Gamey Tactics by Priest

[Priest]

I think we are not talking about the bakery company because they would not be there (plus why order them into battle I need breakfast damnit). I think jshandorf meant troops already at the front like crews and such. The situation would be more like this: A platoon commander is advanceing towards and objective and sees these four guys sitting next to a bombed out truck. He yells at them that Berlin is this way and to follow him. I don't really see anything wrong with this. Also if you really want to fix this then just have BTS (yeah like it is this easy) code that after a crew abandons that the TACAI controls them till you get a commander in range. For the baker and chaplian to come to the front then it would have to at least be an operation if not a RPG derived CM game. Anyways gotta play ping pong will be back soon. GOD I LOVE MY JOB!!!

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

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

-Priest

[Priest]

Hey Croda thanks. It was 8 charges if I remember correctly. Sid Mier's line of Civil War games are great for this. Anyways just thought I would respond to you Croda.

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

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

-Priest

[Spear]

Lots of good points on both side, guys. This thread reminds me of when I used to play Games Workshop's Epic Space Marines, when I used to subscribe to an Epic newsgroup. There used to be lots of similar discussions there, but instead of the term "gamey" they used to call such tactics "cheesy."

In any case, I only play single player vs the computer. Thus, I can experiment with strange and new tactics to my heart's content without being accused of being "gamey." Heck, I've even gotten into the habit of saving my game each and every turn, so if I do something stupid like wander into an ambush, I can simply restart the game as if the turn never happened, plus it gives me intel on enemy positions. If that ain't gamey, I don't know what is.

-Scott

[Priest]

Well he is honest. YOu should try multi player it Rocks!!! But maybe without the constant redo

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

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

-Priest

[DanE]

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

Let me use a U.S. Civil War example. In the battle of Gettysburg...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Let me ask this question still using the Civil War example:

Would it be acceptable tactics for the Confederates to use artillery crews in the assualt you mention if their cannon had been damaged or destroyed on Day 1 or 2?

Now back to CM. Sure, crews could/did fight when they had no other choice, but to use them in an offensive attack/manner over a minor engagement is taking advantage of the game design.

I think there are two main areas where crew abuse takes place.

1. A Vehicle gets knocked out close to the enemy. The crew then is used by the player as forward spotters checking on the enemy and "radioing" all information back to you. The crew should be hightailing it for the rear once their AVF is knocked out. Sure, they may find a nice little spot to hide out for the next 30 minutes, but they wouldn't be snooping around behind enemy lines or trying to draw enemy fire.

2. Near the end of the game, the player gets his crews together and rushes a Victory Flag. This is a clear abuse since, as a player, you know there will be no time for a counterattack. If this is not an abuse, then why do most crew rushes occur at the end of game and are directed at victory flags?

There is nothing wrong with using deception in trying to beat your opponent. There is nothing wrong with using "different" tactics in trying to beat your opponent. These things occur in IRL. This is what CM was meant to allow.

The "gamey" issue comes up when a player tries to use known limitations in the game design to win. By doing this, a player is not using/learning "real" tactics to achieve victory but is using "gamey" tactics. The player is playing the game as a game, not a simulation. This is not a "bad" thing, since you paid for the game and are free to play it however you want. But just remember that Steve & Charles designed CM to be a simulation so don't get upset if somebody says you use "gamey" tactics.

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

Dan

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

[Croda]

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

Would it be acceptable tactics for the Confederates to use artillery crews in the assualt you mention if their cannon had been damaged or destroyed on Day 1 or 2?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you're fighting day 3, I'd assume you don't have that artillery.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I suppose that if I was a commander, I'd have higher expectations for a tank crew that was de-tanked. Now granted, this is a very uneducated opinion, as all I know about tank warfare I learned in CM, but I would like to see them lie low and either retreat when it was safe, or join the assault in some way when the infantry caught up to them.

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

"Nuts!"

[Chupacabra]

To paraphrase someone posting in another "gameyness" thread (I forget who, and I forget which thread ), IMO "gamey" tactics aren't those which are unusual or hard to defend against, merely those which take advantage of the game engine to produce results which would have been impossible IRL.

For example, I don't consider your example of moving trucks around to be gamey - the Russians called it maskirova, and so do I. Nor do I, in fact, consider things like usings AT teams as scouts or using crews in battle to be "gamey." In both cases, the results will be pretty much what I assume would happen IRL - unless you are the luckiest sumbitch going, both AT teams used as scouts and crews used in combat will die quick, inglorious deaths, and you will be out valuable assets.

Something I do define as "gamey" would be the hackneyed gameyness bugaboo - suicide jeep rushes. If CM had a relative spotting model, I'd say, hell, go ahead, rush your jeep down every damn road in town, they'll die quickly, you won't gain any information, more points for me, less global morale for you. But right now, the SJR gives the player an unrealistic amount of information because of CM's absolute spotting model. IRL, those jeeps would barely have time to die before they were dead. In CM currently, they magically radio the exact position of whatever killed them to every friendly unit on the map. Using jeeps in this manner is, IMO, an abuse of the game engine to produce an unrealistic result. Hence, gamey.

And one further note: I have no problems with players who do such things. Gameyness is not cheating. Every CM player forked out their $54 just like me, and everyone should play CM in whatever manner is most enjoyable for them.

In my case, CM is most enjoyable for me when I use non-gamey tactics (again, this does not mean tactics which are unusual or innovative), and as such I ask that the people I PBEM against abstain from using gamey tactics themselves, as this lessens my enjoyment.

But, again, to each his own

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

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

[Spear]

Originally posted by Priest:

Well he is honest. YOu should try multi player it Rocks!!! But maybe without the constant redo

Yeah, I'm sure I'll try a human opponent once BTS gets TC/ICP going. Playing via email is just too slow to keep my interest.

[Priest]

Good points all around and I too am waiting for TCP/IP as I have great access to multible LANs. Anyways I have already agreed that the spotting model is wrong in the case of suicide non-armored speeding vehicles (but oh how I love it when they continue to roll a little bit after a tank hit!). But again it is a fallacy of the game (Steve & Charles I think this game is a great game and if we are complaining about speeding jeeps as a primary concern then you have more than done your job) and will if deemed negative be fixed by BTS. See above my example of the mortars. Nobody stopped using them then or now. As for the Civil War you bet your ass those Southerners were on the line. Manpower was more important than it is now. Everyman that could, did! Anyways I still have a hard time seeing anything "gamey" just cheating, bad tactics, or small insignificant quipps in the CM engine that can and will be resolved. I ask you, if BTS modifies the jeep in the future is this still "gamey"? We must judge the tactic not the CM engine.

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

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

-Priest

[DanE]

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

As for the Civil War you bet your ass those Southerners were on the line. Manpower was more important than it is now. Everyman that could, did!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is fair, everybody is entitled to their opinion. However, I do not recall reading any mention of the tactic of including Civil War crews on an offensive assualt. On day 3 at Gettysburg, who was cheering on the advancing Confederates as they left the safety of their own lines? The artillery crews. Who was preparing the Confederate line for a possible Union counterattack after the failed assualt? The artillery crews. If Lee had commited all of his available troops in the assualt and had no reinforcements to send, why did he not use the available artillery crews. (Remember, the artillery ammo was extremly low at this point so he could have used a bunch of those crews.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I ask you, if BTS modifies the jeep in the future is this still "gamey"? We must judge the tactic not the CM engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The jeep rush is gamey because it takes advantage of a known limitation in the game design. If BTS could ever solve this limitation to reflect real life, at that point the jeep rush would not be considered gamey. Why? Because the player would simply be using bad tactics, and would not gain information due to the game design.

Remember, all of the above is just my opinion.

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

Dan

[Grinnell]

I've been following this thread, but I haven't come across any specifics on how BTS has elected to fix the issue of crews used as scouts.

I'd opt for a reduction in quality once the crew abandons it's vehicle/weapon. I figure a crack tank crew isn't terribly likely to be a crack group of grunts on the ground. I'd also reduce weapon accuracy as they probably aren't doing much training with their secondary weapons. I also think a reduction in spotting ability would be called for as the crews are now in an unfamiliar situation.

If I just survived having my tank shot out from under me or my AT gun knocked out by a direct shell hit I'd be a shaken and not too terribly effective at scouting or engaging in a firefight. I think the crews should panic faster once they are forced to abandon their vehicle or weapon. Maybe they should all be considered "Rattled" and given the !.

Jeff

[Chupacabra]

Grinnell - crews which have been forced to abandon their weapon or vehicle are brittle (the "!" symbol denotes this), and have horrible sight ranges. Therefore, they're next to worthless as scouts because

A) enemies will see them before the crew sees the enemies and

once the enemy starts shooting, often from out of the crew's LOS, the crew's generally going to book out of there because of the brittle state.

I find that this generally removes the gameyness in using crews as scouts, as they're dead or broken before they know what hit them.

With the new patch to wheeled vehicle sighting while moving fast, I'll have to reassess how well the jeep rush works, but I suspect that with the absolute spotting model, it's always going to be slightly gamey. Just IMO.

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

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

[mfred]

Excuse me,

I'm looking for "The Book of Rules for Warfare "

Oh, there isn't any!

That explains war I guess.

[Chupacabra]

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

Excuse me,

I'm looking for "The Book of Rules for Warfare "

Oh, there isn't any!

That explains war I guess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, and guess how often that rationalization gets trotted out whenever someone wants to do something unrealistic.

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

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

[Olle Petersson]

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

Considering tankers think an M16 is a crew-served weapon... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK it is. I've even seen several postings in several threads asking for the M16 to be included in CM...

Cheers

Olle

[tss]

Olle Petersson wrote:

I've seen several postings in several threads asking for the M16 to be included in CM...

A sergeant to a soldier:

"Hey, put on your M1, grab your M1, and drive to HQ with that M1 to get a M1".

That's why I remember German and Soviet stuff much better than US stuff.

- Tommi

[Croda]

Hey Chupa, don't know if you noticed this on our game. When you wasted my M20 scout car, the crew abandoned and ran into the house in which you had the SS inf team that bagged the car. Well, I expected a slaughtered crew, but instead, they put up a fight and took down your inf. Now, I'm not sure what the disposition was of that squad, but I'd like to appologize for using such a gamey tactic as that to kill your men.

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

"Nuts!"

[Splinty]

I think he meant the M16 rifle Olle

CavScout I was a modern grunt and your right most DAT's did seem to think it would take at least two of them to operate that weapon.Maybe the loader wanted to keep doing his job outside the tank.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Chupacabra]

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

Hey Chupa, don't know if you noticed this on our game. When you wasted my M20 scout car, the crew abandoned and ran into the house in which you had the SS inf team that bagged the car. Well, I expected a slaughtered crew, but instead, they put up a fight and took down your inf. Now, I'm not sure what the disposition was of that squad, but I'd like to appologize for using such a gamey tactic as that to kill your men.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, their disposition was lousy. Not in command, half squad, had taken losses, etc...

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

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

[Croda]

Yes, but it still proves my point that dismounted vehicle crews are uber-weapons that should be banned from the game!

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

"Nuts!"

[Juardis]

Well, I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents for anyone that cares. Good discussion so far. I prefer to do whatever it takes to win, but I usually consult with my opponent beforehand lest I be accused of being a commie or something.

However, there is a difference between CM being a simulator and it being a game. A game allows you to do things that are not physically possible in real life. And I think that's the main problem here. Once a vehicle dies, the survivors should have no way of reporting back what they see. If a squad is out of C&C, then what they see should not be reported back to the rest of the army. Therein lies the difference between simulation and a game and hence the problem. Taking advantage of this non-physicalness renders this a game. I want to use crews to fight, but I also want to use those crews in a way that is physically possible so that I can test theories in a physical way. Otherwise, I'm just testing gamey tactics.

So here is what I propose. If you're out of C&C (if ANYTHING is out of C&C, not JUST limited to crews), then you're fighting a generic icon. I foresee the generic icon being exactly like the sound contact we have now. It may be there, it may not. It might be a tank, it might not. That way, this gives your crews a target, albeit an unknown target. If you want to attack the generic icon, go ahead at your own risk. But the TACAI should know where it is and have that crew act accordingly. However, once your crews get back into C&C, then all info they have at that point should be communicated back to the army. The only way the opfor is known is if it's in the LOS of someone with a radio. That means if your piat team is 100m ahead of his platoon and out of C&C, and he's the only one that can see the tank up ahead, he cannot communicate that fact to the rest of the army. He can attack it as part of what the TACAI would do, but he cannot tell anyone what and where it is. If a platoon HQ (or some other unit with a radio) comes within LOS of that same tank or within C&C radius of a unit that does have LOS to that tank, THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become known what and where. Now, if you happen to lose a platoon HQ, there should be the ability to go retrieve his radio if you end your movement next to the HQ carcass. At the beginning of the next turn, whoever has that radio is now the defacto HQ (without the bonuses of course) such that he can now report the situation back to the rest of the army. His default C&C range should be much like a HQ unit now without the command radius bonus. That is physical, that happened in real life, and that should be an option.

Now, splitting squads and moving them all over the map is a great recon tactic. However, since they don't have radios, this should be a useless tactic under my proposal. So we need a new unit. The scout (not an original idea on my part, I must confess ). All scout teams should have radios and all should be half the size of a full squad. Other than that, they should have the same fighting characteristics of the half squad.

This has several advantages IMO. First, it makes keeping that radio alive very very important. Second, it allows you to give commands (note, this is non-physical but a reasonable compromise IMO) to units out of C&C at your own risk (which means a high risk of death). The best bet would be to let the TACAI take over and hopefully it can keep said unit alive until it comes within C&C again. Third, it would allow you to test theories within the limitations of the physical battlefield. And most importantly, it should eliminate anymore discussions of this kind

Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. I'm curious to know what you guys think. Which means, if no one responds to my proposal I shall make it a separate thread and keep bumping it to the top forever

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

Jeff Abbott

[This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Guest wwb_99]

One major point about the value of crews: they are highly trained specialists (well, maybe not truck drivers). Any commander worth his stripes is going to protect any of these men who survive the demise of their crew served weapons system. It should be noted that there was no shortage of U.S. tanks in Normandy, but there was a severe shortage of trained and experienced crews.

One other interesting point, best illustrated by John Keegan, is that tanks did not, in general, fire on dismounted crews. There seemed to be a tacit agreement between both sides, or the tankers recognized that their roles could just as easily have been reversed.

WWB

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

One other interesting point, best illustrated by John Keegan, is that tanks did not, in general, fire on dismounted crews. There seemed to be a tacit agreement between both sides, or the tankers recognized that their roles could just as easily have been reversed.

WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hrm, are you sure about that? It's my understanding that tankers would often fire on their opposite numbers. Could you quote the Keegan, please?

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

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

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Hrm, are you sure about that? It's my understanding that tankers would often fire on their opposite numbers. Could you quote the Keegan, please?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Tout in 'Tank!' relates a similar incident. Or maybe it is Jones in '64 days'. Hmm, come to think of it, more likely the latter. IIRC his tank was knocked out, and they ended up unarmed in a ditch on a field. Close by was a German tank crew with guns, and they could have taken them prisoner or shot them, but instead just left.

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

Andreas

[Guest wwb_99]

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

Hrm, are you sure about that? It's my understanding that tankers would often fire on their opposite numbers. Could you quote the Keegan, please?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I am at work I do not have the book handy. He does comment on this in several places(incuding discussions about Waterloo), but the most concise diatribe on this subject would be found in the 'Yoeman of England' chapter of 'Six Armies in Normandy.'

Also not that I said usually, not always, and I would doubt if this touch of humanity applied on the Eastern Front.

WWB