PBeM ettiquette?

[PatAWilson]

IMHO mixing forces is the toughest one. Almost any mix of German forces is possible since remnant units were often thrown together in Kampfgruppe. Fallschirmjager in 1944 were generally used as line troops and not as paratroopers. Mountain troops (I think) were more often used in their intended role. SS and Wehrmacht were thrown together often enough after their initial organization disintegrated.

I believe that Allied organization tended to be, well, more organized. You wouldn't often see tanks with Glider troops with armor or Commonwealth and American combined arms. At the same time I wouldn't mind seeing US paratroopers mixed with some Shermans.

The killer for me would be an "uber battle". No fun there. The solution for me is to do select combined arms so some variation is forced. I also wouldn't mind doing a PBEM with computer selected forces.

[ASL Veteran]

I have to say that 'Gamey' tactics don't bother me too much. I think it really just depends on who you are playing. I usually play against life long friends and I know their tendencies and behaviors. Knowing your enemy is the key. When you are playing against strangers in a pick up game then I wouldn't assume anything unless an agreement has been made beforehand. Naturally these tactics can be effective if not anticipated. However, all of the 'gamey' tactics that have been described can be countered effectively if they are anticipated. My usual response to something 'gamey' is to demand a rematch so I can teach my 'gamey' opponent the folly of his ways. You don't like jeep rushes but your opponent uses them? give him some bait and bushwack his jeeps when he tries it again. The enemy buys nothing but King Tigers? buy nothing but AT assets and take him down. I do agree that the points should be adjusted for rarity though ... that is a significant flaw in the game I think.

[Tiger]

Fionn,

Have to agree with you there. I like to play somewhat more historically accurate forces myself. The book is good but his writing style is a little "dry".

-Tiger

[Formerly Babra]

There's just something about the way "gamey" players play that goes above and beyond breaking this rule or that. One can usually tell right away because you will see so MANY things that seem questionable. These are the people to avoid.

I sometimes use jeeps and other fast transport to deposit schrecks, zooks, piats, whatever, a few hundred yards ahead of my main line of resistance. If they happen to blunder into an enemy tank then the resultant confusion might look gamey on the surface. Ya gotta give your opponent the benefit of the doubt when possible.

But the real gamey ones -- they're easy to spot.

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

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Mannheim Tanker]

I gotta agree with Babra. An occasional gamey tactic is OK (eg a jeep rush with AT team), as I'm willing to bet some of these things actually occurred. I'm also willing to bet that they didn't happen ten times in one battle! Extreme edge-hugging is assanine, and just shows that your opponent can't win using real tactics. By extreme, I'm talking about having their units sneak in single file up the side of the map. A regular flanking movement, with bounding overwatch is A-OK, as that's the way to do it.

In short, just ask yourself, "Would I order my guys to do X in real life?" If the answer is no, then it's probably really gamey.

BTW: When I was in armor training, our DI's always told us that we were only one sabot round away of being in the infantry! I have no problems with crews filling the line on the defense (offense is a different story!)

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-05-2000).]

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

our DI's always told us that we were only one sabot round away of being in the infantry! I have no problems with crews filling the line on the defense (offense is a different story!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put, I could not agree more (I was told the same thing).

Jarmo said he might "declare Alamo and have them added to my defense" and taken in context, there isn't a problem there.

You might have a little "Alamo" situation in one part of a larger battle. Able-bodied crews can and should assist in desperate defense; they could defend a small buillding. If they don't like it they will surrender.

I am totally against using them for recon or offensive purposes.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Extreme edge-hugging is assanine, and just shows that your opponent can't win using real tactics.

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. People who use gimmicks or 'gamey' tactics are people who usually can't win using normal forces following sound tactical principles. They use these 'gamey' tactics as a crutch. The sad part is that if they continue to use these 'gamey' tactics they will never learn how to use a proper force. To me, the true test of your tactical prowess is to play a well established scenario where both players know the force pool and situation. This would be more of a 'chess match' as all the pieces are on the table. While some people may prefer 'blind' point battles, the point system as it stands allows for these 'gamey' forces to be selected. If an optional 'realistic' point value or 'rarity factor' were added, then you would be able to screen your opponents. "Hey, you want to play a QB using rarity factors?" he responds "I usually prefer to play without rarity factors" Well, you can probably expect to see a force of all King Tigers. Perhaps Fionn is reconsidering his previous stance on point values?

[Major Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

If your force is whittled down to where the infantry can't do the job then it's time to submit a cease fire request.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have to disagree with your disagreement... There are many times where an extra group of troops to fill up the line is useful, even if you are not near the breaking point. Also, there are times when you are BOTH at the breaking point, and the strategic use of one crew can win or lose the game. I wouldn't consider this cheating, just using everything at your disposal.

Plus, you must remember that a crew is good only for one use, and they aren't big killers either.

About using jeeps and panzerfausts for quick and cheap kills. Well, this might not work all the time, but, it isn't a very relistic option. CM can't model troops refusing totally incompetent orders. It is a much braver tactic to sneak up a Zook or Piat to knock out a tiger than to run up with 10 jeeps carrying Zooks and confusing the Tiger AI into allowing you to kill it.

Indeed, there were ideas to mount AT weapons on weak skinned vehicles, but, it was either a failure in battle, or, deemed totally inapropriate for a military weapon.

[Moriarty]

Very interesting topic.

I must admit to having done a couple of these things, but they were due to my newness to wargaming ... CM beta being the first and greatest.

I have to agree with the post that said not everyone is an historian and, therefore, some gaffes, while unintentional, may occur.

Best advice, I guess, is to talk with your opponent before the game begins.

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

"Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" — Oddball

"Crap." — Moriarty

[Jarmo]

To make my point clearer, I wouldn't want rarity to be factored

in the point value. But I still feel übertanks are too cheap.

About the Jeep thing. 10 jeeps loaded with zooks would be

something like 350pts! Not worth losing them over a tiger,

or kingtiger even.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Fionn]

Nah ASL vet,

I just agree beforehand on whether we're going to be realistic or not. In one current game we're not being realistic and I'm introducing my opponent to the joys of 4 Elite King Tigers and 10 Regular StuH42s

I've got to tell you, those StuH42s are incredibly cheap for the punch they pack.

As it is I just agree on the style of game to be played and then beat them .

Anyways, again I say that the best thing to do is just set the ground rules with your opponent. If you both go for the common stuff it'll be an even game. If you both go for the heavy stuff it'll be even too. The only way it'll be totally unfair is if one of you goes for heavy and the other for normal stuff. A simple chat before the game can prevent that happening and so I think the "use your common sense" rule comes into play here

[Formerly Babra]

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

I have to agree with the post that said not everyone is an historian and, therefore, some gaffes, while unintentional, may occur.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL - you reminded me of when I was a kid playing Battleline's Flattop game. My opponent was a little miffed when I landed my Bettys on my carriers to refuel...

Stuff like that will happen. No use gettin' bent outa shape about it.

As for "mixed" forces, Germans are especially tricky, but since it's one nationality it's not nearly as annoying as a mixture of all the "best" equipment from the entire Allied arsenal.

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

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Darwin]

Call me gamey but I'm playing one now with a small horde of wasp's torching everything in sight. Not historic but very fun. I'm hoping to get all the good cover on his side of the map in flames, we'll see how it goes

[deanco]

Interesting about the bazooka/jeep rush. It's not such a hot strategy really. I tried it a few times against the computer(without knowing what I was doing, of course, but it seemed like a good strategy). result: tacatacatac: jeep dies. tacatacatac : bazooka pinned. tacatacatac : bazooka dead or broken. OK, a couple times he gets a shot off, but he doesn't aim too good with that big MG bearing down on him. All by himself he ain't gonna get the job done. They need infantry or something to take the heat off of 'em so they can fire, I found out. Then they can be deadly. Nothing more satisfying for me than taking a tank out with a bazooka. No wait... with a regular squad, from behind, is even better.

DeanCo--

[Mannheim Tanker]

Darwin, I'm not even sure that flaming all of the cover is a gamey tactic. I've played games, vs AI and humans alike, where I've used tanks to level entire streets to push back the defenders lines. After reading accounts of the Battle of Stalingrad, I've concluded that the Germans must have had an SOP for blowing the crap out of buildings! Also, we can't forget about the use of Agent Orange in Nam...

[Formerly Babra]

I just finished reading "Flamethrower", about Churchill Crocodiles in NW Europe. Flaming everything in sight was definitely SOP. If it's there you've killed it. If nothing was there, nothing will be.

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

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Pacestick]

I remember reading an AAR written by an opponent of gamey tactics in which he justifies sending a HT which was gun damaged and incapable of firing ahead as a scout to trip any anti armour ambushes that may have been laid on his axis of advance. The reasoning was that it would be better to lose an empty vehicle that was incapable of fighting than one that was.

I can see the orders group now "SGT Shultz, I think the Amis have anti tank teams in ambush ahead, I want you to move your HT ahead of the column and see if you can get through. I have personally picked you for this mission not because you are a brave and skilled soldier adequately equiped for the role but because you are unarmed and would not be much of a loss."

Why thankyou colonel, right away colonel, my driver and I are honoured to be able to force the enemy to waste valuable ammunition on our worthless selves rather than on our more usefull armed comrades.

I cannot argue with the logic of the reasoning but would certainly call the tactic gamey

Any comments Fionn?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Definitely gamey, since it's rationalizing the use of the tactic in game terms, and not real-world terms. As long as both parties agree to certain gamey tactics...

I prefer real-world tactics, however, so I probably wouldn't play a rematch with your opponent if he pulled that on me

[Mark IV]

Understand the objection, but how would you know? It's just another HT doing the recon thing if FOW is on.

[Fionn]

Ah, the immortal "Dash of Death" .

Well I disagree that it was gamey for the following reasons:

1. One of my HTs HAD to go down that road in any case.

2. I didn't just send the HT to attract fire. I was moving it tactically to a position where it could offload the squad it carried into a recon/covering position near the bridge.

3. IF I was choosing a unit for a very risky but necessary mission I wouldn't send one of my few remaining units with an HMG active. I'd send the one which could still maneuvre but was not contributing to my firepower anymore.

Also, while tripping ambushes was a side-effect my primary aim was to emplace a squad near the bridge.. In fact, I tried damned hard to keep that HT alive since it was another transport asset for my guys.

IOW I'd do exactly the same thing in real life if I felt the need to put a squad into a recon position near the bridge.. I'd select the least valuable of my units which could get the job done and send it out.

Would you prefer I turned to a fully functional crew and sent them out instead of one which had lost much of its value to me?

So,

1. The aim wasn't gamey IMO. ( getting recon using a squad of Panzergrenadiers is quite valid).

2. The ONLY way to get there was by mounting them in a HT.

3. If I have to risk a HT then I'll risk one which has lost its armament.

4. For those reasons I'd do the same in real life as I did in the game which, by my terms, makes it a non-gamey move.

You might disagree of course.

IMO the REAL question is this...

Is rushing a squad into a recon position gamey? Once you answer that no then the question becomes... How can I do so at the least cost.. For me, with HTs the least cost was to use an HT with little combat power left.

[Major Tom]

Regarding the use of Halftracks and other light vehicles... I have seen MANY picrures of burnt out halftracks/scout vehicles that went ahead of the main armour and got NAILED! This was a REAL tactic, using the scout vehicles for scouting...

What I remember of the 'historic' dash to the bridge in Fionn's and Moon's AAR (back in the day) is that he used it to explore the region that he had to cross. He wanted to see what was going to nail his tanks/troop carrying halftracks when they moved along. He wanted to see where the HMG fire is coming from. He didn't want to lose his halftrack, but, didn't want to lose a tank more.

I remeber the movie 'A Bridge Too Far' where a British scout car was ahead of the armoured column. Why? So that they wouldn't lose a Sherman. This is what halftracks and scout cars were used for. Fionn didn't know for a certain FACT that there were AT guns there, but, he didn't want to take a risk with an important vehicle (plus, what would you do with an unarmed haftrack either!).

[Pacestick]

I remeber the movie 'A Bridge Too Far' where a British scout car was ahead of the armoured column. Why? So that they wouldn't lose a Sherman. This is what halftracks and scout cars were used for. Fionn didn't know for a certain FACT that there were AT guns there, but, he didn't want to take a risk with an important vehicle (plus, what would you do with an unarmed haftrack either!).

[Andre76]

I've seen that of of the "gamey" topics is using non-historical units (too many XX, too few ZZ). As somebody already pointed out; not every body who play this *GAME* has a master degree in WWII force combination! You really can't expect it either, people play to have fun.

One could argue that one viable option is to have a "historcial setup" check box in QB menu. If this is checked you can't buy 7 Pershings or 1 infantery platoon + lots of arty. But had to choose a more historical right combination of units. Any thoughts?

Bottom line, talk (write) to your PBEM opponent BEFORE the battle and set the terms.

André

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Having just started to do PBEM I do not wish to get "blacklisted" for poor etiquette. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And therein, you see, lies the rub. In reading this and other posts on the issue of being gamey, it has become abundantly clear that (a) everyone has a different opinion on what EXACTLY constitutes being gamey and ( there are so many different ways of being seen as being gamey that you CAN'T discuss them all before the game.

As other posters have mentioned, I would suggest a little forbearance before crossing someone off your PBEM list and branding them as gamey. I would certainly suggest being VERY careful about spreading the word to others unless the evidence is very clear. And finally, I would suggest that communication may save you a great future PBEM partner and friend. If you question something that an opponent is doing, ask them about it! If their response is unsatisfactory, you never have to play them again. And don't forget, if the game allows it to be done, it isn't cheating, it's only ... gamey ... maybe.

Joe

[Guest Germanboy]

Ahh Joe, the voice of reason again. I completely agree with you, if you suspect someone to use gamey tactics on you, just tell them, in most cases they were not aware of it, or it was done innocently. No need to fly in a rage. And most certainly, the board will not be the first place I go to discuss when I suspect someone of using gamey tactics to a degree that ruins my game.

Pacestick, while your statement about movies and reality is mostly correct, I fell you are being a bit harsh in this particular case on Major Tom, because ABTF had it mostly right, at least from what I understand from my readings of UK divisional histories. Being point when the Recce regiment motored up-front sucked. The lead car was there to trigger an ambush. The recce regiment of the 3rd ID lost 54 drivers on their way from Normandy to Berlin. The drivers usually had difficulties getting out of the car fast enough.

Of course, doing that with an unarmoured car or HT somehow defeats the idea of forcing the ambush to trigger by threatening to put a life unit in their back. If you don't trigger the ambush, you will then have an unarmoured car in the back of the enemy, and that won't do you any good.

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

Andreas