Gamey Tactics by Priest

[Priest]

Okay first thing is that this is not a thread to discuss the evils of gaminess. Nor is this a flame thread because as a cyber community we need to be able to have discussions. So here it goes.

My position is that there is no "gamey" tactics just cheating (spotting round problem) and bad tactics (jeeps aka lambs to the slaughter). Now while I admit that there is some ahistorical uses of equipment and troops going on, to some extent isn't that the point. I am a WWII history buff, I love it. But I am also curious about the little things in the war that could have changed it. What if the King Tiger was common? What if Pershings were developed earlier? I see nothing wrong with this. I also see nothing wrong with group rules. But for this discussion I would like to raise some questions and gather opinions. First off here is something that happened to me. My friend and I were playing a hotseat game and he had about 5 jeeps tooling around. Now I had a platoon of men and two Heavy MG teams out in front of my main line. The two teams light up and by turn 3 or 4 all the jeeps are abandoned there crews being killed. Now did my opponent get to see to MG crews? Yes for a little bit. Did it hurt my overall plan? No not really. Did I eliminate around 110pts. of my opponents equipment for like nothing? Yes. My point is that if you happened to get burned by this tactic once you are going to cry "gamey" which I guess is somewhat true in the historical sense, maybe, but if you get a conclusion like I did you are saying "man this guy is an idiot!" Examples, discussion and opinions are welcome and thanks beforehand.

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

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

-Priest

[Jadayne]

this is a slightly edited down version of my post on "varied troop qualities" -

Here's a thought I came home today and, as usual fired up CM. I had an urge to work on my Greyhound skills, so I thought I'd try a quickbattle pitting 1500 points of Greyhounds versus an assorted array of German armor.

Consider it a "training excercise"

When it comes time to select my troops, I realize that there's no way in quickbattle to select 1500pts worth of greyhounds. "armor" and "mechanized" forces won't let you mass the small quick stuff. You have to balance it out.

"Ok, I thought, I'll create the scenario" a bit more work, but with "autogenerate map" it shouldn't be a problem. Until, of course, I realized that having selected my force of greyhounds, I'll now have to select the entire German force as well -not only a bother to begin with but also effectively eliminating FOG of WAR. So, in effect, creating my own scenario doesn't cut the mustard either.

then I got to thinking...(philisophical rant follows)

So, I want to play a scenario that's not neccessarily historical, but I -as a game player -want to try it. Whether for training purposes or whatever. The army tries out different strategies between wars. The ones that are in vogue when when the war starts are the ones that make it into the history books and called "historical". Who's to say, if someone of less moral fibre was leading american troops into battle, he wouldn't have used a conscript recon screen to draw fire and flush out enemy positions for his veterans? Who's to say that someone wouldn't have created a formidable force of Greyhounds to flank and take out the Panzers' rears?

A simulation works on two levels. The first is a HISTORICAL SIMULATION which is accurate (obviously) historically. The physics may be abstracted, but the effect and immersion are pretty damn close to "being there". The second is a PHYSICAL SIMULATION which recreates the physical dynamics of whatever it is you are simulating, be it an f-16 fighter or a company of Patton's 3rd army. You then have free reign to do whatever the machine (or company) is physically capable of.

Each simulation attracts a different type of player. The person attracted to PHYSICAL SIMULATIONS lies somewhere between the HISTORICAL WARGAMER and the VIDEO GAME PLAYER on that thread a few weeks back. He's the guy that wants to recreate Normandy exactly as it was on D-Day 1944, but field an army of his own choosing. He's not looking for that killer combination that will dominate every PBEM, but does want to try them all. He's not necessarily looking to beat the system, but he does want to push the system to the envelope!

CM as it is works on the historical level. I'm very satisfied. I've got no complaints whatsoever. And, of course I respect Steve and Charles and any direction they decide to take their game. But when I see someone say that they'd like to see something like varied troop qualities or unlimited Greyhounds I can definitely see where they're coming from. Even if it isn't historical. Because, alas, the two are quite incompatable. The whole fun of Physical Simulation is throwing the history books out the window.

But maybe there IS a compromise. I believe there was mention that the HISTORICAL button was going to be included in the next patch or CM2 regarding vehicle values. Perhaps it could be modified slightly (i.e. a third level) so that there was a completely AHISTORICAL button. When this mode is toggled, all rules go out the window. Any troop type or quality can be chosen. Any vehicle used. On any date. Hell, you could have Green troops supported by Elite Pershings in July of '44 if that suited you.

Ok, I'm done rambling. Just my two cents.

P.S. (by way of example)Before taking on the Austrians in Italy, no one had ever massed cannons or flanked with cavalry, yet Napoleon managed to alter the course of military thinking by using the same troops in a completely new way. If he were playing CM and not creating an empire, he wouldn't have that opportunity. He would be forced to use those troops in basically the same way as everyone else had up until then because that would've been deemed "historically correct". (disclaimer: this is not a CM put down!!!! It is simply the PHYSICAL SIMULATOR'S take on the situation)

---------

I am also of the opinion that there are no gamey tactics. For me, the engine is a model of the games's reality, not necessarily historical reality. So, in CM's world, tank crews DO have radios. Commanders DO send troops on suicide missions. For everything unbelievable you can do in CM, there is an equal and opposite thing you can't do that you'd be able to do in real life. So called 'gamey tactics' simply make up for this difference.

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[Bobbaro]

Right now ALL units in CM have radios. Just send 'em a message and off they go. Now if a commander is not close enough, then it takes a few seconds more to put out the butts and field strip them before continuing. Otherwise they only say "Huh" and go, as their PC leaders don't allow smoking within their sight.

However, certain units are reluctant to fire their morters, on the say so of their radio connect to the player. They will move as directed, but when it comes to firing they need a commander to give the go ahead. They just don't trust the competence of player to give the correct target data over the radio.

[Smoker1]

I'm with you Jadayne! Give me an accurate model of the weapons, troops, and vehicles and let me apply the "what ifs". I'm a physical simulationist too I guess.

Smoker out.

[Chupacabra]

Once again:

"Gamey" tactics are tactics which exploit the shortcomings of the game engine to produce results which would be impossible to produce in real life.

Gamey tactics are not cheating.

The prime example of the gamey tactic, IMO, is the jeep rush, in that CM's absolute spotting model means that the player gains much more information from a suicidal jeep rush than a commander would IRL. Even if the player only finds out that "oops, there's a well-placed anti-recon MG ambush over there," that's more information than he should get.

I think to some extent these threads are futile because, obviously, everyone has their own thoughts on what's gamey, what's not, or if it's even an issue.

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

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

[Priest]

Thanks Jay

Well Chub you are right to an extent about the jeep rush example except for one thing. If I ordered 5 Jeeps to high tail towards the enemy (this is a stupid order IMO) and they get shot up by MG fire then it is perfectly realistic. It is not a matter of if it happened,it is a matter of if it could happen. Could a commander (albiet a stupid one) give the above orders? Yes. Would I give that order? probably not. If I saw them coming at me would I shoot them? Yes. Because of this wouldn't the stupid commander get to know that there is an MG on that hill? But of course he is down 5 vehicles and soon to be 5 dead crews. If my plan hinges on one or two units being spotted then my tactics are probably not worth the effort. IMO the jeep scenario is a bad example because it could happen and if it did I think the results are right. I agree that they spot a little too much but BTS is going to fix that. Here is an example: The motars used to be way to good a AT duty (some say it still is). Anyways did any of us stop using mortars? Not really. Did we say using mortars was "gamey" because they were a little to effective? no not really. Well jeeps are a little too effective at spotting things. That is going to be fixed. Is it okay then to use jeeps? What about the interim? I do not really use jeeps that often but anyone that wants to should be able to use them in any capacity, especially recon because they were used for that (***SPOILER***) reference the operation A DAY IN THE CALVARY. Anyways I will check the post in the morning late and thanks for the responses.

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

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

-Priest

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Jadayne]

whoops,

when I said all troops have radios, I was referring specifically to bailed crews hiding in the bushes in behind enemy lines miraculously radioing troop types and positions to your entire force.

Also, in the NZ/PBEM thread, they want to ban AT recon. What's gamey about AT team recon? Why would you recon with AT teams anyway?

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[General_Petrovsky]

I'm not one to bring up gamey tactics, but the CM book even says something about using crew as scouts. When I have a vehicle knocked out I pull the crew back to safety or off the map entirely. This is to avoid hearing anything about being gamey. I'm playing a PBEM now, which is also a registered game at Tournament House and my current opponent just used crew in the most gamey way as possible by using them as scouts. They were in a building in a town I"m defending, I wasted like 12 HE rounds to blow up the building plus moved my tanks in fear it was a AT team and not only does my opponent come back with this friggin email (below) but on the turn before accused me of having crew on the front lines (It was a sniper) Look at what he wrote:

Heh, yeah, that's my truck crew that accidentaly bogged the vehicle down

in some trees. Stupid of them. Since they had nothing to do,

I turned them into scouts. By the way, nice shooting on this last

turn. I have to figure out how to deal with those tanks you got in

town.

Col

on top of that he's lying about the truck being bogged down, I took it out with a mortar round a few turns earlier. Now i have to say something to him about this because it's BS, but I don't want to take any fun away from the game. It's just not fair that I put a lot of time and thought into purchasing troops, setting them up, thinking out each turn and I gotta deal with this. What is one to do in a situation like this with no apparent positive out come?

[Croda]

Allright everyone, I am quite confused about the gaminess (call it cheating if you like) of using vehicle crews for combat. They are soldiers, they are armed, they went through basic training...so what if they only carry a sidearm? What's the Lieutenant commanding your platoon carrying? If he's the only one left in your Platoon HQ, do you retreat him because it's gamey to only fight with a sidearm? Are crews tougher to kill than normal infantry? Who gives a damn if they fight it out? I'd like for someone to give me a decent reason why it is considered so heretical to use those crews. I can understand wanting to keep a sniper, mortar, AT team, FO out of harm's way when they've exhausted their ammo, because they have nothing left to fight with, but vehicle crews can fight back. I'd appreciate an explanation from one of our resident gameiness experts.

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

"Nuts!"

[This message has been edited by Croda (edited 10-19-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

There are SOME deeply divided opinions on this one.

And it comes down simply to this...

Some people like to play in what they consider a historically correct way using historically correct tactics and they like to play with others in PBEM's where the rules of engagement "honour" the concept of retreating crews to fight another day, and keeping them out of harms way. These gamers prefer to establish these rules of engagement up front and play historical units using historical tactics against folks who also think it is wise to withdraw the crews because they have special training and are more valuable to fight tomorrow when they can get a new weapon or vehicle.

Now, some other folks here feel strongly like yourself, that ANYTHING goes, within the rules you can order your crews to do anything including conducting suicide recon missions.

If both parties agree to the rules of engagement or "house rules" ahead of time then there is no need for anger or resentment like we have read about in this thread.

If you have read my posts on this before, (and I have posted plenty) I feel like you do that "ANYTHING goes". I like to play against folks like your self that feel that you should do anything and everything you can to WIN and and have no need for rules of engagement or house rules as we both expect our opponent to pull any move, sneaky, gamey, ahistorical, or whatever you want to call it in order to maximize the chance of gaining victory.

If both parties agreed to the style they like to play, before the game starts there should be no problems.

I prefer the "Anything goes" aggreement so I can NEVER be accused of unexpectedly useing tactics they consider gamey and are offened by, I don't really use gamey tactics and I invite other folks to use gamey tactics, against me because sometimes they are easy to defeat, but if you play by the rules "Anything goes" no one can ever whine about the tactics you use because they knew going in that you would use every man and every weapon and EVERY tacitc under the sun to secure victory, because we all know that winning isn't everything.......

.

.

.

.

ITS THE ONLY THING!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-19-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

Allright everyone, I am quite confused about the gaminess (call it cheating if you like) of using vehicle crews for combat. They are soldiers, they are armed, they went through basic training...so what if they only carry a sidearm? What's the Lieutenant commanding your platoon carrying? If he's the only one left in your Platoon HQ, do you retreat him because it's gamey to only fight with a sidearm? Are crews tougher to kill than normal infantry? Who gives a damn if they fight it out? I'd like for someone to give me a decent reason why it is considered so heretical to use those crews. I can understand wanting to keep a sniper, mortar, AT team, FO out of harm's way when they've exhausted their ammo, because they have nothing left to fight with, but vehicle crews can fight back. I'd appreciate an explanation from one of our resident gameiness experts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

Here's 21 pages of posts about "gamey tactics"

If you read them ALL you should be quite enlightened.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010574.html

-tom w

[Croda]

Tom, I appreciate your viewpoint, though mine is slightly different. (I also appreciate you bumping that thread for me, though I don't know that I'll get through all of it). My approach to the game is this: When I play CM, due to it's incredibly realistic nature (ie historical accuracy in the greatest detail wherever possible), I wonder how I would have handled these situations had I been a platoon/company/battalion commander in the ETO in WWII, and I imagine the game as a sort of "pseudo-reality" in which I can test myself. How would I have handled the Normandy Invasion? Could other battles have been fought better, and could I have won battles which were lost? This is how I play the game (and let me emphasise the 'I' as many others may not play that way, which is fine).

I use this manner of thinking in all approaches to the game, and when people discuss gamey tactics, I use my mindset, and the "real environment" that I play in as the point of comparison between real and gamey tactics. With this in mind, I don't want to rush 5 jeeps at a suspected ambush sight, only to lose 5 jeeps and the lives of the men they are carrying. I see no point in it as there is surely a better, safer way to bust up that ambush. I will not use AT teams to scout, but I will set them alone in an ambush role. If a Sherman get's itself all blown up, near my lines, I try to keep the crew out of trouble. If it gets blown up in an area of contention, or behind enemy lines, where there is no fantastic avenue of retreat, then I will use them in my attack, if tactically feasible. When I was playing the demo, I was playing chance encounter as the Amis and used 4 crews together to take down some infantry...the combined power of the 4 crews at short range overpowering the already wounded enemy.

So I guess I understand now why people view this as a gamey maneuver, but I happen to play the game with a standard in mind that if I deviate greatly from what I would do with the lives of real men on the line, then I have lost the point of the great simulation that has been created for us all. Hope that makes sense to you, and to everyone.

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

"Nuts!"

[CavScout]

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

Allright everyone, I am quite confused about the gaminess (call it cheating if you like) of using vehicle crews for combat. They are soldiers, they are armed, they went through basic training...so what if they only carry a sidearm? What's the Lieutenant commanding your platoon carrying? If he's the only one left in your Platoon HQ, do you retreat him because it's gamey to only fight with a sidearm? Are crews tougher to kill than normal infantry? Who gives a damn if they fight it out? I'd like for someone to give me a decent reason why it is considered so heretical to use those crews. I can understand wanting to keep a sniper, mortar, AT team, FO out of harm's way when they've exhausted their ammo, because they have nothing left to fight with, but vehicle crews can fight back. I'd appreciate an explanation from one of our resident gameiness experts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've never met tankers if you think they are "soldiers" who know how to fight as infantry.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[Croda]

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

I guess you've never met tankers if you think they are "soldiers" who know how to fight as infantry.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean? We Visual Basic programmers and tankers hang out all the time!

My point is this, any soldier is a soldier when the going gets tough. If you recall from the dreadfully inaccurate movie "The Battle of the Bulge," it was ordered that mess cooks, quartermasters, bakers, staff officers, the works take up arms in the defense of Ambleve. My feeling is that a tanker holding a .45 and shooting at bad guys, is better than bad guys meeting no resistance whatsoever. Is this an extreme example? You betcha. But then again, if I remember correctly, war is an extreme measure in and of itself.

[Splinty]

My take on the crew as infantry thing is as follows,a tank crew is going to do what they have to in combat because that's what it takes to survive,be it hiding,fighting, running,whatever.But a good CO is going to do whatever it takes to accomplish his mission,to include using the crews as scouts or grunts,and barring winning a good commander is going to do whatever he can to ensure his unit survives in some sort of fighting condition so they can accomplish the next mission. Having said all that it really depends on the indivdual situation to define "gamey",I've seen some crews do some really cool stuff on thier own (read:AI).If I had ordered them to take out a vehicle would that be gamey?

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[CavScout]

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

What do you mean? We Visual Basic programmers and tankers hang out all the time!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering tankers think an M16 is a crew-served weapon...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

My point is this, any soldier is a soldier when the going gets tough. If you recall from the dreadfully inaccurate movie "The Battle of the Bulge," it was ordered that mess cooks, quartermasters, bakers, staff officers, the works take up arms in the defense of Ambleve. My feeling is that a tanker holding a .45 and shooting at bad guys, is better than bad guys meeting no resistance whatsoever. Is this an extreme example? You betcha. But then again, if I remember correctly, war is an extreme measure in and of itself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A soldier may be a soldier, but not all soldiers are effective soldiers. If you think tank crews, cooks or members of the band have the same training as infantry you mistaken. If "rear with the gear" soldiers were as good as front line troops there would never be a need to worry about enemy break-throughs to the rear. But there is.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Priest]

Good morning from the pacific coast USA. Anyways good points one and all.

My ideas on the discussion so far:

Truck crews are just infantry guys driving the truck for the most part. If they happen into a situation then so be it. Also I can see jeep or truck crews more likely fighting (and being better at it) than say tank crews. Now to dis myself on the last point, I have a friend in the army that drives tanks (M1A1 and the such). He is also checked out on the M-16 and assorted handguns at expert level. He is also checked out on grenades and certain AT weapons. He even received some artillery training. Now this may not have been the way back in WWII but it is not total out of reality that crews fight.

Now second I believe you do what you have to win. If I could institute one change in CM reality it would have nothing to do with the Combat engine but with reality itself. Do you know the main reason we use jeeps en masse or send AT teams on recon? Because we do not have to write the letters to there parents at the end of the day. Croda hit the nail on the head. If we had to look into the eyes of "our boys" it would be a lot harder to send them to their deaths. I try to play that way. A good example is last night. I fought a meeting engagement with a friend in a hotseat game. Small hills overcast day with no trees in a rural area. Also known as deathtrap city. Anyways we pounded each other for about nine turns and I surrendered. When I surrendered I still had the only AFV on the map (a Lynx). I also had the only flag captured. But my infantry was shredded and my reserves had been hit with arti very effectively so I surrendered and achieved a draw, which I consider means I pulled out of the area. I could have fought until the end (turn 30) and maybe even achieved a tactical victory but it was at the cost of my unit as a fighting unit. If I am a commander in the real war I am thinking I can pull back to a more defensible area and bomb this open area to oblivion with arti if I can get my hands on it. Maybe even recover my Tiger (DOH!). Anyways during that battle I escaped with at least partial crews from all my vehicles and crew weapons. I pulled them back after their vehicle or equipment was eliminated. I could have used them to bolster my teams but I was fighting for another day at that point. Again BTS cannot fix this it should be the mindset of the player. If the player says okay you guys in the jeep lets get mov'in towards that enemy held town then well that is the perogative of the commander. My MG teams like getting easy kills anyway

By the way if you play in CMMC or any of the other RPG-driven CM games trust me this comes in to play big time. I am guessing there will be few if any jeep rushes there without a court martial for stupid planning following.

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

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

-Priest

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 10-19-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 10-19-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 10-19-2000).]

[jshandorf]

Cav,

Croda's point was not that rear troops ARE good infantry. It was that in some cases rear guard troops sometimes have to pick up guns and fight. That's all.

Therefore to do it in a game occasionally when your desperate to capture a certin VL it may not be considered gamey.

That is all.

Jeff

[Croda]

Jeff, isn't it great that we can support each other here, and then go blow holes in each other in another thread?

Yes, you caught my point exactly. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't field an armed force consisting mostly of dismounted tankers with .45s, but in a pinch, it should not be considered an abuse of the game engine, or cheating, or gamey to use the tools that you have to win the battle.

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

"Nuts!"

[Horo]

About 20 years ago I was playing the original Squad Leader. I tried to explain the appeal of wargames to a liberal friend of mine, who is anti-war in any form or for any reason. An unrealisitic, yet admirable goal. He said "That's terrible. You can actually kill soldiers. I replied "Cardboard soldiers do not leave cardboard widows and children."

Gamey solutions are part of the deal. It is a game, and as such winning is more important than survival.

In actual warfare, survival is far more important. There is also evidence that, is some instances, crews of damaged, destroyed or immobilized vehicles did fight on as infantry.

The thing about the jeep rush tactic, is that the crews would most likely have refused or performed badly, thus rendering it useless IRL.

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

Ugati: You despise me, don't you Rick?

Rick Blaine: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

[Chupacabra]

Horo- how you look at CM really depends on if you look at it primarily as a game or as a simulator.

If you're looking at it as a game first and foremost, then yeah, winning the game is the most important thing.

If you're looking at it as a simulator, then accurately simulating WW2 tactical combat within the limits of CM's engine is the most important thing.

Some of us look at it as a simulation.

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

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

[Priest]

I look at it as a sim also. That does not mean that the ability to utilize innovative tactics should be thrown out the window. Let's look at it this way: In football there is a set of rules to work within. This symbolizes the CM engine. Now within those rules teams can do whatever they want. Would football be nearly as strategic and entertaining if all you good do was run up the middle and throw the bomb? Not even close. Would a football Sim game be as fun?

I am trying a little tactic right now just for kicks after reading what Rommel did in the desert. If you do not know then let me explain. He tied sticks and brush to his trucks, HT, and light armor and ordered them to move across an area kicking up huge amounts of dust. The Allies took this as the whole of the Afrika Corp and pivoted their defenses towards the group which allowed the heavies and mediums supported by infantry of the Afrika Corp to roll right into the Allied rear. Anyways I am going to by some trucks, a couple of HT's and maybe some armored cars and keep them out of sight and make a lot of noise. I am going to play a hotseat game against myself to see what the enemy sees or actually hears in sound contacts. I will try different levels of defenders also. Now is this tactic gamey? I will probably never use it even if it works because it takes up to much of my force but it should be an interesting experiment.

Chub there is a difference in a game and simulation. If you play CM as a game then you probably are wondering why aren't there resources to mine. If you are a wargamer then you treat this as a sim and can either use your tactics and see how it works or see how it was done and emulate it. Either way is fine as each player has an individual taste but to insinuate that because Croda or myself will use what is necessary to achieve our objectives with concern to troops and equipment is not right. I respect the idea and it was spoken well without personal insult and I appreciate that. In truth I would prefer to play with one side rule than many and that is : Play like your little digital men trust you with their lives. This is much easier and less cumbersome than a list of 10 rules addressing ridiculous subjects that end up limiting play. Oh and by the way IMO I think the worst rule I have heard so far is the 76mm rule (sorry Fionn, I respect the hell out of you as a player but gotta make a stand). The inclusion of the Tiger and 88mm Panther among others give a whole new dimension to CM, the HOLY S**T factor that we all know and love. Anyways these are my thoughts.

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

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

-Priest

[This message has been edited by Priest (edited 10-19-2000).]

[tss]

jshandorf wrote:

It was that in some cases rear guard troops sometimes have to pick up guns and fight. That's all.

Therefore to do it in a game occasionally when your desperate to capture a certin VL it may not be considered gamey.

However rear area troops were usually used only to strenghten the line in face of possible enemy breakthrough. I can list many cases where those troops were thrown to delay enemy's advance (in fact, my great uncle died in exactly that kind of situation on 13.2.1940 near Summa. He was a sapper whose company was sent in to plug the enemy breakthrough. They failed) but I can't recall any cases where those troops were used in offensive actions.

- Tommi

[Guest Germanboy]

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

However rear area troops were usually used only to strenghten the line in face of possible enemy breakthrough. I can list many cases where those troops were thrown to delay enemy's advance (in fact, my great uncle died in exactly that kind of situation on 13.2.1940 near Summa. He was a sapper whose company was sent in to plug the enemy breakthrough. They failed) but I can't recall any cases where those troops were used in offensive actions.

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with Tommy. I would really like to hear of a case where the Divisional CO came back from the front to the bakery company, telling them that the attack did not go well, and would they mind going up to help out the lads in the Rifle Coys. These soldiers found themselves in the rifle coys for sure at some point if they were unlucky, but that was as replacements.

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

Andreas

[Croda]

Priest, we are agreed.

I like the idea of moving the trucks around a lot to simulate there being more vehicles than there are. Not gamey, smart. I belive that you've got a feel for the spirit of the game, and I agree with what you are saying about new tactics. A good simulator (which we all agree CM is) allows you to not only do what you already know will work, but allows you to push limits and try new things. Because the simulator is good, it will simulate real world results to your new tactics. And that, for me, is the glory of it all: being able to recreate exactly, or totally differently a battle. Let me use a U.S. Civil War example. In the battle of Gettysburg, on the 2nd day of the battle, Lee opted to attack the Federals on a hill called Little Round Top. Regiments from Alabama assaulted this hill forever, 7 or 8 charges IIRC, but never took it, eventually succumbing to a bayonet charge by the 2nd Maine Infantry, perhaps one of the greatest moments in the war. The point is that many of Lee's Generals felt it was more prudent for him to go way around to the right, out of the sight of Northern Artillery, and take them from the extreme flank. He never did, and it may have cost the South the war.

In war simulations I want to be able to go around to the right. I want to see what would have happened if. Not if I can abuse the game engine, but if I can out command the world's greatest commanders. That's what makes the game fun for me.

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

"Nuts!"