Gamey or Not

[JWorthing]

First of all, I don't want to offend my opponent by coming to this board and asking everyone's opinion. I went to the board because I didn't want to "accuse" him of gamey tactics without first getting second (and third, fourth, etc.) opinions. He is a very very good and knowledgable opponent who has taught me much and has given me more to think about (concerning the game).

OKay here's the situation: There are about 3 or 4 turns left in the game. My opponent has proceeded to rush half tracks, as far as I can see, full of infantry, to a pretty much deserted Victory Flag. Only about 2 squads and a piat are guarding it (and they are all pretty badly mauled).

As far as I can see it's a "rush" before the game ends to occupy a Victory Flag. I appreciate any opinions on the matter. Thanks in advance.

[Formerly Babra]

So what I'm hearing is that your opponent was wise enough to keep reserves and commit them for the knock out blow.

Really, there's no way around the artificial time constraints of a turn-based game.

If it were me, and I was losing (or not winning handily), I'd do the same thing. I'd have to. Should I lose just because there's only a few turns left? I agree it LOOKS gamey, but what option does he have?

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

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

[JWorthing]

I see what your saying, but is it realistic?

If the game went on, all those halftracks would be knocked out in mere minutes by my abundant armor. His infantry would be harder to dislodge but it could be done through overwhelming firepower.

Thanks for the response and I really do see what you are saying...just adding another factor to the situation since I forgot to.

[Formerly Babra]

No, it's not realistic. Neither are Victory flags.

On the other hand, I can hear his C.O. sayin' "Major, I want that hill by 0800 hours and I don't want no excuses!".

I'd say give him the benefit of the doubt.

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

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

[JWorthing]

Ah, GREAT point!

Thanks a lot Babra. I have a lot of mopping up to do then.

I was afraid I would regret posting this problem up but thanks again.

[Nick Carter]

One of the few things I liked about Steel Panthers was that scenarios had a randomly variable length - even though they would state a time limit of x turns, the computer would add an unknown onto that of a few more turns. Made it hard to make those last suicidal rushes, if you couldn't hold what you'd taken.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Nick,

I like that idea. I know that reinforcements can appear at variable times; Perhaps variable mission endings could be in the next version.Good idea

[Guest KwazyDog]

Actually, this does remind me of something I learnt in my 2nd or 3rd game I ever played of CM

Where possable, always protect yourself from this sort of attack. One question you asked is 'is it realistic'? Maybe or maybe not depending on circumstances but on the other hand would it be realistic to totally leave your rear area unprotected. Probably not either, hehe. One tank would have save you from the attack, a good lesson learnt for the future.

When it happen to me, I lost 5 Shermans and a M10 to 2 Pumas

[JWorthing]

Exactly Kwazy Dog. I should have never left the area unprotected or so underprotected. My fault. As you said, "a good lesson learnt for the future."

Another lesson learned is to avoid frontal assaults when you can. Always out-flank, out flank!!! sorry, just getting something off my chest.

[chrisl]

I'm the opponent, and I thought a lot about whether it was gamey or not (it's been several turns in the making), and decided that it's probably not. If it's possible I'd be more that happy to go into the scenario editor and extend it a few turns so you can run the tanks and remaining troops at them. Once it was clear that all the HTs are going I was going to say something, but I didn't want to give it away if you couldn't see it yet.

From what I can see (and I may be wrong), the two flags are undefended, except for an immobilized tank (which I expect to destroy), and a broken squad. All your remaining resources are tied up on that last hill. There appears to be a lot of armor, and one reasonably healthy platoon there (which has suffered several turns of arty barrage). The other infantry in a few buildings near where the HTs are coming from haven't shown themselves in a while, and don't appear to be very healthy after a few barrages from the 150s.

The HTs aren't empty (a few are but you have to guess which ones, and most are not). If they weren't substantially filled with fresh troops I would agree that it's gamey, and not do it. There's plenty of AT hardware floating around in the HTs, along with some pretty healthy troops. It looks to me like a chance to cut off some tanks that have minimal remaining infantry support.

It was a tough call whether to do it or not, and that platoon of tanks covering the woods both made it necessary and hard to do at the same time. I couldn't charge the tanks, and didn't want to leave the infantry exposed in the tree line, so I pulled them back (quite a few of them, and quite healthy) and started loading halftracks (I have about a dozen left). I was hoping the combination of the arty, the Panzer IV (which didn't last long), the Pumas (which sat in ambush and turned out to be useless when I tried to charge and get flank shots on buttoned tanks), and some other stuff (that you may or may not have seen yet), would make it a little safer for the halftracks, but no such luck.

btw- I'm very difficult to offend, so I don't mind writing about it here (hopefully it won't make it difficult to get opponents).

[chrisl]

I see a few posts went up in the time I was writing. You should save the movies you send me and watch them after the game is over. I have them all if you've been deleting them.

I'll also send you the partial orders file for the turn when I planned it all out. It crashed while I was plotting the first time, and then I started saving every few orders. I've occasionally had the game hang up when I plot too many armor waypoints, and theres a *lot* in that file.

[Fionn]

I think it's not gamey.

If there are 5 turns left then that's enough time for a lot to happen.

Also, you should NEVER have left such a position with anti=-tank cover. If one tank had been nearby you'd be cackling over the slaughter of your opponent's forces.

[Disaster]

In Sid Meier's Gettysburg, if you manage to contest a victory flag before the end of the game, time is extended for a short time to provide more opportunity for an outcome to be decided at that flag.

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

Victory flags are there for a reason - to gain victory points thus enabling you to win, if you choose to abandon them or to leave them undefended you should suffer the consequences.

Also, both players know where the victory flags are - but there are no rules to say when you should capture them by, capturing them near the end of the game could be argued as a tactical move?

Personaly i would not worry if an opponent did it to me, it is all part of the game IMO.

I have had an opponent use gamey tactics against me quite blatently, but i was not concerned at all because war is a dirty game with dirty tactics, i would play him again anytime. No worries.

Glad you asked so nicely, i am sure your opponent was not offended - OTOH there are always some who would not like it.

CDIC

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

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[chrisl]

Well, he posted before I saw the movie. It didn't work nearly as well as I had hoped, as I had to rush past some buttoned tanks to get where I was headed (actually the farther victory flag-- I figured a few would get knocked out near the middle one and the bailing infantry could cover it).

The buttoned tanks managed to chew up the halftracks pretty well. My one remaining StuH was supposed to pop out from some trees and knock out some of the tanks (it got none), my 88 was supposed to provide smoke to cut visibility from the hill on the opposite side (it didn't).

Those tanks consistently detected threats faster than the threats detected them (and the threats were pretargeted on them!!!) and eliminated them. All his tanks were facing the wrong way when the StuH came poking through the trees, and the StuH lost (as did the Puma before that, and the Panzer IV before that, and the other Panzer IV before that).

A halftrack with AP coming through the side doesn't seem to be a healthy place for infantry to be (as I discovered when I inventoried the survivors). I might be able to contest the middle flag, but it's a very tought spot to defend, and way too close to his armor/troops to be comfortable. I was hoping to be in the trees behind the far flag chuckling, but nobody even got halfway.

[Joe Shaw]

I personally find the VL issue to be one of the most disturbing of the lot. In one PBEM game I eaked out a minor victory mostly because the game called a VL Neutral despite the fact that it was well within the "sphere of influence" of my opponent and I didn't have anyone near it. He didn't either, however, and apparently the game decided that it had never been occupied and was therefore neutral.

Another problem apparently has to do with which units can cause a VL to be occupied. In one game I seem to have a sniper taking a VL which is essentially behind enemy lines, yet in another a mortar unit isn't sufficient to occupy one that is clearly in question.

Does anyone know how the game decides these things?

Joe

[rwcanuck]

Joe has a point there, VLs are a thorny issue. It was always a big issue in Close Combat with rushes in the last few minutes of the game just to gain a VL which upset several players to the point many CC players would only play "fight to the death" scenarios.

In CC snipers cannot change the colour of a VL. It should be the same in CM.

A variable ending would also be nice to see in CM similar to Steel Panthers.

In QBs what is the point value on VLs?

If you have beaten up your opponent badly and have lots of units left but did not take any VLs when time expired and your opponent may hold one of 2 VLs with a decimated force what would the outcome look like?

[TexasToast]

I agree that it seems too easy to contest victory flags with few or even one well-hidden guy. I've done it at least once by accident. It seems like some kind of ratio needs to come into play, i.e., if you are outnumbered 5-1 you can't contest the flag. The variable ending sounds interesting too.

[Henri]

It may be gamey, but victory flags are even more gamey; unfortunately no one has yet found a better way for computer games where one has to play against the AI.How many times in WW2 were unit told "Take that victory flag over there by 2 PM or else we lose the war!"?

Apparently no one has yet considered the possibility in human vs human games to change the victory conditions a la Squad Leader -even when playing SL scenarios!

How about conditions like "Occupy at least four buildings in the town at game's end", or "Keep all enemy units at least 3 hexes away from the N-S road, and safely exit at least half of your force off the North edge of the map".

C'mon guys, let's see some creativity here!

Henri

[Ragtime]

This is something me and my friends discuss time and time again shen we play ASL. We call it the "Pamplona-tactic", when mainly infantry charge ahead against building hexes etc. to reach those beautiful VC hexes in the last game turn. And indeed, sometimes the rushes might seem as "intelligent" as running in front of poor live stock in Spain.

But it is not unrealistic that a scenario can be won with forces that might be destroyed easily the next turn. In those cases we usually assume that the scenarions VC's are based upon let's say arrival of heavy reinforcements or substantial air-support.

But, in the end, VC are an abstract measure of who has played the better match (i.e. with the use of forces at hand carry out a predetermined mission). What you describe sounds to me like a simple misstake, and you seem to have used it in the best way, learn from it:)

[Eboli]

Great thread for us beginners, by the way. Learning a lot here.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

Here it is, .. "GAMEY" or not I play to win, I play against the AI a great deal and the AI given the same opportunnity will ALWAYS make the late rush to the victory flag with what ever it has left.

My consideration of "gamey" has to do with whether or not I would expect the AI to do the SAME to me. In this case I think the AI would use these reserves to make the rush to win. If I was your opponent I would do the same.

Most of the REALLY gamey things in CM have been elimated by the way CM is coded. But I still play CM by the axiom that "ALL's fair in Love and War" and This has NOTHING to do with Love, so I'm one of those players who believe the Geneva convention was just a good Idea to keep some politicians busy for a while and that surrendering and advanceing with a Machine strapped to your back (the Japenese are alleged to have pulled this stunt) so your buddy behind you can open up and fire and kill all your would be captors, when you bend over while you are surrendering, is still a good idea. OK, you all think I sneaky now, fine I still play to win!

The word 'gamey" gets alot of play around here. The new v1.03 took care of some gamey issues. I say play the game and play to WIN! No holds barred. If you have reserves and set them up for a late Victory flag charge then good for you, but don't call those tactics which are clearly designed to WIN and take advantage or a weak postion late in the game as gamey!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Perfect!

I agree with this completely!

"war is a dirty game with dirty tactics"

I agree with that, "Maximum use of available resources" and do what ever it takes to win. I'm not interested in hearing excuses that revolve around players allegeding they lost because their opponent used "gamey" tactics. Forget that! One player found a way to WIN and the other lost, the only thing truly gamey in this war (battles in CM) is actually hacking the code and changing the course of battle in PBEM files and that is (as I understand it) virtually impossible, now that is beyond "gamey" and I would call that cheating, other than that play the damn game and play to win using every trick and tactic it takes.

-tom w

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

Victory flags are there for a reason - to gain victory points thus enabling you to win, if you choose to abandon them or to leave them undefended you should suffer the consequences.

I have had an opponent use gamey tactics against me quite blatently, but i was not concerned at all because war is a dirty game with dirty tactics, i would play him again anytime. No worries.

CDIC

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Lorak]

The easiest way around this is to make your games long enough. Most all the PBEM games we are playing are quick battles.

So don't be stingy on the turns.

go ahead and bumb the turns up. Make the games 40 or 50 turns. Most likely the game will be over well before then, but at least you won't have to worry about running out of time.

This really makes sense in meeting engagments. In attack/defend... You need to use judgement. I think the defender should be given a little break. Like "hold for 30 min." ect...

Lorak

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

"someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati

*

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Guest KwazyDog]

One thing I think is important to remember here is that even though 'flag rushes' may be gamey, they can easily be defeated by a non gamey tactic....protecting your rear areas.

If a scenario is well designed, the flags will be based on vital areas higher level command deems as important, such as a road junction, hill, villiage, etc, for whatever reasons. In reality these areas would have been secured, not left behind undefended.

If you protect these areas your opponent may try to rush them still in the closing minutes of the battle, but I promise you one thing, he will only try it once