Gamey Recon Technique?

[Jarmo]

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

That's how I thought, but why don't you get a new commander then?

If someone takes his place, why can't you unbutton?

[aka_tom_w]

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

That's how I thought, but why don't you get a new commander then?

If someone takes his place, why can't you unbutton?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fool me once, Shame on you,

Fool me Twice, Shame on ME!

Having lost one TC the crew is now down one crew member, likely their TC (so there is a little moral loss) and they won't ever unbutton for fear of loosing another crew member then the tank might end up be DOWN two members and would become much more ineffective than down just ONE crew member.

Just my personal opinion

-tom w

[Jarmo]

Wouldn't happen to be just because the code can't handle the loss of 2 crewmen?

[aka_tom_w]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK I'm sorry I have to rant again,

here goes...

I have done my best to refrain from raising this issue, (lately) but by that gamey definition (above) it would be gamey for experienced players to NOT seek cover behind non-buring Tanks, Pillboxes, Bunkers and Roadblocks, because they are exploiting the knowledge that these vehciles and structures, unrealistically, provide NO cover as LOS and LOF can be traced right through them.

So when a new player plays this game, AND perhaps expects non-buring Tanks, Pillboxes, Bunkers and Roadblocks to provide his other units, be they vehicles or infantry, to benifit from some form of cover and concealment from LOS and LOF behind these structures and non-buring vehicles and he plays a player who knows they offer NO such cover, and that more experienced player targets and kills those units attempting to "hide" behind any of those structures, has the experienced player just exploited a gamey tactic??

Seriously, or should both players agree to NOT shoot through these things in gentleman's agreement?

My concern is that this issue has been labled and designated as largely out of bounds for the purpose of this discussion because nothing at all can be done about it.

BUT every time an experienced player keeps two factors in mind when he plays, BORG-like Absolute spotting (knowing about this and keeping it in mind is in my opinion a shrewd and smart way to plan tactics), AND NO LOS and LOF BLOCK through non-buring Tanks, Pillboxes, Bunkers and Roadblocks, that player is playing in a GAMEY way because he understands and uses both these game design decisions to his advantage. (for instance targeting the opponents farther most vehicle by targeting right through, his larger maybe harder to kill tanks or targeting infantry on the other side of a Pillbox, Bunker or Roadblock right through what his opponenent thinks is a structure that offers at least SOME cover, Or targeting all my tanks through each other when they were (dumb move I know) caught traveling in a clomumn on a road when the target they want to shoot at lies in front of your line of tanks)

Just knowing those two things he is likely to take adavantage of players less experienced with the game design decisions that lie at the foundation of the reality this game models.

I have done my best not to mention this again after the Long Rant, BUT when Steve says:

"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."

I guess then we should all agree to not shoot through Pillboxes, Bunkers and Roadblocks and non-buring vehciles, so as not to "exploit flaws in the reality of the simulation for the sake of winning or at least getting some sort of unrealistic edge".

I have to to wonder if EVERY player who plays with these two game design decisions in mind when planning tactics is not by the above definition using gamey tactics?

Ok, you can all now tell me to STIFLE myself and go back to practicing to take on MhT, in the up coming TCP/IP match

I'm not grumpy or mean spirited, just thought I could not contain myself any further so I would RANT yet again. Mostly from a philosophical/logical consquence of the debate, sort of Devil's Advocate point of view, I hope I have not ruffled too many feathers.

I KNOW this is the very best game I have ever played and I know Steve and Charles spend 3 hard years designing it from the ground up to be a truly ground breaking WW II simulation, and it is in fact the VERY best WW II combat simulation on the market right now. So to continue to point out those two little things may in fact make me sound like a fool.

sheepish appology offered for ranting off the map edge....

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-27-2000).]

again, all spelling problems, no change of content

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Jarmo]

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

but by that gamey definition (above) it would be gamey for experienced players to NOT seek cover behind non-buring Tanks, Pillboxes, Bunkers and Roadblocks, because they are expoiting the knowledge that these vehciles and structures, unrealistically, provide NO cover as LOS and LOF can be traced right through them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Brilliant point!

"Hey! Stay behind the buker and take it like a man, you gamey bastard!"

[:USERNAME:]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the politically correct term is "morally and legally challenged". These people that you have so easily insulted should sue you.

Lewis

[Mannheim Tanker]

It would be a good idea if you could get your men to not fire through a non-burning vehicle or bunker, but you can't (the TacAI takes over and will do so in any case). So much for that argument...

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

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

[Henri]

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

It would be a good idea if you could get your men to not fire through a non-burning vehicle or bunker, but you can't (the TacAI takes over and will do so in any case). So much for that argument...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God, so now the GAME is using gamey tactics!...

Henri

[aka_tom_w]

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

God, so now the GAME is using gamey tactics!...

Henri <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well that is interesting

I had not thought of the game USING gamey tactics to win, but sure the AI does shoot right through anything that does not block LOS.

good point

-tom w

[CavScout]

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

"...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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "above" doesn't apply to sending units to their death because a game engine allows all units to see what all other units see. I can be "unpredictable" and buy a half dozen 2 1/2 trucks and send them out to do my recon. Yes it'll probably work BECAUSE of the game engine but would be "gamey" as hell.

Of course you ignore that Lind was refering to tactics that would be POSSIBLE in the real world and not possible because of an underlying game engine.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

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>

No, it is not about "manouver". It is about "abusing" a game engine to the maximum extent. A perfect game engine would yield REALISTIC results for "manouver". If something works BECAUSE of the game engine, and only for that reason, it is "gamey". No amount of self-justification will change that.

Cav

[Mannheim Tanker]

I thought you'd like that, Henri! LOL! The debate continues. At this rate, we could surpass the cesspool (thread length, and maybe even contect )

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

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

[CavScout]

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

I have done my best to refrain from raising this issue, (lately) but by that gamey definition (above) it would be gamey for experienced players to NOT seek cover behind non-buring Tanks, Pillboxes, Bunkers and Roadblocks, because they are expoiting the knowledge that these vehciles and structures, unrealistically, provide NO cover as LOS and LOF can be traced right through them.

So when a new player plays this game, AND perhaps expects non-buring Tanks, Pillboxes, Bunkers and Roadblocks to provide his other units, be they vehicles or infantry, to benifit from some form of cover and concealment from LOS and LOF behind these structures and non-buring vehicles and he plays a player who knows they offer NO such cover, and that more experienced player targets and kills those units attempting to "hide" behind any of those structures, has the experienced player just exploited a gamey tactic??

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's "gamey" in the sense that "Borg"^TM spotting is. I learned the hard way by trying to use dead tanks to shield myyself from a AT gun. Couldn't figure how he was hitting me...

The game is not perfect, no one denies that.

[Jarmo]

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

If something works BECAUSE of the game engine, and only for that reason, it is "gamey". No amount of self-justification will change that.av<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, let's assume your lone sniper on a high hill spots enemy tanks

moving to outflank you. Will you act on that knowledge?

Despite the fact that realistically your sniper wouldn't be

able to get the word to you too soon.

Or will you pretend you don't know the enemy is there?

You gamey game engine abuser.

[Jarmo]

Ok, one more thing about the casualty vs MG thing, if you have

a gun damage, that makes both the gunner and loader unemployed.

Shouldn't one of them man the MG even if there has been a casualty?

[Mark IV]

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

At this rate, we could surpass the cesspool (thread length, and maybe even contect<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You already have. The Cesspool does not permit "contect".

Back to the dark place now....

[CavScout]

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

Ok, let's assume your lone sniper on a high hill spots enemy tanks

moving to outflank you. Will you act on that knowledge?

Despite the fact that realistically your sniper wouldn't be

able to get the word to you too soon.

Or will you pretend you don't know the enemy is there?

You gamey game engine abuser. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one denies the "Borg"^TM is unrealistic.

Cav

[Jarmo]

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

No one denies the "Borg"^TM is unrealistic.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I could swear someone said taking advantage of the unrealistic

features of the game is gamey.

[CavScout]

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

But I could swear someone said taking advantage of the unrealistic

features of the game is gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you'd support buying a load of duce-and-a-halfs and throwing them out to screen your force and to pin-point enemy locations? It CAN be done within the game engine and can be effective.

Cav

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I could swear someone said taking advantage of the unrealistic features of the game is gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly, if you really can't see the difference between this (using information presented to you through no active action on your part) and the 'gamey' planning & plotting far ahead of time to scout your enemy with cheap jeeps to actively exploit this (granted) very same loop hole...then I don't think anyone anywhere will ever be able to explain it to you.

But, somehow I think you are just playing the devil's advocate.

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

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

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

Frankly, if you really can't see the difference between this (using information presented to you through no active action on your part) and the 'gamey' planning...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, the difference between these is obvious. I'm merely

trying to point that there's no definitive line between gamey

and ungamey. So I'd prefer the line not drawn at all, rather than

having a list of 101 gamey things that are "forbidden" if you

don't wan't to be labeled a gamey "video gamer".

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest tero]

>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.

So this is why there are no mobility kills (or even momentary immobility) due to killed driver ?

[DanE]

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

Of course, the difference between these is obvious. I'm merely

trying to point that there's no definitive line between gamey

and ungamey. So I'd prefer the line not drawn at all, rather than

having a list of 101 gamey things that are "forbidden" if you

don't wan't to be labeled a gamey "video gamer".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the argument here is for a list of "101 gamey things" that you should not do. There is only "1 gamey thing": If a tactic couldn't have happened in real world WWII, and you are able to (knowingly) use this tactic due to a game loophole, the tactic is gamey.

It is up to you, as the player, to decide if you want to use the tactic. If a player decides to use a known "gamey" tactic, then that player will be known as a "gamey" player. If a player wishes not to be labeled "gamey", then they should not knowingly use gamey tactics.

Also, being know as a "gamey" player does not make you a bad person, it just means you use "gamey" tactics. And if you knowingly use loopholes in the game code to try to win, you are "gamey".

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

Dan

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, the difference between these is obvious. I'm merely

trying to point that there's no definitive line between gamey

and ungamey. So I'd prefer the line not drawn at all, rather than

having a list of 101 gamey things that are "forbidden" if you

don't wan't to be labeled a gamey "video gamer".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. That's what Henri, Tom and myself have beens trying to get across.

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If a tactic couldn't have happened in real world WWII, and you are able to (knowingly) use this tactic due to a game loophole, the tactic is gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The very obvious will be agreed to but there will be exceptions. That's what we're trying to get across. What's starts off with an obvious jeep example will lead to other things that some players will claim happenned in ww2 and other players refute.

Nobody is defending gamey tactics.