Gamey Recon Technique?

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what happens if it is eliminated? What happens if one squad gets left behind because it is pinned down? What if that squad is the one designated to determine where the platoon "is" (i.e. the other two squads can't be moved away from the area). Or what happens if a squad breaks and runs, but then recovers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps each platoon can have a platoon symbol like a flag. Around this flag is a zone that is circular. This is the area where units in the platoon can plot waypoints. Even the Hq has to stay in that zone. The zone represents the potential area of operations at that moment for a unit of such and such nationality with so and so experience. Units in that zone can be out of command. The zone is larger than the command radius of an Hq. The zone represents the maximum distance that a commander would consider separating his forces. The flag can move and it's speed is affected by all units in the platoon. So if there are many broken units, the speed of the flag is slowed drasticaly. So units have the freedom to orientate within the zone but the zone is affected by the units' state. If units panick and run out of the zone, the flag will retreat. the flag doesn't look for cover like woods. The flag retreats to a battalion flag or to the rear of the map. A retreating flag means that an Hq is losing control. Even if there is one good squad left, if the platoon is in shambles, the retreating flag prevents a player from taking his Hq and going solo with one surviving squad.

In a way, the flag also represents the momentum of a platoon. Flags can be applied to vehics too. The less vehics in a group, the smaller the zone around the flag. This represents the caution that a sole vehic has to take having less pairs of eyes. If a vehic sees danger, the speed of the flag slows down. So a player is restricted to where he can place waypoints.

The speed of the flag and the zone around the flag are affected by the unit situation. So a sole afv out in the rear of the enemy getting contact at night will be forced to slink away carefully. The player can still issue fast move orders but only in a shrinked and retreating flag zone.

This idea is open to brainstorming.

[Los]

"In response to LOS' question, perhaps the friendly fire was units shooting thier COs"

You laugh but the unit that was catching the majority of the FF was the company HQ.

Los

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not trying to be snide here, just confused as to what you want; a historical wargame or a non-historical strategy game. The two aren't compatible. If you are unhappy with the realistic level of manuever warfare in WWII, might I suggest playing fictional wargames instead of historical ones?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two Words, Steve....

"Sudden Strike"

The ultimate in making warcraft look like ww2.

[iggi]

I don't think Henri meant anything of the sort. From my understanding, he understands that the game needs tweaking. What I think he and myself and others don't like is having to make agreements with another player about war terms. If I wanted to negotiate, I'd go into politics.

Has nothing to do with not wanting programing rules in a game.

But being wargamers, once you let us out of our cage, we want blood.

Meow

iggi

[Henri]

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

Henri,

But if we do not constrain Combat Mission based on WWII, what do we constrain it to? You suggest here that we shouldn't hinder "maneuver", right? Well, why not make that Panzerkampfwagen MkIVh have anti-gravity capabilities? I mean, it can maneuver a lot better if it could fly over terrain. And think of all the tactical possibilities it would open up to the player.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstand what I mean by maneuver: maneuver is not simply movement. Maneuver is the process whereby one preempts, disrupts and dislocates the enemy by means of the cycle of observation, action and reaction (which is known as the Boyd cycle) that is carried out faster than the enemy is capable of following.There is no simple short definition of maneuver because there are no rules about how to carry it out, and whole books have been written about it.It is not a simple concept to understand, but I just want to make it clear that it is NOT movement for movement's sake, although movement is usually an important element of maneuver. For example, an extreme example of maneuver warfare that had no movement at all on the part of the attacker was the famous case of the ancient Chinese general who sent a thousand of his soldiers facing the enemy armies to simultaneously slit their own throats, throwing the opposing horrified army into a panicky retreat! Was it "gamey"? Was it against established "rules" of warfare? You bet!

"...All patterns recipes, and formulas are to be avoided. The enemy must not be able to predict your actions. If your tactics follow predictable patterns, the enemy can easily cut inside your OODA [boyd] loop. If he can predict what you will do, he will be waiting for you." William S. Lind,in "Maneuver Warfare Handbook", p. 7

I hold that "house rules" are incompatible with the above predicates of maneuver warfare, because the criteria of such rules is whether or not it was accepted practice in WW2.

I hope that this makes it clear that I am not endorsing PzIVs that can fly nor opposing programming vehicles that drive at realistic speeds; again I repeat that I am not opposing ANY programming changes whose purpose is to make the game more realistic. As I have said already three times, the game is what it is. If I fail to make this clear I apologize, but I am at a loss on how to explain it more clearly (but I am willing to try...).

Henri

[Mannheim Tanker]

Hi Iggi. I don't think anybody has suggested agreements for "war terms". The only agreements that we've been talking about have been terms to negate gamey tactics that take advantage of the game engine. Since these tactics are impossible in the real world, there is no reason for there to be an "agreement" on not using them in the real world (IE no reason for the Geneva Convention to ban Steve's anti-gravity tanks). If you don't want to play with even these "rules" that restrict you to using the laws of physics, then there's no reason for you to - and nobody telling you not to.

Some of us are just saying that we'd prefer to use them...and except for my upcoming game with Tom, I refuse to play with anyone that uses gamey tactics (something which I notify every new opponent of right up front before starting a PBEM). Tom was polite enough to let me beat him in our TCP/IP game

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

"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 iggi:

If I wanted to negotiate, I'd go into politics.

But being wargamers, once you let us out of our cage, we want blood.

Meow

iggi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well that's exactly how I feel!

"If I wanted to negotiate, I'd go into politics."

PERFECT!

We are absolutely on the side that says, once the game is ready and the next patch tweaks the gamey jeep recon thing, let us out of the gate and we will galdly play by the rules of the game, we will play no holds barred and yes iggi is right we want blood and we like to go for the jugular.

iggi, thanks that was one of the best most concise quotes of this thread, as you can all see I have some difficulty with the concept of concision like that, so I truly appreciate it when I see it.

again

"If I wanted to negotiate, I'd go into politics."

Thats priceless!

-tom w

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

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

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[JoePrivate]

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

I hope that this makes it clear that I am not endorsing PzIVs that can fly nor opposing programming vehicles that drive at realistic speeds; again I repeat that I am not opposing ANY programming changes whose purpose is to make the game more realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is exactly the change BTS is doing to rectify the unrealistic recon, isn't it?

[iggi]

Thanks aka_tom_w. Gimme 5.

M. Tanker: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only agreements that we've been talking about have been terms to negate gamey tactics that take advantage of the game engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Easily said. I understand that. But its a rainbow of perception. Sure I won't send a jeep out but 3 fast recon vehics? Ok don't send them out all the way in the rear. Ok but how far? That's where the negotiations start. Sounds like being a wargame lawyer.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Hi Iggi. I don't think anybody has suggested agreements for "war terms". ...

Some of us are just saying that we'd prefer to use them...and except for my upcoming game with Tom, I refuse to play with anyone that uses gamey tactics (something which I notify every new opponent of right up front before starting a PBEM). Tom was polite enough to let me beat him in our TCP/IP game

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi MhT

Now just to be clear I'm not promising the use of any gamey tactics. Not at all, I am telling you that I will do ANYTHING I can with in the rules to try to win, but that might just mean using sound tried tested and true, WW II historically accurate military tactics, I do know a few of them. MhT has been kind enough to offer me the first TCP/IP match. I will not suggest to him that I will use gamey tactics, I will not promise anything else really, but he will find that I will play to win and other than the rules of the game, after the next patch comes out, he will know that we are playing without any other add -on side agreements and I have NOT promised not "pull" some gamey tricks that offends the other party. Of course MhT has the same opportunity to use EVERY gamey or questionable tactic he wants and neither of us will cry foul. I can't wait!

This is mostly what Henri is discussing I think. The option to use ANY trick, tactic or manouver you can (within the rules of CM alone) to fool trick or decieve your opponent.

Nothing more really.

I look forward to my match with MhT we have not determined what we will play or when we will play it, but the first Saturday after the release of the TCP/IP patch has been discussed. We both want tanks, and I would prefer a larger scenario and he would prefer a not so large scenario, he likes the Germans and I'm more than happy with the Allies.

So we'll see, too bad we can't make it pay per view event.

BTS, anybody thought of that, can we get a LIVE web cast of our TCP/IP match?

Hey Charles if you are not doing anything in your spare (ha ha) time, can you code up some Webcast via the BTS web broadcasting system gizmo to allow TCP/IP matches to be viewed live by others?

(I'm joking, but I'm laughing my self silly as I type this thinking some of us might actually watch other folks play TCP/IP matchs, for instance I would love to see Fionn and some body real good and gamey, go at it head to head live VIA TCP/IP webcast so I could watch )

Ok back to reality.

I think I better start practicing up, and stop yacking so much.

Thanks to all

-tom w

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

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

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-26-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Thanks aka_tom_w. Gimme 5.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HIGH 5!

Here's your change!

do kids still say that?

-tom w

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS, anybody thought of that, can we get a LIVE web cast of our TCP/IP match?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's a good idea. Would be neat to see several games at once so that when one team is planning, the other's replay is showing. Over a steak and bear in a sports bar would be fun

Hmmm I think it's time for a smooth one.

[Los]

For a classic example of designing in constraints we'll need to look no farther than CM2. Not to overgeneralize but I think a lot of people will be looking for those outnumbered two or three to one German vs Russian attacks, defeating human wave assaults and whatnot. If we don't put some doctrinal constraints into playing the Russian side there'll be little in the way of challenge. Give me a battalion of Russian's to your company, give me all the articulation that the Germans had, (that CM1 allows on the western front) and I will kick the German's ass EVERY time. So we will need to build in constraints that make the Russians act like Russians (i.e. a good possible example was having only company commands instead of plt commanders.) Things like that. Elsewise you have no real east front game, just another wargame with WW2-looking graphics.

Los

[Combatboy]

Well, I don't think US Jeeps should be able to do any recon, they were way to wimpy for that.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Hehe...Most gamey tactics are easily confounded by solid RWT - this jeep recon was one of the few exceptions that I'm aware of. If you want to get gamey in our match, Tom, go ahead - and face the consequences I've crushed more than a few deep scout penetrations and map edge creeps - those are easily countered in most cases. In fact, I've only played one player that could pull them off; the players that have beaten me have had to resort to "real" tactics to do so...

I'm sure you're all screaming: "If it's so easy to defeat, then why do you care!?"

My only gripe with playing someone that uses gamey tactics is that I'm then playing a generic game, not simulating WWII combat. if I wanted to play a game, I'd boot up CC.

Iggi, I think you're overreacting to this "rainbow" potential. Thus far, I haven't needed a lawyer to keep my games non-gamey (how's THAT for an oxymoron). If you need a lawyer to set ground rules, you'd better ditch your opponent and play someone else. You anti-rules guys have obviously not even tried a house rule if you're overreacting like this (or have had some bad experience that I've been fortunate to not have had). I'm currently in a no-holds barred slugfest with a very proficient opponent that's beating the stuffing out of me without having to resort to gamey tactics that beat the system (that's you, Dave!).

Edit: MT is once again a nonspelling, non-proofreading fool.

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

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

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mannheim Tanker way back on page 4:

My work here is done

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HA! A grogs work is never done!

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

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri,

I have understood for several posts now that you are, at least partially, saying we should make Combat Mission more realistic. However, at the same time you are digging in your heals and saying that we shouldn't restrict your ability to "maneuver" and design your own tactics. Unfortunately, the two are totally incompatible positions since one overrides the other.

I do in fact understand the concept of "maneuver" as you described. Anybody that considers himself a military historian (and I do) would be lost without a deep understanding of this concept. That is why I used the floating panzer for my example. It isn't the speed itself that gives the player greater "maneuverability" on the battlefield, rather it is the tactical use of this speed and lack of terrain hindrance that does. So if you want maximum freedom to "maneuver", then why not have floating panzers? Because it is highly unrealistic, correct?

So... there you have the dichotomy of your position in the last half dozen threads. You say we should shore up holes in CM that make it unrealistic, yet at the same time you strongly advocate us leaving the area of "maneuver" open to your fertile imagination so that you can develop new and interesting tactics. The reality is that these things are diametrically opposed to each other. So take your pick.

Your example of the mass Chinese suicide is a perfect example. How many times was this tactic employed? Once so far as I know. OK, so... if we made a wargame from that era and had NO command for "Slit Unit's Throats" I assume you would strongly oppose this design decision? Meaning, even though it was used only once, in very particular circumstances, and was never repeated again after, that we should allow the player to utilize this tactic any time he so chooses? And what about the realistic counter tactic that would have developed to such a tactic if it had been used regularly? Should we start making up stuff like adding a command "Laugh at the Idiot's Slitting Their Throats" command, which would cause the side committing suicide to get a morale penalty?

You see, nothing happens in a vacuum. Something like the Armored Car Killers did NOT happen in WWII for various reasons, not because nobody was as bright as you and didn't think to do such a thing. If such a tactic works in CM it is because our simulation is not robust enough to realistically prevent such a tactic. And even IF someone did it in WWII, and was proven successful time and time again, don't you think the other side would have developed a counter tactic/weapon? Like deploying specially armed light vehicles that would follow map edges to prevent such tactics from being used. Oh, whoops... real life didn't have map edges, guess that wouldn't have helped

Anyway, the point is you can NOT have both a realistic wargame and the ability to do unrealistic tactics with unrealistic results. So I ask again, take your pick. Do you want Combat Mission or do you want Sudden Strike? If you want Combat Mission you are going to have to be prepared to sacrifice Sudden Strike playing styles. The two can not co-exist peacefully.

Steve

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, at the same time you are digging in your heals and saying that we shouldn't restrict your ability to "maneuver"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought he was saying that other players shouldn't restrict his ability to manouver through house rules. He clearly said that BTS can restrict his ability to manouver through game programming.

[Mannheim Tanker]

A Grog - me!? Thanks for the compliment, Vanir ***blushing*** I consider myself as more of a wannabe than an actual grog...after I spank Tom, THEN you can call me a grog

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

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

[gezeder]

personally, i find myself agreeing with both parties here i think....

as a competitive wargamer, i don't really like house rules, i want to use every single advantage to ensure my victory!

on the other hand, using a tactic that i know was never (and Could never) be used, goes against the grain when playing a historical wargame.

i think everyone will be happy when the patch comes out that stops the jeep recon (or at least, makes it far less effective)

the only thing ppl seem to disagree on is whether in the meantime, we should be using house rules to limit said gamey behaviour..... and that really is something up to the individual gamers involved!

or mabye we should just hunker down & pray for patch!

c'mon, can't we all just.... get along?

[Shandorf]

Okay, so BTS is going to do "something" about the gamey jeep thing?

Whatever it is I hope it ONLY prevents that gamey tactic and does not effect the rest of the game. Personally I like the command and control system in place and I cringe when I hear someone talk about changing it.

Hey Steve! Since you seen to be perusing this board did anything ever come of you guys looking into gun damaged tanks that won't engage with the bow gun? I had a PzIVH that had a gun hit and the darn tank would absolutely REFUSE to engage infantry with it's bow MG.

Anyway, not meaning to get off the topic.

Jeff

[Guest Big Time Software]

Iggi said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I thought he was saying that other players shouldn't restrict his ability to manouver through house rules. He clearly said that BTS can restrict his ability to manouver through game programming. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is what Henri meant, I don't understand the problem. If people want to play with House Rules, let them. If two people don't want to, then they don't have to. But if the House Rules are designed to address shortcomings in the reality of the game (like the Steel Panthers bug mentioned a few posts ago) I know I personally don't want to hear the non-House Rules people complaining that people think they are playing using "gamey" tactics. Because they are

A tactic is "gamey" if it exploits flaws in the reality of the simulation for the sake of winning or at least getting some sort of unrealistic edge. If people have such a problem with the term, then they shouldn't be using the tactics IMHO. Like someone who robs banks for a living complaining that he is called a criminal by the people that work honest jobs for a living

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff, I haven't a clue about the bow MG thing. Works fine over here. Did you have a crew casualty by chance?

Steve

[Jarmo]

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

Jeff, I haven't a clue about the bow MG thing. Works fine over here. Did you have a crew casualty by chance?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would the bow MG stop working if you lose the TC?

[Guest Big Time Software]

When a crew member is hit, the remaining crew plays musical chairs. The Driver is needed to drive, the Loader is needed to load, the Commander is needed to command, and the Gunner is needed to, uhm, gun The least valuable position is the radio man, who also happens to man the bow MG.

Steve