Jeff Heidman Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 As with pornography, I might not be able to explicitly define it, but I certainly will know it when I see it! And, for the record, I think Fionn's tactic was just slightly gamey. Enough that I probably would not do it myself, but I would not get overly upset if someone else did it to me, unless, of course, it worked! Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 08-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andre76: ...One could argue that one viable option is to have a "historcial setup" check box in QB menu. André<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would be nice. Pehaps something along the lines of CO strength defense against reinforced platoon strength, etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Again, it is really a case of in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it's gamey. If someone does then I'd probably be happy not to play them since if they think that's gamey then probably they'll accuse me of other gamey stuff. And BTW In WW2 and lots of other conflicts it IS SOP to send a cheap, mass-produced vehicle in front of one's tanks so that it gets killed first. War involves lots of sending men to certain death just because you don't want to risk a big, armoured tank etc. As for gamey tactics.. I've only had them seriously used in about 3 PBEMs I've had. In all of those cases I brought it to the attention of the opponent and we reached a satisfactory conclusion by starting a new PBEM. I think that's the best way to go. Oh, an inveterate edge-hugger wouldn't get a second chance though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Open question about Stugs: I believe that StuH42s were generally part of a four piece platoon with 3 Stug IIIs and a single StuH42. So if you want to be realistic limit your purchases to one or two. If I'm wrong on this one feel free to correct me. Once again this comes with the caveat that in the German army quite often there was no "correct" or "normal" setup. Whatever was available was used. Almost any mix of troops is feasible. What is generally not feasible is too much of a rare asset (King Tiger, JagdTiger, JagdPanther ...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 I'm really worried about this thread; in an attempt to define ruels of engagement, we will end up with unending wargame lawyers' arguments about what a "gamey" tactic is or is not, wasting a lot of time and making a lot of unhappy people. Many Squad Leader battles degenerated this way and forced more and more rules changes until the player who knew the most rules became the better player. When the Americans were caught by surprise in the Battle of the Bulge, they threw everyone they had into the line, including cooks, truck drivers, you name it. Was this a gamey tactic? You bet! The name of the game was doing EVERYTHING you could to save your ass... The game has rules, if they are not satisfactory, they should be changed; perhaps there should be different rules for human vs human, but for the moment there aren't. Besides, it is clear that there is no clear consensus on what "gamey" tactics are. My impressionthat they are tactics that create an unexpected problem for the other player. My view is that unless bothplayers agree on restrictions (for historical reasons or other), then no aritificial rules should be enforced. Does anyone really believe that in all of WW2, a jeep never rushed enemy lines? How about when the james Caan character in A Bridge Too Far drove his jeep right through enemy lines, which I presume happened in the real battle? Was that gamey? You bet, but he had only one purpose, to save his brother's life. I used to play poker with the in-laws, but I gave up after they kept insisting that it is not nice to bluff and to sandbag your opponents, apparently unaware that the purpose of the game is to psych out the other players in order to win their money (we only played for pennies, but that is beside the point). I'm looking forward to the day when a pbem opponent tries sneaking up a map edge, leaving me free to take the objectives and to apply the offensive-defensive method BTW, version 1.03 has decreased the scouting ability of crews and disrupted units; if an opponent wants to give the victory points to the opponent for killing them, that is a tough choice to make, and he should be free to make it. Comments and flames welcome. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasilD Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 This falls outside the realm of most QB's but imo the situation would dictate what would or would not be acceptable: The battle of the bulge example being a good point. If I KNEW as a battalion cmdr that the battle in question was so important that it might help decide the war or at least holding ground/taking objective might save countless lives hell yah id be running jeeps with zooks at the Tigers, or giving the cooks carbines or whatever it damn took. On the flip side if I were cmdr in a meeting engagment I might withdraw after minimal losses if I felt the terrain/tactical position/etc. was not in my favor. My troopers lives simply would outweigh any other consideration. In this light I dont really think Fionn's "dash-o-death" was anything to complain about: The town he was relieving was in desperate straits, and as he said someone had to recon and he didnt really have any more viable recon unit available. Likewise I have no problems sending my trusty recon cars zooming forth to flush out enemy ambushes: thats their job, its an ugly one but thats war. In my experience anyways, often times the sheer speed of an armoured car is sufficient to avoid death, esp vs tank destroyers: by the time they pivot and aim the 'car is likely gone. By the way, I could use a few more PBEM's, if anyone is interested feel free to drop me an e-mail. ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Aye, let's face it the wartime AFV designers had a reason for making the Daimler and other ACs light and fast.. Reason being that about the ONLY defence these guys had was to put the pedal to the metal once fired on and run like hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Damn, I have been following this thread for a couple days sense I first posted a reply and not one of you bastards has said "great job with the etiquette Elvis" or "You know so much about PBEM ettiquette that we are all really impressed"...Everyone just keeps focusing on Fionns etiquette contribution...well what about ME?..what about my needs? By the way Fionn am I making any progress on "the list"? ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacestick Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: Damn, I have been following this thread for a couple days sense I first posted a reply and not one of you bastards has said "great job with the etiquette Elvis" or "You know so much about PBEM ettiquette that we are all really impressed"...Everyone just keeps focusing on Fionns etiquette contribution...well what about ME?..what about my needs? By the way Fionn am I making any progress on "the list"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Elvis Absolutely fabulous post about pbem etiquette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwin Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 It's so dificult sometimes expressing emotions. You've done a smash up job Elvis, really impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Thank you..that's all I needed...you may now return to arguing about what is and what is not gamey. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Actually Elvis I sent out 7 posts to members of "The List of Death" just yesterday. Haven't heard back from any of them so, for the time being, I do have an opening yes. Care to get yourself killed sooner rather than later? If so, drop me an email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Fionn-I wouldn't mind being on your 'list' when you get the chance.I am not very good,but wouldn't mind getting trounced if I learn a thing or two.Shoot me an email(in profile),if interested. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Fionn, I just sent you an email. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts