Gamey or not Gamey (or just another rant from kollos)

[kollos]

Hello all,

I felt a need to comment on certian threads and rants of other people with my own rant.

Please take into account that I have read other threads regarding Gamey tactics and the like, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents into the matter without getting buried in another post. I am also well aware that these are my own opinions, and will probably be flamed faster than a Sherman facing a King Tiger, but so be it.

In my opinion, there are NO such thing as a gamey tactic.

Do you think that the Britsh found it gamey that the American revolutionarys did not stand in line? Do you think that the early WWII comanders found it gamey that the German Blitzkrieg did not hunker down behind long trenches? Do you think folks found it gamey to arm bi-planes in WWI?

No, tactics always change.

Now granted, taking a crew of a diabled HT, and assaulting a tank is a bit much, but after all, THIS IS A GAME.

BTS has given us one of the best GAMES ever to be produced on a PC.

If this was to be a true representation of WWII, only a select few of us would ever play with a King Tiger, and once they were destroyed they would not be seen again.

"Gamey" tactis are to be planned for and expected from people who are trying to win GAMES.

If you dont want a crew attacking something important, kill them.

Cover your tanks with infantry support.

Do different things. Expect the unexpected. If you dont, dont whine about it.

Please note that I buy my PBEM troops as realistically as I can, without being a history major.

Ok, I feel better now.

If you are going to flame me, please do it with classs and style.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In my opinion, there are NO such thing as a gamey tactic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first three words in that sentence are all that really matters when it comes to gamey tactics.

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

Charlie don't surf!

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Hello all,

In my opinion, there are NO such thing as a gamey tactic.

Please note that I buy my PBEM troops as realistically as I can, without being a history major. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given your first statement, why do you bother with the second? After all, this is a GAME, right? So ANYTHING is fine, right?

Pre-1.05, you would have no problem with your PBEM opponent having a never ending supply of 8" artillery, right? After all, this is a GAME, so exploiting every possible advantage of the GAME is ok, right?

Your examples are fallacious. No one complains of gamey tactics that are remotely simlar to what you mentioned. The Americans not lining up in nice rows was not gamey, nor was arming aircraft.

In fact, in "real life", it is, by definition, impossible to engage in gamey tactics. Which is the entire point. Gamey tactics are those that work BECAUSE this is a game, but would not work in real life.

Jeff

[Joe Shaw]

Quite right Kingfish. My basic rule of thumb is that if I feel uncomfortable about doing something, it's verging on being gamey. However, it's become clear to me that there will be no resolution on the gamey issue. BTS will continue to do the best they can to disallow/discourage gamey tactics. Barring that it's up to you to play people who play with "your" style.

Joe

[Philistine]

I have to agree with Jeff. "Gamey" does not mean unconventional or even non-historic (unhistoric?).

To me, "gamey" means using tactics in the game that are only effective because of some limitation in the game that makes such tactic more effective than it would have been in real-life.

Thus, Jeff's example of exploiting the (pre 1.04) method of spotting rounds to give high-caliber artillery unlimited shots. Similarly, using crews (prior to recent patches) in a deliberate attempt to distract tanks and cause their turrets to rotate away from a real threat.

A somewhat less clear-cut type of tactic isn't so much "gamey" as I've defined it above, but is more (again, IMHO) "cheesey." Which would be using units, not only in a way that is not historic (note how I avoided embarrassing myself by not guessing at whether I should use "unhistoric" or "nonhistoric"), but also would never have been done because it would be suicidal for the particular units. (E.g. habitually using cheap vehicles to speed forward and to essentially perform "reconnaissance-by-death."

I think the best advice is to just not play again with someone who you feel has used "gamey" tactics. To me (and I recognize that some people strongly disagree) such tactics are akin to cheating.

With regard to "cheesy" tactics, I don't think of them as cheating, and I'll give someone a lot more latitude whith them, but as many people have pointed out, if you don't like how someone is playing just don't play them again.

Just my $.02.

--Philistine

[Chupacabra]

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

(note how I avoided embarrassing myself by not guessing at whether I should use "unhistoric" or "nonhistoric") <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahistoric, actually

As for the rest of it, everyone defines gamey differently. It's like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography, "I'll know it when I see it."

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the best advice is to just not play again with someone who you feel has used "gamey" tactics. To me (and I recognize that some people strongly disagree) such tactics are akin to cheating<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When making the decision not to play someone based on gamey tactics, one should consider several things:

1) In all the countless threads discussing gamey tactic one thing was evident: There is no clear cut consensus as to what is gamey or what isn't. Use of crews as guards for prisoners, edge hugging, AT teams as scouts, etc...opinions run from A to Z. Therefore...

2)When you play someone that is using tactics you deem gamey, that person might not be aware he is violating your particular code of ethics.

You should at least cut that person some slack the first time around. Better to clear up any misunderstanding than to walk away and leave the guy wondering.

Just my $2.00 (pre-tax)

[ntg84]

Call the FD, the flames the flames

[Dr Dan]

In order to totally eliminate "gamey" tactics, wouldn't it be necessary to play all games from '1' view, issue all commands using a "virtual" radio (or hand-signals, etc), rely on a topo map, and learn about the battle from whatever your spotters tell you? Wouldn't many of your troops and tanks live and die without you ever seeing them in combat? Etc, etc.

On the other hand, striving for certain standards of play, as well as trying to be "historically" correct is an admirable goal.

Isn't the important thing to remember that this is a game? Shouldn't the goal be to have fun? This sure is an interesting game, played by lots of interesting folks.

Dan

[Philistine]

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

Ahistoric, actually

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doh!!! You know, I knew both were wrong, but for the life of me, I couldn't come up with the right word.

Kingfish:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1) In all the countless threads discussing gamey tactic one thing was evident: There is no clear cut consensus as to what is gamey or what isn't. Use of crews as guards for prisoners, edge hugging, AT teams as scouts, etc...opinions run from A to Z. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, which is why I tried to limit it to things that are really exploitations of bugs (or specific coding issues). But you are right, many don't share my distinctions (more's the pity ).

I'm a bit of two minds about telling others if I think they are beeing too gamey. First, I agree, it is probably better to let them know. This is definitely true of someone who I've played a number of games with and/or have "clicked" with over the course of E-mail exchanges. On the other hand, particularly where the conduct was particularly egregious and/or I have no investment in playing, I don't have a problem with a polite "I'm too busy now" when asked for a rematch--life's too short to get into a pissing match, which is what I'd be concerned about. (Note to all my current E-mail partners--I AM very busy now, and I do want to keep playing all of you, so if I do say I'm too busy now for a repeat game, it's just temporary. ).

I do strive to be non-gamey and non-cheesey (as I've defined them) and while I generally try to play as historic a force as my limited knowledge allows me, I'm not above using ahistoric ( ) tactics. If anyone feels that I've been playing in a way they don't like, its OK if they either tell me or move on to someone else.

Just two more cents.

--Philistine

[Henri]

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

I have to agree with Jeff. "Gamey" does not mean unconventional or even non-historic (unhistoric?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, it's "ahistorical"

Since I have the spitoon, let me add someting: in on ongoing game, the opponent synchonized his tanks from various sides so that they all appeared to my Tiger on a hill at the same time. My Tiger never got off a shot, and while he was trying to decide where to shoot, he was killed by one of the enemy tanks (with the first shot too *sob*

Now according to some opinions here, my opponent's tactic was "gamey", because historically tanks stationed a km apart did not synchonize their appearences in this manner in order to bag a Tiger. Yes they DID try to get a side shot on a Tiger while he was busy with something else, but commando-style split-second synchronizations with watches a half-hour ahead of time in tank warfare just didn't happen.

Am I pissed off? You bet! (a frontal shot from 800 m is unlikely to kill a Tiger on the first try). Did my opponent do anything wrong? No sir, and you bet your ass that first chance I get, I'll use the tactic myself. BTW, incredibly, the same Hellcat one minute later dispatched my Panther 900 m away with the first shot, after the Veteran Panther missed his own first shot

Instead of cursing my opponent for ahistorical tactics, I curse my own bad luck (and sometimes bad tactics). But you should get a load of the comments that I sent to my opponent following those moves: they were so self-pitiful that they almost prompted my opponent to give me the victory. If I can't play well, at least I can WRITE

Henri

[Major Tom]

There are some gamey TRUELY gamey tactics.

Using now useless crews as scouts, and tripwires for enemy ambushes is not a fair tactic. By all rights once a unit, like a FO spotter, mortor, tank crew, etc . . . are no longer performing their original duties (due to their weapon being knocked out, or run out of ammo) they 'should' be removed off the field and not used as cannon fodder or spies. They should be allowed to be used as a last ditch reserve, or, to hold rear area victory flags instead of wasting 'good' troops.

[chrisl]

I discovered an unquestionably gamey tactic that I'm now going to publicly confess to: the improper use of assault boats. I had 10 points left over in a DYO, and had never seen an assault boat, so I bought one. Then, thinking "What am I going to do with this now?" I thought I would get a good chuckle by parking it on a hill where my opponent could see it and say "What the hell is he doing with that assault boat" and we'd both have a good chuckle.

It turns out that the thing drew fire like a flamethrower team, and is apparently indestructible when on dry land. One could buy a bunch of them and use them in a line to draw fire and force an attacker to show himself. *That* is a gamey tactic.

I apologized to my opponent, and we have had a few jokes about the boat, but I certainly won't do it again.

[Alexander]

There are some gamey TRUELY gamey tactics.

Here's an evil one no-one has brought up TMK: I noticed that the TacAI will not permit your tanks to open up with HE on locations where it's known your boys are. Ergo, march that captured enemy crewman into that Heavy Building on that key crossraod location. Display him at the 2nd floor window. Your opponent will have to use direct assualt to root you out.

Maybe you should have the right to use DF on your own troops; a good Russian Lieut. wouldn't hesitate if the Greater Good were at stake. Nor the Japanese commander.

Seriously, I think one way too hamper 'gamey' tactics- like self-sacrificing kubelwagons- is too have two costs for certain untis: one for purchase and a second, higher one, for losing them.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

...they were so self-pitiful...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem. That should be 'self-pitying', I believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I can't play well, at least I can WRITE

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, Henri. We all know that.

Michael