Gamey Recon Technique?

[iggi]

As for recon, how far is far. Where is the line drawn??? 100,200, 300 350 meters, where?

[Smoker1]

I don't suppose any of you realize that I get an email notification every time this thread is posted to. I haven't found a way to quit the option. How do I turn it off?! Help me PLEASE! I've been suffering for days. I just wanted to know about my jeep recon tactic. Just a simple ... little... thing.......wimper... sniffle...

Have Jeeps, Will Recon!

Smoker out.

[Banshee]

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

I don't suppose any of you realize that I get an email notification every time this thread is posted to. I haven't found a way to quit the option. How do I turn it off?! Help me PLEASE! I've been suffering for days. I just wanted to know about my jeep recon tactic. Just a simple ... little... thing.......wimper... sniffle...

Have Jeeps, Will Recon!

Smoker out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BWAHAHAHAHA ..

Stop yer killin me, I was sooo sick of this thread as it got past the point of tedium about 200 posts ago, but now I will get a chuckle everytime this pops to the top of the page...

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

What on earth do you guys think we are trying to promote?

Do you think we are recruiting a CM Brown-shirt division to see if you play with realistic tactics?

Are you afraid that CMHQ will post a blacklist of gamey players, and exile you to the clubssi forums?

I havent seen ONE post from pro-house rules people that urges forcing people to play pbems in a restricted way, EXCEPT if you insist on playing people who OPPOSE the tactics.

Lets use some critical thinking around here. Arguing for the sake of arguing is what usenet is for. If you're only interested in posting your message, and not interested in truly considering other people's points, we will never get anywhere. Lets try to be a little more sensible around here.

(I dont want to sound like a jerk, sorry if I do, but there have been enough rhetorical open-ended statements thrown into this thread to power a National Political Convention. )

(rant over, MY POINT IS)

I think I understand that many "free-spirited players" might be worried about treated like 2nd class citizens or something if house-rules become prevalent. Please try not to worry about that. If you are up-front about how you like to play, this will be easy to handle, and its no big deal. No-one's calling you a crappy person.

But, if you argue that you dont want to see HWG's come up with extra rules they want to play by, you are WAY overstepping the boundaries. Just live and let live.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I wanted to negotiate, I would get into politics<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO!!

I get what the "anything goes" crowd is saying, it is a valid viewpoint. Honestly, I dont worry TOO much about people trying gamey tactics on me, because the advantages taken by a jeep recon run, OR a "human wave" assault can be countered.

I have never really called anybody on the gamey stuff, but I rarely play them again, as my time is limited and I enjoy the historically accurate stuff. I WANT gentelmans agreements and unofficial house rules, because they will act kind of like a party platform. If there are some general rules laid out like that, it will be easier for paople on both sides to congregrate towards them, or run the other way from them.

If I start up a pbem, I can ask my opponent what he thinks of the House rules, and we can go from there. I see it as LIMITING the negotiations, because there will be some general guidelines to keep us from having to decide point-by-point.

Oh I do play some "free-spirited" games. Jason (of CMHQ Annex Cheesehead fame) is a cherry picker if I EVER saw one. His OOB looks like a NATO task force, but my God does he send the turns fast.Its hard to hammer him on it too much, because he sends 10 files a day on ICQ.

(What you have just read is a taunt. I am not truly being an a-hole. I bet I get 20 files out of today!)

[aka_tom_w]

Asking rhetorically?

"So when is that interview for the position of Gamey Tactics Specialist in the Dept. of The Devil's Advoacate in the Division of Largely Rhetorical Sophistry"?

I do enjoy this thread and I'm glad there are some very good humoured participants and contributors here.

-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>

[Vanir]

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

I don't suppose any of you realize that I get an email notification every time this thread is posted to. I haven't found a way to quit the option. How do I turn it off?! Help me PLEASE! I've been suffering for days. I just wanted to know about my jeep recon tactic. Just a simple ... little... thing.......wimper... sniffle...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Well, I think if you edit your profile (link at the top right of the page) there is a box in there you can uncheck.

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

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[Grognerd_Fogman]

***Does**

[Grognerd_Fogman]

***This***

[Grognerd_Fogman]

***Help***

[Grognerd_Fogman]

***your EMAIL Smoker!!... Ha!...LOL***

(Hoping this will disrupt you in our present game )

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

[:USERNAME:]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if done during a campaign, your ammo for the next turn should be reflective of the lack of trucks. Also repairable tanks, etc arent and morale sags cause of hunger.

So you get my point? No trucks no warmaking ability. The loss of a truck should be penalized point wise in regular scenarios. And BTS should also up the vulnerability.

You chairborne commandos are getting stupid with the dumb tactics. You enjoy the game that way?

Lewis

[Banshee]

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

LOL! Well, I think if you edit your profile (link at the top right of the page) there is a box in there you can uncheck.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DONT HELP HIM!! Dammit!!

Now this thread offers no joy again

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Mannheim Tanker]

Although I would have probably proposed it a bit more tactfully, I like your suggestion, Lewis. Many of the "cheap" units that get used and abused most often have value that goes well beyond the 30 minute battle most of us experience in CM. Assigning higher values in terms of VP's rather than unit cost might be a viable method to eliminate many gamey tactics. Vehicles should have a higher VP value IMHO as they weren't just thrown away in an effort to expose enemy AT teams.

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

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ceeeripes this thread is becoming absurd. I think Foobar hit the nail right on the head. Why is it that the freespirited gamers are trying to oppose the historical gamers from having agreements with each other? There should be no worry about running out of people to play against if you are someone who likes to use tactics that will stop the historical gamers from playing against you.

OK, a rather obvious addendum to the definition of GAMEY:

If the player has a VIABLE choice about the use of a historically implausible tactic, and he chooses to use it anyway, then it is GAMEY. The more choice there is, and the more planning it takes to do it, the greater the degree that tactic is GAMEY.

Now, for anybody that can't put 1 and 1 together here, I shall demonstrate with examples

Borg like control is unavoidable, so that is not GAMEY since everybody is subjected to it in the same way, like it or not. Therefore, a sharpshooter on the hill spotting stuff for other units is not inherently GAMEY. It is a normal part of the game which will not be overcome (completely) even with relative spotting. So there is NO choice in the matter for either player. However, purchasing a sharpshooter with the intent of crawling it 200m behind enemy lines to spot for the rest of your force could be considered GAMEY, since this is a conscious choice that took place in the Unit Purchase screen and was then carried out in the game (i.e. this was no accident or sudden opportunity).

Now, who decides if such a thing is GAMEY or not? The two people playing the game, that is who. Why some people still have a problem with this is beyond me.

Iggie wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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 happened in ww2 and other players refute.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... as evident in this thread, some people DON'T know what is realistic and not. So if we don't have discussions about it, how do you expect that even the obvious things will be identified? Discussion, and even disagreement, is healthy. A lot of good can come of it too (like figuring out some ways to reduce gamey recon). If the discussion is open and frank, generally some sort of concensus will come of it. Questionable tactics will most likely not raise eyebrows, but obvious and blatently gamey tactics will. I am not sure what it is that you fear happening.

And Tom, your latest rant is just silly. This is something that the player can not control. Sure, I suppose if my target line happens to go through a pillbox I could say "no, that would be gamey to do", but how do I tell the TacAI to not do exactly the same thing once the GO! button is hit? So the degree I can control the use of this "tactic" is pretty darned low. And it is always a tactic of opportunity, not something that is "premeditated" or even necessarily repeatable from game to game (i.e. no problem in an infantry based Meeting Engagement).

Anybody that is trying to make the definition of "GAMEY" some sort of Black and White, absolute concept is missing the point. Like most things in life (sorry again Tom ) the concept of "GAMEY" is relative to the SPECIFIC tactic in question. I'd give your pillbox thing a 1 on a GAMEY scale of 1-10 (10 being the most GAMEY), a 6 to the sharpshooter situation I mentioned above, 8 for driving armored cars behind enemy lines to get in rear shots, and a 10 for Fast Jeep Recon. And the more the tactic is used from game to game, the more GAMEY it becomes for that individual.

So... where to draw the line? Ultimately it is the two players playing the game. But how anybody can't see a clear and obvious difference between what Tom ranted about and Fast Jeep Recon is beyond me. Like saying this mound of dirt can be compared to Mt. Everest.

Steve

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

I havent seen ONE post from pro-house rules people that urges forcing people to play pbems in a restricted way, EXCEPT if you insist on playing people who OPPOSE the tactics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to be provocative, but I could quote many statements here to the effect that NO ONE should use gamey tactics, to the extent of saying that players who wish to do so should go play some other game (since the new version of Pacific War has just come out, I'm considering it .

This has been my point all along, I have repeatedly said that I have no objection to people agreeing among themselves to ANY rules they see fit, but that I DO object to the implication that those who do not are some kind of cheats.

If we all agreed on that, there would be no strong difference of opinion.

Henri

[Guest grunto]

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

So in game terms, yeah order a jeep into a field, but model it so he "seeks cover" by driving away from the source of firepower. Noone would robotically follow such a death sentance order.

The game should hopefully get players to adopt more realistic uses for these vehicles like flank protection, rapid position changes for small units, etc.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes a jeep .50 i consider to be useful in a screen (flank protection).

sometimes if there is a shortage of infantry, as an AFV with a gun will lie in ambush a couple of jeep .50s will be around to protect from any german infantry.

but on the thing of 'if a superior threat fires on a vehicle - any vehicle, not just jeeps - the target vehicle should normally disregard its orders and drive to cover' i agree completely with that.

cmbo does have this to some extent; i just think it has to be tweaked a bit more.

say i'm sitting there in a greyhound and a tiger comes into los... the greyhound should drop whatever it is doing and take the quickest route to cover.

i think that even green crews should have a fairly 'quick response' when deciding to take 'evasive action.' in other words the delay time of 20 seconds shouldn't be used as a hard and fast rule when avoiding a suddenly appearing overwhelming threat. instead, the delay times should be made shorter for each experience level such as:

green 4 seconds

regular 3

veteran 2

crack 1

elite 0

now i may not be representing the underlying source code correctly here, but what i'm trying to describe is increased evasive action when coming under fire.

and as the original quote at the top of this message mentions, that should stop jeeps from continuing on those crazy charges. with a greater tendency to take evasive action under the first fire, a jeep will no longer continue whizzing along its ridiculous movement path, but instead head for cover at the first sign of enemy bullets whizzing overhead.

one thing that could be tried would be to have limit a vehicle to only being able to make moves for the amount of movement points available to it in a given turn. in other words, a jeep could not have 4 turns of movement plotted out in advance. a unit which ends its turn in moving has a 'movement flag' set so there is no delay if the commander orders further moves with it at the start of the following turn.

andy

[Guest grunto]

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

The problem is that *you* are defining what is realistic and then opposing our efforts to make what *we* feel are changes to make CM more realistic. The fact is you are wrong about the realism of recon (as you have described it) and the use of something like armored cars. These are NOT plausible realistic tactics because they could not, and did not, work in real life. If they work in CM, then CM has something in need of fixing. NOT because we want to unrealistically constraining the player, but because at the moment the player is NOT REALISTICALLY constrained.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve,

I think that if you can make two separate point values in CM2 - 'combat' and 'historical,' then for each given battle the pbem players or scenario designer (whichever the case may be) could buy points according to one or the other list based on a 'toggle switch' in the interface.

So to make it realistic you use the historical value which includes rarity. That way those PSW 234/3s of which only 88 were built or something would cost a lot. Thus only scenario designers would include them to depict historical recon actions.

Then to play just a flat-out 'combat value' battle you switch to that price list and rarity and realism are discarded, and the only thing that matters is the combat value of a given unit, regardless of its original real-life production numbers.

I think that the problem here with CMBO is that the current, single price chart deals mostly with 'combat value' and doesn't factor in the incredible historical rarity of for instance the Puma and 234/3.

So in my mind if you supply CM2 with a dual price system - combat versus historical value - then you will please everyone in this.

Thanks for your participation and consideration,

Andy

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This has been my point all along, I have repeatedly said that I have no objection to people agreeing among themselves to ANY rules they see fit, but that I DO object to the implication that those who do not are some kind of cheats. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I have you figured out correctly you don't object to us getting rid of the same tactic through better realism modeling. Correct? This is a funny thing then...

Assume there is a BUG in the game that allowed a "Clown Car" tactic (i.e. placing as many units as you wanted in, say, a halftrack). OK, so you are playing a game, expecting to have a reasonably realistic WWII battle, and all of a sudden a whole company of infantry appears out of a single Halftrack (that you didn't happen to see) behind your lines and shoots up the crap out of your suport units and the backs of your frontline infantry. So the question is...

1. Is this a GAMEY tactic?

2. Is it in any way shape or form defensible as a legit WWII tactic?

3. Was it employed by the other player intentionally?

I assume you would answer YES to all three of these questions. Correct?

If so, how can this tactic NOT be considdered "cheating"? Don't you see anything inhrently wrong with this tactic in the context of a WWII wargame that is trying very hard to be realistic? The fact that the game accidentally allows this to happen is not an excuse. When a thief walks into an unlocked house and out with a VCR, do you say "well, that wasn't Breaking & Entering because he techically didn't break anything"? Or if you are playing chess with someone and you go to get a beer, and you come back to find he has moved a piece in your absence, since there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, wouldn't you call this breaking the rules?

My point is that people CAN play with a GAMEY tactic if they so choose. However, knowingly employing a tactic that is unquestionably breaking with realism is, in effect, 'cheating'. But there is a VERY critical componant here... 'cheating' is only condemable when it causes "harm". What I mean by that is if two players agree to no rules, then the employment of gamey tactics is NOT cheating in the context of that game. But if I had a Gentleman's Agreement with someone and they DID use this tactic, then it is unquestionably cheating.

Steve

[Smoker1]

The problem with the whole gamey issue for me is that I really don't know what is gamey (although I am learning). I know the definition of gamey, but what things specifically fit into the category is another story. For example, now I find out above that even my sharpshooters can't penetrate enemy territory because that is gamey recon due to the spotting issues. I'm not looking for recon. I want tank commanders! I can't help it if the GAME lets me see what the sharpshooter sees.

I'm a little disgusted at this point. ACs are gamey, sharpshooters are gamey, jeeps are gamey, AT teams are gamey, half tracks are gamey, Scout vehicles are gamey. When are all these things gamey? When they're used in a RECON role for the most part; or when their orders are dangerous. I suppose even my Hellcats are being used in a gamey fashion when they move long distances quickly to flank a Jagdtiger; unless I sweep the path clear of all possible enemy threats with infantry first(the only non-gamey recon tactic),which would take 15 turns on a larger map. Didn't they ever take a calculated risk during the war?

On another thread they talk of gamey force choices. Naturally, units I normally pick are all gamey. You shouldn't use 250/9 (251/9 ?)halftracks, Pumas, Volksgrenadiers, any Allied tanks heavier than an M4 Sherman, no Jackson TDs, and the list goes on. I used to enjoy pondering my unit choices. Now I just hope they aren't too gamey.

Why were people asking a year ago about what units would be included in CM? They're all gamey! Who wants 'em!?

I will continue to try not to be gamey, but my PBEM enjoyment has already suffered; not because I can't use my favorite gamey tactics (I want to play realistically)or pick the units I want, but because now I'm always uptight about offending my opponents through gameyness thereby making the PBEM **** list of the serious wargamers I've just recently begun playing. Just yesterday I moved an AT team into some woods I was 70% sure was unoccupied. The team ran into the enemy. What's the first thing that crosses my mind? He'll think I was using it for recon!! OH NO!! Talk about ruin the immersion. Today I moved a vehicle crew forward 25 meters to better cover putting them a whopping 55 meters from their vehicle and I was called on gamey crew movement. I was supposed to move the unit back 150 meters through the enemy LOS to cover. GEEZ!!

I've found that gameyness issues usually come up when someone is losing. If I send my King Tiger at top speed through the unknown onto your side of the map is that gamey? Not if you nail it in the ass with a zook, but it sure is if he nails your last precious Sherman. "Hey, they would never do that with a Tiger!"

You can call it a simulation if you want, but like it or not it is just a realistic GAME. It is better than any other war simulation GAME, but it is still a GAME.

Smoker, disgusted and out.

[Guest tero]

>If a tactic couldn't have happened in real world WWII

Anybody proven that "couldn't have" beyond gut feeling and "because it is suicidal and thus unthinkable" level with documented sources that date back to WWII as a matter of cause ?

Scenario: a jeep is lost and driving along and does not notice the troops waving it to stop. The jeep then proceeds to what is hostile territory and start spotting all kinds of stuff thinking they are friendly and keeps on moving at high speed looking for the place it is heading to. First they do not notice they a taking fire and when they do they are killed (alternately they bug out the way they came VERY fast). Scenarios like this never happened in real life ?

>and you are able to (knowingly) use this tactic due to a game loophole, the tactic is gamey.

I have to agree the TACTIC is bordering on gamey but I also have to say that if the game engine allows it the procedure is not gamey by default. This because you can use ANY unit to perform a similar mission.

>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.

Agreed. Gamey things in the game I have seen:

dug in troops get spotted at unbelieveable ranges, troops stay on target with movement orders when they take fire. To name but a few. There are things that concern overall reality and things that are WWII specific.

>Nobody is defending gamey tactics.

I think the main question has been what constitutes gamey. Henri is defending manouverability while I would call it using alternate tactics.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Smoker, no need to get uptight about it. There have been very few things identified as "gamey". Much of what you listed is not, including sending out a Sharpshooter in search of a good target. Using armored cars to FIND the enemy is fine as well, but if you keep them going into the enemy lines in order to "flush out" other enemy units, it is getting borderline. But nobody is suggesting that the gray area stuff be "banned", only the stuff that REALLY violates the norms of reality. So far the only one I have really heard mentioned is the "gamey recon" trick with fast, light vehicles.

As for "Cherry Picking", if you read the thread you would know that the only type of "Cherry Picking" some people object to is when a player will *ONLY* play with certain Cherries and will decline to play scenarios that do not favor these particular Cherries. Until we get some sort of historical point option, nobody should worry about this. Just play the game, perhaps only curtailing multi-national force mixes (which is a rather simple one to pay attention to).

And as far as "offending" the other player. Just set up some ground rules ahead of time and don't worry about the rest. It works for others and it can work for you too

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Argh... Tero... please... do not put us back to where we were about 5-8 pages ago.

Everything you just mentioned has been discussed far too much already, ESPECIALLY how unrealistic the use of ANY fast vehicle as disposable recon is. And yes, the degree of unrealism was backed up by WWII sources (German armor manual), contemporary Recon doctrin (US), first hand experience from a combat vet, real life experience from other vets, the lack of examples to be found in military history accounts, and above all... common sense.

It is all there if you care to read it.

Steve

[CavScout]

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

Well if done during a campaign, your ammo for the next turn should be reflective of the lack of trucks. Also repairable tanks, etc arent and morale sags cause of hunger.

So you get my point? No trucks no warmaking ability. The loss of a truck should be penalized point wise in regular scenarios. And BTS should also up the vulnerability.

You chairborne commandos are getting stupid with the dumb tactics. You enjoy the game that way?

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the best system would be one that gave very realistic results for unrealistic behavior.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Scenario: a jeep is lost and driving along and does not notice the troops waving it to stop. The jeep then proceeds to what is hostile territory and start spotting all kinds of stuff thinking they are friendly and keeps on moving at high speed looking for the place it is heading to. First they do not notice they a taking fire and when they do they are killed (alternately they bug out the way they came VERY fast). Scenarios like this never happened in real life ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What didn't happen in "real life" is the "Borg" like transmission of the intel to all friendly uinits.

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

I have to agree the TACTIC is bordering on gamey but I also have to say that if the game engine allows it the procedure is not gamey by default. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game, before patch, allowed unlimited ammo with some arty by moving spotting rounds. The engine allowed it. Is it "gamey"?

Cav