Gamey Recon Technique?

[Jarmo]

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

Jarmo, you're STILL missing the point of what's gamey...What makes it gamey is because you're doing it soley to telepathically send recon..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, should have been clearer.

I ment that as a continuation to my earlier question of

"what about if you have someone watching what happens".

[Mannheim Tanker]

Jarmo, having someone watching your move is in essence a bounding overwatch. I think most of this discussion centers on those cases of sending a vehicle careening around deep in the enemy's rear where no friendly units can observe the results.

I'd even argue that in most cases friendly units wouldn't be able to identify enemy units opening fire on a distant recon unit. All they would likely see is the friendly jeep erupting in flames. After all, all eyes are not on the recon unit, since most soldiers will be watching out for their own hides...

[Hakko Ichiu]

Let's take the "single Jeep recon" out of it's vacuum and put into a more realistic context:

Suppose you have infiltrated your forces without being spotted to a line that is clear of the enemy. You, the commander, know that the enemy is close, maybe even in the next row of buildings if it's an MOUT situation. Now, you send your single Jeep MG, the only motorized recon asset available to you, on a fast drive-by to draw enemy fire while he is observed by lots of other assets.

Now the issue of telepathic recon goes away. It's still a likely suicide mission, although I'd say a fast moving jeep has a better chance of survival than a half-squad. Is it gamey now? Or is it more a case of needs must as the Devil drives?

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Mannheim Tanker]

It's not as gamey (I'd still argue that this was rare in real life). I think this is apples and oranges, however, since people have been referring to mad rushes to the rear of the map and back, out of sight of friendlies.

[Mannheim Tanker]

While we're doing hypotheticals, is this gamey: popping isolated units into view to draw arty fire and tie down/use up enemy arty? I don't think it's gamey since it doesn't abuse the laws of physics - but is it realistic (IE was it a legit tactic?) I'm guilty of doing this, and was just wondering if I'm using an unrealistic tactic...

[Jarmo]

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

I think this is apples and oranges, however, since people have been referring to mad rushes to the rear of the map and back, out of sight of friendlies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, this is more about finding the bordelines of gameyness.

If that's gamey, then how about this, and so on..

Still staying close to the subject, of course.

[Jarmo]

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

While we're doing hypotheticals, is this gamey: popping isolated units into view to draw arty fire and tie down/use up enemy arty?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now imagine the ordergiving.

"You men! Reveal yourself so that the enemy can kill you

and waste valuable ammunition."

I've done it myself, didn't stop to think if it's gamey or not.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"You men! Reveal yourself so that the enemy can kill you

and waste valuable ammunition<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have done this (although not the "get yourselves killed" part) and do not find it gamey in any way.

I frequently move units around to trick my opponent into bombarding areas he thinks I'm hiding in. Doesn't work all the time, but when it does...

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

Charlie don't surf!

[Joe Shaw]

This whole subject bothers me to no end. I know that issue of "cheating" vs. "gameyness" has been covered, but I don't think it's been covered well enough. Frankly, from the way MANY of the posts here and elsewhere sound, gameyness is equivilant to cheating! Now before someone jumps down my throat, I'm NOT saying that any of the posters have said that, but the implications are virtually the same. "If I see someone doing thus and so, I won't ever play them again." If, therefore, I chose to play someone and I do something that I find perfectly reasonable, they might choose not to play me again because they think it's gamey! Not a big deal really, except that in their next post to Jim Beam (I love playing Jim, he keeps making these dumb mistakes) they mention that Joe sure is a "gamey" player. Next thing you know my reputation (OK, work with me on this and pretend that I have one) is shot and I don't know why. And the really crummy thing about it is that there are so many different opinions and so many grey areas that you really CAN'T, IMHO, come up with a single solid definition of gameyness.

I've taken to adding a caveat about gameyness to my setups, asking what is and isn't kosher to my opponent. Then the problem becomes trying to keep track of all the opinions in all the games I'm playing. And with the advent of CMMC, in which winning a PBEM game will MATTER, the issue is going to be bigger and bigger.

I'm not proposing a solution because I don't have one, but I wonder if I'm just reading this wrong or if others have the same questions I do. For example, this thread has appeared to say that something is gamey for THREE different reasons at one point or another: (a) vehicles travel too fast to recon well ( telepathic communications don't happen and © the mission would be suicide and the troops wouldn't do it. Yet in EACH case, others have proposed situations in which each of those would have occurred in real life.

I want to play the game as realistically as possible while still having fun at it. Maybe I'm just worrying too much about what others think but this is a community and what others think is an issue (the Cesspool excepted, of course). Any thoughts on this side of the topic?

Joe

[Hakko Ichiu]

Joe,

Single-shot kills of Tiger IIs by Sherman 75s from 500m up hill are gamey. So is anything you do that allows you to beat me. Hope this helps.

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Henri]

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

What makes it gamey is because you're doing it soley to telepathically send recon reports back to your units in a manner which CANNOT be done IRL.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point that YOU seem to be missing is that people in a jeep don't need telepathy to radio back information about what they see or hear...You need a better reason than the "telepathy" question to discredit the fast recon method, because the telepathy question is everywhere in the game, where everyone can see what ANYONE sees That doesn't bother me much, but it seems to bother other people only when JEEPS are involved...

Henri

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point that YOU seem to be missing is that people in a jeep don't need telepathy to radio back information about what they see or hear...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly how much recon data do you think the the driver of a jeep is going to radio (if he has a radio) back to HQ in the 5-10 seconds that elapse (if that) between the time the enemy is spotted and he is dead? Remembering that all the while he is driving a jeep literally as fast as possible across unfamiliar fields, and under fire, and looking for the enemy. I frankly doubt that he could even make radio contact.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You need a better reason than the "telepathy" question to discredit the fast recon method, because the telepathy question is everywhere in the game, where everyone can see what ANYONE sees That doesn't bother me much, but it seems to bother other people only when JEEPS are involved...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it is "everywhere" thus the relative spotting discussion in this very thread. But this type of tactic specifically takes advantage of this short-coming in the game system. That is why it is gamey (or more so than many others).

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

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

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

[bI want to play the game as realistically as possible while still having fun at it. Maybe I'm just worrying too much about what others think but this is a community and what others think is an issue (the Cesspool excepted, of course). Any thoughts on this side of the topic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's really the reason I'm hanging around this thread.

Hard to say anything concrete and sensible.

I'd hope people wouldn't be declaring gamey so easily. But then,

there are annoying gamey things. I don't know what I mean.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Henri, I was going to respond to your latest comment, but Scott really said it all. It's a little hard to report back when you're dead. I'm a bit amused at how you and some of the others get so offended by calling a tactic gamey...despite the fact the most people don't care whether you use it against like-minded people. Chill out

Those are some good points, Joe, and I've thought about that myself. In practice, however, I've never really had any problems in finding players who play similar to me...in fact, I've added several people to my list since this thread opened up (people that have emailed my in response to the thread). I think it's not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be (setting a few "house rules"). It's the blatant game system abuses that I've been referring to in this thread.

[CavScout]

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

The point that YOU seem to be missing is that people in a jeep don't need telepathy to radio back information about what they see or hear...You need a better reason than the "telepathy" question to discredit the fast recon method, because the telepathy question is everywhere in the game, where everyone can see what ANYONE sees That doesn't bother me much, but it seems to bother other people only when JEEPS are involved...

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that is what makes it "gamey". This method of "recon" works because of the game engine. If not for the game engine the method would likely be useless. It is not a realistic method or tactic employed by forces in WWII but a method or tactic used in the game because of the game's engine. If it works in the game BECAUSE it is a game it is "gamey" IMO.

Cav

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If, therefore, I chose to play someone and I do something that I find perfectly reasonable, they might choose not to play me again because they think it's gamey! Not a big deal really, except that in their next post to Jim Beam (I love playing Jim, he keeps making these dumb mistakes) they mention that Joe sure is a "gamey" player. Next thing you know my reputation (OK, work with me on this and pretend that I have one) is shot and I don't know why<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joe,

Just for the record, I would never play someone that said "This guy plays gamey". The opinion a player makes about another's style should be kept to themselves, because that's all it is - an opinion.

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

Charlie don't surf!

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Haiku Itchy has publicly stated that: Single-shot kills of Tiger IIs by Sherman 75s from 500m up hill are gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey thanks Eathan, that does help narrow it down. Now just for further clarification and to get it straight in my feeble little mind, the other EIGHT Tiger IIs I killed with my teeny little Shermans would have been gamey because ....?

Joe

[This message has been edited by Joe Shaw (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Hey Joe, how much would you like to sell those Shermans for? I'll give you some shot-up Panthers complete with blind crewmembers in trade Better yet, just let some of your luck rub off on me!

For the record, I agree that people's opinions of other players should be kept to themselves. Also, I've yet to play someone that has been "too gamey" for me.

[DanE]

I think CavScout hit on the real problem here. Let's take a look again:

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

Question is would anyone open fire on it? IRL one will usually have priority

targets for which they are to engage and would be unlikely to give away a position to attack a jeep. Do you think a defensive force would give away half of its positions by firing on a jeep?

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL, I think any fast moving, unsupported vehicle used for recon would be hard pressed to locate and identify even a small part of the defensive force.

Unless the fast moving vehicle was very close to a defensive unit, why should they fire?

And if the recon vehicle is close enough to be fired on, it will more than likely be fired on by only a very few guns, which at best may give the recon force watching the vehicle a small idea of what direction the firing came from.

Let's look at this example:

Enemy #1: "Hey, look at that (insert any recon vehicle that is fast moving)! Wonder were all of his friends are?"

Enemy #2: "Probably outran them. No need to worry about him. Just keep your head down and keep an eye out for something coming around that bend. This is a great spot to ambush some enemy armour."

Enemy #1: "You're right, there's no way he can see us here in these woods with him driving like that. I'm sure Charlie Company will get him when he gets over that ridge. Wonder how long before his support comes around the bend?"

Recon Unit: "Okay guys, I'm going over the ridge to see what's over there. You are clear to move your tanks past that patch of woods at the bend in the road."

Tank CO: "I'm surprised the enemy didn't set up an ambush in that patch of trees there. Oh well, let's move out."

In real life, this useless recon vehicle is not a big threat. Why? Because of two things: 1) If it is killed, it will probably only give the reconning player a very small amount of information. "Where did that shot come from?"; "Wonder what happened to that jeep? It went over that ridge and all I heard was a loud explosion and know there is some smoke." 2) If it is not fired at, it will give the reconning player a false sense of security. "There is no enemy in this area, it is safe to move up my forces."

This can't happen in CM because the defensive force will (at some point) open fire at the recon vehicle. As a player, we know this will happen and that seems to be the reason people use the fast moving recon vehicle. The player KNOWS that the enemy will open fire at the vehicle at some point. By running (zig-zagging) the vehicle around the map, the player is trying to get the TacAI to open fire and reveal the defensive forces' location.

Using a tactic that will not work in real life but does work in a game because the game can not perform like humans makes the tactic gamey. This is why a lot of people feel this type of recon is gamey, because the player is taking advantage of the game design.

Also, I don't think using gamey tactics is cheating. But I do think using gamey tactics takes away from what the game was designed to do.

Just my $.04

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

Dan

[Henri]

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

It's not as gamey (I'd still argue that this was rare in real life). I think this is apples and oranges, however, since people have been referring to mad rushes to the rear of the map and back, out of sight of friendlies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to appear obtuse, because I DO understand the arguments of the "anti-fast-recon" people on this discussion, I just disagree with them.

The issue is NOT about sending jeeps deep behind enemy lines, although that could arguably be an extreme case of what is discussed. What IS being discussed (and was the subject initially raised -see the first message of this thread) is whether or not sending a fast vehicle zigzaggin through enemy territory in the open is an acceptable tactic. Limiting the arguments against to cases using JEEPS going DEEP behind enemy lines is an admission that it might be OK to do it with other vehicles as long as they don't go too far from their own lines.

In most cases, the fast recon would NOT go deep into enemy territory, because the information obtained in this manner (assuming the vehicle reached that far) would be practically useless. What a player wants to know is where is the enemy that can harm him the most, which is usually the front line of the enemy.

So unless you guys want to admit that there are cases where the fast "jeep" recon is acceptable, we should keep to the cases that are MINIMALLY not acceptable, and if that is a fuzzy line, your whole line of argument falls apart.

To make it clear, let us say that I send a jeep zooming out of the woods immediately turning left some 20 m away parallel to my front and then zigzagging towards the other side of the map while hidden enemies shoot or do not shoot at it, is that "gamey"? I believe that you and Steve say YES. I say maybe not.

And even the case of "deep" penetration can be debatable: in one big scenario (against the computer), I had reached the town after a long fight, and I had no idea how many enemy units were left, if any. I sent a halftrack zooming through the streets to the other end of the town and back. The halftrack survived and determined that enemy resistance in the town was very weak, which allowed me to launch an assault before all of my forces had caught up (time was running short).

Now are you going to claim that in cases where strung-out units arrived at a town on a tight time scale against expected weak enemy resistance, no commander would order a halftrack (if nothing else was available) to drive into town to determine if there is any serious enemy resistance? It is true that in real life, the commander might tell the halftrack to probe and to run away if fired upon, but with the constraint of one-minute turns and the absence of standard operating orders in the game, a fast-moving halftrack can go a long way in a minute, and I hold that under such circumstances, the best decision is fast-moving recon. But again, such deep penetration is exceptional, the previous case of zooming about in "no man's land" being the most frequent and the closest to reality given the constraints of the game.

And I regret to have to repeat that the objective of the fast recon is not to be fired upon, but to spot enemy positions and to evaluate their strength, which is what recon is all about.

Finally, I think that the argument about vehicles not being able to go fast in open terrain is bull; in WW2 as today, there were recon vehicles that were quite capable of driving through open terrain at speeds above 30 mph. I have seen movies of T34 TANKS driving much faster than that through open terrain.

Henri

Henri

[Smoker1]

I have the same concerns as Joe Shaw as far as my PBEM reputation goes. That's why I have a big problem with the issue of suicidal maneuvers even being mentioned in a gameyness thread. I realize the jeep recon maneuver is being labelled gamey for other reasons, but suicide has come up many times in the thread. Whether or not a set of orders is suicidal is almost totally subjective and should not play any part in discussions of gameyness because it is totally irrelevant. Perhaps I should start a new thread on the suicide/gameyness connection or lack thereof.

Smoker out.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I agree with Smoker. Let us not confuse suicide orders with gameyness. There are plenty of rather unrealistic things that you can do in the game in terms of tactics. That is a fact of life that goes along with any game. However, some tactics cross WAY over the line of reality and offer benefits far in excess of the effort/cost involved. One tradition 'line crosser' has been using bailed out crews as shocktroops or replacement line infantry. It is not surprising that this has also been discussed quite a bit, and also no surprise that we worked hard to at least minimize the ability for this tactic to work. Same is true for gamey recon. They are such significant departures from reality, far above and beyond others in the game, that they merit special attention...

OK, for the record here, let us first identify two key points to this rather long and drawn out discussion:

1. Recon, as described here and allowed by the curret set of rules in CM, is utterly unrealistic. Not one person here has been able to show that it is. Real life soliders have commented that it is totally unrealistic. If anybody wishes to challenge this point, kindly produce documentation that shows that Jeeps (or other fast vehicles) regullarly drove around INSIDE the kill zone of enemy lines spotting things left right and center and INSTANTLY reporting the EXACT location, makeup, and disposition of each unit spotted. I will gladly print out every page of this thread and eat the whole thing page by page if this can be shown to be true.

2. Since this tactic is divorced from the real world, yet produces often fundamental advantages for the person using it, the tactic is "gamey". It is a strong term for some, but it is in fact a clearly correct lable. If you have problems with the lable, fine, but it is accurate to lable it as such.

3. Players can use this tactic if the so wish. However, we as the game developers do not have to sit back and allow a gaping hole in the simulations strides towards reality to exist. The proposed changes mentioned earlier are there to help fix realism problems with the game as is. They are not plucked out of the air. We clearly made some minor design flaws that have contributed to the "gamey" tactic's success. It is our responsibility to fix these errors with historically correct and logically sound code changes.

4. WOULD ANYBODY be arguing about us fixing some other feature that was not labled "gamey"? For example, let us say that we found out that there was a shortcoming in the targeting equations that made a particular class of vehicles never shoot at another type of vehicle. Why on EARTH would anybody argue that we shouldn't fix this problem once it was identified? I doubt anybody would. But gee... try and shore up some rather obvious errors (with hindsight they are obvious) that might, as a result, reduce the effectiveness of a totally unrealistic tactic, and look out! Lots of feathers ruffled.

So there you go.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, here is a list of REAL LIFE / GAME REALITY points drawn from the discussion above. No serious counter argument to any of these has been put forth by supporters of the recon tactic. Perhaps with them all laid out like this people will see why this is a point that should not even be debatable...

1. In real life a fast moving vehicle wouldn't be able to spot jack squat.

Currently it can spot a lot more than that.

2. In real life whatever such a unit spotted would most likely not be known to anybody but that fast moving unit.

Currently in the game every friendly unit has instant knowledge of anything it spots.

3. In real life most small vehicles didn't even have raidos.

Currently telepathic spotting doesn't even care about this reality.

4. In real life men do not knowingly do something they thought would get them killed for absolutely no realistic gain. Occasionally someone will sacrifice himself for some major greater good, but this is rare.

Curently in the game drivers are only too happy to sacrifice themselves.

5. In real life the retention of valuable equipment was part of the responsibility of the commanding officer of that equipment.

Currently in the game there are no ramifications for losing a piece of equipment other than the point loss and the lack of further use during that particular battle.

I have probably missed a few too

Steve

[DanE]

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

To make it clear, let us say that I send a jeep zooming out of the woods immediately turning left some 20 m away parallel to my front and then zigzagging towards the other side of the map while hidden enemies shoot or do not shoot at it, is that "gamey"? I believe that you and Steve say YES. I say maybe not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say this is gamey. This tactic is used to take advantage of the way the game was programmed. IRL, what would be the real point in having your recon vehicle moving fast only 20 meters or so parallel to your line? The only reason for this tactic is to present an inexpensive target for the TacAI to shoot at, thus exposing the location of the enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I regret to have to repeat that the objective of the fast recon is not to be fired upon, but to spot enemy positions and to evaluate their strength, which is what recon is all about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Recon in the real world is all about finding the enemy and trying to evaluate his strength without getting killed. The quicker you get your job done, the better.

However, this is not the real world. Fast recon has a completely different meaning in CM. For the most part, when you start a battle in CM, a large part of your recon is done. You know the enemy is nearby and you have an idea of his strength. (You either get a force description in the briefing or you know roughly how many points he has.)

If a player decides to use gamey tactics (while playing a game), this does not make him a cheater. A player has the ability to use whatever methods the game will allow him to win. That is his choice. However, there is a part of the CM community that wants to play CM using tactics that could be used in the real world.

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

Dan

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

I don't know what else to say. I have explained our position on relative spotting very plainly, others seem to understand, yet you do not. I'm not saying that makes you particular dense or anything, but it certainly doesn't mean that I haven't answered your questions in a direct manner. ANd of course, you know that I only give back the attitude you show me... so you shouldn't have any complaints there.

I'll try one more time to lay this all out for you.

1. We thought of doing relative spotting 2 years ago.

2. At the time, with a daunting design list and a pile of unknowns up to the roof, we decided that this feature was one too many to tackle for the first version.

3. Hindsight might lead us to believe that it could have been implemented without too many problems we were worried about biting us in the ass. HOWEVER, since we still haven't coded this up, the jury is still out.

4. You are judging the wisdom of our design decision based on what you see in front of you now, not where we were 2 years ago when we had to make the decision. This is not only unfair, but a rather silly position to maintain.

5. As for being a "missed opportunity", I disagree. Although it is not in CM1, and probably not CM2, it most certainly will be introduced later on.

6. With all the other ground breaking parts of Combat Mission in place, it is rather tripe to dig in on one that we passed up on for very sound reasons (note: at the time! and that is all that matters).

7. We can't just toss in something now. It is still a fundamental change and needs to be given the time and energy that such changes require to be done right.

8. Your suggestion about having relative spotting in the Orders Phase only can not work since spotting is done during the Resolution Phase. Your suggestion requires this knowledge be there, but it is not.

9. Nothing short of a full treatment of this issue will work, which #7 above addresses. We have the design experience and knowledge of the code to know this for sure. Nobody, no matter how well intentioned, can question this.

I don't know how else to say it. This is a complicated and fundamental game design element. As desirable as it is, it wasn't practical to do for the first go. Might not even be practical to do for the second go. But it will happen when we can in fact do it right.

Steve