message has cleared up at least your own view on the subject).

The argument that something "was not done" has to be supported by more than historical precedent, otherwise the player is simply being forced to play according to some stereotyped idea of warmaking.

For instance, when Rommel first used 88 Anti-air cannons against tanks, it had never been done before. If no one had done it in WW2, your above argument would entail that it is 'gamey" and that therefore it shouldn't be done in the game.

I fully support changes to the game programming to correct errors such as vehicles having the wrong speeds. But my view which I hope I have clearly stated is a Zen-like attitude that "The Game IS What It Is", and that I refuse to have my play constrained by someone's opinion of what is correct tactical doctrine, since I follow Lind's principle that "Warmaking has no traffic with rules". Of course others are free to play according to the any rules including those of of pinochle if they are so inclined.

Henri

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure that this was your intention, but this is an admission that the game is so imperfect a simulation of reality that "rules" of what players can and cannot do are necessary to make it realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your statement is subjective. The game IS what it is. It has a certain level of realism that will never be 100% realistic. There will always people who will find tricks, and ways to do things in an ahistorical manner. Sometimes it will be just plain non-historical with no significant problem, but sometimes there will be things that exploit game limitations.

The game allows you such freedom that you WILL finds ways around it.

This goes back to RULES. RULES, according to BTS, is what CM is made out of. There are a finite number of rules(lines of code), and there will always be a finite number of lines of code.

With a limited number of rules, there is a limit on how many angles the code can control a spontaneous and creative player. Just accept it. And because someone, sometime finds another loophole does not mean that CM is not a viable way to simulate ww2 tactical combat.

Therefore, akatom, Vanir, Henri, feel free to play this as a GAME, anything goes, but try to accept that a GAME or simulator will never be coded in a way that MAKES all possible player behavior realistic. Don't hold your breath waiting for this one.

Whoever that professor was that said discussing things with others is pointless, he was almost right. Every further post to this thread should include a "MY POINT IS" portion. Although I am enjoying the discussion, we seem to be talking in circles. Lest we turn into "the cesspool" lets all try to include a "My point is" to our posts.

[Bastables]

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

I'm not sure that this was your intention, but this is an admission that the game is so imperfect a simulation of reality that "rules" of what players can and cannot do are necessary to make it realistic. This has been Tom's main point all along (and has been denied by some, so I am glad that your last message has cleared up at least your own view on the subject).

The argument that something "was not done" has to be supported by more than historical precedent, otherwise the player is simply being forced to play according to some stereotyped idea of warmaking.

For instance, when Rommel first used 88 Anti-air cannons against tanks, it had never been done before. If no one had done it in WW2, your above argument would entail that it is 'gamey" and that therefore it shouldn't be done in the game.

I fully support changes to the game programming to correct errors such as vehicles having the wrong speeds. But my view which I hope I have clearly stated is a Zen-like attitude that "The Game IS What It Is", and that I refuse to have my play constrained by someone's opinion of what is correct tactical doctrine, since I follow Lind's principle that "Warmaking has no traffic with rules". Of course others are free to play according to the any rules including those of of pinochle if they are so inclined.

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One must remember that the German 7.7cm anti aircraft/balloon guns were used with resounding success vs. the British and French tanks during world war one. Also there is the fact that the 8.8cm FlaK gun was so successful because it was using Pzgr(armour piercing) shells, which of course would have to have been designed and issued before Rommels decided to use them in the anti armour role. This of course implies that some one else had thought before the invasion of France that big high velocity guns would be the ticket for killing tanks.

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

Mr T's reply

"Don't touch me FOO!"

[iggi]

If armored scouts did ever go out into known enemy territory, would they go out alone or in packs.

I was thinking to obliging scout vehics to plot thier individual waypoints within a certain distance of each other. This way if you send out a scout, two or three would tag along. Therefore you're risking more resources for the same info. Kind of balances for any info gain.

[iggi]

And if you buy scout vehics, you would have to buy them in teams.

[iggi]

Oh oh oh I got a better idea!

Why not break up your force into functional elements that were used in that day. Any unit that is part of that element can only plot a waypoint not further than a certain distance from any other unit in that element.

So a recon element will have units that remain free but must stay near each other.

Crew members once out of thier tanks are put part of the company rear element and must plot waypoints near the company hq only.

[Smoker1]

I wonder if an option could be put into the game where a player could select "gamey recon" or " realistic recon" when setting up QBs or designing/editing scenarios. With realistic recon, all units designed for scouting duties would be limited to two thirds or even one half of the map. They could not go further onto the enemy side. They would still be able to be used in a support role this way. This is a bandaid but fixes the problem for all recon type vehicles. Perhaps it would even be possible to allow scenario designers to define a recon zone for each side similar to the setup zones. The designer would have complete control over where a player can move his recon units to.

If "gamey recon" is selected then the recon units would have full run of the map as they do now. There is something to be said for the "fun factor" of gamey recon as Henri mentions above. It IS fun.

If a fix like this could be implemented then everybody wins. You can have fun gamey games with your gamey opponents and fun realistic games with your more serious opponents without worrying about gamey recon.

I'm not sure if the players would need to know the boundaries of their recon zone or not. Perhaps it doesn't matter. The unit would just stop at the edge of the zone. Any orders given to move further forward get the beep sound.

The definition of "recon vehicle" would have to be figured out. What about halftracks for example. A scenario designer may want to allow half tracks to go anywhere; but in allowing this, the half track can be used in a gamey way for recon purposes.

There are still some problems but the vast majority of gamey recon tactics could be squashed if a recon zone could be implemented. Having the option to allow gamey recon if desired would be the icing on the cake since gamey recon is fun too.

Smoker out.

[This message has been edited by Smoker1 (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Los]

Sigh....

I don't know how many times to say this. Your ability to spot (Which is what we are talking about here with recon) has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of vehicle you are driving, regardless of the fact that some vehicles are better suited for recon missions than others. (At least realisticlly-speaking which is what CM is striving for)

If you are in a jeep, truck or M8 scout car, your perceptive abilities, and your visual acuity and your ten years or two days of combat and training experience at the task at hand remains the SAME. Period.

This is why when you purchase recon units in CM, be they vehicle or actual OBs, you get NO programmed benefit for better spotting than if you purchase infantry platoons or big fat opel trucks. This was gone over in great detail during the design phase of the program.

How well you spot is a function of the experience of the crew and the tactics you used (hopefully ammended by the fast speed spotting fix.

Implementing a reduction in spotting ability for all vehicles cruising at fast speed should do the trick for now. (Note, I said ALL, not just light vehicles.) Whether it's a tank going twenty mph or a jeep going 30 mph, the spotting difficulties are just as great. In fact the heavier the vehicle, the slower the speed you need to attain before you are no longer seeing anything but hanging on for dear life. The slower you go (or become stationary) should improve your spotting ability.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit.

Los

[iggi]

Although command radius affects a unit's reaction time, there has to be other, tougher limits.

There is a reason why squads make up parts of a platoon. It is because they operate as an element. To be able to give one squad in a platoon orders to go left 500 meters and to give orders to another squad in that same platoon orders to go 500 meters right seems unrealistic.

My question is, shouldn't there be a limit to how far from your HQ a squad can plot waypoints. It's not that squads never got lost. But should they be planning unrealistic movements?

Some control over where a unit can plot it's waypoint relative to an authority unit in it's element will reduce gamey moves.

The game designer can then decide who belongs in what element and in thus doing will be limiting that unit's manouverability.

[iggi]

This way Russian military doctrain can be better represented. The element rules will be tougher on thier units. While German units will be able to plot further from thier HQs to represent thier encouragement of unit initiative.