Gamey Recon Technique?

[:USERNAME:]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Manny

Sure. During the orders phase you click on a unit. All enemy units are then calculated according to his LOS. Its not a performance hit like it is during the movie phase.

It would make the orders more realistic. Steve probably realises this now in hindsight very acutely. Get it? obtuse? acutely? I just amaze myself.

But its a fundamental game change so he puts up a big front. It should have been thought of. Its still kind of a cool idea.

Lewis

[Hamstersss]

Ahem, Steve is saying,

"This feature will be implemented in CM2 so bugger off and go argue about something else!!!!!"

Too obtuse? Not enough cardboard?

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

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[:USERNAME:]

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

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

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.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

As long as there is joyriding and 300 meter ambush limitations, why would I need realism?

I thinks that alot of the needed code is already present in the game. That is, it would not be the big fuss you say. Its apparent that something similar is already used anyway. Just limit it to the unit getting orders. Redo it for the next unit selected. Jeeesh! Id wait 10-20 milliseconds. The movie execution phase could be the same as ever. Its the human I want to limit (and you harp about limiting the human anyway) so what part dont you get?

With fond regards

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I guess your game will get it right from the get go, so why does it matter to you?

We thought of this issue over 2 years ago. We designed, over many good beers and many notes on napkins, a very well thought out system. But as usual, you totally underestimate the implications that such a radical departure from standard gaming can produce. We had PLENTY of such issues already inherent in the system and even more that were added as we went. We therefore felt that there was a risk of messing up the whole thing because we had one too many big deals to work through. You obviously can't understand this because you have never done a game before and have constantly shown a total lack of understanding about how difficult it is to make an idea come into reality in the game. Oh if only real life were like a bulldozer...

I say again, CM's C&C/Intel treatment is better than any other wargame out there. So you complain all you want about it not being as good as it can be in theory, but the fact remains that even though we didn't do up a system like this we have delivered a superior product in this one area (forgetting all the others) compared to what else is out there. I'm not sorry if that isn't good enough for you and make no appologies for the way the game is.

Steve

[Guest tero]

I still think that a commander can order his troops to do what ever is necessary to do the job. Including getting killed on the job. Callous ? Perhaps, but that is the way the cookie crumbles. If a commander decides to beak a few eggs to make the omelette it is his decision. If the troops survive so much the better for him.

I personally use pickets to counter probes like this. SOP to secure flanks and guard the area of operations. When I know they are coming I can plan counterstrikes and ambushes. And in the game these jeeps are not worth the effort pointwise. If they carry the 50cals I make an effort but if not I will leave them be.

(On a related note: I think all infantry units should be hiding by default when not moving. It should be a permanent state, not selectable.)

One designers way to to combat this "cheat" is to make all ultra fast soft skinned vehicles (even more) ultra brittle. Or take away some of their cross country speed. Or to make firing at them more accurate.

Anyone tried the same tactics with the German Kübelwagen ? Or is this "feature" only related to the "improper" use of Allied vehicles ?

Could this "cheat" be combated with a simple order that is now missing:

Hold Fire

With a distance thrown in you will not engage targets beyond OR closer than certain, set distance inadvertantly. Separate distance inhibitors for main gun and MG's so you could engage a target close in with MG only while the main gun will not be used.

Also Do Not Engage <target class or specific target in LOS> order could alleviate this problem along with a number of other targeting related problems.

[CavScout]

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

I still think that a commander can order his troops to do what ever is necessary to do the job. Including getting killed on the job. Callous ? Perhaps, but that is the way the cookie crumbles. If a commander decides to beak a few eggs to make the omelette it is his decision. If the troops survive so much the better for him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A commander can "order" anything but the question is would the soldier follow it. Soldiers are highly unlikly to follow a "suicide" order unless under a very dire circumstances.

Cav

[Dr Dan]

Hey everybody, calm down, enjoy the game, Gamey or not .

O.K. Steve, what I really want to know, if you don't mind my asking, is

Where the heck do you get G.I. Joe without Kung-Fu grip as Lewis mentioned earlier in this thread? And...will he (Joe, that is) be included in the add-on pack for the game?

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-19-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

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

We thought of this issue over 2 years ago. We designed, over many good beers and many notes on napkins, a very well thought out system. But as usual, you totally underestimate the implications that such a radical departure from standard gaming can produce. We had PLENTY of such issues already inherent in the system and even more that were added as we went. We therefore felt that there was a risk of messing up the whole thing because we had one too many big deals to work through. You obviously can't understand this because you have never done a game before and have constantly shown a total lack of understanding about how difficult it is to make an idea come into reality in the game. Oh if only real life were like a bulldozer...

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres two issues on relative spotting:

1. Your desire to use it during the execution or movie phase

2. My desire to at least see it during the orders phase.

Now 1. might need alot of beer and napkins but 2. doesnt seem so to me. Thats my point.

I didnt ask for apologies. Bulldozers and real time digital control are used in real life. CM is a simulation.

I can understand that many projects get carried away and simple things get lost in the shuffle. Hindsight and wisdom could maybe help here.

Lewis

[Ben Galanti]

I guess I'm being obtuse here, Lewis. But can you explain how you picture this working? I must have missed the other thread where it came up...

Are you saying that during the orders phase, that if you had no units clicked on, you would see no enemy units, and then if you selected a unit, you would only see the enemy units that that unit would see? I guess I'm just askign for a little more detail as to what you are suggesting. Thanks.

Ben

[Philistine]

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

Theres two issues on relative spotting:

1. Your desire to use it during the execution or movie phase

2. My desire to at least see it during the orders phase.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe I'm missing something, but what good would having relative spotting do if it was only during the orders phase? As soon as execution starte, the TAC AI would suddenly "see" all of the units which were not spotted by it before.

Also new contacts that took place during the middle of a turn that were being fired upon would suddenly "disappear" at the end of a turn.

While I'd love to see relative spotting, I don't think BTS should try to kludge together some sort of half-system like you are suggesting. I'm content to wait for it to make its appearance in CMn.

--Philistine

[Mannheim Tanker]

Tero: Apparently, you've missed the point of several of the posts above, including one from BTS. Obviously, a commander can "order anything he wants to"...this isn't the point of the discussion! The arguement is that in real life, certain things wouldn't have been ordered, because real life doesn't work like certain things in the game. In real life, your scouts can't telepathically report back to each soldier in their unit. Hence, this tactic would seldom be used under real circumstances. If you want to take advantage of the game system to circumvent legitimate tactics, that's fine if you're opponent agrees to it. Nobody has said that it shouldn't be done. The consensus is that it's a gamey tactic - and that's it. You can use, and I won't. Case closed. I don't understand why people think that people with different opinions on something have to be "wrong". This is a case where both schools of though can coexist...just not in the same PBEM.

In the end, I think BTS has done a great job with the game...and it will remain a great game regardless of whether relative spotting is reworked in CM2.

[Mannheim Tanker]

I forgot to mention this in my post. Mounting "counter recon tactics" misses the point many of us are making. Legitimate counter recon tactics address countering real world recon tactics - NOT gamey ones. If my opponents mad jeep squads couldn't telepathically communicate with their unit, I wouldn't worry about them.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

Are you saying that during the orders phase, that if you had no units clicked on, you would see no enemy units, and then if you selected a unit, you would only see the enemy units that that unit would see? I guess I'm just askign for a little more detail as to what you are suggesting. Thanks.

Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main point is that during the orders phase the HUMAN has all his UNITS sharing telepathic LOS. The HUMAN can then target enemy units that his individual unit wouldnt normally see.

Example: Human selects his pinned depleted half squad. Realistically this guy wouldnt see squat. But since there are other friendlys in the area sharing eyeball info, he can target units with this guy far and wide.

The game would always have to have to default to a friendly unit during the orders phase. Thats a good point. My game uses the HQ as the default BTW.

Steve wants to take the omniescient human out of the loop but wants to think it up himself. Fine by me.

Lewis

[tss]

CavScout wrote:

A commander can "order" anything but the question is would the soldier follow it. Soldiers are highly unlikly to follow a "suicide" order unless under a very dire circumstances.

Actually, they will follow suicidal orders surprisingly often. I have read _many_ accounts where men were ordered to do something stupid and they actually tried to do it.

One of the worst examples was when a Finnish captain didn't want to delay his advance by waiting for artillery to catch up and decided to attack across a kilometer-wide marsh. After the first attempt to cross it had ended in a spectacular failure. Even after being explicitly ordered not to do it.

Guess what, his men followed him across the marsh even though they all knew that there would be a big trouble on the other side. The company lost about 100 men there. The worst thing about this event was that the captain was not court-martialled.

- Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

As you have often done in the past, you do not try and find the flaws in your own ideas. Then, when people point out the flaws, you side step them. You also like to paint any criticism of your ideas as being "obtuse" or in some other way irrelevant without actually making a counter case for the point raised.

As game designers, Charles and I do not have the luxury of doing this since our work is something that people actually play and comment on, while yours is limited to words on an electronic BBS.

Philistine posted this little bit that you haven't responded to:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe I'm missing something, but what good would having relative spotting do if it was only during the orders phase? As soon as execution starte, the TAC AI would suddenly "see" all of the units which were not spotted by it before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is oh so true. The TacAI would take over and largely negate any limitations imposed on the player during the Orders Phase. In fact, the incentive for the player to not issue targeting orders during the Orders Phase would increase, thus allowing the TacAI even more flexibility.

Even if there were NO problems putting relative spotting into just the Orders Phase and not the game as a whole (which is actually not the case, but whatever...) it would be practically useless. It would also be a bastardized, half implemented system that would not address the fundamental realism issue. Again, you have the luxury of coming up with ideas that work perfectly in your head, we do not.

As for hindsight... I think we made the right decision to not include relative spotting in the first game. It is all well and fine for you to look at the game now and say "gee, you could have put it in there" but we did not know that 2 years ago when the decision had to be made. In fact, we often wondered if we would even finish the game and make a living off of it. So to a johny come lately outsider with no vested interest can't possibly judge our decisions. We made a good call for CM1 but would obviously like to do things differently in the future. But I can assure you it won't be halfassed...

Steve

[Guest tero]

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

A commander can "order" anything but the question is would the soldier follow it. Soldiers are highly unlikly to follow a "suicide" order unless under a very dire circumstances.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and no. You assume that the soldiers KNOW it is a 0% survival rate mission. And you assume that the soldiers have an option of disobeying a direct order. Morale is the fundamental issue. They can opt to go "missing" or lose radio contact after they have received their orders and have sped of to the sunset. They may even go AWOL altogether. But the military justice system will make it clear how the cookie crumbles then.

All who have served in the military know for a fact what going AWOL or showing cowardice in the face of the enemy mean in terms of court martial sentences. Mostly death sentences or VERY long prison terms with dishonourable discharge that marks them for life.

Doing less than 100% is less risky but you have to face your buddies afterwards that might have suffered heavily because you chose not to follow orders.

It is a vicious circle and the only way to avoid them is to follow the damn orders and hope the commander is not after a medal or otherwise incompetent. The grunts have really no options but to sit in the middle and suck on it.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tero,

I think the difference here is between a dangerous order and one that is blatently suicidal. The former is SOP for the poor saps in question, the latter is grounds for a court martial for the officer who made the order.

Driving one Jeep into enemy territory to scout things out is SOP. If the area is known to be hot, this is borderline acceptable, but dire circumstances could make it more rational and propper. But allocating a half dozen Jeeps and a dozen men in order to drive around willy nilly in search of mines, enemy tanks, and infantry concentrations is, without a question of a doubt, the kind of order that would get the officer hauled before the military justice system you mentioned, tried, found guilty of several serious charges, stripped of rank, and (if lucky) reassigned to a rear unit. Firing squad if really unlucky

Since the only way to simulate this is to let the player do it ONCE, then magically remove CM from his possession, give him an accounting software package in its place, and bar him from playing CM (or any other wargame for that matter) ever again. Because we can't do this it doesn't change the validity of the tactic. Instead, people like me lable wildly running around assets like this as "gamey". Because that is what it is

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-19-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

Yes and no. You assume that the soldiers KNOW it is a 0% survival rate mission.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Take your jeep and drive all around the enemy's front and draw fire so we know where they. You are not to seek cover, defend yourself or quit. Just keep doing it untill you are dead."

That is about what the "gamey recon" is basically doing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And you assume that the soldiers have an option of disobeying a direct order.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soldiers always do. Is that why we hung those folks at Nuremberg?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Morale is the fundamental issue. They can opt to go "missing" or lose radio contact after they have received their orders and have sped of to the sunset. They may even go AWOL altogether. But the military justice system will make it clear how the cookie crumbles then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or more likely just seek cover once they draw their first fire.

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

All who have served in the military know for a fact what going AWOL or showing cowardice in the face of the enemy mean in terms of court martial sentences. Mostly death sentences or VERY long prison terms with dishonourable discharge that marks them for life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are drifting off-topic.

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

Doing less than 100% is less risky but you have to face your buddies afterwards that might have suffered heavily because you chose not to follow orders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've never seen pictures of a dozen guys trying to hide behind one piece of cover instead of moving forward? Never heard of soldiers remaining in place behind the only cover they thought was around, ignoring the orders to advance.

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

It is a vicious circle and the only way to avoid them is to follow the damn orders and hope the commander is not after a medal or otherwise incompetent. The grunts have really no options but to sit in the middle and suck on it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply B.S. No soldier in his right mind is going to waste their life just to "follow orders". Hell, even the Germans had whole units disobey orders from Hitler.

Cav

[Guest tero]

>Obviously, a commander can "order anything he wants to"...this isn't the point of the discussion!

I think it is in the core of this whole dilemma.

>The arguement is that in real life, certain things wouldn't have been ordered, because real life doesn't work like certain things in the game.

And vice versa. Yes. The best thing you get should be an approximation (NOT abstraction) of real life in the game. And that includes individual characteristrics of commanders. Not just the ones that are modelled in the game now. There could also be such qualifiers as bold, timid, cautious, even brave and coward. I think that these are now (rightly so) up to the human player to "set" with the style he playes. And here is where the thick plottens. Do people think it is gamey to use suicide tactics ? Should the aim to be to use American style long range heavy bombardment or VC style force hugging and other suicidal tactics that ensure high casualty rates for both sides.

Who defines what is gamey and what is not ? I for one can not blame an opponent for using tactics that involve using "built in" methods that are not directly derived from a clear bug.

>In real life, your scouts can't telepathically report back to each soldier in their unit.

That is the problem. But do the other units suddenly grow deaf when the enemy discharges their weapons out of loss when they know there was a friendly unit in that general direction ? And do they fail to distinquish between different models of small arms and cannons/guns ?

I think allowing sound contact ID'ing only for units out of CC would be the best answer to this dilemma.

>Hence, this tactic would seldom be used under real circumstances.

So why were LRRP's used by all sides during the war ? I do not mean just the ones that penetrated hundreds of kilometers behind the lines. Finnish forces at least conducted (foot infantry) recce patrols to the enemy rear while the battle was raging on a regular basis throughout the war.

>If you want to take advantage of the game system to circumvent legitimate tactics, that's fine if you're opponent agrees to it.

All is fair in love and war. Mind you, utilizing a clear, known bug does not count here.

>Nobody has said that it shouldn't be done.

That was not the impression I got.

>The consensus is that it's a gamey tactic - and that's it.

Consensus means all participants agree on the issue. I agree only partly.

>You can use, and I won't. Case closed. I don't understand why people think that people with different opinions on something have to be "wrong". This is a case where both schools of though can coexist...just not in the same PBEM.

Agreed. Are there "house rules" set up somewhere that PBEM games should adhere to ? If not BTS could/should collect them and post them on this site.

>In the end, I think BTS has done a great job with the game...and it will remain a great game regardless of whether relative spotting is reworked in CM2.

Can not be in disagreement on that one :-D

[Guest tero]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

>Mounting "counter recon tactics" misses the point many of us are making. Legitimate counter recon tactics address countering real world recon tactics - NOT gamey ones.

So, are you saying they are not effective against gamey tactics or one should counter gamey recon with gamey counter measures ?

>If my opponents mad jeep squads couldn't telepathically communicate with their unit, I wouldn't worry about them.

I think telepathy is not the real treath here. The real treath is of aural nature. The way I see it the real treath here are trigger happy forces who can not hit the barn door at 500 meters.

AND the units just will not stay hidden whatever they do. It is WAY too easy to spot supposedly concealed units at a distance. But that flaw affects also legitimate tactics so does that count here ?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Thanks for your comments, Tero. They are fairly accurate for the most part, but I'll have to disagree on the "follow orders or else" bit. While in the army, I often witnessed soldiers disobeying orders to a certain extent - hell, I'm even guilty of it. I'm not saying it's right, but it's reality.

As for your other comments, I think you ARE missing the point of this thread. The GENERAL consensus, to include BTS - which I think is an important element seeing as they've invested a great deal of thought in most of this - agrees that mad dashes with expendable units is gamey. End of story.

The rest of this thread has been comprised of posts argueing whether it is right or wrong to use gamey tactics. THIS MISSES THE POINT. As long as both parties agree to using it, who cares; and to fend off the next sticking point... you don't need a lawyer to set your terms. I always do so in about 3 sentences, and have not had any problems in ANY of my PBEM's once each player makes their wishes known to the other.

Now, y'all can debate whether it's right or wrong to use a gamey tactic til the cows come home. I think the bottom line is that it doesn't matter if the other party doesn't care.

Oh! To answer your question about whether a good defense isn't possible against this gamey tactic: yes, it IS possible, but I think it's a distraction from the enjoyment of the game (for me) to have to deal with my opponent abusing the game system rather than trying to beat me with real-world tactics. If he needs to resort to gamey tactics to beat me, I can still beat him - I'd just rather not play with him since it's less fun to "beat the system". All's fair in love and war, but this is a game in case you've forgotten I could kick someone in the balls in soccer, and it would help me win...but would it still be fair? LOL!

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Guest tero]

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

Tero,

I think the difference here is between a dangerous order and one that is blatently suicidal. The former is SOP for the poor saps in question, the latter is grounds for a court martial for the officer who made the order.

Driving one Jeep into enemy territory to scout things out is SOP. If the area is known to be hot, this is borderline acceptable, but dire circumstances could make it more rational and propper. But allocating a half dozen Jeeps and a dozen men in order to drive around willy nilly in search of mines, enemy tanks, and infantry concentrations is, without a question of a doubt, the kind of order that would get the officer hauled before the military justice system you mentioned, tried, found guilty of several serious charges, stripped of rank, and (if lucky) reassigned to a rear unit. Firing squad if really unlucky

Since the only way to simulate this is to let the player do it ONCE, then magically remove CM from his possession, give him an accounting software package in its place, and bar him from playing CM (or any other wargame for that matter) ever again. Because we can't do this it doesn't change the validity of the tactic. Instead, people like me lable wildly running around assets like this as "gamey". Because that is what it is

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-19-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How, for the sake of argument, will CM2 model the Soviet tactics of marching entire battalions on mine fields to clear them ? I design a beautiful defensive position with extensive minefields and interlocking fields of fire and my esteemed opponent ruins them with a few battalions of infantry AND penetrates my positions to boot. With a little help from his massive artillery barrage that suppresses my units for the crucial minutes when they march into my mine fields singing the Interational. Can I claim "gamey tactics" then just because I find such a waste of human life and resources distasteful ? Conversely, do you plan to make the use of aforementioned tactics impossible just because Amnesty International objects to them strongly ?

Dangerous SOP or suicidal when it gets the job done vs failure: Do/did they court martial a commander for reaching his objective(s) ahead of schedule, even if his casualty rates are/were above average (even murderous) ?

[Mannheim Tanker]

"Agreed. Are there "house rules" set up somewhere that PBEM games should adhere to ? If not BTS could/should collect them and post them on this site."

I don't believe they exist officially. There are some standards out there (eg Fionn's rule of 75's), but nothing in a formal list that I know of. I really see no need for one, as long as each side hear's the other side out before starting a game - which has led to only good games in my experience. There may be a need for certain rules in tournaments, but that's a different story.

[CavScout]

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

So why were LRRP's used by all sides during the war ? I do not mean just the ones that penetrated hundreds of kilometers behind the lines. Finnish forces at least conducted (foot infantry) recce patrols to the enemy rear while the battle was raging on a regular basis throughout the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a LRRP team does and what the jeeps were describe as doing are completly different animals. LRRP team wouldn't run around seeing if someone would shoot at them.

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

All is fair in love and war. Mind you, utilizing a clear, known bug does not count here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If all was fair in war, why'd we hang them Germans after the war?

Cav

[IntelWeenie]

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

Anyone tried the same tactics with the German Kübelwagen ? Or is this "feature" only related to the "improper" use of Allied vehicles ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FINALLY! The Kübelwagen DOES have a purpose!!

Oh, and

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right