Gamey Recon Technique?

[Guest Scott Clinton]

aka_tom_w,

Grognerd_Fogman

Please read Capt. Foobar's definition of gamey as you both seem to have a problem with its definition. Also, I would like to add that gamey is NOT equal to cheating. If it was we would just call it "cheating" wouldn't we?

Grognerd_Fogman said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really don't consider it gamey using certain recon units in whatever way people want to use them...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even when this sort of thing never (or almost never) happened in reality? THAT is the definition of "gamey". You can do it in a "game" where in reality it would not happen (with any frequency approaching its use in the game).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even in real war, commanders will knowingly sacrifice the few for the greater good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and this is literally the OLDEST excuse for using a 'suicide' unit in a gamey tactics in wargames. I have heard it for over three decades from tanks ramming tanks, to pikeman charging calvary. Just because the game does not model reality in every aspect perfectly does not make EVERYTHING that is possible in the game "A-OK". The same goes for the "All's fair in War" line. This is not war, it's a game, hence the term 'gamey'.

With that said I don't necessarily think all "deep, high speed recon missions" are by their very nature 'gamey'. Take for example a large map...say 3000m wide and 1000-1500m deep. This area is covered in heavy woods and good-sized hills. Victory locations are scattered from one end of the map to the other in a meeting engagement. Do I think that running a fast recon toward the other end of the map or a victory location would be gamey? Hell No! You are talking about 4.5 square km of heavily wooded terrain and you have no idea where the bad guys are at.

But shrink that map to say 1000mx1000m and make it an attack mission...then running a light AC into the clustered victory locations to draw fire from the concealed AT guns would be a little gamey IMO. Sure recon guys are brave and all that, but are the just plain stupid too?

Its a tough call IMO and not nearly as clear cut as some seem to think.

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

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

[Smoker1]

I think Valdor about sums it up. There would be lots of things in "clear" terrain that would keep you from moving at high speed in a wheeled vehicle. Is the clear terrain speed of such vehicles as modeled in CM too fast?

Another thing to look at is the scale of CM. In anything but large battles on large maps you really already know where the enemy is. You don't know exactly which clump of trees or brush but you know where he is generally. The recon job is done before you place your forces. What we are really doing when we reconnoiter the enemy side of the map (see, you already know where he is) is probing the enemy lines. You wouldn't probe known enemy positions (the other side of the map) with jeeps. Fionn's half squads makes more sense at this scale of "recon".

[DaMilli]

Gamey - schmamey!

I mean, in a game actually everything gamey. Although this may sound dumb, any game relies on modelling and abstraction and can never be a 100% copy of reality.

But I of course would accept it if my PBEM opponent considered CM more as some kind of "combat simulator" than a game (as somebody pointed out earlier) and therefore it surely is the best solution to talk about personal preferences and the scenario settings before the PBEM starts. By doing so, this whole gamey discussion will be pointless...

Have a nice day,

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

"I am no fool!"

Michael

[Vanir]

Smoker1 makes a good point obove that I would like to expand upon, and I have one more of my own.

Historicly, the purpose of recon was:

1. Determine if an enemy force is present.

2. If so, determine its general size and location.

The problem with any game on the scale of CM is that you already know this when the game begins. Therefore, one must ask, what is the purpose of recon in a game like CM?

I would argue that sending them into the enemies position on suicide missions to find their key assets is really the only thing they can do. If you take away this option you render recon compelely useless. If an opponent asked for a voluntary prohibition against this I would likely agree, but would simply not purchase any recon at all, instead using the points to bolster my main attack.

If someone were succesfully running a jeep through my main force, instead of complaining about gameyness I'd be kicking myself for such piss-poor planning. How did an enemy unit as weak as a jeep ever get so close to my main force? The answer is that I failed to screen my positions with my own counter-recon force. It doesn't take much to kill a jeep. A cheapo light machine gun will do fine. There is no reason why a defending player cannot purchase his own recon to intercept his opponents recon attempts. I would say if you fail to do this and get reconed by a fast moving jeep its your own fault.

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

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

[Jarmo]

Here's an idea for a "fix".

If a unit dies right after noticing an enemy, too soon to radio

the info back home, say 5-10 seconds, it wouldn't be revealed

what he saw.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 09-18-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

There is no reason why a defending player cannot purchase his own recon to intercept his opponents recon attempts. I would say if you fail to do this and get reconed by a fast moving jeep its your own fault.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not agree MORE.

now i will RANT...

I'm uncomfortable with folks telling me how I "should' and how I "should not" conduct my units and tactics on the virtual CM battlefield.

I would never want my tactics and strategy to become predictable, or have my options limited by someelse's concept of what is historically accurate and valid and what they think is a gamey exploitation of a combat simulator.

The CM code has now, (it would seem) been tweaked within an inch of its virtual life to eliminate almost all known gamey tactics. I fully support this effort and think for a game of this kind this attempt to code out the opportunity to exploit such gamey tactics has been hugely successful.

Now don't tell be that because I have exposed your back field with a suicide jeep recon mission that I'm now doing something wrong?

I have read the suggested reading above regarding what is gamey and what is not and I don't really disagree with it, but I am little concerned about exactly whose interpretation of what are "actually hitorically valid and accurate" tactics . Who is to say what was a real valid historical recon tactic and what is not.

It seems to me this is just one way for the "grog" communnity to say something to the effect of "since we have spend our whole lives studying the military history of WWII, this is how it was done then this what tactics YOU should use when playing CM".

Now that problem with that is that even amongst "grogs" on this board there can be wide spread disagreement as to what was in fact the "historically accurate" truth when it comes to ALL kinds of details as we have seen from many different threads on this board.

I fully support every effort Steve and Charles have made to eliminate gamey tactics that have plagued other war games that came before CM, but now to be told that I "should" know all about WWII and know what are "real world" tactics and what are not, seems a little like takeing the FUN out of playing to me and perhaps also to some of the newer members of this forum.

I play to win and I like to have fun doing it and sending a unit or two on a suicide mission is just the "cost of doing business" to win the battle sometimes.

For those of you looking for historically accurate opponents who will be happy to use historically accurate tactics, please find someone WAY more knowlegdeable about WW II than me to PBEM against.

This won't offend me, Fionn, when he used post here, was totalled disgusted with my opinion and position on this matter, and has sworn never to play CM against me. Well, I think I can live with that.

Rant off

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-18-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Here's an idea for a "fix".

If a unit dies right after noticing an enemy, too soon to radio

the info back home, say 5-10 seconds, it wouldn't be revealed

what he saw.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I have NO problem with that idea

maybe there should be a reporting delay when only one mobile unit like a jeep has a radio and sees things no other unit can see or corroborate (verify) maybe this recon reporting delay could even be (perhaps for the suggested or perceived ease or lack of difficulty of coding) 1 minute long. So if your jeep spots something it takes a whole turn to show up on the map if that unit alone is the only unit you have that "sees" it, and it is out of C-C of a leader and it has a working radio and it can radio the info back, a one minute delay here would still be too fast for some folks here I guess but some reporting delay of this sort would be REALLY cool and increase the fog of war factor and I will always support that.

I think that is a little step toward the concept of relative spotting, which is a goal of Steve and Charles but may prove VERY hard to code.

Great suggestion though.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Guest tero]

The Germans actually used these kinds of tactics. They would drive along leisurely and when they came up on a location that looked like an ambush or defensive position they would stop and speed back trying to lure the defenders into thinking that they had been spotted and open fire to expose their positions.

That is why I think it is OK to use similar tactics. But I do require it is done with appropriate vehicles, ie vehicles that were actually used for recon.

BTW: why is there no SdKfz 222 for the Germans ?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Tom, first take a breath I don't think anyone is telling you what tactics you can and can't use. This is a discussion on whether a particular tactic is gamey (IE only used in the game, not in real life). With that said, it all comes down to an informal agreement with your PBEM opponents as to what tactics are fair. I have no problem with people using really gamey tactics in CM...I just make it clear that I won't play against anyone that uses them, as I have only enough time for a few PBEMs at any one time. I prefer to spend that time playing with what we consider real-world tactics. So far, I've had no problem finding a lot of guys that agree with me on this - and we have fun playing

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

...Damn the Kubelwagen from hell!! - Von Brizee

[Mannheim Tanker]

Tero: What you're describing is actual recon tactics (probe and retrograde). What we're calling gamey is the made dash around the enemy rear without regard for one's safety I'm all for peaking around a corner with some scouts (D. Eggenberger: Damn you and your bazookas!)

[tss]

tero wrote:

The Germans actually used these kinds of tactics. They would drive along leisurely and when they came up on a location that looked like an ambush or defensive position they would stop and speed back trying to lure the defenders into thinking that they had been spotted and open fire to expose their positions.

Well, there's a little difference between that and driving at full speed near all possible enemy hideouts.

But yes, suicidal tactics were sometimes used in the real life. At Vuosalmi in March 1940 Soviets once tried to get Finns to open fire with their MGs by sending a cavalry platoon to ride in full gallop in clear view of the Finnish lines. Not a job that I would like to do. Unfortunately, I can't remember whether they managed to find the MG nests or not.

- Tommi

[aka_tom_w]

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

Tom, first take a breath I don't think anyone is telling you what tactics you can and can't use.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok

Breathing now

Sorry about the rant.

I woke up early and I was grumpy and orhnarey and I just went off at the keyboard.

Mannheim Tanker: Thanks for your balanced and thoughtful reply.

Now I guess I should get back to work

-tom w

[Henri]

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

Gamey recon is using the vehicles to do something blatantly unrealistic.

Henri. The argument against suicide recon is not so much that the unit wouldnt obey, it is that the information he gives you as a player is very unrealistic. Just because he can see the 5 Shermans shooting at him, that were hidden a moment ago, doesnt mean that evry unit on your team would even have a clue, especially if the firefight was taking place far behind the front line. All your front line troops and commander would know is that Mr. Jeep didnt come home that night.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is unrealistic in this case is not the fast-moving recon, but the fact that in CM, when one unit spots an enemy, every friendly unit is informed of the presence of the enemy unit. Do we need to prevent realistic actions to correcrt for unrealistic (but necessary for speed of play) limitations of the game?

It has also been mentioned that fast-moving recon is OK if the unit is darting from cover; unfortunately this is not possible either in CM: vehicles may not enter woods, and in scattered trees, have to enter very deep before they are invisible. In real terrain, there are many hillocks, dips and so on that a unit can use for cover and that are not available in the game.In the game and in open terrain, you either zigzag moving fast or you are dead.Of course any player in his right mind dong this will try to use buildings and hills(if any) to the best of his ability.

Over the weekend, in two pbem games, I used a Puma to dart out of the woods and to zigzag through unknown territory to scout out the enemy. In both cases, in addition to spotting all the enemy vehicles, the Puma took out a Sherman with a side shot, and unexpected bonus. Now according to game lawyers, the tactic is gamey if my intention was to scout out the enemy positions, but it was not if my intention was to confuse the enemy and to get a side or rear shot on an enemy tank. Now are we going to start to judge player INTENTIONS in order to decide if something is gamey or not?

Then it is said that this is suicide so that no one would do it. Bull, in both pbem games, when my Puma was finally hit, most of the crew survived and ran away to hide in nearby woods.Are we going to argue that a particular action is unrealistic because doing it can get one soldier killed? Hey, this is WAR!...

Again, it has been said that the move is gamey if the purpose is to draw fire from enemy positions in order to expose enemy positions. Believe me, I would rather reveal enemy positions without being fired upon by the enemy, but that his HIS choice and not mine! I am moving fast because I assume that he is not happy having the enemy driving around near his positions exposing them.

There are different methods of recon depending on circumstances, and what seems gamey to me is to put artificial limitations on what a player can or cannot do within the rules of the game, especially in circumstances where a real-life commander under similar circumstances and constraints would do the same thing.

Does anyone believe that when the Germans were doing recon in the flat Ukraine plains, their recon vehicles did not move fast? Why the hell do you think that recon vehicles were made to go fast? So that they could move slowly and deliberately?

Henri

[CavScout]

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

Does anyone believe that when the Germans were doing recon in the flat Ukraine plains, their recon vehicles did not move fast? Why the hell do you think that recon vehicles were made to go fast? So that they could move slowly and deliberately?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are fast so that they can get out of trouble when they get into it!

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, my two bits on this...

Yes, it is very gamey. Yes, CM doesn't prevent the tactic other than to make it a bit more difficult than in other wargames due to the WEGO nature of the game. This tactic is gamey because:

1) no commander would issue a near certain death order to someone in a nearly always valuable asset (i.e. the vehicle). This is not only because the trained men are too valuable to waste, but the vehicle itself is not something that can be thrown away like in the game. Which brings us to...

2) In real life one battle is merely something you do while waiting for the next one. So if you piss away your jeep this morning, you won't have it for the afternoon or probably days or weeks later. So why waste the men and vehicles for...

3) In real life the chances of driving around through enemy positions and accurately radioing back what they see is about nil. So, keeping in mind the above two reasons, the poor chance of gaining any usefull information is not worth the risk in any way shape or form.

Having said that, I don't know of any way to prevent this tactic. CM can't read the mind of the player, so therefore it can't prevent such a move. Would we like to find a way to eliminate this and other gamey tactics? Contrary to some people who are full of more piss than vinegar, the answer is YES.

The problem is HOW to do this. There are NO simple solutions other than removing the human from the game and having the AI play itself.

The idea of the unit not reporting back makes no sense and can not be implemented. First of all... how would CM know the difference between a unit unrealistically spotting something vs. realistically spotting something? The suggestion to delay the spotting information is good in theory, but it penalizes legit sightings that could and should be shown right away (i.e. a jeep popping up in front of an unbuttoned Panther from the German PoV). The problem with the theory is that somehow CM will know when to hit you with a penalty and when not to. Sorry, there isn't a way to do this.

Penalizing based on C&C is not the right way to go either. As was explained in some other threads (and not listened to apparently), this method would not only ruin the game but would also eliminate it. Example:

A Jeep goes off out of C&C (which assumes it has no radio), vanishes from the map (which it would have to do), and is no longer controllable by the human (because you can't see it). Great! This simulates the fog of war fantastic, doesn't it? Perhaps, but you also have NO GAME left.

OK, so a squad moves out of C&C and finishes its orders (or so you guess). Now what does the unit do? Sit there doing ABSOULTELY NOTHING until you regain contact? That isn't very realistic. OK, so perhaps the AI should take over your unit at that point. Er... but what is the AI going to do with it? How does it know what that unit should be doing according to their overall unit mission? And what happens if your Platoon HQ gets nailed? You can't move or see any of that platoon's squads for the rest of the game? What happens if you lose your Company HQ? No command of any asset on the map that falls under ist command?

Sorry to burst anybody's bubble here, but this is NOT an issue that is easily dealt with. It is also one that CAN NOT be fixed by simple "oh, you could just do that" suggestions. This is a fundamental problem that is completely at odds with the goals of a game (i.e. to be at least interesting enough to play). And I must also point out that most wargames have paid far less attention to C&C than CM does. So whatever CM's "failings" are, they are mild compared to any other wargame I can think of.

As we go forward designing future wargames we will keep C&C and intel issues firmly in mind as we always have. If we can figure out reasonable ways to improve the realism of these areas that actually work (as opposed to poorly thought out, off the cuff suggestions tossed at us laced with insults), we will do so. And nobody has any reason to doubt that

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-18-2000).]

[Jarmo]

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

The suggestion to delay the spotting information is good in theory, but it penalizes legit sightings that could and should be shown right away (i.e. a jeep popping up in front of an unbuttoned Panther from the German PoV). The problem with the theory is that somehow CM will know when to hit you with a penalty and when not to. Sorry, there isn't a way to do this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, a standard disclaimer:

CM is the best game ever.

Then to clarify my thought.

The way I thought it could work, is to not always give a

spotting delay. It would be done at the end of calculations.

If a unit that was the only one to see a certain enemy

would be killed soon after noticing the enemy, the information

gathered of the enemy would be tossed away and not presented.

Now, this wouldn't be a perfect solution, or a one that could

be done just by changing some value somewhere.

And I wouldn't expect it in CM1.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Smoker1]

I don't think Henri's Puma maneuver described above falls into the same category at all. The Puma has armor and a formidable gun (at least to a Sherman). The Puma and other heavy AC's can fight what they find. A jeep on the other hand is highly vulnerable to virtually anything the enemy throws against it with no offensive capabilties of its own.

We cannot go so far as to say, "If it's not a tank, TD, or infantry it cannot make bold forays into the unknown". I don't like to find AT guns, ambushes, etc. with expensive armor if I can avoid it. The ACs have a dangerous job if assigned to me. They will go first into the unknown. Somebody's gotta do it.

Smoker

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Jarmo,

This is impossible to do in CM right now. What you are thinking of is what we call "relative spotting". That is to say, each unit knows what it has/hasn't spotted. Right now CM uses what we call "absolute spotting", which means once a unit spots something it is spotted. There is absolutely no sense of if anybody has spotted the unit before or after on a unit by unit basis.

Relative spotting is something we had wanted to get into CMBO. Unfortunately, it is more complicated thing than it might look like at first. Each unit would only be able to see/shoot at units that it was aware of. This means lots and lots of spotting calculations going on all the time even though units have already been spotted. It also means that there has to be some sort of user interface to distinguish between units spotted by other units and units spotted by the currently selected unit. If I thought back to when we realized this was too much to bite off for the first version I am sure I could remember a few other significant reasons why we didn't go with relative spotting right away

Bottom line is that we can, and at some point will, have relative spotting. But with all the "molds" that CM broke, and the years of coding that went with it, we felt that this fundamental change was just one too many. So at the moment I would say that CM does a better job with C&C/Intel than any other wargame out there now, but it could be made better in the future. So it will be

Steve

[Tom Callmeyer]

1) This tactic is not typically employed by soldiers in the field. Even if you can find some precedent for it, it's ahistorical. Most engagements were historically not opened with little fast unarmored units wizzing through enemy territory

2) At least use a recon unit.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Henri,

I couldnt agree with you more about this being a grey area. There is no hard fast rule for what is appropriate, but I have developed my own opinions about certain practices taken to the extreme. Most people can determine highly ahistorical tactics when they see them.

A jeep with a 50 cal will cost you 17. Some people might figure that 17 points is a worth exposing enemy firing positions. All units in the field are expendable, and there will always be someone on "point". I dont dispute that at all.

But when I see in practice multiple jeeps driving through kill zones with no regard for their own safety, attempting to trade their life for exposing firing positions, it bugs me. Now even worse is when someone buys a "wolfpack of jeeps" and drives all over the map like a cowboy. (yeeeeha!!)

Now I am not telling anyone they can't play this way if they prefer, but it isn't the kind of game I am looking for. Now with that Puma, you were risking something more than 17 points, and it sounds like they were employed with some regard for their own life.

But, if people come to some agreement, and get to know each other for pbem, this is going to be a non-issue... lets all have fun.

[:USERNAME:]

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

Hi Jarmo,

This is impossible to do in CM right now. What you are thinking of is what we call "relative spotting". That is to say, each unit knows what it has/hasn't spotted. Right now CM uses what we call "absolute spotting", which means once a unit spots something it is spotted. There is absolutely no sense of if anybody has spotted the unit before or after on a unit by unit basis.

Each unit would only be able to see/shoot at units that it was aware of. This means lots and lots of spotting calculations going on all the time even though units have already been spotted. It also means that there has to be some sort of user interface to distinguish between units spotted by other units and units spotted by the currently selected unit. If I thought back to when we realized this was too much to bite off for the first version I am sure I could remember a few other significant reasons why we didn't go with relative spotting right away

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

I will again say that I dont see why you didnt implement this DURING the ORDERS phase. Its hit on CPU cycles wouldnt matter. And this is the time where gamey players ABUSE the telepathic abilities. Its effect on realism would be stupendous and would probably help the AI for all you know. It would save mankind as we know it.

Its relative man, completely , like, you know, relative..

Is this not clear? Am I making too much sense? Are you just being intentionally obtuse?

Love

Lewis

[Mannheim Tanker]

Maybe I'm being obtuse, Lewis, since I don't exactly understand what you mean about implementing this during the orders phase. Could you please elaborate?

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

...Damn the Kubelwagen from hell!! - Von Brizee

[Vanir]

I still don't see why the defender can't purchase his own recon screen to counter. Counter recon is one of the main rolls of recon.

Maybe BTS should have left recon units out of CM entirely, as it seems the best way to use them effectively is gamey. Whats the point of even buying them? What good are they for?

It seems to me the distinction of "if they duck in and out of cover while zooming around my lines it's not gamey, otherwise it is" is rather arbitrary and more than a little subjective.

But, whatever... Play with people who see the world as you do and everyone will be happy, I guess.

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

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

[Los]

"I still don't see why the defender can't purchase his own recon screen to counter. Counter-recon is one of the main rolls of recon."

Exactly! A player who has not thought out and planned for counter-reconnasaince when setting up his defense, HAS NOT PROPERLY PREPARED HIS DEFENSE. If he has planned for counter-recon then this gamey tactic will go the way of all others, bitch-slapped out of existence.

It is a bull**** tactic though....

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis, I can only be obtuse if you don't actually read (and dare I say THINK about) what I wrote. So let's try again, shall we?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bottom line is that we can, and at some point will, have relative spotting. But with all the "molds" that CM broke, and the years of coding that went with it, we felt that this fundamental change was just one too many. So at the moment I would say that CM does a better job with C&C/Intel than any other wargame out there now, but it could be made better in the future. So it will be<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, after rereading what I wrote above (and in more detail the last time this was written up), what part of this do you find hard to comprend? In the real world of game development major, fundamental shifts require a lot of planning, coding, testing, tweaking, recoding, rethinking, coding, testing, etc. With all the other major shifts away from standard wargames, not to mention the technical challenges of making a 3D engine, we felt that relative spotting was one too many bites to chew off the first time around.

Yes, it is a good idea. Yes, it would add to realism in a huge way without messing up the game (if done right). But that doesn't mean it is practical to do along with all the other things.

As I said, we felt that since CM is more realistic in the C&C/Intel areas than other wargames, going the full nine yards would add significant delays and production headaches ("unknown factors" rearing their ugly little heads in anger) that it was just too much for the first time around.

If there is any part of this you didn't understand, I will try again to explain it to you. Or perhaps someone else can translate this obtuse statement and save me the time

Steve