Gaminess

[yeknod]

Seems a lot of energy is taken debating whether choice of units and thier use is "gamey". Is this a consequence of being able to choose 100% of forces before battle? Why not let the AI provide a greater % of the OOB? At the moment its either on or off. Game can start with players agreeing level of choice (eg 10% through to 100%). The advantage of this is that it will allow players to be as choosey as they want and do away with rulesets. Favourites may still be chosen, though the choice may be limited. If the AI gives a less than good force, well, hey, that's what commanders received in war. Will make tournements that much more interesting and set tougher challenges for vets.

This may get shot down, but is it worth considering for CM2?

Yeknod

[Soddball]

One of the problems, as I see them, is that "gaminess" lies in the eye of the beholder. One person's gamey is another person's sound tactic.

Secondly, 'gaminess' doesn't just cover units but their use. Your tank crew just bailed out of their tank? Historically, apparently, they would have legged it back to HQ, so using them to scout the enemy lines or draw fire is 'gamey'.

A problem I encountered recently is that AT units such as bazookas, PIATs and Panzershreks 'draw fire', as do flamethrowers (see my AT gun problem thread) so theoretically a person could buy a flamethrower and walk that flamethrower unit slowly across the battlefield, automatically forcing those enemy units with visibility to open fire, revealing their positions. Not such a big deal for infantry, but for hidden guns which are hard to move and can then be easily targetted it's lethal.

Your idea is sound for removing 'gamey' units from individual purchase would work, but I find agreeing to codes of conduct with players beforehand also solves the problem.

[Chad Harrison]

i would have to agree with soddball. i started a huge thread about whether or not using a towed gun in a ME without a towing vehicle is realistic. it all depends on your point of view and from the looks of the gamey threads, there are no concensus to what is gamey or not!

i do see where you are coming from, but i think that the new rarity factor that will be incorporated will solve some of our gamey problems.

[jshandorf]

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

One of the problems, as I see them, is that "gaminess" lies in the eye of the beholder. One person's gamey is another person's sound tactic.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that extemely hard to believe. I think the best question to ask oneself before commanding a certain soldier is, "Given the situtation would a commander make this order?" and "If he did would his troops carry it out?"

Ordering a jeep to drive willy nilly into the enemies lines is utterly ridiculous. If such an order was givin you can be sure that the "real life" driver of that jeep would just drive out of sight and park.

I rarely see gamey play in my games but every now and then I do.

Jeff

[Soddball]

Don't confuse my words 'sound tactic' with 'realistic'. Again, 'sound tactics' can be objective to a point. For example, I may consider the sacrifice of a recon jeep early in the game to be a sound tactic. You classify it as 'gamey' because it wouldn't have worked that way in real life, and I'm taking advantage of the visibility rules of combat mission.

I didn't say anything about realism or anything. That's something for people who know more about WW2 tactics than me to argue about.

[yeknod]

hmmm, thanks for replies. I agree, limiting choice of points wouldn't deal with tactics that exploit game engine to give advantage. What it might do is place constraints on tactics. For instance if AI gave jeep, tactic can be used in a limited way, rather than use tactic with freely chosen 6x jeeps? If AI only gave 2x AT team, would it be likely that player would use it to seek out hidden guns? Player will have to consider whether tactic is useful in battle given the resources they have rather than purchase resources to employ a certain tactic.

Yes, "gaminess" is in the eye of the beholder and I wouldn't want to stop the enjoyment of playing in a particular style. For instance, played AI with computer giving units. AI gave me 1x Flak gun which I used to button advancing armour. No chance of kill but it helped to protect my armour get side shots, so good tactic! But I only had 1x flak so when it was gone, had to use other tactics. Much better than saying "no flak guns in this game". Besides, playing with 100% of chosen units can be agreed! By agreeing to limit players' choice of units less emphasis can be given to certain styles and could even introduce a handicapping system for newbies (e.g. 90% choice of units v 10% choice).

PS points system could force player to buy gun and its vehicle in all battles (except defending side).

yeknod

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

[Wilhammer]

It never occured to me that untowed guns could be gamey for any reason.

When does a meeting engagemnt get defined? It could be that this simulates a local counterattack running into an enemy attack, thus overwatching guns is perfectly reasonable.

And, another issue:

Was this;

Sound Tactics?

OR

(eeegads!) Gamey?

A unit, a half squad, spots a unit.

A tank, that cannot see the spotted unit, and is hundreds of meters away, can see very close to the spotted unit (and never has LOS to it);

So,

I target the area with AFV area fire, and I kill the unit (a gun).

And that is how you get indirect AFV fire in CM.

Gamey?

I don't think so, but then again I do. I have done this many times when the AFV was close to an infantry unit, but not from such alarge seperation of space.

Not gamey when relatively close to each other, gamey is far apart.

I kinda feel guilty about my lucky kill

[Chad Harrison]

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

It never occured to me that untowed guns could be gamey for any reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh you missed that one?!!? well, if you have a lot of time to burn, just clik here and be prepared to have fun!

[yeknod]

Wilhammer

Gamey, no! That's clever, competative and lucky play. Use of indirect blast of shell to cause casualites seems okay. My point is not to do away with tactics (most tactics are allowed in war to win) but to make the choice of tactics dependent on partly predetermined available resources.

I guess there's always going to be the tension between playing CM as a simulation or playing CM as a game which will never be completely resolved (its a strength because it offers so much to different players). Limiting free choice of units can begin to resolve this tension and allow tweaking one way or the other depending on what people want. Guess pre-game negotiations can give the same effect but it will be nice to do away with "can't have this, can't have that" rules and bargains that I feel probably encourages rather than discourages buying to suit preferred tactics.

Yeknod

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

[Fuerte]

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

Ordering a jeep to drive willy nilly into the enemies lines is utterly ridiculous. If such an order was givin you can be sure that the "real life" driver of that jeep would just drive out of sight and park.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, in real life that would not happen (except if the commander has very much authority and gives explicit commands...). Still it is possible in CMBO. So CMBO should improve... it should simulate morale better. But nobody should blame players if they play like this, everything that CMBO allows is OK. And the player is that ultimate authority...

[Priest]

(Ducking for cover over that last statement!)

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Treeburst155]

I agree with Shandorf. Would a real commander give the order? Would real soldiers obey the order if given? These are the two questions you have to ask yourself when giving an order. Your answers to yourself will stop you dead in your tracks quite often. You've just prevented yourself from giving a gamey order.

[Subvet]

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

Still it is possible in CMBO. So CMBO should improve... it should simulate morale better. But nobody should blame players if they play like this, everything that CMBO allows is OK. And the player is that ultimate authority...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't disagree with this more. I ran into this attitude a lot playing Ultima Online. People used to exploit bugs and then claim, "Hey, the game allows me to do it so it is ok." Well, it's not ok. Sure, in a single player game nobody is going to care. But when you play another human then everything you do impacts his gaming experience to some degree. Exploiting the game system just because you can is going to make a lot of people mad or at least reduce their fun level. I'm not a hard core anti-gamey type. I don't mind a lot of the tactics people use that some dislike, and I don't mind unit purchases of pretty much anything except the unarmored AA vehicles. But there are just certain things like the jeep rush that go to far. I guess I dislike the attitude that it's ok because the game allows it even more than I dislike the tactic itself. I see it as being like the attitude that it's ok to steal as long as there is no way you will get caught.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Subvet ]

[Panther G]

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

I couldn't disagree with this more. I ran into this attitude a lot playing Ultima Online. People used to exploit bugs and then claim, "Hey, the game allows me to do it so it is ok." Well, it's not ok. Sure, in a single player game nobody is going to care. But when you play another human then everything you do impacts his gaming experience to some degree. Exploiting the game system just because you can is going to make a lot of people mad or at least reduce their fun level. I'm not a hard core anti-gamey type. I don't mind a lot of the tactics people use that some dislike, and I don't mind unit purchases of pretty much anything except the unarmored AA vehicles. But there are just certain things like the jeep rush that go to far. I guess I dislike the attitude that it's ok because the game allows it even more than I dislike the tactic itself. I see it as being like the attitude that it's ok to steal as long as there is no way you will get caught.

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Subvet ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ran into that once. I was playing the operation about Arnhem as the British vs. a human. Somehow or another he had a 1 unit behind my lines. At the end of the battle he placed every unit he had behind my lines because his one unit gave it a setup zone. My opponent said "Oh, but it gave me a valid setup zone!". A series of fiery e-mails ensued...

:mad:

Regards,

Ryan

[Edited because I spelled British wrong]

[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: Panther G ]

[Deadly Dave]

I agree with Shandorf. Would a real commander give the order? Would real soldiers obey the order if given? These are the two questions you have to ask yourself when giving an order.

Your answers to yourself will stop you dead in your tracks quite often. You've just prevented yourself from giving a gamey order.

Well maybe not

What if your commander said " Imperial soldier i wish that you would get in this plane filled with TNT and fly in to the Yanky warship" or" Abduhl I want you to drive this van filled with explosive into the jewish quarter and blow yourself and everyone around you to pieces."

Would that be gamey ?

[manchildstein (ii)]

has anyone ever spent all their vehicle points on spw 250/9s as germans? i did that once and when my opponent caught sight of the 'spw 250/9 deluge' he quit. i don't blame him but thought it would have been interesting.

once, i bought all kubelwagens, towing 20mm aa and 75mm recoilless. my 'gamey' opponent had air support, and on turn 1 his airstrike waxed nearly my entire force, there bunched in a corner with none of the guns dismounted.

andy

[JasonC]

Fuerte said "nobody should blame players if they play like this, everything that CMBO allows is OK. And the player is that ultimate authority"

Be sure you tell that to everyone you play well beforehand. You'll never play me with that attitude, I can assure you.

[yeknod]

LOL, Manchildstein! Seeing how players want to try new things. I believe tactics used are often sound, its just the purchasing system encourages extreme tactics.

I discovered Axis SMG groups so guess what? I thought it would be cool to buy loads for PBEM game. Opponents infantry run over hill, I advance squad and wipe him out. Since the start of PBEM I've seen posts that SMGs may give unfair advantage and that only proportion of infantry should be SMG. Okay, fine, lets build that into AI purchase system (based on historical OOBs if necessary). 100% choice of units can be still be made if players wish; the jeep / SMG / tank crew rush can still happen. My SMGs shouldn't be excluded (and weren't when I played with AI units).

For those wanting a jeep rush, could there be a system giving out recce units? So player doesn't chose 6x jeeps but the AI gives 2x jeeps, 3x Greyhounds or whatever? One game I played I saw a Greyhound advance down my flank with 2x squads of infantry (not in command) both uncovering my positions. Not only "gamey" because it gave opponent an advantage, but I guess, sound, historical tactics! The jeep rush is perhaps just an extension of this but using cheaper, expendable units. However, if the AI gave units that were not so expendable tactic could still be used but player may decide to be more careful with resources.

Idea could be extended to allowing AI to purchase units from particular regiment or division.

The purchase system as it is in CMBO is fairly crude and could be refined to suit different needs and offer new gaming experiences.

Yeknod

PS How about only giving VLs if occupying units has visible support or clear supply lines back to front?

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

[yeknod]

.... and what about this? Real beauty of CMBO is they way it allows mods. How about people providing OOB list mods and then downloading grahpic mods to reflect their particular regiments etc?

Yeknod

[Holien]

Yeknod...

:mad:

Quit this futile discussion and get gamey with me...

H

[Cybeq]

This whole issue of gaminess really torques me off. If you wanna whine and moan about things not being fair and certain units being off limits then perhaps you would be better off playing a game like chess. In chess each player starts with the same pieces in the same place. Each and every time. Over and over. Forever and ever.

I have a casual interest in WWII but I do not have the time nor desire to become a freakin' professor of OOB's and production numbers and which units fought in which battles and the tactics they employed. I like wargames because I get to control my forces. I get to buy my units. I get to select the tactics I will use. I'm not trying to emulate anyone or anything. If the game engine will allow it, I'll try it. If it's effective I'll use it. If you don't like it, don't play me.

Now, having spewed all that I will say that I frequently use what I would call "conventional" or "non-gamey" forces. But they're probably not historically accurate either. Does that make me "gamey"? Who cares? Can't we just play?

[Tripps]

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

I find that extemely hard to believe. I think the best question to ask oneself before commanding a certain soldier is, "Given the situtation would a commander make this order?" and "If he did would his troops carry it out?"

Ordering a jeep to drive willy nilly into the enemies lines is utterly ridiculous. If such an order was givin you can be sure that the "real life" driver of that jeep would just drive out of sight and park.

I rarely see gamey play in my games but every now and then I do.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, so what you are saying is you cannot do this in CM BO, because western front forces would not carry out so silly an order, but we can in the next version?

i understand what you are saying, but my point would be if i were a Russian soldier, there is no way in hell i'd get a couple thousand of my mates, get pissed onna bottle of vodka, and march across no mans land towards the Germans, with linked arms singin whatever the hell they sang!

but they did, many many a time, IIRC correctly, before moscow 50% of the force wouldnt even be armed, and were told to pick up rifles from the dead, so if we follow your reasoning:

"Given the situtation would a commander make this order?" and "If he did would his troops carry it out?"

all these 'gamey' recon tactics would be allowed yeah?

i wonder if for a points value we can buy vodka, under fortifications maybe...

[Fuerte]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Deadly Dave:

What if your commander said " Imperial soldier i wish that you would get in this plane filled with TNT and fly in to the Yanky warship" or" Abduhl I want you to drive this van filled with explosive into the jewish quarter and blow yourself and everyone around you to pieces."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Perhaps CMBO should simulate morale differently, so if you have fanatic units, only then they will do suicide missions. But personally I am happy with the current CMBO, it allows me to play the game.

And what I said earlier, it does not mean that I would use gamey tactics, but I want to be free to use them, and I also give my opponent the choice. What if attacking in the edge was prohibited? Then I would always know that he is attacking in the middle. Boring.

[yeknod]

Cybeq

Yeh issue of gaminess irritates me too, this is why I've suggested a setup method to suit all players. I agree, if players decide to do their own thing with whatever units they want, that's fine. Doesn't bother me what units or tactics are used under these conditons, and it shouldn't bother other players too.

At the moment, though, there isn't a lot of accommodation for players who want to play a simulation based on historical OOB. Out-of-game rulesets and negotiated parameters (no flak trucks, short-75 etc) seem a bit artificial and probably throw the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to create even game play. This seems to go against the spirit of CMBO and takes away surprises in the game. I'm not making a judgement about which way to go (play a game or play a simulation) but I am asking for greater opportunity to choose what type of game to play. I'm not so naive to suggest that tactics exploiting game engine (eg. advancing down a flank) will suddenly disappear or if they did CMBO would be a better experience; I doubt that it would.

What I'd like to see is the same tactics used in a context or a partially determined OOB (tweaked to suit all tastes and styles) that, for the most part, relegates discussion about gaminess to a footnote. As I said in my original post, there ain't much option other than turning on / off AI choosing units. What about refining this method to offer more choice so that we have the best of both worlds?

Yeknod

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

[Louie the Toad]

CMBO lets you be as gamey as you want to be. We have witness to all kinds of examples. Take for instance, Detailed Armor Hits. In my version of WWII it gives more info than anyone execept the stricken tank crew should know. So as a player who really tries for fog of war realism I don't want to know either. But I am glad I have the option to shut it off or use it. Personally I believe there is a lot of gaminess available in the features of CM especially when it comes to observing the enemy and the terrain. If I want to play without or with those features I can make a choice. I am glad CM offers these choices.

So when playing against a pbem opponent the use of certain features in the game should be made clear ahead of time.

Beyond that, a trustworthy opponent of the highest integrity (the only type of person I want to play against) would look at a situation and ask the question: Would I actually be able to do this? Or know this?

Or see this? And ... if the player truly does not know the answer, there are many ways to find out.

Playing the game comes before winning the game in the world of Toad.