CavScout Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: 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 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How would it be "gamey" if it based on historic/real-life methods? Having the Soviets do it would not be, having Americans do it would be. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 >They are fairly accurate for the most part, but I'll have to disagree on the "follow orders or else" bit. We must have a fundamental difference in the way we see the philosophy of this. Which is not bad. :-D >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. Yes. But then did you disobey in the combat zone or in the barracks ? BTW I have done my national service so I know the in's and outs or barracks life. I saw guys get penalized for trivial matters like sleeping on sentry duty. And I saw guys get away with it. >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. They are gamey because you can not keep your hidden units hidden in certain circumstances even if the opponent is using conventional, legitimate tactics. But that is a spotting/LOS issue that affects the whole game. I fail to see the gameyness of said tactics just because they are hair brained and potentionally costly. Mad dashes happenend in real life. Market Garden is a brilliant example of one. Troops were considered expandable. A fact of life. >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. I have seen "house rules" in other games. That is why I brought it up. I think that is not invoking the lawyers as such. >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. Can't say I disagree. >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. What if he bases his tactics on Herodotos, Thukydites, Sun Tsu or any of the other older ones and not on contemporary, "established" tactics approved by the Pentagon ? >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! What if he raised and kicked you back ? And got thrown out because the refree did not see you do it but saw his foul ? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 So basically, if you send a car to enemy territory expecting it to die, it's gamey. So if you don't expect it to die, it's not gamey? How about pre-emptive counterstrikes? I'm in a middle of one, having sent a strikeforce of AC's, backed up by something bigger, racing all around enemy territory doing loads of damage. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, what they said is that it depends; in his last message, Steve said clearly that using a single expendable vehicle for recon is NOT gamey. Anyway, BTS have a right to thjeir opinion like everyone else. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Jarmo, to answer your post, "No". I think you've missed the entire point. I can't debate something if you don't understand the posts. It could be that I'm not eloquent enough to express my argument, but I doubt that's the case since many others seem to have grasped it (even if they don't agree with it). My work here is done Edit: Spelling [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 09-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 >How would it be "gamey" if it based on historic/real-life methods? Having the Soviets do it would not be, having Americans do it would be. Are you saying the Americans never EVER walked into a minefield ? Hence all minefields should do no damage to any American unit traversing it ? My point: how do you distinquish when is it considered willfully intentional, willfully intentional with intent to use is for gamey practises or just plain accidental (with either fortunate or unfortunate results) ? I just can not see it gamey for a commander to conduct a deliberate penetration of suspected enemy positions, with whatever resources he has available, to find out if the enemy is there or not. Even if he does it repeatedly to the point where I get dizzy. It means also he risks running his units into hidden minefields, onto hidden enemy units and potential ambushes. Recce is what it is all about, finding out what the opponent has. Ruining the opponents plans is not prohibited, I think. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 I see What MTanker means. Henri is talking about recon. MTanker is talking about buying jeepmgs for 19 points. Placing them on available roads right away with fast move orders all over the road network. This WILL reveal the the enemy main body, direction,speed. If you're lucky you spot the heavy armor which gives you a jump on a tank battle before infantry can position. Vorgks greht in a meeting engagement. If you have a game with alot of points, 100 points on 'pigeons' is worth it. It is gamey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Who cares if a tactic is gamey, after all it is a game. ------------------ battlefront.com forum: "DO A SEARCH DO A SEARCH DO A SEARCH" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Thank you, Mister Bates! You get a gold star for today. I see that Iggi understood me too. BTW: Why haven't you accepted my authorization request yet on ICQ, Iggi (for Das Reich). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 I had deleted my ICQ since wwiionline is not out yet. I thought that there were too many things loading when I started my computer. I'll redownload icq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: > I just can not see it gamey for a commander to conduct a deliberate penetration of suspected enemy positions, with whatever resources he has available, to find out if the enemy is there or not. Even if he does it repeatedly to the point where I get dizzy. It means also he risks running his units into hidden minefields, onto hidden enemy units and potential ambushes. Recce is what it is all about, finding out what the opponent has. Ruining the opponents plans is not prohibited, I think. :-D <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A) IRL (note: In Real Life), Resources are finite, in the game they are "infinite", if you lose a unit right here , right now, it doesnt matter to the next QB or PBEM. "Recce is what is all about", yes, but with these unrealistic tactics you could only recce for one (small) battle, the next battle a click down the road, you'll have nothing, but the game doesn't reflect that (yeah yeah I know operations blah blah, the ratio of QB's and scenarios vs operations is huge). If you did this during an operation it would be somewhat less gamey because those forces would be unavailable to you in the next battle. So what I am saying is that you are taking advantage of the "slice in time" that the game is being played in, while the people on defense don't have that advantage because they have less forces than you and don't need gamey recon because you have to expose your forces to come after them anyways. The unrealstic spotting (necessitated by the game engine) makes the value of the jeep recon outweigh it's actual point value. C) The "terrain factor" , terrain is very smooth in CM which allows for great speeds of wheeled vehicles, IRL this is not the case, a smooth looking field is anything but driving over it. IMHO jeeps rockin at 40mph across the terrain is unrealistic, the guys would bounce out of their seats. Try taking a vehicle across a field of "open ground" and see how fast you can go. as I said before, yes it is VERY effective, but it is so effective because it takes "advantage" of the game engine not being able to model RL. Try using real recon tactics, it's much more rewarding. I think the "jeep tactic" is for people who can't handle the challenge. Just MHO. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Ok... here is the likely real world result of a Captain ordering 6 jeeps to their certain deaths, along with their 12 crews... Major - "Captain, did you take that hill this morning?" Captain - "I sure as Hell did!" Major - "OK, great. Now, where are all those Jeeps you convinced me to borrow from 2nd Battalion?" Captain - "All shot up sir" Major - "And their crews?" Captain - "Mostly dead or otherwise out of action sir." Major - "Good Lord! What happened to them?!?" Captain - "Well, I managed to hypnotize them to ignore all instincts for survival and bypassed all their training so that they could zip around behind enemy lines within meters of known enemy positions. They then telepathically sent their findings to me and I then ordered my company to act on that information" Major - "Sergeant! Place this loony toons under arrest!!" OK!!! So we'll forget about the last remark by this Captain (even though this is how it works in the game) and go with something more realistic... Major - "Good Lord! What happened to them?!?" Captain - "I ordered them to drive within meters of known enemy positions in the hopes that they would flush out something even bigger. Then, if they survived, they were ordered to drive around until they had either identified everything or were killed trying" Major - "Sergeant! Place this loony toons under arrest!!" ---- The point here is that NO COMMANDER did ANYTHING LIKE THIS!! And even if he did, do you really think he would be allowed to retain his field commission? BS. No way. He would be drummed up on charges faster than you can say "gross incompetence". Jeeps, even for the rather richly equipped US Army, didn't grow on trees. And certainly the trained crews manning them didn't either. Wasting such assets for a run of the mill objective just wasn't done, and if done was probably a court martial offense. Now... taking the key spot within a highly volitile and drawn out battle... possible exceptions would be allowed. But not for a generic hill or village. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Are you saying the Americans never EVER walked into a minefield ? Hence all minefields should do no damage to any American unit traversing it ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you are being asinine. I guess it is to be expected from one who no longer has points from which to draw on to defend his position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Recce is what it is all about, finding out what the opponent has. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes but is the GAME that allows such "tactics" to work and NOT realistic behavior. It works because of the game system, hence it is "gamey". The GAME system is unlikely to be changed because of the nature of the GAME. Recon is about making and maintaining contact NOT driving about and getting killed because the GAME engine allows every friendly unit to see what you do. CavScout 19Delta Cavalry Scout US Army 1-1 Cavalry Squadron, 1 AD 4-64 Armor Battalion, 24th ID (M) 2-185 Armor Battalion, 40th ID (Ca NG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point here is that NO COMMANDER did ANYTHING LIKE THIS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed, I was clarifying the difference between recon and a gamey tactic to contrast Henri's and MTankers ideas. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the "jeep tactic" is for people who can't handle the challenge<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What challenge? As MTanker stated, if both players agree to tactics, no problem. Nobody is defending a 'tactic', only defining it as opposed to recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 I think people have a hard time calling it gamey because it is so damn effective. The ends justify the means in their minds. With a (1) jeep in a QB I exposed 3 squads, a mortar, a AT gun, AND took out a hetzer (rear shot) and a HT before succumbing to fire. For 19 pts! It was maybe my third QB ever and I knew right then that it was gamey. How did I know? At the end of the battle I didn't feel satisfaction for winning a WW2 simulation, I felt like I would feel after winning in Minesweeper or Mario Karts, nothing. It was a tactic that turned the "game" into a "game". If that makes any sense. Most people buy this game because it depicts WW2 combat better than any game out their. That's the motivation for buying and playing, because if you just wanted a gamey game you could play nintendo and playstation. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: What challenge? As MTanker stated, if both players agree to tactics, no problem. Nobody is defending a 'tactic', only defining it as opposed to recon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The challenge of finding the opposing forces. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: Try using real recon tactics, it's much more rewarding. I think the "jeep tactic" is for people who can't handle the challenge. Just MHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that comment sort of rubs me the wrong way. That's like saying to all the new folks here that are new to wargaming and wargaming tactics, "since you DON'T know what Real Life WW II recon tactics actually were, you are not playing the game "right" because you are exploiting the game engine and using "gamey" jeep racing penetration recon tactics. There are clearly two sides to this one. One really big thing that would really help this dicussion would be for someone (since I really don't care about my opponent using "gamey tactics" that someone is not me) to post a set of "house rules" that clearly spell out all the gamey tactics, that we have discoverd so far, including this one and then both folks can agree to play by it like it is some kind of Geneva Convention of Gamey Play Tactics of CM wargaming. There will be some of us who (Like Japan in WWII if I'm not mistaken) will not sign on to the "Geneva Convention Gamey-ness" and we will play no holds barred with other folks who don't really care whether we use "Real World" tactics or just play for fun using any and every tactic we can think of. I FULLY support the effort of Steve and Charles to eliminate all gamey play and tactics, and IMHO there are almost NO gamey tricks or tactics left. I think it is a VERY refreshing to see the discussion open up again about Relative Spotting versus Absolute spotting. The real issue with the Jeep running around spotting is the telepathy or "Magical Radio" that is the result of Absolute Spotting that makes this jeep recon penetration so effective. That problem was dealt with in regard to bailed crews by makeing them mostly blind and brittle, this was a GREAT decision that it seems every one here welcomed. I'm not so sure that some form of patch or tweak or correction should be coded the same way to attempt to deal with the racing jeep recon problem. Since Steve sort of said it was not really feasible anyway we should not be looking for some kind of magical fix for this one in CM1. Serioulsy, would it not just be a whole lot easier to write a list of all the gamey Tactics that all are agreed upon that are offensive and, well "gamey", and then two PBEM players can mutually agree to abstain or you can play with your own house rules or no holds barred and no rules at all whatever you like. For me, (when I have time to PBEM again) I will prefer to play no holds barred and you can just call me aka-Rice Bowl_tom_w from Japan , because I'm not signing no stinking "play fair" convention. But that's just my opinion and it seems that there are others here who share it and others here who prefer to PBEM with folks that like to avoid all gamey tactics, that's cool, now lets all get back to work. (mostly that was a reminder for myself) -tom (Rice Bowl) w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The challenge of finding the opposing forces<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nobody was arguing against that. [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 09-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Well that comment sort of rubs me the wrong way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right, I withdraw that comment, it came out much harsher on re-reading than intended. Please ignore. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Although I'm not sure that a "CM Geneva Convention" is necessary for me and my PBEM buddies, it may be desirable for newer players or those without much military background (reading OR experience). Good point, Tom. How would we go about establishing such a list of House Rules? I think posting it on this BBS and/or CMHQ would be a good idea. Good exposure that way. I just want to thank everyone here for this (mostly!) intelligent, but (certainly) civil discussion. Quite a refreshing change from some of the recent threads that have scared away some of the established members. I'd never thought about the relative spotting issue before participating in this thread. I look forward to possibly experiencing the changes in CM2 (but will thoroughly enjoy CM1 before then!) edit: spelling (again) [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 09-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Although it is quite legitimate do do it, this discussion is not made easier by some people taking extreme cases to discredit cases that are not so extreme. For example, if one is using a fast vehicle to do the fast zigzag recon that is so controversial here, it is not fair to say that the commander is giving orders to the crew to drive "within meters" of the enemy machineguns in order to spot them. How could that be, since the commander has no idea where they are? The orders that he WOULD give in such a situation would be to drive fast more or less deep (depending on the situation) into enemy (or contested) territory in order to expose enemy positions, and especially enemy armor. Under such circumstances, even the most gamey player would try to avoid driving the vehicle too close to potential ambush positions, and he would use any cover to the maximum extent, not out of any humanitarian impulse, but to try to keep the vehicle going for as long as possible. This is the kind of behavior that the original poster asked about, and he did NOT even mention jeeps, but only a SINGLE fast-moving vehicle. Of course it is easier to set up a straw man by changing the question to a major jeep offensive in order to facilitate discrediting the tactic. Few people would consider sending a half-dozen jeeps racing through enemy territory, but in any case this should not be the question being discussed. However there IS an advantage to this distortion of the original question: it clearly illuminates the difficulty of making rules about what is and what is not acceptable tactics in games; most people here probably agree that sending six jeeps zigzagging is "gamey", and most people probably agree that sending one is legitimate recon. So where is the line? How many vehicles can you send before it becomes gamey? Two? three? Only one? And what kind? Two jeeps are out, but two Pumas are OK? I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith in this discussion, I respect the opinions of all and I understand their points, but I think that many underestimate the difficulty and the potential can of worms associated with trying to define rules on what is and on what isn't acceptable tactics in a game whose rules allow them. Just for the sake of being ridiculous, we might have a rule that any action that took place at least once in WW2 is acceptable in CM; it doesn't take much imagination to imagine the can of worms that such a rule would open Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 I have a source that states that as of Sept. 15th 1943 (the only source I could dig up at such short notice but just to make a point) an US Armoured Division Cavarly recce platoon consisted of: AC section: 3 x M8's, scout section: 6 x 1/4 ton trucks. This platoon becomes a total loss scouting ahead a run-of-the-mill terrain feature that does not get mentioned in the daily report to the theater commander. That makes 9 vehicles lost in one engagement, along with the better part of their highly trained recce crews. Doing the job they were trained to do. Now, will the major throw the captain into the brick for losing them to enemy action ? Will there be a formal hearing to determine the circumstances for the losses ? I think not. Especially if the engagement was won. [This message has been edited by tero (edited 09-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 There is a way around the problem. That's where balanced scenarios come into play. QBs are for fun, in general. Serious games then have to be play balanced scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Oh Henri, , In our game I don't think your recon is gamey. But one thing they will be is...dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: And most people probably agree that sending one is legitimate recon. So where is the line? How many vehicles can you send before it becomes gamey? Two? three? Only one? And what kind? Two jeeps are out, but two Pumas are OK? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The difference between 2 pumas and 2 jeeps is great. Besides being slower (the jeep is so unrealistically fast on uneven terrain IMHO), the loss in points from losing 2 pumas is much greater. The point loss vs intelligence gain is extremely low for a jeep. It's a case of apples and oranges. Because the jeep is soooooooooo fast on pretty much any terrain it lets it get much deeper into enemy territory before being blown up. Because of the way spotting works this gives you great knowledge of the enemy positions. Where IRL at best it would give you where NOT to go. (Hey did bob make it back? Nope, ok we dont go that way.) If the US army did recon that way in WW2 it would have run out of jeeps by August of '44 ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts