pbem and the ultimate gamey tactic

[Henri]

As many here know, I have been a vocal opponent on this forum against adding unwritten rules about so-called "gamey" tactics such as edge-crawling, unbalanced forces and so on.I have not changed my mind.

Since I have begun playing pbem recently (I haven't won a game yet : ), I have discovered the ultimate gamey tactic, yet no one seems to have complained about it.

The most frequently used type of battle in pbem (and the only kind I have played so far) is a QB meeting engagement with equal forces.In such battles, the objectives are near the center of the map and opponents begin at opposite sides.

It is clear in such a game that the best tactic is an early rush towards the center before the opponent has time to bring significant forces forward. I learned the effectiveness of this process when my opponent did it to me in my first game, and I am using it myself in my latest game -to my opponent's chagrin, I hope...

Just like in chess, the player who manages to grab control of the center early without creating weaknesses elsewhere has a significant advantage over his opponent, because he is now in a position to apply Liddell-hart's "offensive-defensive method".

However when one considers such a tactic, it is extremely "gamey", because in WW2, meeting engagements rarely began with knowledge that the enemy had no forces near the objective, was at an equal distance on the opposite side, and had a force similar in strength to one's own forces (in addition to being a balanced force, if the scenario creator chose that option).

I am not proposing that the tactic be outlawed, on the contrary, I am against adding "anti-gamey" rules to the game. I just want to point out that in a game, there are many ways to exploit the constraints imposed by the game itself, just like in real life there are many ways to exploit opportunities in unorthodox ways.

I am beginning to suspect that pbem meeting engagements will quickly become repetitive, with one or both sides making a rush towards the objective on the first couple of moves, followed by a slugfest with the player to whom chance has handed the better terrain carrying the day, other things being equal.

Opinions?

Henri

PS: The appearence of 1.04 had a bad side effect for me: I had just started a game, and on the first move, my Tiger on a hill and the opponent's Priest on the opposite side of the map spotted each other and began to exchange fire. The priest's first shell bounced off the Tiger, and the Tiger brewed up the Priest , leaving me with a significant beginning advantage. After 1.04, my opponent and I agreed to restart a new game with 1.04, but this time, I was not so lucky, he kept his tanks under cover

[Juardis]

I agree it COULD be gamey (and I employ that same method). That is to say, I bull rush until contact is made. However, you can rationalize it several different ways. First, you could say that both sides have advanced intelligence that no enemy units are in the area. In which case, a mad dash is wholly justified and the tactic is not gamey.

Or, you could say that both sides know the other side is coming. In which case, a mad dash to a defensible position is wholly justified and the tactic is not gamey.

Or, you could say that neither side has any knowledge of what lies ahead. In which case a mad dash may just end up in a suicide rush - except when playing a CM ME battle - and the tactic CAN be gamey (note, not IS gamey, but CAN be gamey).

So I don't see the problem too much. I like playing attacks and defense though for that reason. I don't care too much about evening the odds, I just want a good fight.

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

Jeff Abbott

[M Hofbauer]

what's the point?

I mean, I fail to see the gamey thing advertised to me by the subject line as the game-winning trick

you yourself relate how you got to know about the "gamey" tactic of taking objectives early in order to defend them (i as opposed to assaulting them later). so there's your answer why your opponent never complained about it - if he's using himself...

it is neither gamey nor game-winning. a counter tactic to this is artillery. If I knew the other side would be applying this game-wining super-secret trick of taking the VLs, I would gladly let the opponent take the town /wooden hill that has the flag on it, then let some 5" or 15cm drop on his helmets.

to quote along the lines of Lt.Col. Kilgore: one day we had a hill bombed for 24hrs. When it was all over, and we took it, there wasn't one stinking PBEM opponent left there. the whole hill smelled like...victory...

someday this PBEMs gonna end...

[Joe Shaw]

A good point and certainly one that I've noticed. On the flip side, however, there were certainly situations in which one side or the other went "hell for leather" for a particular spot and casualties be damned. One possible solution might be for BTS to allow QB meeting engagements to have "fake" VL flags as are allowed in the full scenarios. That way neither side would know for sure which VL's were "real" and more reasonable tactics might result. It could be included, I suppose, as another option on the QB screen. Obviously I'm no programmer and wouldn't dream of suggesting that I know what can and can't be done. It's not a big deal to me, you play with what you have and do the best you can. Sometimes the QB's fall in your favor, sometimes not.

Joe

[Guest Mortiis]

I figure that since both sides can do it to their advantage then have at it. Better that than having to wonder if Im moving to fast and slowing down and later finding out my op rushed ahead and find myself in a nasty position. I hate setting limits on myself to avoid gamey situations, If both sides can do it then so be it. If its a situation where I have to go out of my way to use a gamey tactic then I wouldnt use it. But for things like edge creep, well Im not going to reposition say shakey troops who ran to a group of trees near the edge back to the center to adhere to some code of non-gameiness. Plus if your playing a small map you dont have alot of room to begin with.

If my op states what he believes is gamey before a match(before setup) then I have no problem playing his way.

[This message has been edited by Mortiis (edited 08-23-2000).]

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

One simple answer:

Let your opponent storm the town - you wait and hold back - hide your men, when he reaches the town bombard the hell out of it with all your arty and your armour - then walk in and mop up!!

CDIC

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

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[BFCElvis]

I recently started a PBEM DYO meeting engagement(not quick battle) with someone. And the victory flags (6 worth 100 each) are set up near our set up areas (3 near his, 3 near mine). For one of us to take more victory locations than the other we must cross centerfield and have a "meeting engagenment". Maybe this type of game would help eliminate the "gameyness" you are talking about without having to creat rules. It really didn't take longer to set up than a quick battle.

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

"To conquer death you only have to die" JC

[Schrullenhaft]

A feature that I'd like for future consideration by BTS would be a "random" option for the type of engagement. Neither opponent would know beforehand what they were facing. They may be able to figure it out by the size of the setup zone compared to the map size or by the location of the victory flags, but there is still an element of surprise. If someone rushed the for the victory flags or desirable terrain, they may just face enemy units that are already dug in.

[KMan]

This "gaminess" was briefly discussed a few days ago in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009147.html

One thing that was suggested in that thread, and a solution that I would love to see:

Have the setup areas more random:

-Not always on opposite sides (adjacent sides or corners would be very interesting, etc).

-Vary the size of the setup areas (discourages rushing since the other side may be laying in wait)

-Kyle

[Dirtweasle]

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

I recently started a PBEM DYO meeting engagement(not quick battle) with someone. And the victory flags (6 worth 100 each) are set up near our set up areas (3 near his, 3 near mine). For one of us to take more victory locations than the other we must cross centerfield and have a "meeting engagenment". Maybe this type of game would help eliminate the "gameyness" you are talking about without having to creat rules. It really didn't take longer to set up than a quick battle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really like this idea, (OK - everyone yawn and say who cares).

How did you work out the force selection?

I like playing PBEM meeting engagements, and this seems to be an interesting twist. Players cannot just rush their whole pile of troops into the center position, and would tend to make up for unbalanced maps to a large degree.

[Insu]

Can´t see what´s so gamey about it. The Germans used it very successfully during the war. I´ve done it in most of my PBEM and I never even had a thought that this could be considered gamey. It´s just not possible to avoid this cause how would you implement it?

"You are only allowed to use Move mode on your units for the first five turns." - that sounds very boring and stupid to me.

As for all tactics - there is always something you can counter it with and if you tend to repeat your strategy in every game you´ll soon be losing them.

[Mannheim Tanker]

I agree with Capitalistdoginchina's idea. I have just done exactly this in a PBEM - and have massacred my opponent's armor in the opening 5 minutes. I got lucky in that he fell right into the kill sack, but he could have just as easily tried a flanking, enveloping attack which would have negated my positional advantage.

In short, if it is not a "sure thing", it probably isn't too gamey. Just keep 'em guessing!

[Claymore]

Henri

Point 1.

Our restart in 1.04 did indeed give me back my Priest but it did negate the incredible 50cals 1.03 had. Who has the advantage?

Point 2.

On a large map (like ours) with many relief changes and VLs strung out over the whole length of the map a rapid advance means very little. Most VLs do not command the entire or even other VLs. A player may rush to occupy the VL only to find that the nearby hill should have been the target instead. Or if the player rushes to take the hill, he finds that this position only commands a small portion of the map and he must have a good plan how to crush his opponent. I agree that on small maps (like our first) where there are limited assets a rush may engender a victory. But in 2000+ pt games the loss of a single armoured asset or FO is not the game. Indeed even on small games that is not the case (See Wed Morning AAR on the Forum). Here I was down to only a HT and an Ostwind against 2 Shermans. Very poor odds. [sillyness Alert] - Yet through my superior intellect and tactical genius I triumphed over my poor sock-puppet opponent. Yea he who walks through the valley of my death bringers shall fear his own shadow. [End Sillyness Alert]

You have death awaiting you again my friend. Beware and be afraid....

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

he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes)

[Henri]

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

Let your opponent storm the town - you wait and hold back - hide your men, when he reaches the town bombard the hell out of it with all your arty and your armour - then walk in and mop up!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah but I didn't say that one had to TAKE the objective, and I DO agree that one who always plays the same way is apt to get his butt kicked by a competent opponent.

What I am saying is that in a meeting engagement, there is little risk in rushing towards the objective during the firt move or two, because the opponent can't do much about it except rush himself.I hope that no one will disagree that it is better to take intervening terrain for free when it is available than to have to fight for it later . Indeed, if one is stupid enough to crowd all his units onto the flag, he is a prime target for artillery hell. Best is to take terrain that offers cover and that OVERLOOKS the objectives and/or the prime approaches to it for the enemy, while keeping one's units spread out enough to avoid untoward artillery casualties, and while keeping a significant reserve out of sight.And of course one should use all available cover during the advance.

I hope that I made it clear that I am not suggesting not allowing this kind of play, on the contrary (read my original message).And I am not suggesting that it can compensate for otherwise harebrained play .

What I AM saying is that if the terrain offers sufficient cover through hills and trees, and if one player chooses to do this rush and the other doesn't, the latter will be at a significant disadvantage, because he will be in fact fighting an assault against a defending opponent with equal forces, an endeavor that usually requires odds of 3:1 .

Artillery will be of little help to stop the rush because by the time the artillery starts to fall, the rushing enemy infantry have reached cover near the flags in good defensive positions -mostly unseen by the enemy, who is still far from the flags and who must now approach them under enemy fire. And exposing one's artillery spotters on top of a hill when there is an enemy Tiger on top of a hill on the opposite side is not conducive to a long life

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-23-2000).]

[Henri]

Oops, sorry, wrong button...

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-23-2000).]

[MarkEzra]

Henri: Let me welcome you to PBEM. As you play PBEM I'm sure you will find their is more than one tatical solution to the "Meeting Engagement". Keep in mind that the meeting engagement was the least likely type of combat found in WW2. Advance, assault, probe all were the common attack profiles. You might want to consider playing a few more PBEM before you come to conclusions as to the "gameiness" of a particular advance method. I would expect most of us agree that the rush to the flag was the first option exercised. After awhile, perhaps many casualties later, new ideas began to filter in. As to the map edge mambo: A bit risky as a single well placed MG can run a Platoon off into the pixel ether in very short order. There is lots to learn and a lifetime to learn it.

[Grognerd_Fogman]

Another thing to do for ME's would be to make the game much longer in turns (Say 50 to 60). That way if you want to take your time and devise a different plan instead of rushing you can do so. Also you'll have more time to punish said "rusher type" with arty an assault AFV's as stated earlier. An you probably don't have to worry about the game being too long as someone will probably crush his Op well within the time limit. I know I hate to have that "If I don't get there before him" feeling that I'll be struggling in an uphill battle for the rest of the game due to time constraints.

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[BFCElvis]

Dirtweasle, with this particular we agreed beforehand on 2000 points each and no vehicles at all. You can really only do this type of set up against someone you trust. You don't want to get in a situation where you buy 2000 points worth of units and your prey buys 3000 without telling you. The soon to be dead person I am playing is known for his level of integrity so there was never any fear that he would cheat.

I guess it is really more of an advance through each other than a meeting engagment.

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

"To conquer death you only have to die" JC

[Holdit]

One thing you could do would be to design a scenario where one side's setup area is closer to the central objectives, but the other side has extra units to make up for it. But neither knows whether he's got the more troops or the closer setup. I think that would make for a more careful approach by both sides. It would work best with a fairly big (or long) board.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You don't want to get in a situation where you buy 2000 points worth of units and your prey buys 3000 without telling you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't there limits in place that prevents that kind of abuse? I understand that the attacker gets a percentage above the defenders max, but I didn't think the difference would be that big.

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

Wow, I've had the **** hit the fan before, but never like this...

[Fox]

I likewise disagree as this being "gamey". Refering to it as such by references to the lack of a similar scenario in real life is beyond the point. I think we should look at it as a "what if" situation where some new plan is in the works for instance and executing this plan requires the control of a key town...and the enemie sees this too...so there's a race to control the area. If u wish to use ur argument regarding a lack of ww2 tru-life situations in this scenario, well, there's other game types to play too...a set up of attacker vs. defender would be similar to the situation u describe. I still think the meeting engagement is a valuable and fun game type and is just as likely to become repetitive as any other type because with the exact same componants in the game, the situation may result entirely different depending on troop types, skill, HQ skill lvl..there's a near infinate number of variables that would determine the outcome...if 2 sides both rush the flags...how many do u allocate for each flag?...and will my veteren troops in smaller number (cuz they cost more, i couldn't buy as many) do well against lesser troops in greater number....and if i know he's gonna rush those three flags in a group in town....perhaps i'll sit back, let him occupy....send in 1 squad to see if its occupied 30 sec before i send in a ton of 300mm rockets and 105 artillery onto the flags....if the squad doesn't meet anyone...well..call off the bombardment...if there are enemies there..retreat and watch the fireworks...its alot easier to kill troops after they've been broken once..lots of options that i see...

respectfully

FoxK

[This message has been edited by Fox (edited 08-23-2000).]

[Wolfe]

Hmmm. How about adding an interesting wrinkle to the QB options that allows for somewhat randomized setup zones. Where each side has the potential to get any 2 setup zones, one of which is always on their side of the map, but the other can be in any of 4 other setup zones (which would include two in the North and South centers of the map). The player would the be able to setup his/her units in either both available setup zones or only one. A picture of what I'm talking about:

http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/setup_zones.jpg

The Allies would always have one setup zone on the western side of the map and the same for Axis on the Eastern side. But both would also have one more zone, with the potential to get one of the centralized zones on the North and South sides of the map (getting one of these zones wouldn't be a given). This way you would not only have the potential to start off in the corners of the map, but also near the center to cut off any 'rush'. Of course, your opponents may have also gotten a sector right next to yours and may be able to prevent you from doing the same. It adds a nice uncertainty factor to a QB.

The zones I drew may be a bit big, but it's just to show the idea. I left off a central setup zone since this would give the defender too much of an advantage, IMO.

BTW, I personally don't think the 'rush' is something that needs "fixing", but this option (and it would be just an option in the QB screen, not a requirement) would allow another level of randomness to the game.

Comments? Potential problems? One problem I can think of is having 2 setup zones right next to each other may end up deciding the entire battle within the first few turns (particularly for armor), which could be more a matter of luck than skill.

Also, larger battle maps aren't necessarily square, so Northern and Southern setup zones won't necessarily be a benefit in that case.

- Chris

[BFCElvis]

Kingfish, Like I said in my post we used the scenario editor not the quick battle.

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

"To conquer death you only have to die" JC

[Kingfish]

Ahh...sorry, I skipped over your previous post. My goof

[Stoffel]

What would you do if your QB is on a map where ,the Germans are on the eastern side and you are on the western side.

The Germans have a favour in terrain because they are almost on the top of the hill you have to occupie.

You are on the other side of that hill and have to get up.

There is only one spotter that can give smoke(2 minutes ) you have no cover.

The germans have lots of HMG's

Tell me what would you do,carefully move up the hill............or run like hell?

I know it happened to me and I get slaugthered anyway.