Points Counting

[KiwiJoe]

I have found myself counting the points cost of all the units I find and those I destroy. By comparing this to the setup menu I can get a pretty good idea when my opponent is out of weapons in a particular category. Its a bit like card counting I suppose.

What I was woundering was does any1 else do this and is it considered "gamey"?

[Smoker]

I think it's a gamey move myself. I would never have thought of doing it because it sounds too much like work instead of fun, immersive gameplay.

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

Smoker out.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Absolutely, this is gamey.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[WendellM]

Sounds like I'm in the minority here, but while it's "gamey" I wouldn't strike it out completely. I understand why players deplore "gamey" actions, since extreme cases can ruin the experience, but please bear with me.

The "historical" justification would be along the lines of starting with a recon report that "we expect that there are 3-4 enemy medium tanks opposing you." Naturally a real-life commander would keep track of how many enemy tanks he'd knocked out to decide when it was likely that they'd all been taken care of.

My other feeling is that part of your "job" as player is to learn how to win the game, within its limits as a game, and not necessarily to role-play. I used to stick to purely historical concepts and plans when playing wargames, but often lost to players who played to their maximum ability within the limits allowed by the game. Is it "gamey" in chess to study opening lines? It is "gamey" in poker to know the odds of filling a particular hand? IMHO (emphasis on "humble"), if a game allows an action that will help you win, then you should avail yourself of it. The measure of the quality of a game is how realistic the game makes these actions without forcing the player to handicap himself.

So, if there is "gaminess", the fault lies in the game, and not in the player, and the game should be fixed to correct its flaw.

[Seanachai]

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

The "historical" justification would be along the lines of starting with a recon report that "we expect that there are 3-4 enemy medium tanks opposing you." Naturally a real-life commander would keep track of how many enemy tanks he'd knocked out to decide when it was likely that they'd all been taken care of.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, even the best Intell report would still involve some guess work and few absolutes. For a person playing the game, the number of points is an absolute, and the nature of having to create a setup means that you know (I'm speaking Quick Battles here, the only place where point values would come into play) that there will be no reinforcements, no sudden surprises, nothing outside your expectations. Point counting intensifies the artificial elements of a QB, and therefore leads to player behaviour and actions that play off of this artificiality. In other words, it's 'gamey'. You can make whatever judgement you wish, of course, and it is one of those activities that would be impossible to prove, or, as things now stand, to prevent.

I don't believe that it is comparable to 'studying opening lines' in chess. I think such an action within the context of a game like chess is comparable in CM to reading up on tactics, studying the capabilities of weapons systems, getting tips and pointers from seasoned players, etc. Counting up unit points is a move to use a limitation of the system for advantage. However, it is an option open to both sides, obviously.

I wouldn't do it, and not for any reasons of 'role-playing'. For myself, it cheapens the experience of the game. I enjoy playing, and what's significant to me is the fact that I'm playing a tactical combat game, not trying to manipulate the engine to come up with a formula to reduce the chance of losing. If all someone wants is to win, then they are free to use it. I speak, of course, only for myself, and others are free to play in whatever way makes them happy. In any case, I think it's a 'minor' tactic of manipulation, not something major. And, conceivably, there could be changes (randomization of points by a certain +/- %, for example) that could decrease it's significance in the future.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[WendellM]

Seanachai,

Before I delve into this, let me state that I understand where you're coming from. I hesitated to even post my initial reply, knowing the low regard in which gamey tactics are held. I'm *all* for historical realism - I've read many books to get just this viewpoint. However, I also feel that that the game system itself dictates what actions are legal and illegal, and thus it's up to the system to prevent abuses (and that a player who deliberately restricts his possible range of actions just to fit into the historical range is out of place - it's up the game to restrict his possible range of actions within historical boundaries). I have the same "gut feeling" as you that ahistorical "exploitations" of the rules are somehow wrong, but if the game allows these ahistorical tactics, then I really feel that the problem is with the game and not the player.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, even the best Intell report would still involve some guesswork and few absolutes. For a person playing the game, the number of points is an absolute, and the nature of having to create a setupmeans that you know (I'm speaking Quick Battles here, the only place where point values would come into play) that there will be noreinforcements, no sudden surprises, nothing outside your expectations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite true. Maybe, then, the Quick Battle setup needs some changes since it's so easy to analyze. Perhaps instead of just a plain "armor" setup, there should be a "weak armor", "medium armor", "strong armor", and, to make things unpredictable, a "random armor" setup that is either weak, medium, or strong unknown to the solo player. As for reinforcements, maybe reinforcements that enter halfway through the battle should be purchasable at half-price, with scaling for those entering early or later. Perhaps you could buy reinforcements at a discount if there were a chance of them not entering at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't believe that it is comparable to 'studying opening lines' in chess. [...] Counting up unit points is a move to use a limitation of the system for advantage. However, it is an option open to both sides, obviously.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The important part is that unit counting (while somewhat questionable) *is* widely open to both sides equally. Because it's currently possible and legal under CM rules, that makes it fair, and it's not my fault if I take advantage of it and you don't (or vice versa). The information is made available in the game; one of us recognizes that fact and perhaps wins as a result. If anything is wrong, it's that the information is available in the first place, in which case maybe the setup should be changed (see above).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For myself, it cheapens the experience of the game. I enjoy playing, and what's significant to me is the fact that I'm playing a tactical combat game, not trying to manipulate the engine to come up with a formula to reduce the chance of losing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm all with you, in theory. Really, that's exactly how I used to feel. But, when you lose to another player who's following the rules just fine, but doesn't have "historical blinders" on, you realize that refining the game system itself is what matters. So long as "gamey"/ahistorical tactics work in the game, what's needed is fixing the game, and not expecting players to adjust their play to artificially make the flawed game "seem" right.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And, conceivably, there could be changes (randomization of points by a certain +/- %, for example) that could decrease it's significance in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's the stuff - something like that (a change within the game itself)! I'm glad to see that we aren't totally at odds after all. My goal is the best playing experience. I just don't want to have to artificially handicap myself to make that happen.

Wendell

[WendellM]

Lest I be misunderstood, let me state that CM is the most realistic squad-level wargame I've ever come across, and that I'm having a ball playing it. Its tactical engine is amazing, capable of producing remarkably realistic results. I wouldn't hesitate recommending this game to any WW II buff.

With that said and whole-heartedly meant, it's *always* possible to look for improvements (the nature of the cursed beast known as a "wargamer"). None of my "it could be better if..." comments above should be construed as belittling the massive accomplishment BTS has achieved.

I have only two issues right now: tactical targeting and strategic "card counting".

My thoughts on the needs for "sticky" tactical targeting appear in another thread (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007263.html).

As for "strategic card counting", I feel that a fairly simple adjustment could fix this, and that any similarly unrealistic aspects could be similarly fixed.

For the record, I love Combat Mission, and look forward to its continued success.

Wendell

[KiwiJoe]

I can't think of anyway to stop it other than removing the unit groupings and letting the player spend their 1000 points on anything they like. The problem with that of course would be the player choosing large amounts of 1 unit type and possably unbalancing the gameplay. The only thing I can say about that is having a unit cap... such as no more than 3 of any support weapon, armour, artillery or vehicle.

I'm really in 2 minds as to whether or not I should keep counting now. I'm sure everyone has done it to "some" degree... i.e. knowing in defense a player can only have 300 points of armour and thus when u destroy 2 tanks worth around 140 each u know that's it. The Problem is I'm sure plenty of other hardcore players are doing it and there is no real way to tell. I guess it's just a question of your own morals and whether you play the game to simply win, or to try and challenge yourself and enjoy the experience.

[WendellM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can't think of anyway to stop it other than removing the unit groupings and letting the player spend their 1000 points on anything they like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, KiwiJoe, maybe in future patches the ratios will be a bit more flexible as has been suggested.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm really in 2 minds as to whether or not I should keep counting now. I'm sure everyone has done it to 'some' degree... i.e. knowing in defense a player can only have 300 points of armour and thus when u destroy 2 tanks worth around 140 each u know that's it. The Problem is I'm sure plenty of other hardcore players are doing it and there is no real way to tell. I guess it's just a question of your own morals and whether you play the game to simply win, or to try and challenge yourself and enjoy the experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a tough call when you express it like that. I can only restate my position in harsh terms that if it *is* possible to take advantage of a situation, but you don't and your enemy does, then you're a sucker. Right now, for better or worse, point counting works, so if you know this but don't act on it - you're (in harsh terms) a sucker.

Is this unrealistic? Pretty much, yes. Should it be fixed? Yes! But until it is, the fact remains that it (unfortunately) *is* a *legal* tactic, so players shouldn't ignore it if they want to play well within the rules as they exist today. If they're not interested in following the game's rules then they should just declare that super-elves have destroyed all opposition and that they're now undisputed rulers of the elf realm - otherwise they abide by the rules that make all this combat seem real and are thus bothered by irregularities in them that go against history.

IMHO,

Wendell

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-14-2000).]

[Dschugaschwili]

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

I can't think of anyway to stop it other than removing the unit groupings and letting the player spend their 1000 points on anything they like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I can. What about distibuting only some of the 1000 points to fixed categories and have the other ones free to place. I think an example will make my point clear:

Let's say you have 1000 points for a given scenario, and you can buy troops from Infantry and from Armor (don't know how these categories are actually called, I haven't got the full version yet). So instead of having to spend 600 points for infantry and 400 points for armor, you could set up the scenario so you have 500 points dedicated to infantry, 300 points dedicated to armor, and 200 points that you can distribute as you like. That way the composition of your force is less predictable, and you won't end up with as many unused points that are spread across all the categories.

By the way, have I understood this correctly that reinforcements have to be bought at the full price? I would opt for a discount on them depending when they arrive (although not as much as half price for arriving mid-way throughout the scenario, just a small reduction in price). What do you think?

Dschugaschwili

[Jarmo]

I'm sure almost everyone does the counting to some degree.

I don't count individual points, or remember how much a

certain unit costs, but I still go like, "hmm. that shoud

be about all armor he had".

But it's still not too easy to predict what the other one has.

Yesterday I had 2 armor battles vs AI.

The first time it took a mixed force: some tanks, maximum

infantry, a few AC's.

The second time I faced 3 Panthers and a halftrack.

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 07-14-2000).]

[DanE]

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

That is a tough call when you express it like that. I can only restate my position in harsh terms that if it *is* possible to take advantage of a situation, but you don't and your enemy does, then you're a sucker. Right now, for better or worse, point counting works, so if you know this but don't act on it - you're (in harsh terms) a sucker.

Is this unrealistic? Pretty much, yes. Should it be fixed? Yes! But until it is, the fact remains that it (unfortunately) *is* a *legal* tactic, so players shouldn't ignore it if they want to play well within the rules as they exist today.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Wendell.

This statement got me to wondering. Since the game lets us use crews any way we want, then we should all be using them as advance scouts and the like?

Since the game lets us turn FOW off without our opponent knowing (I know it used to but have no idea if it has been "fixed" in the final version), then we should all be playing our email games with FOW off?

This is just my opinion, but using such tactics that are allowed only because the game is not programed to prevent them is what I consider "gamey".

I guess you can call me a sucker because I don't try to manipulate the program to get a win. This is a personal choice and one that makes the game that much more enjoyable for me. I will try to limit my email games to those that have a similiar view of "gamey" tactics. This way I won't be a sucker.

And to clearify, I do keep a mental track of what I have seen of the enemy in the terms of actual units. But I hadn't even thought of counting points. Maybe I am a sucker, or maybe I just don't have the inclination to track the actual point value of my opponent's force.

Just my random thoughts.

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

Dan

[Fred]

Dan

I'm with you.

Counting points? Bookkeeping to beat the system? Playing without FoW?

How do these people play a wargame?

Simply stated, I never played (or will play) people that re-arranged the counters on the map while I was leaving the room for a moment.

There will never be a system without any loopholes in it. This is a fact.

And if someones only aim is to find these loopholes to win, he will sooner or later be a very lone gamer.

Fred

[Preacher]

--snip--

"...then you're a sucker.."

Hogwash.

IMHO, it's an integrity issue. There are a lot of things that the law doesn't expressly forbid, yet those things range from questionable to downright illegal.

Sheesh. What is it that drives people to find and exploit the loopholes in game engines/rules? What is so fun/rewarding about it? What happened to using historical, time-tested tactics to achieve battlefield goals?

Is it gamey?! Of course its gamey. Do it if you like. Have fun with it. I'm not condemning. I'm just disagreeing. I hate gamey tactics.

Need to add this one to my pre-PBeM questionnaire...

Preacher

[Cueball]

One of the the things to consider is misidentified units. I just finished a PBEM game and my opponent misidentified a PZIVH as a Tiger. If you're counting points, then you've just figured 180 points instead of 122. Do that a few times and you'll suddenly be quite surprised when your opponent has more than you bargained for, like another "Tiger"

Personally, I wouldn't bother. Too much trouble for the small gain you might obtain. You'd be better off focusing on the battle as a whole and enjoying the immersive nature of the game.

[WendellM]

Dan,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since the game lets us use crews any way we want, then we should all be using them as advance scouts and the like?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that's beneficial, the game doesn't restrict it, and you want to, then yes. Why should players be forced to limit their actions? That's the whole point of game rules.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since the game lets us turn FOW off without our opponent knowing (I know it used to but have no idea if it has been "fixed" in the final version), then we should all be playing our email games with FOW off?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yikes! I didn't know about this. That needs fixing, since I imagine FOW is something players usually agree on before starting play. But right now, since it's unenforceable, I must say yes (unless you really trust your opponent).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is just my opinion, but using such tactics that are allowed only because the game is not programed to prevent them is what I consider "gamey".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Sigh* That's because the game needs fixing. If you and your opponent want to set up house rules, that's fine. But, as I see it, if a game allows an action, then it is by definition a legal action. If that action is unrealistic, then the game should be considered unrealistic until it's fixed. That's how it worked in board games, and that's how it works in computer games. IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess you can call me a sucker because I don't try to manipulate the program to get a win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is the line between "manipulate" and "play by the rules present in the program"? Again, if the game allows unrealistic behavior to be used, then the game is at fault. Players shouldn't have to second-guess their actions - that's what the rules are for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And to clearify, I do keep a mental track of what I have seen of the enemy in the terms of actual units. But I hadn't even thought of counting points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One could say that that's being "lazy gamey" instead of "industriously gamey"

Look, I'm not comfortable with the position I'm "defending". I also value historical value over rules-lawyering. For what it's worth, I don't count points - that's too boring for me - but since it's an allowable action under the current rules, I feel that it's legal to do so. As I see it, one reason we gamers buy a game (at least a big reason why I do) is to get an outside, impartial set of rules that define combat in an era. Otherwise we could all just make up our own rules as we go (at least back in the boardgame era).

So, to me, it's important that the rules be realistic and only allow reasonable actions. If they don't, then they're "bad" rules to some extent, and need fixing.

Maybe your standards for game rules are different than mine (not better or worse, but just different). If that's the case, then maybe you don't see the function of rules as being to only allow realistic actions, as I do.

To me, CM is a generally wonderful set of rules, which I love, but has a few problem areas that need fixing to prevent unrealistic play. That's all.

[KiwiJoe]

The consensious seems to be its gamey, and I have to agree. I'll just go back to approxamating what the enemy has.

[Seanachai]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir, I know I sounded judgemental, and I was. But I am judgemental for myself alone, and not for others. There are certain useages, and ploys, and behaviours that I would Mock, Revile, and Spit Upon! Because they would hopelessly impact the fairness, reality, and honour of play (such as one player using Full FOW, and the other using none). You are right in that this tactic (counting points) is allowed by the 'mechanics' (note, not the rules of play, merely the mechanics), and I certainly acknowledge the irritation of losing to players who've studied not merely the tactics of a game, but the mechanics of it that allow winning. And I also wish to say I never thought that this was a practice you indulged in, nor even advocated. I realized even from your original post that you were concerned about the ability to 'apply' it within a game.

But all in all, I think this is a minor 'gamey' tactic. Let those who use it do so. There will always be those, in my opinion, who will use any device to gain an advantage. And it would be hard to weigh in, in a life and death struggle, on the side of 'honour' as opposed to the reality and horror of combat. But here, in a game, let those whose purpose is only to 'win', do what they will. I don't think this is necessarily a game-breaker. If anyone wishes to use it against me, then welcome to them. I would still hope that my troops could grab them by the nose and kick their arses...as it were. But for your observations, I am not judging you.

And now, to paraphrase someone else's signature on this board, and from that truly lovely movie, "The Princess Bride"

"We are both men of action, sir. Let us not count points against each other..."

Presently I'm fighting many people, but I would be happy to fight you in some future, and honourable, engagement, in which I assure you, I would not use any tactic that was open to any charge of dishonour! Because in a game, honour is emminently affordable–and cheap at twice the price..

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[WendellM]

Thank you, Seanachai. I'm glad you see where I was coming from, and I appreciate that you took the time for a follow-up post (which was very well said, with several good points). Perhaps one day our forces will meet on a field of honor...

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-15-2000).]

[Henri]

I would say that it depends; in a game with no unknown reinforcements and known forces, yes it might be gamey.

On the other hand, using one`s knowledge of forces is quite legitimate and can make the difference between a good and a poor player. for instance, if you have broken two platoons and you don`t see anybody around, the knowledge that a company has three platoons and that there is probably another unseen platoon nearby can be very useful.

In the same manner, let us say that you have just knocked out two enemy squads and a platoon HQ. You should be aware that there is now an enemy squad somewhere without a platoon commander that will therefore be a bit slow on reaction and should break more easily tha in would if the commander were available. You should alsobe aware that the platoon commander may be replaced by the Cmpany commander, if he is in the vicinity.

In sum, one should use the information that would be available in a real battle and not articificially obtained, but all is fair in love and war.

Henri