Gamey Recon Technique?

[aka_tom_w]

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

Ceeeripes this thread is becoming absurd. I think Foobar hit the nail right on the head. .......

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.

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that pretty much means I didn't get that full time position I was applying for as the "Gamey Tactics Specialist" in the Dept. of the Devil's Advocate?

oh well, I'm only a little let down

but the Ranting won't stop And I'll still be happy to look for and point out loopholes that gamey tactics specialist will like to exploit.

(its sort of a hobby for me)

I think I can hear a thread calling out my name...

post here

post here

now on to that "opinions needed" thread

sounds like a good place to discuss solutions

-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 09-28-2000).]

[Banshee]

Let's not get off the REAL subject here:

Is Smoker still getting emailed everytime someone posts?

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Jarmo]

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

Let's not get off the REAL subject here:

Is Smoker still getting emailed everytime someone posts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably not..

[Mannheim Tanker]

Hehe...smoker, have a cigarette and calm down. If your opponents felt you were using gamey tactics, I'm sure they would tell you. I think most HWG types ONLY have problems with those tactics that are BLATANTLY gamey...

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

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

[Guest tero]

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

I'm still wading through the 400-some posts since I last looked in.

>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,

There was a film released a few years ago called Rukajärven Tie (I forget the title it was released in the English speaking countries) where a bicycle recce team was sent way behind enemy lines in the gamey jeep recce style. First I thought it was bogus but I then read how Finnish vets said the scenario was not unrealistic at all.

I do agree the Borg style reporting in CM is less than realistic but the tactic itself IS feasible and realistic.

>and above all... common sense.

During my 11 month service in the Finnish army I learned common sense and the military have little in common.

One must not forget that back then, during WWII, there was no CNN tallying up kills and losses at the end of the day, making it look bad if you got some men killed in an operation of relative insignificant military value.

[Guest tero]

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

Agreed. But what DID happen in "real life" was: friendlies heard the shots and if they were any good they ID'd the approximate direction the sound of the firing was coming from and they ID'd MG34 and 42's, Kar98K's, mortars and different types of guns (high velocity tank/AT guns, 88's, infantry cannons etc) being fired from the sound contacts.

They did not learn exact locations but they did make out the types of arms being in the neighbourhood and their approximate direction.

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

No. That is cheating. Or more precisely using a bug as a cheat. Reasoning: the bug you mentioned was affecting only indirect fire weapons. The bug being discussed affects fundamentaly ALL spotting in essence. Why single out only jeeps when you can get the same results using ANY unit in a Hail Mary style pass ?

[Banshee]

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

Probably not.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dagnabbit! Now life holds no joy for me..

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Smoker1]

Yes Banshee, I'm still getting emailed when this thread is posted to. The only way to stop it I think is to erase all the BF cookies from my drive. Preferences and profile offer no way to do it. I will erase the cookies when it hits 600. I'll bet it won't go that far. Until then, enjoy a good chuckle at my expense.

Smoker out.

[Banshee]

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

Yes Banshee, I'm still getting emailed when this thread is posted to. The only way to stop it I think is to erase all the BF cookies from my drive. Preferences and profile offer no way to do it. I will erase the cookies when it hits 600. I'll bet it won't go that far. Until then, enjoy a good chuckle at my expense.

Smoker out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes!! Life is good!

You know I'm just messing around with you smoker, and deleting cookies wouldn't help not getting emails. I was rather surprised to see that you couldnt disable the feature in preferences. Back in my EQ days someone did the same thing and that thread went past 3000 in less than a month!

So consider yourself lucky, it could be worse! Time to start learning how to configure rules for your email program!!

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Grognerd_Fogman]

Heya there Smoker my friend. You know for sure you at least have one PBEM'r who loves your style. If someone would choose not to play you because of s**t list violations, then whey would be missing the experience of playing with one of the most funniest and witty people I've ever had the pleasure of playing with. Nothing you have ever done has upset me in the slightest, with the exception of the lopsided final gamey score! You're even funner then the online golfers I used to play with...lol. But seriously, if you ever have trouble getting a good game going, i'm here for ya. We could even do multiple games at the same time. Just think how fast you could climb the ladders!! Hoping to cheer ya up...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Henri]

I hate to sound like a defender of the jeep recon, but I was just reading how one class of British jeeps was equipped with 3 machineguns, two of which were Vickers double-barreled machineguns. Now I wonder why they needed that to carry food and medecine behind the lines? I guess I should go ask members of "Popsky's Army", who were part of the British long-range recon force equipped only with jeeps and trucks, and who went about ambushing German convoys

Someone shoulda told 'em that was "gamey", and if I had been the Germans, I would have refused to play with them...

Henri

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Henri. I KNOW that you can tell the difference. You just want to debate for the sake of debating.

There are situations where jeeps would move beyound the front line, but I challenge you to find an example of a jeep leading the charge of a front line combat situation, so that he could expose enemy firing positions with his certain death.

The phrase "pull your head out" comes to mind, but I wont go there, as we are all trying to be friendly.

[Mikeydz]

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

Why single out only jeeps when you can get the same results using ANY unit in a Hail Mary style pass ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are jeeps being singled out?

1st. The initial message used a jeep as the example vehicle type.

2nd. Because of an error in judgement, BTS set the speed to high for jeeps when moving at fast move off road.

3rd. Because of the speed error, it makes it very hard to kill at jeep if the player lays out an extended set of waypoints that zig-zag, and spiral around, so as to avoid the jeep stopping and having a command delay.

These are the Jeep specific issues. Other issues that were brought up, which apply to all vehicles...

1. Borg spotting.

2. Units moving at fast move had thier spotting ability set to high.

So yes, any vehicle could be used, but the jeep was singled out in this example because when you combine it's speed, and cost, it's the best vehicle to carry out this tactic.

[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 09-28-2000).]

[Henri]

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

Henri. I KNOW that you can tell the difference. You just want to debate for the sake of debating.

You have a right to your opinion.

There are situations where jeeps would move beyound the front line, but I challenge you to find an example of a jeep leading the charge of a front line combat situation, so that he could expose enemy firing positions with his certain death.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that most messages that proclaim the impossibility of some action or other (usually related to recon on this thread) have part of the sentence pointing out the INTENTION of the player carrying out the action.

Although I am not a defender of the jeep recon, as I have pointed out many times, I feel compelled to point out the indefensibility of claims that any specific action was never done in WW2.

As to pointing out any specific occurence of anything, this thread has amply shown that any such proof is immediately dismissed as "out of context", usually with a qualifier that if I can't see the difference, I am either stupid or a troll.

Back to the main point, any game prescription that involves one player making a judgment about the INTENTIONS of his opponent is ridiculous, because no one can judge the intentions of another person. This is compounded by the fact that in the example that you mention, the "gamey" player's intention is not to get his vehicle killed, but to gather recon information. Not to mention the fact that most of the vehicle crews are NOT killed when the vehicle is destroyed.

So to put the discussion back on keel, the real issue is not the player's intentions, but whether or not some specific vehicle movement is historically correct, and whether or not gameplay should be constrained by what is deemed by some or most to be historically correct or incorrect.

Although Popsky's Army is a special case, it IS a historical case, and it clear to me that if some of the suggestions regarding slowing down jeeps and making them unsuitable for recon were implemented, it would disallow scenarios simulating Popskys attacks on protected convoys using jeeps.

As I have said before, I have never used jeeps for deep recon myself (and I don't know anyone that has -the true practical issue regards the use of armored vehicles) because there are other vehicles that are more suitable in the game, but I am getting a bit weary of the jeep being used as a whipping boy, and my point is that EVEN for jeeps, one should never say never.

Henri

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

I am open minded about this. I want to see the most logical outcome, Henri.

Your excerpt from the book does not sound like a Front Line combat engagement, which is what CM is designed to simulate.

Show me an example of gamey jeep suicide recon on an established front line ever happening. Even if we overlook the Borg spotting issue, and even if you pull out some 1 in a million incident of it happening, it is not the norm, which again, is what CM is trying to simulate.

[Henri]

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

Even if we overlook the Borg spotting issue, and even if you pull out some 1 in a million incident of it happening, it is not the norm, which again, is what CM is trying to simulate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we are very close to agreement, and I respect BTS' attempts to make the game as realistic as possible; but why should only battles that satisfy some kind of "norm" be allowed? Good WW2 commanders in WW2 were those who could continually befuddle their opponents by deviating from the norm, such as when Rommel in Africa drove his force between two British forces against every principle of war; he had correctly guessed that the British would be so surprised by this unorthodox maneuver that he would have time to take on one flank at a time, and he turned out to be right, as in most cases.

It seems to me that enforcing some kind of norm in CM is a guarantee that every battle will turn into a slugfest (despite my good intentions, it turns out that most if not all of my pbem battles turn out to be slugfests, with me on the losing end )

Henri

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but why should only battles that satisfy some kind of "norm" be allowed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its just the fact that they have to draw the line somewhere. No matter how many aspects of warfare they try to simulate, there will always be others that dont get touched on. To do anything well, you have to focus in on it, and concentrate your efforts.

I would rather see an very well designed, frontline combat simulation, than see a average or seriously flawed game that tries to simulate frontline combat, covert operations, raids on convoys.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Good WW2 commanders in WW2 were those who could continually befuddle their opponents by deviating from the norm, such as when Rommel in Africa drove his force between two British forces against every principle of war;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unexpected and wild tactics I encourage, as long as they dont take intentional advantage of the absolute spotting nature in CM. Absolute Spotting is one of the only things you have to be wary of in CM. Other than this aspect, it is mostly anything goes. The rest of the CM simulation will hold up to the most severe attempts to abuse the game engine, while still giving you realistic results.

I dont think you are limited in CM by these "house rules". There is a world of tactics and ideas waiting to be explored.

I totally believe in trying new things, and unexpected tactics while playing CM. BUT, I am interested in seeing results that would be probable in real life. This desire, for me, overrides the desire to see CM be everything to everyone.

[aka_tom_w]

Still this is a great thread.

I was a little busy over the weekend.

Sorry I could not post or stay up to date with the forum.

If any of you are curious as to what I was up to in my real life™ check out this web page:

http://ecardview.hallmark.com/hmkcard/CardManager?Tr=ShowCard&id=EG5114-411528-3218074

(you will likely have to wait more than a few minutes for it to load)

in the place where the guy watches TV just imagine me with my powerbook in my lap playing CM.

I only got one game in, but I did win

I beat the AI in Wild Bill's scenario around

the town of Wiltz. Its was great, took my mind off everything else.

I know this post is way off topic to this thread but all my cyber CM friends are here so I thought I would post here instead of making a new thread.

Thanks

I missed you all all weekend as there was no internet where I was.

-tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tero, that bicycle example sounds like long range recon. That happened quite often, but nobody bicycled through an active area of combat looking to see how many tanks and infantry he could spot before being shot off his bike.

All quotes following this are from Henri...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to pointing out any specific occurence of anything, this thread has amply shown that any such proof is immediately dismissed as "out of context", usually with a qualifier that if I can't see the difference, I am either stupid or a troll.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have never called you a troll, but the stuff you posted in support of your point WAS out of context. Or at the very least there was nothing in your examples to show that they were incontext.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Back to the main point, any game prescription that involves one player making a judgment about the INTENTIONS of his opponent is ridiculous, because no one can judge the intentions of another person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True to some degree, not to another. If someone always buys Jeeps and always sends them off to their deaths, I think the intentions are pretty clear WHY the player is doing this. A one off Jeep wandering too close to the frontline is not in and itself something that can be judged.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So to put the discussion back on keel, the real issue is not the player's intentions, but whether or not some specific vehicle movement is historically correct, and whether or not gameplay should be constrained by what is deemed by some or most to be historically correct or incorrect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You obviously missed the whole page discussing this issue of mobility off road. The point was that CM currently allows an unrealistic offroad speed, which has nothing to do with spotting or recon. It is simply WRONG. No light vehicle of WWII vintage (or perhaps even today) can handle the offroad speed we allow. This was basically a mistake on our part, which we are going to fix.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although Popsky's Army is a special case, it IS a historical case,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is also out of context. These vehicles were sent through the lines to get into a non-combat zone (i.e. where infantry and heavy weapons were not deployed ready for a fight) and shoot up unsuspecting troops in the rear, then make a quick getaway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>..and it clear to me that if some of the suggestions regarding slowing down jeeps and making them unsuitable for recon were implemented, it would disallow scenarios simulating Popskys attacks on protected convoys using jeeps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What were the tactics used by these Jeeps? Driving at 20mph off road and shooting up the works. Or was it getting into an ambush position, shooting up the works, and then withdrawing while the enemy was in disarray? My guess is that it is the latter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but why should only battles that satisfy some kind of "norm" be allowed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because rare tactics were just that -> rare. There were reasons why this was the case, but most likely we can not simulate all the real world limitations. And the "gamey" type gamer will use anything that works everytime, even if it was only used in real life ONE time.

Back to my oldest example of drawing the line -> Bovine MG42 Sponge. There is a story of some US troops that couldn't cross a street because of a well emplaced MG42. They finally decided to try herding some cows out into the street for cover, then ran stooped over so that the cows were inbetween their path and the MG. It worked great (except for the cows) as they all got across the street in one piece. Now... where to draw the line? Well, let us say we put cows in the game as a unit. How often do you think we would see them used by players? Once, as was probably the historical reality, or so often that people would stop playing CM until we had them removed? I'd bet my life it would be the latter

One thing that ASL has been criticized for is having too many little options without real world constrants. This led to a rich pallet for the "gamey" player to draw from. In other words, the more little things that are in the game, the more the imagination of the player (which is UNBOUND by reality) has at its disposal. And that is something we wish to avoid. If we wanted to make some sort of flexible puzzle game, we would have. Instead, we wanted to make a WWII wargame, so that is what we did.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Some first hand info on true offroad speeds (I already posted something like this, but here we go again...)

As many of you know I have a 1944 M29C Weasel. It has a killer suspension system that gives it one of the best offroad rides of the time. Its top speed is rated at 36mph. I have never been faster than about 15mph and I thought we were all going to die This was on a groomed snowmobile trail, which was smooth but not flat (i.e. lots of rises and dips, but no rough terrain). When I drive around in my "backyard" I have to go even slower (partly because of limited straight shot space) because this 'Open Terrain' I drive on is just like CM's. There are little dips, rocks, and uneven rises.

My point here is that the top speed of a Jeep is something like 55mph on a perfectly smooth, paved surface. Every detraction from that perfect surface lowers the realworld top speed. The fact that it has a 4 wheeled suspension, unline my Weasel's excellent tracked one, makes it even harder to drive at top speeds off the perfect track. So reducing the off road speed in CM is simply corecting a mistake about real world capabilities.

If anybody wishes to debate this, I suggest either finding a source that quotes exact MPH on very carefully described terrain, or alternately taking a modern Jeep off road somewhere and seeing how fast you can go without flipping over (something Jeeps had to be worried about).

Steve

[Henri]

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

If anybody wishes to debate this, I suggest either finding a source that quotes exact MPH on very carefully described terrain, or alternately taking a modern Jeep off road somewhere and seeing how fast you can go without flipping over (something Jeeps had to be worried about).

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have said on a number of occasions that if the speeds of any vehicle are not historically correct, then they should be corrected, and I don't know anyone here who disagrees with that; I HAVE expressed reservations about slowing them down more than that with the specific purpose of discouraging so-called gamey tactics, on the grounds that it could unbalance scenarios in favor of the defender in some cases.

Some people HAVE suggested doing the latter, although Steve seems to be saying that they will correct ONLY to make the speeds realistic (i.e. to correct a "bug"). I don't have a problem with that and as far as I know no one else does, so I don't know why it is brought up all the time.

As for Steve's statement that he "suspects" that Popsky's jeeps were only used in stationary ambushes, I don't have any documentation, so I can't really say since I don't have any documentation on the question, but I suspect the opposite...Popsky's tactics must be documented somewhere.

Henri

[ahauschild]

Well, i can tell you from my younger offroading days, you would never drive a Jeep at speeds of 55 miles across any kind of non prepared terrain. We had a area that we offroaded quiet often, (Had a CJ5, 6banger) and i can tell you that even after i knew every bump, turn and gopher hole in that area, i would hardly ever go faster then around 15 to 20 mph. After that the little CJ5 would just start rattling appart. We would lose our six packs in the back, our dates in the front and our lunch in our lap. I have lost my windshield twice and i am convinced that if you used a Army Jeep at even these speeds every day for recon, you would have to rebuild it after a week of recon. (or at least have a guy go over it with a wrench and tighten every lose screw on the damn thing) Wheeled vehicles, and vehicles that are light, are actuly great for offroad, if you limit your speed. If you have to go fast, you are much better of with a heavy tracked vehicle.

I recomend that anybody that is using the Jeep in the game for such types of recon, should be strapped to the hood of a real jeep, and driven around at speed 55 on a freshly dug potato field. I am sure he will never again use this tactic, he may never again be able to do anyting.

[CavScout]

It is really simple... if you had the same force in the real world would you emply them as you do in the game. Or do you employ them in the game that way because of what the game engine gives you in return.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Well, i can tell you from my younger offroading days, you would never drive a Jeep at speeds of 55 miles across any kind of non prepared terrain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell doing that in HMMWV is rough. We use HMMWVs in recon and going at speed over anything but flat terrain is bad on the body, sucks to be the gunner.

Cav

[Los]

Haven't been reading this for a while since anything worthwhile was stated long ago (no reason to change that opinion from what I've read lately) but just couldn't help peeking in:

"There was a film released a few years ago called Rukajärven Tie."

I know this is off topic but having seen "Winter War" (arguably the best war movie EVER made) I'm dying to see more Finnish war movies. Any suggestions?

"During my 11 month service in the Finnish army I learned common sense and the military have little in common."

No arguaing that normal garrison army-life in every country is strife with "chiken****" however when it comes to tactical employment of troops in combat, common sense is virtually a Newtonian physical law, with death being the reward for failure to adhere. Please don't confuse tohe two.

And finally Henri's post do make for continued amusement. (In a slapstick kinda way like when a guy drops a paintcan on his own head) Being unable or unwilling to see the difference between LRDG type operations and tactical battlefield reconnasaince is fairly profound, or pointing out operational manuevers such as Rommel performed out in the desert where dozen's of miles may seperate enemy battle positions is pretty funny. (Or is it the fact that he refuses to see the difference between the two?)

Los

"Don't wrestle in the mud with a pig, because you both get dirty and the pig likes it!".