Gamey or not?

[MacMogul]

Just looking for some opinions.

Here's the situation (though my opponent isn't necessarily aware of my complete forces):

I started with a British Glider company, two M10 TDs, a Sexton, a Wasp, 2 MMG carriers, two Universal carriers, and two other carriers one with a MG one without (the names escape me for the moment) I also have a 107mm FO, and a spare PIAT (above the PIATs and mortars that cam with the Glider company).

I quickly lose the TDs and the Wasp, but the troop and MMG carriers deliver their transport to the buidings I'm attempting to occupy. Meanwhile, I've spotted two Pumas, a Stug III, a Hummell, and two unidentified AT guns. In a desperate measure to tie up, or with luck kill, at least the Hummell, I rush the general area where the Hummell, Stug III, and AT guns are positioned with three of the MG armed carriers while attempting to get my mortars and FO in a position to fire on them.

Is this a gamey use of the carriers? Although I wouldn't risk them this way under better circumstnaces, I have no way of bringing a PIAT or other AT weapon to bear without fighting my through two platoons of infantry, and it's going to take 2-3 mintutes to bring down any artillery, during which the Hummell and AT guns can fire unmolested. Addittionally, I have no safe place to position the carriers where they can fire at anything else, since the ACs are roaming around.

My position is that desperate times call for desperate measures and that my only other real choice would have been to withdraw 5 minutes into a 30 minute game.

FWIW, the carriers were all dead within 2 minutes, and at best they inflicted some casualties on one of the AT gun's crew. They did however stall the advance of the Hummell (perhaps, it may have stopped where it was intentionally) long enough for 107mm artillery to begin to hit the position. Time will tell if I'm able to kill the Hummell. They may also have distracted one of the ACs somewhat, as I was able to take it out with 60mm mortar fire.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

this is my take on this......

any OVERUSE of little vehicles is gamey .... in other words if ya buy 20 of these these things just to tie up your opponent by messing with his LOS - thats gamey

GROGS wills say having more than one is gamey -- I dont feel I should have to proofread a ww2 requisition manual and take several history courses just to play this game making sure i have "pure unit consistancy" ... that is the whole point of playing point matches , buy what ya want within reason.

If you are attacking on a side with several things and you lose your tanks in the progress and dart your unis for cover thats not gamey. But trying to swarm an enemy tank that you cant possibly kill is gamey

so basically it depends on you actual intent and the situation itself .. alot of grey

and on that note if a player is one who is constantly exploiting serious grey areas that is gamey too

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 07-22-2000).]

[Freyland]

In a word, no. "Desparate times call for desparate measures" were your exact words, and you are correct. History shows over and over again sacrifices sometimes must be made to stall a push, or take back an extremely important hill. Obviously you want to do it the smartest way possible, but if it must be done, so be it!

Jonathan

[MacMogul]

Just to clarify, while I was rushing a position that included a Stug I definitely couldn't kill, the Hummell was vulnerable and killing it was my goal. As it turns out, it has survived the artillery and the carriers, and it's likely going to blow hell out of my defense before I can put a PIAT on it.

Shoulda bought a tank instead of the damn TDs.

Also, I'm with you regarding gamey OOBs. In fact it's the only thing I consider particularly gamey, though the trageting AI does lend itself to somewhat gamey abuse (hopefully that will be fixed soon), and that's probably the contention here, although that's not what lead me to take the actions I did. In my experience, gamey OOBs and other tactics aren't particulalry successful anyway, so the "damage" they do is limited.

Of course, in my experience, most tactics aren't particularly successful, but I am learning.

--Bill

[This message has been edited by MacMogul (edited 07-22-2000).]

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Well if I were you opponent I dont think I wouldve been too upset by what ya did .. if at all .. Im not sure that I would ve viewed it as the best of options, nor necessarily the most realistic as it was definitley suicide with the stug there

Some players may disagree.. but unless you were running cirles around it without a prayer .. it wouldnt be that bad IMO

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Formerly Babra]

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

Shoulda bought a tank instead of the damn TDs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, brother. I was appalled to discover (in the middle of a firefight) that the Wolverine has a "very slow turret". I'd rather have a fast turret anything than one of those, no matter how sweet the gun.

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

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[MacMogul]

As it turns out the Stug wasn't really a huge threat, since it had apparently been immoblized earlier (perhaps by a near miss from my TD, though I didn't see it). Once I had gotten behind it, it was the MGs and AT guns that I had to worry about (and that eventually killed my carriers).

Out of curiosity, what would you have done with three armed carriers within 100m of enemy infantry and (potentially) ACs.

I think I may have been able to better use them as MG suport for my infantry, but I'm also convinced they'd have been dead just as fast, since my PIAT teams couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (or one of the ACs that's nearby and woulda plinked the carriers pretty quick). Coulda used 'em to get the hell out of dodge I guess, but that wouldn't have made for a very fun game.

[MacMogul]

You know, I just checked and they were Wolverines I had (rather than M10s).

No more TDs for me (at least not without real tank support), I lost a Nashorn to a HT from 850m in a game the other day.

--Bill

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I'd have to see the file - its hard to say what I would do next without looking at the situation first hand -- email it to me with pw if ya like

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Phoenix]

Well I'm the opponent that Mac mentions.

Here's my take.

Perhaps "gamey" is the wrong word. I dunno. But I find the idea of running thin skinned machine gun carriers into the rear of an enemy's position as "wrong". It just seems like a bull**** manuever.

Yeah yeah, "all is fair in war". Well....

Granted, I may we COMPLETELY wrong on this stance. I certainly have no combat experience, and only know a little about WWII compared to the gang here, so maybe it's the tactic I have a problem with?

Mac suggested that my use of gun tractors to carry troops could possibly be "gamey". Or that the use of a Hummel in direct fire could be as well. I don't follow that reasoning.

I dunno, charging some gun carriers is just something I would never do myself. Perhaps I should reconsider? It just seems that MG carriers are designed to support infantry and they have the benefit of being highly mobile. (Correct me if I'm wrong here)

The idea of turning them into some kind of Rambo weapon (charging into the enemy's rear) seems to be a misuse of the asset.

Again, I may be wrong here, but it seemed to me that my opponents intent was to take advantage of the AI. Meaning, distract the armor and guns in the rear so other units could be unharrassed.

That is my take on it.

[MacMogul]

I suggested that if my mad rush tactic was gamey, using cheaper gun tractors (rather than HTs) in mass might be considered gamey to transport troops, and that the Hummel in a direct fire role was inherently gamey (not that you have a choice in the game).

I don't actually believe any of the above is gamey, in that all the tactics have inherent weaknesses that balance whatever gamey characteristics they have. In fact I enjoy playing with Hummels despite the lack of realistic use. It's fun to watch 150mm shells impact.

When you get right down to it, it's the intenions that matter. I didn't load up with a gamey OOB, and I didn't rush into the rear with my MMG carriers just to draw fire. Within the limits imposed by the game you have to employ the weapons you have, and I think the game does a good job of negating the value of any potentially gamey tactics.

As I've said before the only thing I see as ultimately gamey is loading up some altoghether unreasonable OOB or making use of the AIs targetting issues to take advantage of tanks. I thinks that's the sticking point here, but for that to be a gamey tactic I would've had to have something to kill his tanks with while running circles around the Hummel. All I was trying to do was engage the Hummel long enough to bring some artillery down on it.

--Bill

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

Here's my opinion, FWIW. I think CM has done a good job of "negating" gamy play in several ways.

First, the point allocation keeps things down to a dull roar. You just can't buy a sqillion MG carriers.

Second, even if you do, or more plausibly, buy a squillion Kubelwagons (SP) and then run them all over the map like squirrels, they will get killed very quickly for no gain, except......

..you will locate the opponents military assets. But having spent your bucks on Kubelwagons, you'll have less of the "real" stuff to take out those assets.

Fourth, if I was the driver of a real Kubelwagon, or MG carrier, there is probably only so much I would do for the Fatherland before I bugged out of there. The morale is well modelled in CM so at least a proportion of your units being so used will likely not be too effective.

Having said all that, I reckon the "desparate measures" described are not gamey. Charge me with MG Carriers and I'll kill them. What else you got?

The opinion of a talentless CM grunt. :^)

[Mikeydz]

Hmmm... well, here's my $.02...

Assuming Mac's description of events is accurate, I don't thing it was gamey, but hard to say. Sounds more like a bad tactic. Either way, his carriers paid the price.

I know I probably would not have done what he did, but without seeing what the lay of the land was, I can't say what I would have done instead.

BTW I don't have to much of a problem with the gun tractor thing. They are unarmed and unarmored, so if they come under fire from anything, the troops on them are in danger. Considering the costs, I would have bought trucks instead, at least they are a bit faster.

And in the game, since they Hummel is only usable in direct fire mode, I can't see how using it is gamey, unless you say that just buying the thing is a gamey move.

Mikey

[Notnowjohn]

Personally, I believe the whole question of "gaminess" and things being "gamey" is getting way out of hand.

The last time I checked, Combat Mission, while admittedly a very realistic simulation is still a "game".

As desktop or laptop commanders, we are given (or choose) certain assets with which we are expected to achieve certain results. Not to make the absolute most of these assets in any given situation just seems silly to me.

I played an operation not too long ago as the Germans. My orders were very explicit: defend to the last man!

Now, if the last man happened to be the commander of a MMG Carrier, and my defense hinged on having him charge that thin-skinned TD in the possible but-oh-so-next-to-impossible hope of knocking him out, do I hesitate? Hell no.

And when my opponent does the same to me do I scream "Gamey"? I think not. I admire his brass and say a silent prayer for his brave, dead lads or laugh my ass off and chalk up another one to this incredible "game" when the impossible happens and he kicks my ass. That's just what makes this "game" so damn much fun! Anything can happen and sometimes it even does.

And what exactly is the difference between a gamey tactic in CM and one that is rare, unusual and unexpected in the real world?

Did the crew members of abandoned tanks ever charge enemy tanks on foot? I was never there and I dont' recall ever reading anything like that but I'll bet anybody that they probably did. And it probably happened more than once. (This, however, is something I usually try to avoid, as crewmen by and large make suck-ass infantry, and also because I will soon be involved in the CMMC, wherein surviving armor crewmen will be a very valuable commodity.)

But I'll bet Patton would've charged that Hummel with those carriers if he didn't have anything else and felt the situation warranted it.

Just my lousy, know-nothing two cents, and all resemblances to any smilies living or dead is purely coincidental...