is it "gamey" to.....

[aka_tom_w]

Is it gamey to split squads in the initial set up so you can dig twice as many fox holes so you have some to retreat back into.

It is my opinion that this is a good and legitmate defensive tactic to split squads so you end up with twice as many foxholes as if the squads were not split.

comments?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-14-2000).]

[jgdpzr]

I agree. I see nothing wrong with this tactic. I think of it as somewhat of a substitute for not being able to prepare fall back positions.

[R-Man]

Hey, I never thought of that! If you don't mind lowering the effectiveness of your squads at the start, and you don't mind blowing your cover by moving to recombine them, it seems perfectly legitimate to me.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Split squads in the initial set up so you can dig twice as many fox holes so you have some to retreat back into.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, I had not thought of that. Would be no problem with me, especially since I like to play opponents who expect that they have to retreat. That is half of what I need to win. The other things are fanatical devotion to the pope and nice red uniforms. And hamsters, lots of them.

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

Andreas

[Kingfish]

Not in my opinion, seems like a sound tactic.

Now, I'm not sure if a foxhole dug by a split squad can accomodate a full squad later on.

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

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Ash]

Your you could just bombard your rear with 300mm rockets and use the craters for cover

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

The names Ash, Housewares

[This message has been edited by Ash (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

What you do with your rear is your own business, but I prefer to leave mine as is (and I don't like hamsters either!)

[WendellM]

The manual states "under certain circumstances the player might want to split one or more of his squads, e.g. in order to set up outposts in front of his main positions."

As long as you're OK with the penalty (realistically) incurred, the manual/rules don't seem to have a problem with it and neither do I. So, I say go for it.

For those so inclined, a much more thorough answer is below. All of the below is In My Humble Opinion (which means just that - it's only how I see things, and not meant to forcibly change your views):

The unnecessary part of the second paragraph above is "and neither do I": the rules are what matter. What's important is that the rules allow you to split squads, but impose certain realistic penalties for doing so. This is the mark of a good game.

As Charles and Steve note on page 166, "There has never been, or will ever be, a wargame that is a 100% accurate representation of 100% of the elements that contribute to warfare 100% of the time." Well said! I think not a whit less of them for admitting this, in fact, I think more of them for it. Any wargame is always going to be a game, not real war.

Now, as I see it, there are two ways to deal with this:

One is to continue to pretend that the game is real war, with both sides limiting their actions to what could happen in real war. If this were an "umpired" game, then this wouldn't be necessary, since the umpire would disallow unreasonable actions. But, it isn't an umpired game, and so both players must play with only their respective conscience as a guide to "realism." If two players are of similar dispositions, then this is fine.

The second way is to treat the game as real war. That is, in real war one is always struggling to do the best for one's side as is possible, given the limits involved. Generally, one doesn't ask the other side if "it's permitted" to take advantage of a weakness in physical reality (represented in wargaming by the rules). One just does so. Thus, if the rules permit an action that is beneficial to one's side, then one should take that action, not ask permission from his opponent to do so. If that action is "unrealistic" then that is the fault of the rules that they both agreed to play under (though perhaps the rules in question should be fixed). Though the rules might need fixing, it certainly isn't the "fault" of one of the players if he takes advantage of them as they are currently written, since both players have agreed to play a game using them.

Thus, there are two approaches, both with their merits. There is merit in trying to be reasonable and recreate history as it actually was. There is also merit in trying to act as the actual combatants did, and thus take advantage of whatever factors one can. It's a matter of choice, and one worth clearing up with one's opponent beforehand.

I personally choose the second view. There are few examples in history where one side saw an advantage, but then decided that it was somehow "unfair/unrealistic" and abandoned it. The whole point of having rules is to establish a framework for combat, and taking advantage of advantageous elements within that framework is how one wins. If some of those elements are unrealistic, then that is a fault of the framework, and not of the player taking advantage of them. In that case, the framework itself needs to be revised, and that falls to the game's designer, not the players. However, I can understand the first view, and can adhere to it if desired, though I prefer a more "open/honest/make-the-designer-earn-his-reputation-for-realism" approach.

All of the above, again, is In My Humble Opinion (truly).

Wendell

[jgdpzr]

Very well put, Wendell.

I think that, like the whole PC craze, it is very easy to go too far to avoid gameyness.

The discussion about the potential problem regarding large bore spotting rounds is a prime example. Few could argue that if a player has a 14 inch spotter and he lobs spotting rounds all over the map for the duration of the game, this would be viewed as gamey and the player should be rebuked. However, if a player uses some mortar spotting rounds to confuse the opponent as to when and where a barrage is about to fall, that is tolerable. This boils down to intent. The first example would be gamey because it is an obvious attempt to use a game feature to dramatically alter the number of rounds to be fired. I think that all would view this as cheating. On the other hand, using spotting rounds to deceive is not such a clear-cut misuse of the artillery system.

To me, taking advantage of a game feature that because of necessity is open to gross manipulation is the type of gamey stuff to avoid. Ticklish subject area, to be sure. Perhaps we may evolve to the point where we can settle on some basic pbem rules of etiquette that will focus on some of the really big quirks that can be exploited, but cannot be effectively "coded out."

[Priest]

This is a great disscussion. Well said both Panzer and Wendell. I think this applies to almost all the disscussion areas about gamey play. It really is all subjective. Lets take a look at the crew problem. Some say that using crews in an offensive manner is gamey. Others say that they should be able to bring in all there surviving troops inot battle if the deem it needed, including crews. Well here is what is funny about the situation. This weekend we a had a hotseat QB game. One of my Lynx's took a PIAT in the side and the crew bailed. They were about a 100m from the town that the British defending forces where in. Now they started firing back at the PIAT team instead of running. So next turn I turned them around and ran them back to a building that was 250m back. It was foggy so I figured they were out of the battle and ignored them. A couple turns later I here fire in my rear and sure enough here is the crew firing on an AT team trying to sneak behind my JagdTiger. The AT team gets pinned and the JagdTiger turns and kills them off with a main gun shot (messy!)from about 60m. Now if I would have spotted the AT team and moved the crew into position and fired onto the AT team some players would say that it was a gamey move. Others would say that I was simulating a group of tanks killing there mortal enemy (AT teams) and helping out their fellow tankers. But the TacAI did all this so I am not even responsible. So now where does this leave the arguement? There are some differences between cheating, being gamey, and being innovative. We need to remember that!

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

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Juardis]

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

Is it gamey to split squads in the initial set up so you can dig twice as many fox holes so you have some to retreat back into.

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-14-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MOST definitely gamey, I will never play you again . Ok, I've never played you once, but if I did I'd call you a gamey bastahd. Ok, maybe not gamey, but bloody clever. That's a beautiful situation you described. You're only concern should be if the enemy sets up where they can see you rejoin your squads.

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

Jeff Abbott

[L.Tankersley]

Interesting -- one comment about the artillery example jgdpzr mentions. Something I will sometimes do is intentionally target an artillery barrage near but not exactly where I want the barrage to fall. I do this so that when the battery is about to start firing I can shift the aim point to the desired target to incur a small additional delay. This is so I can have the battery commence firing later in the coming turn in order to limit the number of rounds fired on that particular target, because you can only give orders to cease or shift fire on the 60-second turn boundaries. By doing this I can arrange things so that I only fire a 20 or 30 second barrage, conserving ammunition.

I think the process described above is completely artificial and in that sense gamey, but on the other hand I don't think it's inappropriate because actual FO's have a lot more flexibility than is present in the game. I look at this as a nice workaround to make it a bit easier to fine-tune your artillery barrages.

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

Leland J. Tankersley