Cherry Picking (Wargamers Topic)

[Slapdragon]

First off, if you are more a video gamer than a war gamer, this topic will piss you off, anyway. No need to write that "This is just a game" or "The goal is to win".

If however, the video gamers want to see were the wargamers are coming from: read on.

Wargamers see it, and hate it. Abbott and I were having a discussion about it. Cherry Picking.

Cherry picking the the practice of picking unusual unit combinations to obtain a tactical advantage, or avoiding historical units beacuse the setting is not correct. Some historical combinations, like the pressing of TDs into Infantry support for the US are unavoidable -- you may have better units you can choose but price will send you there. But when Nationalities mix in odd and unusual ways, it can get very frustrating.

The worst abuses of Cherry picking are best solved by doing random unit games. If you know you are facing a Cherry picker - use random units. Sure, one time I got Gerbils and Volkstrum, but that is the breaks.

Currently you choose your scenario type, then pick units, then see the board. A modification to the game could be a completely random bout in weather, terrain, time, with a short orders discussion afterward. You only know the year.

Otherwise there is no solution for Cherry Picking except the private list of Cherry pickers that gets passed around by players like me and Abbott.

[BFCElvis]

Slappy, If I am understanding you correctly some people playing QBs choose ome american units from '45, some UK units from '44, English tanks running with American infantry..that type of stuff? No one has ever done that against me. Is it common?

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

"To conquer death you only have to die" JC

[SF]

Geee, maybe that's why there's a force selection tab on the quick battle screen.

[BFCElvis]

SF, was directed at me or Slappy?

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

"To conquer death you only have to die" JC

[SF]

was directed at Slappy, but until rereading it I didn't notice how sarcastic that sounded, so much to Peng's displeasure let me throw in a smilie or two

[Slapdragon]

Sure, bet when I face German paratroopers, I expect the tanks, two different tabs, but when I face American Armoured Infantry it is weird to have British Tanks and Canadian Kangaroos and Polish scouts running around also.

[BFCElvis]

No problem SF. I wasn't taking offence to your comment at all.

I just read the other Slappy thread whicjh is almost the same topic as this on. I guess it answered my question. I have never had anyone I play against do what he discribed. But I haven't played against a newbie in a very long time. I might try doing it just for kicks. If I do it will be against the AI though folks.

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

"To conquer death you only have to die" JC

[Jaded]

I have to say, I might do this inadvertantly [my kingdom for a spell checker].

I'm not a hardcore wargamer (though contrary to Slapdragon's comment, the topic doesn't piss me off) nor am I an avid historian. I'd know enough not to mix & match equipment from different nationalities, but more subtle things might slip by me.

I'd much rather play a scenario that is as histroically authentic as possible, though.

My rambling point being, if you're playing against a newbie it might make sense to bring up this subject before the game begins. Certainly you can't prevent your opponent from 'cherry picking' but if you at least make him aware of the topic, then an honest player might respond with "Um, then can we let the AI pick our forces?" or ask you for a third party that might be able to 'approve' his choices.

Not every non-grognard is an asshole. Some of us just miss the details that you take for granted. Education is a great thing. I'd welcome the chance to learn why such & such was never deployed with so & so.... and I certainly don't want to play a scenrio where my opponent is annoyed or frustrated because I 'cheated' without realizing it.

[Diceman]

Ive bought units units from more than one nationality, but I keep the nation's troops integrated. British infantry with British armor on the right, U.S. armor with U.S. infantry on the left for instance. Not exactly realistic, but no quick batle is. If you're worried about accurate TO&E's it would probably be best to state the TO&E's up front.

As a long time PBEM'er I can only suggest that you get the personal rules clear up front. When playing Steel Panthers I had a set of rules as long as my arm. No 88's, only one platoon of engineers, no mech infantry, no artillary calling their own fire, etc, etc, etc.

CM is can be extreemly flexible on the unit purchases allowed, and I think that's a good thing. Just make it clear what you expect from a PBEM apponent before you start. You can allways find somebody willing to play by reasonable rules.

Cheers

Eric.

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

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Slapdragon]

Well Jaded, I don't think of Cherry Picking as cheating, just like I don't think mixing lime green and prussian blue on a canvas as cheating -- it is just not esthetic and greatly reduces the Wargamers enjoyment of the game. ASL tourneys I used to play were in part ruined because it became caveat that the game was a Pershing versus Tiger slugfest. You get tired of playing Pershing v Tiger after the 20th time.

So what are the rules? None really, just some guidelines. And I should note, if Scott Clinton, or Abbott, or one of my other regular opponents decided to spice the game, it would not really annoy me at all because I have played a dozen different and odd battle against them.

This would be good guidelines.

1) Keep perspective. Choose a force structure that could have and probably did exist.

2) Buy rare units rarely. I just had my first 57mm US RR in 70 games.

3) Buy common units commonly.

4) Try not to tailor a unit for a situation -- try to make a unit that can deal with most situations. Some tailoring is historical because commanders would choose units that made more sense, but there are limits to the commanders tailoring ability. I often buy Volkstrum and Heer units, but rarely buy Volksgrenadier unless I and getting their trucks too.

Your reputation as a gamer will go up if you do this although honestly, you will loose more games. I have a great deal of respect for anyone with a 50/50 win-loss ratio, and even more for the guy with a 10/90 that is still out in the mix plugging away.

[Pham911]

Ok, here's a question that I can't answer to any great degree, but may help out. If you don't know a reasonable, historic combination of units for a PBEM QB, is it generally safe to pick from all units from one general force type(like Volkstrum, Waffen SS, British Airborne, etc)?

So, if I started my choice with an American Airborn company, I should pick the rest of my units from the American Airborn, and not suddenly decide it would be neat if I threw in some French, British, and Polish tanks?

I've got to admit, when trying to pick from forces I'm not very familiar with(French, Canadian...), I get stumped as to what's a good variaty of units. I always stick to the same group though(Canadian infantry gets Canadian tanks, etc). Is this a safe strategy?

[Jaded]

SD, yeah 'cheating' wasn't the best choice of term there.

This has probably been suggested before, but I wonder if for CM2 there could be an option to save a force separate from a scenario? I could see a few uses for this, from training neophytes (as 'example' forces) to PBEM tournies (the pre-set forces are distributed to each player) and so on.

<blockquote>

2) Buy rare units rarely. I just had my first 57mm US RR in 70 games.</blockquote>

See now this is a perfect example of where someone like me might back a 'cherry picker' choice. I had no idea that 57mm US RR's were rare (frankly, I don't even know what they are *blush*).

Thus far I've stuck to pre-designed scenarios or quick scenarios letting the AI pick the forces (I actually like that since I enjoy the challenge of doing the best I can with the forces available.)

[Slapdragon]

I think sticking to a type is an excellent strategy, and basing it on how units looked in reality. A German Infantry division often had STUGs attached, both from HEER. If they had a more powerful TD they would only have a few to stiffen the STUGs. Hetzers were common cheap little tanks for Infantry. Almost any German force type from Volkstrumm to Heer could be found with an odd selection of assault guns. It would only get odd if you had Volkstrum, Gerbil Pioneers, Paratroopers, and Mechanized Doughs all in one gang.

As for Allied national difference: mixed counrty units were rare, so you should have a good reason to have them. Airborne would only have a big tank force or mechanized forces in certain rare situations, such as an end of war attack on a city.

Its more like: use common sense. A Nashorn supporting a Volkstrum unit makes sense. Halftracks filled with Paratroopers would be rare.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think it must be stated clearly that there are TWO different types of Cherry Picking...

Ahistorical - this is what Slapdragon is describing for the most part. Something like 1 British tank, 2 US TDs, some British artillery, Polish airborne infantry, and a nice platoon of Canadian RAM Kangaroos

Atypical - this is what Slapdragon just touched upon in his last post. That is something like one KT, a Jagdpanther, one Hetzer, a Puma, 2 HT 251/9s, some Volksgrenadiers, and a crack bunch of SS troops to round out the mix.

The difference between the two is subtle, but substantial.

I think most people that think of themselves as some flavor of wargamer (casual to hardcore) know enough that Ahistorical mixes are just that - fiction. Diceman's example is fine, provided he doesn't do this every time as it becomes more ahistorical each time it is used. What Slapdragon defines as a "VideoGamer" might have no understanding of this and/or are not bothered by it in any way.

The Atypical type of Cherry Picking is quite another story. This requires a fairly strong sense of the real military history of WWII. Even people with strong interests in WWII, and vast knowledge of the weapons used, often have very little idea about how they were deployed in the real war. Most wargamers also don't have a sense for how rare something is statistically (i.e. the chances of running into a Puma in the ETO was practically nil, but you see them all the time in both QBs and user created scenarios.)

The solution to Ahistorical Cherry Picking is already in CM. You can opt to restrict national force purchases in Quick Battles and obviously the user created scenarios can sculpt what is and isn't in the game.

Atypical Cherry Picking, at the moment, can only be controlled through carefully researched user created scenarios. Quick Battles have no restrictions based on how rare something is, and most people lack the knowledge necessary to make user created battles conform with historical reality.

Our solution to Atypical force creation was to make point costs higher depending on hor rare the vehicle was for that time period. Unfortunately, this was shelved for CM1 because we didn't have time to implement a well researched and tested system. However... there is CM2 coming up

Steve

[Slapdragon]

I have never gone wrong letting the computer pick. Ok, so it likes a lot of Halftracks in meeting engagements and one time I had Gerbils and Volkstrumm, but it gives you units that otherwise might not get picked.

You have though identified a good point: it takes a lot of knowledge (not brains) to play historical. The trick is, just ask someone what a historical mix.

Finally: If you are worried about history: choose a Game Director to set up your scenario who is nuetral but knoweldgeable. You have to trust them because each player needs to send in their passwords, and gets their forces picked for them, but it is a little less weird than a computer pick and results in better force picks.

[Slapdragon]

I also run into problems. For a while I was choosing Pumas to often -- I had based it on a mistake in the numbers and not realizing that the 50mm was not the same as the 20mm in force charts that just said PSW-something.

Good Historical Wargamers will never assault you for not knowing something (I hope) because learning is the most fun element.

But, I must say I love the idea of availibility modified price structures.

[Jarmo]

On one battle I picked a sturmgruppe, some Gebirsjaegers,

heer SMG platoons, Panthers, Tigers, you name it.

I never even thought that'd be uncool.

Since then, I've been limiting my shopping quite a bit,

although I might still grab paras and a few tanks.

But atypical, gee. I keep trying, but hell. How usual were

JagdpanzerIV's? PAW 600's? Jacksons? Daimlers?

Hmm, I remember someone was about to search some rarity

figures, does anyone remember who? Did he?

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Slapdragon]

The best game style research was done by Avalon Hill because it was a normalized scale from .5 to 1.5 with only a few hooks thrown in to keep things going on the game. The number was later refigured into a table based on month of the year, and the last one I saw was huge. It was good because it expressed the chance of meeting said item, and could be used to rarity cost the units. I can understand why Steve gave it an initial pass becuase of how big it was.

Although not strictly accurate, you can use production numbers for comparison for tanks and figure that production stretches over service life.

Also, you can do some fudging that helps. The M3/5 series Halftrack was very common, as was the Bren Carrier -- no real need to figure how common since they were so common. The Panther was actually quite common for a German tank, and the MKIV was common until the end of the War. Most of the German heavies and all of the British except the Churchhill were rare.

Another issue is tactical availability. In the bocage, the H.39 is common, but from then on, although encountered from time to time, it was very rare. The M4-76 was rare until 1945. It was rare to find more than one firefly in a platoon until pretty late in the war.

Once you get the idea it does not reqcuire any real heavy research or reading, just an eye for it.

[chrisl]

I'm sort of intermediate in knowledge and still have quite a hard time. I generally avoid the uebertanks on either side more because they aren't as ueber as they seem. I once used a PSW 234/3 (turretless AC with a 75 firing HE and C) to destroy almost 600 pts worth of elite Sherman Jumbo 76 and Jackson. The 234 is better than a halftrack because it's not so easily perforated by a .50 cal.

Knowing production numbers would be useful: the Puma looks like the kind of thing you would crank out in huge numbers, but few were made. The Panther is the opposite. A three level rarity rating might be useful (in CM2-- too much work to add to CM1): rare, intermediate, common. One could then get at least a reasonable idea of unrealistic forces.

[Michlos]

I have been playing strategy games for a couple of years now and I do appreciate trying to stay as close to history as possible. Although i see no wrong in a person mixing forces in a QB. Hell if I play a PBEM with someone i know focuses hard on tanks, then I will most likely set the map up to be either heavy forest or town. It should teach him to choose his troops more wisely.

I think this question is pretty much the same as the regular vs. elite forces. Its pretty much up to each player how they want to play and I do not think that anyone should be forced to take any **** just because he didn't choose the "right" troops.

Note: this is not an attack on any one... its just my 2 öre (hey im Swedish, gimme a break) worth

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

< All gave some, some gave ALL>

Owner of MiNa's CMBO Page

http://www.combat-mission.com

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Slapdragon et al

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

and even more for the guy with a 10/90 that is still out in the mix plugging away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whose been talking about my win/loss ratio !? I have been found out

Seriously though great set of threads re VGs and HWGs very interesting.

Interestingly a similar discussion is always ongoing in Miniatures circles here in UK regarding those who play Wargames mostly/solely in Competitions and those who play 'proper' Wargaming

The Compeitition type is seen as being very much a rules lawyer (due to wanting to win at all costs) and using unhistorical tactics/OOBS/etc etc whereas the 'true' Wargamer is more interested in simulating History as best they can.

Many Wargamers fall into categories between these 2 'extremes' as indeed I suspect would many CM players fall between the VGs and HWGs to greater or lesser extent.

Personally I would consider myself a HWG in both Computer games and Miniatures (and indeed with Board Wargames if I still played them) but with VG tendancies at times

I did play in several Ancients period Miniature competitions years ago but lost 90% of my matches as my Armies (Galations and Gauls) were not 'competitive' in an open competition and were based mainly on what figures I had/liked rather than any potential lethal combination !

Bottom line for me is that as long as I have played my best in any Wargame and enjoyed the experience and if it had the right 'feel' (in a historical sense) I am happy.

With CM I dont mind losing (just as well really) as the experience, immersive factor and sheer fun are of such a high standard

Cheers

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

Sgt Steiner

Belfast

NI UK

[Guest Big Time Software]

Michlos,

I totally agree. It should be an option to play with either whatever you want or something that is more historically based. Our idea for CM2 would allow this just like how you can play with Fog of War at different levels.

Personally, I think gamers (of both types) would be FAR more challenged to play using more historically based forces. Much harder to take on those pesky Shermans if you only have a Marder III! Much harder to take out that Marder III if you only have Sherman M4s

Steve

[Aggamemnon]

Personally, I liked the way it was done with ASL. Each vehicle had a rarity factor and you rolled the dice for availability to determine how low a rarity factor you could choose. I wouldn't like rare units to be overpriced; just more rare.

[Abbott]

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

Personally, I liked the way it was done with ASL. Each vehicle had a rarity factor and you rolled the dice for availability to determine how low a rarity factor you could choose. I wouldn't like rare units to be overpriced; just more rare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be an interesting toggle in CM 2. When setting up a QB toggle on "The Rarity Factor" continue on to select your troops and not all troop types/weapons systems would be available for purchase.

[Slapdragon]

I have posted an idea for a collaborated OOB under Ten Seconds to Midnight.