Gamey or good tactics?

[Ron]

After playing many pbem games, certain issues continue to arise which I wonder about. I have the following examples in mind:

1 - Setting up ambushes at the enemy's reinforcement entry point and waiting for them to arrive.

2 - Calling in artillery to bombard enemy reinforcements the moment they arrive.

3 - Hugging the map edge with your forces in a 'flanking' maneuver.

I realize this might simply be indicative of playing the same scenario countless times and a non issue once we get the full version with new scenarios, but with ladders up now I think scenarios will be replayed. My own feeling regarding these examples is they're gamey as hell. I'm not seeking justification or confirmation but am curious what other people's take on this is. Namely what constitutes good, fair play versus gamey play?

Thanks,

Ron

[von shrad]

gamey

gamey

not gamey

[Howitzer]

Ron,

I certainly agree with you about (1) and (2) , UNLESS the opponent can honestly expect your already on-map troops to be moving through that area. (Nearly impossible in the demo scenarios.)

Regarding (3), I disagree completely . Part of the game is maneuver; unless someone tells me (for instance in CMMC) that I have a command control boundary WITHIN the map, the whole area is fair game. In defense, any commander would feel obligated to defend their whole front; any attacker would probe the whole front looking for holes.

FWIW,

Steve C.

[This message has been edited by Howitzer (edited 06-14-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

I would say that #1 will be a non issue in a double blind game. Otherwise I think that it is not really cheating and I would use it and expect my opponent to use if he could.

#2 Since Arty takes some time to arrive and since reinforcements don't always come in on the same turn I think this is just a gamble and IMHO it is a perfectly legititmate tactic.

And i doubt it would be an issue in a double blind match.

#3 I understand there is some risk to this one, as your panic or routed or broken units may choose to flee off the edge of the map never to return, so there is a trade off to that one too and I would say, again IMHO, that hugging the edge of the map in an outflanking move is a perfectly legit tactic.

I'm sure some others might feel differently but those are my opinions.

-tom w

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

After playing many pbem games, certain issues continue to arise which I wonder about. I have the following examples in mind:

1 - Setting up ambushes at the enemy's reinforcement entry point and waiting for them to arrive.

2 - Calling in artillery to bombard enemy reinforcements the moment they arrive.

3 - Hugging the map edge with your forces in a 'flanking' maneuver.

My own feeling regarding these examples is they're gamey as hell. I'm not seeking justification or confirmation but am curious what other people's take on this is. Namely what constitutes good, fair play versus gamey play?

Thanks,

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Joe Shaw]

Ron, I know that I've been seriously bummed out in other games when some clown camped on my reinforcement area and slaughtered them as they came on. I have less of a problem, personally, with hugging the map edge. To my mind it's very similar to having a river edge there.

The flip side of the reinforcement issue, however, is that a good commander must protect his lines of communication/supply. So if you fail or are unable to do so, maybe you reap the results of that failure. I'm not sure on this one, it really annoyed me the couple of times it happened (again, another game), but maybe it was just because I got hammered so bad.

Finally, I suspect that this will be much less of a problem as long as you play double blind games, either scenarios that neither has played or randomly generated scenarios.

Joe

[buddy]

Whatever it takes to get the job done...I think the reason some feel the way they do is because the game (and the game editor) haven't been released yet - everyone knows pretty well what to expect. You may not in the future and then the slaughtering of reinforcements will be celebrated by at least one person...

[gaffertape]

All pretty gamey, although how one defines the map edge is iffy: What distance defines 'hugging'?

A perfect example of your #1 comment: In my current PBEM, CITIZEN has pretty much decimated my forces (this discloses nothing - its fairly obvious), but he kept his tanks out of LOS of the road where my Panther arrives. I'm sure it was very tempting to set up a killer ambush, but being a man of honour, he did not.

In a case such as VoT or CE, we pretty much all know where things arrive, yet our troops should not act as if they have this information. In a random or double blind game however, if you happen to be at the right place at the right time - crush him.

GAFF

[Guest Germanboy]

1. depends, in VoT for example, you have hill 209 as objective. The road is leading to the German rear, so it is probable that German reinforcements would arrive from there. As long as you don't put all your troops there but only a holding force, I would not have a problem. If you have six Shermans and all your infantry waiting there, I might be miffed. This might become an issue in mirrored ladder games, but I have no idea how common these will be.

2. gamey, absolutely so.

3. No, that is alright with me. The map edge is your unit boundary, what you do inside is your choice.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[EScurlock]

1) Gamey

2) Gamey

3) Not Gamey, especially on a map like VOT's that just begs you to use cover available near the edges.

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

He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins.

[Doug Beman]

I agree that 1 and 2 are gamey, but 3 is sorta tough to qualify. Here's an

example I think is interesting:

A player is in command of a force attacking somewhere. Let's say this is part of CMMC, but it could be a random scenario. Now, in real life, that player would be given a certain corridor to attack along; straying to either side could result in confusion, at least, and fratricide possibly. Hence the map-edge we see.

In either CM or real life, the player decides to move his forces along the "map edge" either because there's good terrain there, or possibly just to eliminate one flank. In CM, at least, the attacker has completely eliminated the need for flank-watchers along the map edge.

HOWEVER, in this case, the defender is also forced to conform to the map edge, even though in real life he would be under no such restriction to stay within the

"corridor of attack" or whatever you want to call it. Instead, he would be almost expected to find a flank of the attacking force and hit it. In this case,

CM and real life would differ. In real life, the defender might move his troops outside of the attacker's corridor and get a good flank counterattack. In CM, however, because there is a hard-edge to the map, the defender cannot do this.

If the attacker is along the map edge because of good cover, I think it's good tactics and the defender should plan accordingly. If the attacker is along the map edge merely to take advantage of the restrictions the map edge places on the defender, I think that's gamey.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Dar]

I have to agree with the bulk of the guys here:

1.) Gamey

2.) Gamey

3.) Not gamey.

Regarding 1. and 2., nearly every scenario I ever design is going to allow multiple reinforcements to come in at multiple locations, each with a 10% or so chance of appearing beginning on an early turn. Therefore, neither side will know if a force is coming in at all, much less where.

Regarding 3., hey, you only have so much space to use, use it as you wish. Concentrating too many forces on one flank means you're weak on the rest of the board, so it's a trade off either way.

Dar

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Hey Ron

Ill add my two cents though you are already know them

1 &2 are gamey BS

# 3 is perfectly legitimate the battle field has to have some kind of parameters

other wise where is fair to do a flanking movement? And lets say hypothetically we agree that 100 meters in is a fair flanking action - If the opponent sets his men up on the outer side of that boundry wouldnt that be unfair? - I feel it would be unfair for one side to be able to use it and not the other. So lets say we both dont use it then we are back to square one or do we just not ever make a flanking action? THe possibilities of what is present or that can happen on the outside of the map edge is endless and irrelevant, as it cannot be fairly modeled

Be looking for ya when the Final comes

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Mikester]

Number 1 and 2 are about as gamey as you can get.

Number 3 is perhaps a little bit gamey, but then there are some good reasons posted above why it isn't. Also, the game has to have some kind of physical limitations and one of those is the map has edges. Not really much you can do about that, so everyone just has to live with it.

Mikester out.

[This message has been edited by Mikester (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

1) probably gamey

2) probably gamey

3) Gamey but oh well.....

I dont care about 1 or 2 so much. If you find this happening, you should probably move on to a frsh map.

#3 is hard to deal with. When I play CM and I am attacking, I "usually" put most of my pressure on the opponent's flanks, as this provides an effective way of attacking. There is nothing worse than committing to a hard attack in the center, and having your tender infantry squads ripped to shreds by hidden forces to either side. It is usually the most productive to put heavy pressure on the flanks, and if everything goes well, you will need only light pressure in the middle to push them back.

I often have a platoon on each side, within 100-150m of the map edge,as my lead force, just to make sure I dont get torn up on the approach. I think its acceptable, especially on these small maps, with such concentrated forces.

I hope there are alot of scenarios made with plenty of "elbow room". Larger maps will make honorable tactics more playable IMHO

[Joe Shaw]

The consensus seems pretty clear on those issues then. I did a search but couldn't find what I was looking for on another issue. What is the consensus of the group as to using crews, Zook teams who are out of ammo, FO's that have no more rounds, and the like?

On the one hand, I'd be tempted to say if you got 'em, smoke 'em. OTOH, it certainly smacks of gamey play and it's unlikely these guys would be making suicide charges to dump a grenade in a Sdkfz251. Seems I read that the point cost of these teams would be increased to make such a thing unprofitable.

What do you think? And what else would you consider to be "gamey" tactics?

Joe

[aka_tom_w]

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

Whatever it takes to get the job done...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect to the use of FO's and out of ammo zook and schrek teams I think there is something to said for the above statement.

Try to win at all costs, if not then do what ever it takes to squeeze out a draw.

I suspect after I post this I perhaps some people here might not want to PBEM with me.

But, I have references

I've played SS PanzerLeader and COG and Pacestick, I suspect none of them will tell you I used any gamey tactics.

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Well, the cool thing about CM in my opinion, is that except for edge-hugging, I cant think of any "gamey" tactics that actually work when you are playing CM as it is intended. Blind

You want FO's and zooks to survive, as they cost you points if killed.

The only thing I can think of is the abandonment of "movement to contact" discipline, in what I call "50 yard line syndrome" I can only see it happening alot in meeting engagements, like Chance Encounter. This is where you run like a madboy towards that Imaginary Line in the middle of the map, that you are certain you can reach before your ooponent does.

The problem is that it is based on the assumption that your opponent arrives at the "map edge", when in real life, both players would probably be very careful and methodical in their advance.

But again, a nice reinforcement from the side of the map can fix that.

BTW Fionn, this is not in reference to our game. You came up with a pretty good excus..err reason for your advance....

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

Life is tough...Its even tougher if you're stupid...

[Lorak]

Foobar, I agree with your "50 yard line" observation. Nice thing is that scenario designers decide where troops can be placed. hopefully there will be some setup surprises in some scenarios comming out soon.

edge-hugging.... difficult to explain. It has been discussed in depth before. It boils down to this. If you are edge-hugging for cover or for a flanking move, fine. If it is just so you can sneck some units by, I find that is gamey, most of the time...

It is hard to describe gamey edge-hugging, but you know it if you see it.

Lorak

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

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

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

[Tyro]

1 & 2 are sorta like pad killers in some of the other games I've played, but # 3 I feel anything on the battlefield is an area you can use and if you don't your not using good tactics.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

If the attacker is along the map edge because of good cover, I think it's good tactics and the defender should plan accordingly. If the attacker is along the map edge merely to take advantage of the restrictions the map edge places on the defender, I think that's gamey.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm having trouble imagining a circumstance where you would want to advance along a route that doesn't have good cover, map edge or not. In the end, if the cover at the map edge is good, then an attacker would be well advised to use it; if the defender wants to flank that route from outside the OA, he's SOL. Scenario designers wishing to prevent this tactic might wish to give the defender some elevated terrain that has LOS to the approaches at either edge of the map.

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

It does not seem quite so clear cut to me. On the face of it, #1 and #2 are definitely gamey, as it demonstrates prior knowledge of the game and a weasel way of taking advantage of that experience. However, if everything I have is gone and all I have to wait on are reinforcements, I am in a world of hurt anyway. Even playing against the AI, I once moved two Shermans up there to be rady to take out the PantherG, by wide flanking around the American left flank. Lost both tanks to shrecks along the way. So I didn't control the field well enough.

But on the face of it, 1 and 2 are both gamey and I would be annnoyed if some weasel camped or FO'd the known reinforcement site. But as Germanboy pointed out, it's a fairly obvious arrival spot in V0T for the German reinforcements. Nowhere else makes much sense. But who's to know the reinforcements area coming and when?

Creeping along the map edge is a legit move I reckon. I am in a PBEM with a friend and he tried on the exact same thing....a flanking move (he's American)up the American right. Trouble for him was I had the IG and a full platoon of troops hiding behind the crest waiting for just such a tactic. But on VoT I think it is one of the obvious places to attempt an advance. Straight up the middle would be a bad idea usually.

Ramble, waffle, etc.

Ober

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

"Them Yankees couldn't hit the broa..."

[Guest grunto]

i don't know about other scenarios but in vot i rationalize the ambush/artillery barrage this way -- the east edge of the board is a thick woods with just the road coming out of it. in the course of the american attack they hear germans coming up the road and thus set up an ambush at the opening.. i don't know how other scenarios will get rationalized.

going down the flank is a tried and true manuever. i've suggested random reinforcements or 'fire' from the sides of the board in order to discourage it.

at least the ai isn't as susceptible to the flank in this game as it was in cc.

andy

[Dschugaschwili]

One other thing: What do you think about using bazooka teams you know you won't need that badly because the only enemy tank is still a couple of turns away and you have six tanks for yourself (just as an example, no idea where I get the numbers from ) to trigger ambushes?

Dschugaschwili

[Goanna]

1 - completely OK. If you have conquered a map against me, or outflanked me, feel free to set a trap where ever you want. Double blind is a non issue as you say.

2 - gamey as hell. You would never know the exact time that my reinforcements would arrive no matter how good your intelligence in a tactical WWII situation. Double blind is a non issue again.

3 - completely OK. You are free to use any and all the board in any sort of formation you wish to defeat me. If both of us have played the scenario before, or I have good skills, you will not gain an advantage from your knowledge. Double blind is not an issue if I am skilled, but could present a problem against a novice. For this reason, the number of scenarios used in tournaments should be primarily drawn from ones where hugging the edge does not pose an unfair advantage.

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

desert rat wannabe

[Dar]

Joe Shaw:

Regarding your post about using crews, AT teams, FOs, and the like, I say go for it!

In CM, those units are are pretty fragile and will get shot up easily, costing you points, so it's your option. Crews, especially, are usually even more fragile than the other units if they've been forced to abandon their vehicle or weapon (they have the little red "!" next to their status, which indicates they will be unrecoverable if they rout in the scenario as I understand).

As I understand, FOs cost a lot of points, so they're one of the last things I'd throw into a meat grinder.

Dar