Gamey Recon Technique?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well,

Some tangible good is going to come of this thread Two points were brought up that we hadn't fully thought about before. And therefore, two tweaks will be made to CM with the next patch:

1. Light wheeled vehicle speeds will be reduced when offroad. Not sure how much, but significantly.

2. Light wheeled vehicles won't be able to spot jack squat when going Fast. I never really thought about this, but in all the footage I have seen of guys in Jeeps tearing around offroad, they generally are concerned about flying out of their seats and staying on control of the vehicle. They are most certainly NOT spotting the same way a tracked AFV with a seperate driver and commander do. At the moment there is no difference.

The results of these changes will make off road speeding vehicles easier to hit and less likely to spot anything. This adds realisim to the game and, as one can guess, reduces the effectiveness of a gamey tactic.

Next patch won't be for a while yet. At least another month.

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest grunto]

Hi Steve,

In my opinion that what you (BTS) need to do is to make the MG42 shine against unarmored vehicles. The 'jeep .50 from h-e-double-toothpicks charges' will be stopped if you guys just give the MG42s a little more 'umph..'

As it is, the apprehension is palpable when I'm Germans and one or two jeep .50s come buzzing down the road toward my carefully-lain ambush consisting of German Light Armor.

I even get a little antsy when one (jeep .50) gets behind a StuG or worse yet, a Hetzer of mine.

Now the jeep .50 isn't as potent as it used to be (101), but it's still a heckuva buy for 19 points. I believe it to be the fastest on-road vehicle in the game, and the .50 appears to be murder on anything but German tanks. It's a good thing for the Germans they run out of ammo so quickly - which by the way in my opinion sort of justifies the low 19-point cost.

Perhaps as another poster mentioned, you could also toy with making the jeep less mobile in open, with something like a 10mph max speed.... 55-60 on roads, sure, but in that 'knotted' european countryside, perhaps making them slow in the clear will cut down on the charges.

My favorite .50-cal transport vehicle is the M3A1 scout car. 32 points with 150 rounds of .50 cal and transport class 6. That's nice.

So my suggestions are:

1) Make the wheeled vehicles slower in the off-road.

2) Give the MG42 (and maybe the 20mm) more 'umph,' against unarmored vehicles.

Anyway, thanks for your consideration,

Andy

[Grognerd_Fogman]

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

BS you say? Think about it. One of the main reasons the fast jeep zigzag tactic is labled gamey is that it is sure suicide for the jeep. The dirty little secret that nobody here is talking about is the fact that all recon in CM is suicidal regardless of the tactics used. At least when it comes to vehicles. Whether or not your recce is going to die is not in question. They almost always do. The only question is will they expose enough of the enemy's positions before they die to make the expenditure of points worth it.

Has anyone read Fionn's latest AAR on MadMats site? For those who have not, in it Fionn dedicates 2 platoons of infantry and 3 Lynxes to recon. He does so explicitly stating that he fully expects them to be destoyed. And they are. His 3 Lynxes are dead by turn 3 and his 2 platoons largely decimated by turn 10. But he doesn't care because they've done their job. They have explosed the enemy and allowed him to bring superior firepower to bear upon them. Under the definitions given here this was quite gamey of him because he knew they were going to die, and if this had been a real battle the men would surely have known it as well and perhaps refused. (Note to Fionn if your reading: I don't think it was at all gamey I'm just using it as an example to prove a point).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is the kinda stuff I was alluding to in an earlier post. I have not played anyone that I can recall that got any usefulness out of a recon vehicle without putting it in great peril. No matter how they tried, either high gear and hell bent for leather searching or trying to secretly move from tree group to tree group. Usually when they did the latter they end up spotting hardly anything an get taken out by a shreck, MG or other unit early on. Answer me this people, when was the last time you had a couple of jeeps in a moderate sized battle and at least one was still around at the end? Now, how many tanks do you normally have at the end?. Probably more percentage wise for sure. Why even bother having jeeps and kubels for recon in the first place if you really can't do anything but be gamey with them or just use em as General transport vehicles in the back lines. I'm not into trying to compare CM to real life as some seem to be. When you can call this a true wargame *simulator* without any sacrifices, abstractions or whatever, then maybe we won't run into this so-called "cheating" gamey stuff and can develop real life sets of rules. For God sakes, this game gives us way more information concerning the battlefield than anything in real life back in WWII. I just think it's kinda funny that we spend so much time on a subject that really aint going to make or break this game and really aint a big friggin deal. Sheesh, we sit at our computers, clicking, dragging, drinking, smoking, eating hamsters and probably ruining our private lives with our families due to excess hours on this great game and then worry that something aint like it was back then??? I realize Charles and Steve might have had a vision of the most intense, lifelike wargame possible, but this is what the end product resulted in (fantastic gaming tho). What about all the newbies this game is drawing in now? You think they all should try an catch up on 1000's of WWII historical books about tactics, doctrines, OOB's and every other tiny nuance about that period? Hell, you're going to scare some of them away with what's being said on this board. They might think: "Hmmm, wow, I don't think I'll buy this game after all. Looks great but what if I do something in a PBEM that is not perfectly historically correct? They'll spread the word on the forum an I'll be labeled a "cheat" (Mannheim). No-one will even wanna play me if I do something wrong. I really didn't have time to read the 450,000 posts about how I should conduct my game in every grognard aspect so I guess I'll just stuff it in the back of my mind and go get Quake back out. At least no one tells me that fragging someone from behind was historically incorrect". All this hooplaw over minor play details and the game aint even close to being like life in the first place. It may be much nearer than other wargames have been but it's not by a long stretch. It's a hell of alot of fun and will be my only *game* for a long time to come. Now let me go see what Smoker1 is up to in our latest ladder battle. I tell you, if I catch him using Soviet tank platoon formations and battle doctrines using the American forces I'll have his head!!! Group Hug...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Vanir]

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

Vanir:

You can see the difference between Fionn's movement orders and a jeep rush right? Instead of looking for similarities, lets focus on the differences real quick.

1) Concern for own safety Jeep 0 , Fionn 1

2) Explotation of absolute spotting Jeep 0, Fionn 1

3) Exploitation of unrealistic vehicle speed Jeep 0, Fionn 1

Now if you wanted to use Jeeps the way Fionn used his recon force, that's fine. Their combat behavior is what is important. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve: Way cool

Foobar:

I agree completely on points 2 and 3, but I don't know where your coming from on point 1. Fionn states quite clearly that he expects his recon to be largely wasted, and states a number of times that this doesn't bother him much sinse they have accomplished what he sent them to do. Yes, he did move them into cover where available, but overall I would hardly say this quilifies as a concern for safety.

But this is all besides the point. I agree that his tactics were not gamey so a debate on his AAR is not helpfull here. I also agree that the jeep rush is gamey because it is taking advantage of some (soon to be corrected) flaws in the game, namely the fast movement of vehicles off road and absolute spotting.

My point was simply this: That given that the survivability of dedicated recon vehicles in CM is typicaly very low and given that the tactic of letting thin-skinned vehicles lead assaults upon known enemy forces is both suicidal and questionable from a historical perspecive, isn't vehicle recon of any kind in CM somewhat inherantly gamey?

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

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

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

We will be the FIRST to say that CM isn't reality, but we also believe that one can be closer to it than another. CM is certainly more realistic than, say, Panzer General for example. We would even argue that it is more realistic than any other wargame out there at this level for WWII. But is it realistic? Not totally, no. It is a goal that we shall never achieve.

However, just because the ideal goal can NOT be achieved does not mean you call it quits and stop trying. We won't push the envelope beyond a certain point because it would ruin the game part (i.e. making a commmand level game with nothing but text messages to command), but there is certainly room for improvement. And we feel, like with so many other aspects of CM, that we can do this actually INCREASE the appeal of the game as a game. Look at it now. Most realistic wargame (or so we think) and wildly popular one with non wargamers. Done right, realism and "fun" do not have to be mutually exclusive.

This whole problem with unrealistic spotting and targeting (which is at the heart of this recon thread) is a big deal. Huge deal in fact. We can improve upon it and will. And when we do, I can promise you the game will be that much better and realistic without ruining the obvious enjoyment of the game as it is now. Otherwise we wouldn't do it

Steve

[Guest grunto]

--If someone can describe in detail how to use dedicated recon vehicles in CM in a non-gamey maner, in a way that they can carry out their mission effectively while at the same time having at least a half decent expectation to survive I would REALLY like to see it. --

Buy a whole bunch of them and manuever so they're all firing at once. Notice how if your units engage the enemy in a piecemeal fashion, they all die, but if they all open fire at the same moment, many of them live.

Yes recon vehicles need to stick together and open fire on enemy targets all at once.

One thing you can try is to time a couple of movements so two pincers become visible to the intended objective at the same instance, hopefully at a range of between 0-200 meters.

Another thing is to move all of the vehicles 'through' instead of 'into' the enemy positions.

My findings with recon are that if you keep them all together and they hit the pockets of resistance at the same time - well it's a thing of beauty to watch.

Think of something like 15 .50 cals, 5 75mm, 5 37mm, all opening up at once. If you can get your light vehicles right into the midst of the enemy formations it's best.

I've had encounters where a platoon or two of mounted infantry have ridden various recon vehicles straight into enemy positions, the vehicles eventually moving 'through' and the infantry trying to organize as they dismounted. Sometimes the aftermath of such encounters has been incredible: entire platoons of German infantry and various and sundry vehicles knocked out; stugs, hetzers, halftracks, armored cars.

Of course usually there are knocked out American vehicles and infantry as well, but often the cavalry has 'given better than it's gotten.'

On the other hand with recon if things go bad they really go bad.

For instance, extended engagements are a no-no given the dearth of infantry support and lack of ammo stowage the recon vehicles typically have.

The key is a very violent, 2-3 minute engagement and then a consolidation of gains, then continued movement, if necessary.

In CMBO, if the enemy forces aren't seriously impaired in that first contact, recon typically is in trouble.

Poor visibility is the recon units' friend.

Andy

[Guest KwazyDog]

"Criag, Kwazy is already gone the road of the Tassie Devil Unfortunately, I can't take on any new games for the next couple of weeks. Shoot me an email in about 2 weeks and I will see if all Aussies are fun to drive over"

LOL, and then some, hehe But trust us Aussie to have a solution..we are hoping to genetically engineer the old Tasie Devil back into existance with a pup we have in storage somewhere. I hope we can, too too be honest. I know there are a lot of ethical questions there but that is one animal man alone wiped out.

Anyways, back on top. That sounds like a really good solution up there Steve

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Vanir]

Grunto:

Thanks for the post! Although your tactics sound more like instructions on how to conduct an assault than recon I will remember them

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

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

[aka_tom_w]

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

Lewis,

Relative spotting WILL happen at some point. ....

This is a huge and fundamental change for the game and therefore needs to be done right or not done at all. For the moment it will not be done at all since we do not have the time to do it propperly.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PERFECT!

Thats wonderful!

The commitmant to relative spotting and the commitmant to doing it RIGHT will be welcomed here by all who are keen to see a more colourful and robust fog of war simulated.

I prefer to plan my tactics and plot my moves and issue orders without regard for being labeled gamey. I am very hopeful that Terrain Fog of War can be roled into Relative Spotting as well, allowing the role of the reccon units to be modeled much more accurately, without the threat of being labeled gamey. I know this is not going to happen soon and it will surely take a great deal of time and effort to get it right but I'm sure we will all welcome its arrival.

A newer robust Fog of war that includes some degree of Terrain fog of war combined with Relative Spotting would be truely revolutionary for a war game and would most certainly increase the "holy crap where did that come from" factor to mind boggling proportions.

I'm always hopefull that the ideal video wargame will be perfectly coded and programed so that there will be no need for "house rules" or gentle men's agreements regarding abstaining from certain known "gamey tactics"

I would say CM, as it stands right now, Leads the video wargaming pack by a country mile in this area alone. Taking adanvantage of absolute spotting as it is modeled in CM now is one of the few remaining gamey tricks you can exploit by using the deep fast jeep recon penetration trick.

It is now known that this cannot be fixed quickly or easily so we will all find ways to live with it or agree not to use it.

(oops sorry, I just read Steve's latest post, "it can be fixed and it will be", the statement above was a comment on the difficulty level of trying to code up the relative spotting solution to this issue)

And yes this is a mature and enjoyable discusion even when most of us here have deeply held opinions that are clearly diametrically opposed.

Earlier I stated that I did not think the one jeep deep fast recon probe trick was gamey. After listening to how is it gamey because it takes full advantage of the way Absolute Spotting is modeled I will now agree it is gamey, but I 'm still happy to play "no holds barred "gamey" PBEM matches with others who like to use any trick or tactic they can think of to win so long as they don't mind if I do the same.

This will present no problems for those that would rather play PBEM matches against players who are happy to abstain from any gamey tactics.

Neither "way" is any more right than the other it is just a personal preference as to how you like to play.

I personally like the sucide jeep ride analogy to the kamikze WWII japanese pilots who happily gave their lives. I think that the kamikze pilot "trick" (actually used in WWII) would be labeled "gamey" by many here as it clearly falls with in the definition of knowing you are going to die and the pilot and fighter plane will be definatly be destroyed trying to achieve their objective. I mention this because it is IMO a good example of the concept of winning at ANY cost or die trying, which should be considered a legitimate military tactic and not labeled "gamey"

I sort of hate to mention this as it seems to still be a tender subject for the American's here but in Real Life Vietman war tactics and combat, the U.S. forces faced the gameyest opponent in the history of armed conflict. The enemy in this case did ANYTHING AND everything to win or inflict casaulaties. They fought what could be considered the sneakiest and dirtiest war ever fought. Complete with Sneak attacks (Tet offensive) booby traps, human wave attacks, human suicide runners with bombs strapped to them and so on. In that conflict EVERY dirty trick and tactic was and acceptable way to wage war.

From a point of military history WWII was much more orderly affair, and that is what we are trying to simulate here, so I guess now I'm just ranting again.

I do sincerely hope I did not offend anyone who lost friends, relatives or loved ones in Southeast Asia, I was just trying to point out that in that real world conflict dirty tricks and tactics were an every day occurance and it was most certainly a "no holds barred" kind of war.

I guess its past my bed time now

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-19-2000).] corrections required after reading Steve's latest post.

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Los]

Here's a quick clue regarding recon and recon vehicles. There is nothing inherently better about an M8 scout car, than a dodge 3/4 ton truck, or a jeep, or a horse when it comes to recon.(Particularly in CM) What matters most is the crew behind the wheel.

SO when you are dong a QB and you want more effective dedicated recon assets you should make those assetts (a recon vehicle, platoon of troops, whatever) to be of a higher quality than the rest of your main force. This makes them better at spotting, staying alive, and keeping their heads at first contact.

Los

[iggi]

Even wwiionline will not be able to eliminate battlefield telepathy.

I can easily have a guy in Montreal go take a look at what is behind a mountain while I'm on the phone with him,(ie not long distance). I wouldn't do that cause I want the down on the ground, bullets zipping over my head(or through it ) atmosphere. I don't think that wwiionline will even try to control player communications because there are ways players can get around this. They're still fun games to play in a ww2 setting.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I sort of hate to mention this as it seems to still be a tender subject for the American's here but in Real Life Vietman war tactics and combat, the U.S. forces faced the gameyest opponent in the history of armed conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom it is quite clear you still do not understand what "gamey" means. Please re-read the numerous definitions given.

It is by its very nature completely impossible to "face a gamey opponent" in a real war because a real war is not a game and must abide by the various laws of physics and reality.

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

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

[CavScout]

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

OK, let's consider the following situation: when blitzkrieg forces broke through enemy lines and rushed into unknown enemy territory, did their recon units move at a walking pace? Of course not, they would then fall behind the armor. When mechanized forces moved 100 miles a day, as often happened in WW2, their recon forces had to move at that pace or faster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recon units still employed over-watch movements, such as using M8's to over-watch jeeps as they scouted ahead.

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

And I believe that professional soldiers here can confirm that recon forces generally had to be FAR ahead of the main force. And no one will deny (I hope) that the purpose of recon forces is to get as much information about enemy dispositions as possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Battalion recon is usually no more than 3-10 kilometers ahead of the battalion.

Cav

GAIN AND MAINTAIN ENEMY CONTACT Scouts seek visual contact with the enemy on favorable terms. They employ sound tactical movement, effective target aquisition methods, and appropriate actions on contact to see the enemy first and thereby retain the iniative and control of the situation. Once scouts find the enemy, they maintain contact using all available means until their commander orders them to do otherwise or as required by their specific instructions. -FM 17-98 Scout Platoon

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scott is correct.

Gamey does not mean "the use of tactics that weren't done in the given period and therefore shouldn't be used".

Game does not mean "the use of historical tactics employed by one side that differed from what the other side expected at the time of use".

Gamey does mean "the use of tactics that, for one or more reasons, could not be replicated in the real world under real world battlefield conditions".

When we get to the Eastern Front you will clearly have people playing with the Soviet forces in very ahistorical ways, especially for 1941/42 battles. I call these "hindsight tactics" as they were not used by the given force until AFTER the period being played with.

The level of combined arms sophistication of Soviet forces was very poor at first, but slowly improved. So if someone uses the correct combined arms tactics developed by the Germans, while playing the Soviets, your tactics are not historically correct, but they are not "gamey".

We will, however, try our best to penalize the Soviets as much as possible to make it realistically more difficult to utilize "hindsight tactics" effectively. This is not only to add realism to the game, but also to make playing the earlier war Soviet forces that much more challenging. Or put another way, we wish to increase the gameplay value of the Eastern Front by increasing the level of realism.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Guest tero]

Just a thought: should the jeeps be made available as transports (and recce) for command units only ? That would limit their availability to the number of higher echelon commanders only. That would at least curtail the "jeep fleet" occurance.

[This message has been edited by tero (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Originaly posted by Vanir.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point was simply this: That given that the survivability of dedicated recon vehicles in CM is typicaly very low and given that the tactic of letting thin-skinned vehicles lead assaults upon known enemy forces is both suicidal and questionable from a historical perspecive, isn't vehicle recon of any kind in CM somewhat inherantly gamey? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... let me see if I can explain what I mean.(I have no miltary experience anyway, so its a stretch!)

OK, Recon units get seem to get pretty beat up, whether or not they are employing real world tactics. This is a result of being used to locate enemy positions. They take losses to make the main combat force's job easier. They save lives.

This is historical I believe, and the job they do is costly. So I would have to say that no, not all recon in CM is gamey.

I am sure that there are different terms for different types of recon, and the type of recon we are playing with in these battles is more like "movement to contact"

'Fionn AAR' recon is not gamey IMO due to the price he paid for the information.

"Jeep Dash" recon is gamey to me because in the current system it can accomplish the same task, at a fraction of what it costed Fionn.

Does that make sense?

(Not really posting to take you on in debate, just trying to get my thoughts clarified.)

[This message has been edited by *Captain Foobar* (edited 09-20-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

I personally like the sucide jeep ride analogy to the kamikze WWII japanese pilots who happily gave their lives. I think that the kamikze pilot "trick" (actually used in WWII) would be labeled "gamey" by many here as it clearly falls with in the definition of knowing you are going to die and the pilot and fighter plane will be definatly be destroyed trying to achieve their objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not if used by Japanese units at the historical time-frame of the war. Having Americans use it in 1943 would certainly be "gamey".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I mention this because it is IMO a good example of the concept of winning at ANY cost or die trying, which should be considered a legitimate military tactic and not labeled "gamey"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, it is a foolish comparison because there was no "winning at ANY cost or die trying" with a kamikze run, there was ONLY death.

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

I sort of hate to mention this as it seems to still be a tender subject for the American's here but in Real Life Vietman war tactics and combat, the U.S. forces faced the gameyest opponent in the history of armed conflict. The enemy in this case did ANYTHING AND everything to win or inflict casaulaties. They fought what could be considered the sneakiest and dirtiest war ever fought. Complete with Sneak attacks (Tet offensive) booby traps, human wave attacks, human suicide runners with bombs strapped to them and so on. In that conflict EVERY dirty trick and tactic was and acceptable way to wage war.

From a point of military history WWII was much more orderly affair, and that is what we are trying to simulate here, so I guess now I'm just ranting again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes a rant and off message. Using tactics employed by HISTORIC units is not "gamey". Doing something that the units would not do is. Having VC suicide bombers is one thing, having US service men do it would be.

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

I do sincerely hope I did not offend anyone who lost friends, relatives or loved ones in Southeast Asia, I was just trying to point out that in that real world conflict dirty tricks and tactics were an every day occurance and it was most certainly a "no holds barred" kind of war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And one would note that their "gamey" tactics cost them on the order of 1,000,000 dead versus our 50,000. You do the math.

Cav

[Vanir]

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

This is historical I believe, and the job they do is costly. So I would have to say that no, not all recon in CM is gamey.

I am sure that there are different terms for different types of recon, and the type of recon we are playing with in these battles is more like "movement to contact"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that makes sense. I understand completely. I'm not sure that I agree though.

I'm no expert either, but as I see it, "movement to contact" can be utilized in either the recon role or the attack role (I know I'm using poor terminology here). When a game begins the first recon contact can be assumed to have already taken place. Otherwise, how is it we know there is an enemy force facing us? We didn't just guess lucky. A movement to contact directly preceeding a main attack (one or 2 hundered meters out in front in most CM games) would have been conducted by heavier units than are typicaly seen in recon elements. Certainly, you wouldn't have seen .50 cal jeeps doing this. But what the heck else are you going to use a .50 jeep for in CM?

CavScout says that battalion recon is 3-10 k ahead of the main force. At the begining of most CM games the 2 forces are usually less that 1 k away from each other. Sometimes they are in LOS immediately upon hitting GO.

Ugh... I'm tired.

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

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tero said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just a thought: should the jeeps be made available as transports (and recce) for command units only ? That would limit their availability to the number of higher echelon commanders only. That would at least curtail the "jeep fleet" occurance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the moment no vehicle or support unit (i.e. a MMG) is restricted in such a way. So to limit the purchasing of Jeeps to various unit structures would be a rather akward arrangement. And seeing as the US forces don't have a dedicated "Recon Platoon" or "Recon Company" available for purchase, we would have to first to that.

Nope, better to try and tackle the real issue rather than putting in effort on bandaids.

Thanks,

Steve

[Grognerd_Fogman]

Just wanted to say thanx much for your input Steve. You've been so cool in the support department. I am in no way trying to imply that you shouldn't keep striving to make this game even more life-like. It's just that this is what we have right now so lets tweak what we can and keep moving on. It really touched a nerve in me last night when some people label others as cheats for something the game allows us to do. I mean come on, cheat? Aint that a little strong? I could see if one was using a bug etc etc... or breaking an agreement to win the game but calling it cheating cause it don't fit someones idea of what a real person(s) would be ordered to do is kinda harsh. I can say that in at least every game I play I can find several "tactics" that would most likely be considered "gamey" that alot of people wouldn't even noticed unless pointed out to them. And I'm talking about many manuevres and roles for units that have nothing to do with the recon aspect Well, gotsta go to work now so will wrap it up.

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Howitzer]

G-a-m-e-y!

Steve C.

[Jarmo]

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

In my opinion that what you (BTS) need to do is to make the MG42 shine against unarmored vehicles. The 'jeep .50 from h-e-double-toothpicks charges' will be stopped if you guys just give the MG42s a little more 'umph..' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, yes.

But the problem here isn't really about MG42's. It's the

upped survivability (1.05) of vehicles.

In 1.03 crews abandoned the vehicles too easily, it was

a long debate, mostly concerning german AC's vs .50 cal MG.

Now while the AC survivability seems about right, unarmored

vehicles are IMO too long lasting now.

Just a while ago, I spent a few minutes trying to kill a jeep

with MG42 and a MG bunker crossfire. Unsuccesfully.

It took about 5 bursts to force the jeep to reverse to safety.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Jarmo]

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

1. Light wheeled vehicle speeds will be reduced when offroad. Not sure how much, but significantly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is already in.

I've noticed MMG carrier (top speed 30), goes a lot faster

offroad than the Humber (top speed 55).

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[aka_tom_w]

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

Well,

two tweaks will be made to CM with the next patch:

1. Light wheeled vehicle speeds will be reduced when offroad. Not sure how much, but significantly.

2. Light wheeled vehicles won't be able to spot jack squat when going Fast. I never really thought about this, but in all the footage I have seen of guys in Jeeps tearing around offroad, they generally are concerned about flying out of their seats and staying on control of the vehicle. They are most certainly NOT spotting the same way a tracked AFV with a seperate driver and commander do. At the moment there is no difference.

Next patch won't be for a while yet. At least another month.

Thanks,

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Here's Some more from Mr. Likes to Rant Off topic tom w.....

Ok I think we all here welcome these changes and they look like a great solution to deal with this kind of gamey recon with fast jeeps.

I would like to humbly suggest that when coding this patch there might be an awareness of how some folks might find a work around and still use the same deep fast recon tactic with some other cheap fast vehicle.

For instance (off the top of my head) what about cheap fast bren gun carriers and universal carriers? What about the fast light AFV's like the Pzk 11 or the Stuart? Some of us, and I am admittedly one of them, will still want to find the fastest cheapest unit available and send it on a suicide mission to gather valuable recon info knowing full well its not coming back. I suspect that this kind of waste of a unit that, no matter how the game is coded, will be considered "gamey". But thats OK because some of us here don't mind playing against other gamey palyers.

I am FULLY supportive of Steve and Charles' proposed solutions to limit spotting ability of fast moving jeeps, and other wheeled vehilces, but lets also not forget about every other light fast cheap vehicle there is in the game because I'm sure there will be other folks like me who will find the fastest cheapest vehicle they can that has not been re- programmed (in the next patch) to limit its spotting ability while going fast and then send that unit in the recon role of the jeep to (well, basically) die for the greater good of collecting as much recon intel before it gets nailed.

Green crews are alot cheaper the Elite crews, can we also make the green crews spot less or much more poorly than Elite crews?

I guess what I'm saying is that from years of 2D board game playing the min/max theory or attitude, (and quite honestly amongst my friends I was not that good at it and not at the worst offender of the always using the Min/Max tactics when calculating battle odds) leads to tactics which figure "how can I get the most recon intel, by risking the least amount of my force?"

Taking to extremes that is all the deep fast jeep suicide recon joy ride is.

The most recon Intel for the least cost.

All I'm suggesting is that that kind of thinking should be applied when you attempt to tweak the jeep suicide recon tactic and code them so they can't spot while moving fast.

Naturally I will also point out that it has been suggested here somewhere that putting a 'zook team in a jeep and racing them to their perfect tank killing destination will still be an effective tactic as once the jeep stops or moves slowlly it will still be able to spot and the 'zook team will still be able to relay all that intel recon.

I'm really not trying to be negative here, I'm just continuely exploring loop holes in the spotting rules/code (whatever) that we are trying to close.

I will also ask, what about passengers in fast moving jeeps? (no spotting for ANY passenger in any vehicle that moves fast?)

What about an infantry squad in the back of a fast moving truck, halftrack, light tank attempting the same deep suicide recon trick? No spotting for them either?

Basically to do this right do you not have to not allow spotting by ANY unit in any vehicle that is moving fast?

Even Recon vehicles themsleves?

I'm not trying to be silly here just pointing out that even after this patch, there will be min/max players that will do what ever they can to gain recon intel by sacrificing there cheapest quickest units in suicide recon roles to get the most results for the cheapest cost.

I do sincerely hope these fiddly little "where' the spotting loop hole and how do I exploit" discussions aid in the coding of a better CM for all of us.

Sorry again to any of you I've offended with my ranting and discussions of clearly "chincy", min/max wargame "gamey" play tactics.

-tom w

[Mannheim Tanker]

G Fogman: I think you're overreacting to the discussion about using legitmate tactics. First, it's quite obvious that there is a contingent of players out there that could care less about what is gamey...fine! I seriously doubt that new players (or potential buyers) will be scared away by those of us that do not use "cheats" (IE something inherent to the game code that can be taken advantage of in spite of the developers' intentions - like the spotting rounds in previous versions of CM). If you take offense to this term, then it's obvious that you don't realize how ubiquitous cheats are in most games. In fact, I recall someone posting on this forum asking for a list of cheats in CM! I'm not saying that someone that uses them is a cheater, but I was just saying that I don't use them myself. I could turn your argument around on you and say that if grogs reading this forum stumbled upon a lot of support for gamey tactics ala CC, they would think CM is just another mindless clickfest - and not buy the game. That's great that you don't feel any compunction against using a gamey tactics, but there's nothing you can do (or should do) to compel me to accept it.

Tom: Several others have already beaten me to the punch on this, but I think you're really misunderstanding the definition of "gamey" - and I think this misunderstanding is at the root of most of the differing opinions in this discussion. Which tactics various armies have utilized in past wars is a moot point in this discussion when you consider that the tactic being discussed is impossible to replicate in the real world. Since the VC didn't violate any laws of physics, I'd argue that they didn't use any gamey tactics!

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

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