Tactic to quell "gamey" play.

[Maximus]

Simple fellas.....DESTROY the ENEMY! This is of course referring to last minute thrusts for Victory Flags.

To me that has to be the most gamey tactic in the book. For one, the game should be coded in order for a person to have some sort of minimum control or power in a Victory Flag location for it to change hands. In other words, running a sniper that is out of ammo, back to some VF just to grab control over it should not change possession of th Flag, or even neutralize it. It should take a number of points, say each unit has its value, there should be a value check. Say a King Tiger occupies a VF, and an American MG crew manages to sneak into the area, that area should not change to neutral.

I don't even play for VFs, I play to annihilate the enemy. Hell, isn't that how Operations work. There are no VFs in Operations. You just push for an objective and destroy the enmey on the way.

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

"Rule#3: You must be a member of my Meta Campaign to take

part.(doh!)" - Rob/1

[109 Gustav]

Well, I find it more effective to just defend the flags more thouroughly, with units in front of the flag, not just beside it. That way, the enemy units have a greater chance of getting killed on the way in.

Another highly recommended method of countering this technique is to play only people that you know wouldn't do this. Works every time.

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

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[Guest AggroMann]

Well if your a victim of the last minute thrust that is successful, and even had more troops present at the end of the scenario than your opponent did then you could just brag to your opponent how if you were able to play the same scenario for just 3 or 4 turns more you would have been able to counter attack and totally liquidize his remaining 3 man squads and such.......and wow this is quite a run on sentance........................................I'll quit babbling now...

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

AGGRO-MANN

[Maximus]

Well I just finished playing my buddy in a PBEM, he gave up after just 7 turns. I completely destroyed his initial force: 3 StuGs, 1 Panther G (late), and about one company of infantry. I only took about, maybe, 10 infantry casulaties. It was a meeting engagement and I had him caught in a crossfire. He came straight down the middle, I had him flanked on both sides. He did try coming up on my left flank where I had my Priest set up but I had two platoons of infantry standing guard in the area. LOL! Gotta love those Priests when you got'em set up in a good position where it's out of the Line of Fire.

[Mr. Clark]

Victory Flags should not REALLY be considered "gamey", as they represent an objective.

Taking Objectives is sometimes more important than number of enemy killed (winning by attrition).

So, in a quick battle of 20 turns with a single victory flag in the center... wouldn't the "combat mission" be to take the area (represented by the flag) in 20 minutes or less with the forces available? And if you succeeded in doing so, no matter HOW or WHEN you succeeded, are you not then the victor?

I'm only posting this opinion of mine because to me it seems that there is a "gamey" tactics WITCH HUNT on right now... where anything that allows you to win is being called "gamey."

Soon it will be believed that the only way to "really" win is to rush blind, headlong into the enemy, never once allowing your forces to halt their movement, except jeeps, which cannot move at all because that would be considered "scouting".

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Soon it will be believed that the only way to "really" win is to rush blind, headlong into the enemy, never once allowing your forces to halt their movement, except jeeps, which cannot move at all because that would be considered "scouting".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you serious??? A part of this "scouting" issue is related to Jeeps??? Then WTF are they used for then? I am sure as hell gonna send a Jeep forward first before I send a precious Sherman. Hell, with all of this contraversy lately about scouting and all, it's making me use my halftracks and such as scouting mobil MG platforms.

I mean, what's the issue? Using them in a way to be cannon fodder to flush out the enemy? So what! Better them than using a Sherman.

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Mark IV]

This really was one of the things handled nicely by SP (Steel Panthers): random scenario lengths.

A 25-turn game went for maybe 27-30 turns, you never knew...

This whole issue (gamey play) has not really been a problem for me. I doubt whether it has for most, though posts here indicate that it does indeed exist. With random scenario lengths, that "last minute" rush may not be the last minute after all, and I recommend it wholeheartedly. Again!

[Mr. Clark]

I agree with using jeeps for scouting Maximus. Especially to carry a split squad quickly to an advance location.

I think there is some spotting/speed or something issue with jeeps that needs repairing, but otherwise, I see no other real use for em.

Mark, I really like the last turn idea! They would not even have to run for THAT MUCH over... perhaps a surprise two extra turns... that's all it would take to repel a weak last minute rush.

But then again, a weak last minute rush really should not be enough troops to swing the victory too much one way. I've found that rushing against a strong flag defense usually only gets troops ground to meat piles.

Is it still possible to gain a victory even if the flags end nuetral?

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

This really was one of the things handled nicely by SP (Steel Panthers): random scenario lengths.

A 25-turn game went for maybe 27-30 turns, you never knew...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ayup that was a kewel feature kept you guessing on how much time you had left as well as makeing commitments cause you could get in real trouble depite thinking you were safe.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Pvt. Ryan]

The random extension of time in QBs is a good idea.

I would also like to see the option to not have VLs in QBs. That would compeletely eliminate the last minute rush problem. Additionally, if players opt to have VLs, they should be placed in sensible locations or dominant terrain features, such as hills, crossroads, town centers, or tall buildings on rural maps. As it is now, you have to defend strategically unimportant ground simply because there is a VL there.

Without rehashing the whole gamey recon tactics thing, I don't think anyone has a problem with using Jeeps and scout cars for recon; the problem is racing them around in your opponent's rear area to draw fire or spot units in an unrealistic way.

[Chupacabra]

The more I play CM, the less I worry about 'gameyness.'

The answer is really quite simple. You play people who you enjoy playing. No complaints then.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Victory Flags should not REALLY be considered "gamey", as they represent an objective.

Taking Objectives is sometimes more important than number of enemy killed (winning by attrition).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as the the other thread is referring to. The gamey issue is not the VL itself, but the last turn grab/suicide run at them that is in question. While there are some that totally hate the VL concept. I don't have a problem with them.

Let's say currently the game is on the last turn, with a score of 65-35. The player in the lead is in firm control of all three VLs in this imaginary scenario. The losing player decided to attack all three VLs on the last turn. He doesn't have the forces to succeed in capturing, much less hold the VLs if faced with a counter-attack. So what happens? He attacks all three VLs, loses half his attacking forces in the attacks, but changes all the VLs to neutral. If the game continued for even one more turn, his remaining "attackers" would get slaughtered, and the VLs revert back to the defending player, but since the end turn is hard coded and unchanging, time magically stops and the points are scored for that snapshot moment in time. He may not pull out a win, but he may manage to claw out a draw. THAT is what is gamey about it. In real life, he probably turned a minor defeat/retreat into a total loss of most of his forces, but in CM, he actually "improved" his score slightly.

Now personally, I would still consider this a big win for me if I was the defending player, in a just for fun game. But if this is some sort of a ladder/tourney game, then I might be a little peeved. And even in a just for fun game, I'm going to feel a little bummed, because I hate to see things that wouldn't normally happen in real life. I know this is "just a game", but it's a game that attempts to generate historically plausible results. And when something happens that isn't realistic, especially if it's the result of a conscious decision of my opponent, then it chips away at my enjoyment of the game.

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

So, in a quick battle of 20 turns with a single victory flag in the center... wouldn't the "combat mission" be to take the area (represented by the flag) in 20 minutes or less with the forces available? And if you succeeded in doing so, no matter HOW or WHEN you succeeded, are you not then the victor?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically, yes. Once the game ends, he with the most points wins. That is fine. But that is also the playing point of view of a gamer. To a person who looks to this as more of a historical simulation of combat, they don't see it that way. Especially if they are "defeated" with a tactic that would give them a total victory if the hard turn limit did not exist.

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

I'm only posting this opinion of mine because to me it seems that there is a "gamey" tactics WITCH HUNT on right now... where anything that allows you to win is being called "gamey."

Soon it will be believed that the only way to "really" win is to rush blind, headlong into the enemy, never once allowing your forces to halt their movement, except jeeps, which cannot move at all because that would be considered "scouting".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is a major exaggeration. There is no witch hunt. What we do have is several schools of thought on how to enjoy CM. Unfortunately, they are not very compatible, which results in the friction we see over the gameyness issue.

BTW, because of the debate with the "jeep scouting" issue, an error in code was uncovered. Would you rather not have this? I see this as a healthy debate, as long as people on both sides don't get emotional over this and let the fight get too heated and personal. After all, "it's only a game..."

[Chupacabra]

Like Mikeydz said, this isn't a witch hunt. Go back and look at the 500 post long 'gamey recon' thread and tell me this is a witch hunt

My growing lack of interest in 'gameyness' is because, like pornography, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I attempt to use historical OOBs and tactics in my own games, and I most enjoy playing those who attempt to do the same. There's really no reason to play those who you don't enjoy playing.

Threads like this convince me more and more that there never will be a common consensus on what's 'gamey' or not, and I think a better criteria would be what's personally fun for you.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Snake Eyes]

I would like to see a 10% variable factor added to game lengths. For example: a 30 turn game could end anywhere from turn 27 to turn 33. I believe this would mitigate a last minute rush to the VL.

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Guest tero]

As grabbing the flag is the name of the game I think having your opponent grab it during the very last turn is foreseeable. After all what have they been trying to do for the last 20-30 turns anyway but grab the frigging flags.

I have played a PBEM where my opponent did not reach the flags until the very last turns (being cautious by nature he spent, squandered even, his time advancing cautiously). I was able to hold on to the flags because I had concentrated my defences around the flags. Had my opponent been more bold I doubt I could have held on to the V-flags. In a sense I was saved by the bell when the game ended.

I've even had AI doing the suicidal dashes for the flags during the last turns in QB's.

I think the only way to make these "gamey" V-flag grabbing tactics less effective AND have the AI funtioning properly is to include a "adjust V-flag point values" to the QB set up. That way you can get the benefits of QB set up and you do not have to fiddle around with the editor needlessly. When the V-flags are there but their point value is 0 pts there is no point in these suicidal dashes at the last moment.

BTW: I think it would be neat to be able to move the V-flags around in QB set up phase. That way you could create instant "light" scenarios.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

I would like to see a 10% variable factor added to game lengths. For example: a 30 turn game could end anywhere from turn 27 to turn 33. I believe this would mitigate a last minute rush to the VL.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the 10% variable

sounds good

in most 60 minute games you really have a VERY good idea who is clearly the victor by the 54th turn in a thirty minute game the battle is usually largely over by the 27th minute except for the now infamous last minute flag rush.

Even still there are gamey gamblers out there that will still try the late flag rush on the 27th turn a 30 turn game hoping that they can gain a draw if the game ends on the 27th turn, as there would be a 1 in 7 chance (could end on turn 27-28-29-30-31-32 or 33) their last minute flag rsuh might just netralize that VL

I wonder?

Has anyone official from BTS ever commented on the variable turn ending?

Does anyone have any good reasons as to why the possibility of a hard coded and variable turn ending is NOT a good idea?

Is it technically do-able?

is it possible we could see it in a patch some time down the road?

comments?

-tom w

[tss]

Mikeydz wrote:

Now personally, I would still consider this a big win for me if I was the defending

player, in a just for fun game.

Same thing for me. After a battle I know whether I have won or lost, no matter what score CM gives to each side. And my criteria are not the same as CM's criteria. If I have lost 75% of my men, I count it as a severe failure even if I end up having all victory flags.

One of my PBEM games ended yesterday. I attacked with Allies over snowy ground. The game ranked it as a minor Axis victory. I rank it as a major Allied defeat. My left wing's attack culminated and it would have been very vulnerable to any counter attacks. My right wing was a meat-grinder that forced its way through German defences in a way would have made a 1941 Soviet comissar proud. If the game had continued for, say, 5 turns more I could have probably captured a few victory flags more but in any case my attack could have continued only as long as my 105mm Sherman's HE ammo lasted.

- Tommi

[Snake Eyes]

I did a search on 'variable game length' and found that this topic has been discussed before. However, I didn't see any 'official' pronouncements by BTS. It could be because my search criteria doesn't cover all possibilities. Does anyone recall a BTS response to this topic in the past?

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Mr. Clark]

The "counterattack next turn" argument just doesn't work in this situation! OK, you're opponent rushes the flags and actually makes it there (what kind of a defense did you have???) and scores some last minute points.

HOW is this worse than some of my games where I KNOW I would have lost the flag as the defender within one or two more turns, but the game ended and saved me? It's not!

What I don't think people are seeing here is that the flag is the objective! It represents a piece of property that your forces need to hold by game end. Perhaps, after that last minute flag rush on turn 20 where you somehow manage to capture the VL, the cavalry shows up and pulls your butt out of the fire and secures the location. so see, you can't really make up imaginary post battle stories that if you had 2 more turns you would win, because that ALSO can be turned against you.

I like my games to be as realistic as I can make them... and yet I just see no argument that a last minute flag rush is "gamey."

It's not something I think you should always do (it may cost you a much larger defeat), however, if you honestly think you can do it, then why not?

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

I did a search on 'variable game length' and found that this topic has been discussed before. However, I didn't see any 'official' pronouncements by BTS. It could be because my search criteria doesn't cover all possibilities. Does anyone recall a BTS response to this topic in the past?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000320.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001581.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002378.html

From looking at this group of threads, it seems that there originally was going to be some provision to have a semi-random end game extenstion controlled by the AI, but it was not included. While this would not directly fix the AI rush problem, it would almost invalidate the suicide rush for a human player as a valid tactic. If you had no firm idea when the game ends, it would really be suicide to employ the end game rush, as it should be.

The only question then is how to determine how long past the end of the game should the time be extended? Pure random? AI controlled? Personally, I would try and keep it as simple as possible, for coding reasons as much as anything else. First, allow random game end to be a toggleable option at the start of the game setup. Then maybe use something like this.

At the end of the last turn, the chance of game end is equal to 20% base chance plus the difference in the actual score of the game. For each additional turn, the base chance goes up 20%. So the maximum would be 5 turn extention.

So in a 30 turn game, if at the end of turn 30, the internal score is 58-42, the chance the game would end is 36%. Next turn, assuming the score stays the same, it would have 56% chance of ending.

I'm just throwing this out as an example of something that hopefully would be simple to code in, since it's using a simple formula, and not asking the AI to make a decision on what it thinks is going on in the game.

Anything though that throws in any type of uncertainty into the works as far as when the game will end would be welcome.

Thoughts? Alternative ideas? Objections?

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

The "counterattack next turn" argument just doesn't work in this situation! OK, you're opponent rushes the flags and actually makes it there (what kind of a defense did you have???) and scores some last minute points.

HOW is this worse than some of my games where I KNOW I would have lost the flag as the defender within one or two more turns, but the game ended and saved me? It's not!

What I don't think people are seeing here is that the flag is the objective! It represents a piece of property that your forces need to hold by game end. Perhaps, after that last minute flag rush on turn 20 where you somehow manage to capture the VL, the cavalry shows up and pulls your butt out of the fire and secures the location. so see, you can't really make up imaginary post battle stories that if you had 2 more turns you would win, because that ALSO can be turned against you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, how about this scenario. You have a platoon of troops defending a VL. Your opponent attacks your with 3 battered squads, a HQ unit, and a couple of vehicle crews. In this scenario at best the attackers probably are attacking at a 1 to 1 ratio. More than likely they will be repulsed after a couple of turns of fighting, with light casualties to the defenders. But what will happen is that the VL will turn neutral while the battle takes place. If this happens on the last turn, the normal outcome (the attackers getting killed) can't happen because the game ended. So that attack would be in effect a net win for the attackers, contrary to what we both know will usually happen. In a close game, the lost points for "losing" control of the VL may make the difference between a minor victory that you should get, and a draw, or worse a loss for the battle. The attacker is basically rewarded for using an unsound tactic (attacking a defended position without generally superior forces). Should that really be rewarded in this game?

[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Private Parts]

Well, gamey or not, there is definitely a technical issue with the current flag system. No-one has mentioned CPU games. The other day I finished South of Sword with all 3 flags in my possession - heavy sacrifices were made to gain these objectives, set by my 'superiors' - playing by the spirit of the game. At the end of the game me as Allies and the CPU Axis had roughly the same number of units left, but I had all the flags - yet it was declared a draw!

Personally, how a PBEM game is won is irrelevant to me - if someone is using cowardly tactics, I just wouldn't play them again.

The way the game measures who has control of the flags seems to be an issue in PBEM and the value of the flags an issue in 1P games.

[Snake Eyes]

Thanks to Mikeydz who found http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002378.html which in part says:

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

We thought about random game lengths. There were some problems balancing this out right, so the game will not extend beyond its turn count. We might want to change this in the future, but for some of the reasons listed above don't think it is as huge of an issue as with other games. Flag rushing usually results in worse results than staying put. Mostly because casualties mean so much and can be rapidly "aquired" if the player is too hasty.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It appears that BTS is still willing to listen to arguments in favor of variable game lengths. Since this feature has some drawbacks, how about making it an option that players can negotiate at game start? Players can then choose their own poison, as it were.

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Mr. Clark]

Hmmmm... I can see both sides to the new scenario.

First, if a VF changes to neutral because of a small skirmish near it, it would be rather annoying to the defender in the last turn.

However, you could also argue that if there was still skirmishing going on near the VF at games end... commander has not succeeded in securing the objective in said amount of time.

Also, from what BTS said in that quote, it seems that the troops getting chopped up during that charge will count harder against the attacker/rusher than the flag change will count against the defender.

Kind of a fun argument.

[Mark IV]

SP's system worked fine, and only varied the scenario length randomly 0-4 turns or so, regardless of scenario size (20% of 60 turns is around 12 turns, which seems a bit lengthy).

It dealt with the suicide rush in about the simplest possible manner.

It is all too easy, btw, with full FOW, to interpret an opponent's "normal" effort to capture the VL as a "gamey" last minute tactic. I wouldn't quit trying 5 turns early just to avoid the appearance of gaminess, and wouldn't expect anyone else to. Come and get it.

If it was that close, you're in the Draw range anyhow.