thats gamey!

[Chad Harrison]

we have all heard "gamey" thrown around here on the forum. i know a search would proboably fill my screen with past data, but im doing this for the sake of us newcomers (those of us who dont remember the beta demo ).

ive played a lot of PBEM/TCP games over the past weeks and have really enjoyed them (thanks to all who played and beaten me!, i won some though!). i dont think any one here wants to take advantage of something in the game just to win, and im one of those people. i dont want to offend my opponets, or have them think im "gamey" and refuse to play me again.

so heres my question, what is considered "gamey"? ive read earlier that EVERYONE knows not to buy german flak trucks because they are modelled wrong and hard to kill. i didnt know that before i read the post. so if over the past weeks i had bought a flak truck, would the words "your gamey" show up on the in game chat? or is that accepted with some people? i know you can discuss these things before the game, but you dont always want to go through the time to discuss these things for informal games.

the reason i bring this up is i was playing a TCP/IP QB ME this weekend, and i had purchased two 57mm AT guns without transports. i thought nothing of it and the game began. i placed them in a good overlook position. and by the end of the game, these two guns took out one mark IV tank, and four armoured cars (it was like a 1250pts battle). so they were well worth the points. my opponet brought up the point that he had brought a transport for his gun, and that not doing so is gamey.

so heres my question, besides Fionns Armour Rules, are there any other known and generally accepted GAMEY TACTICS?!!?!!? fill us in please!!

[offtaskagain]

Using KOd vehicle crews as disposable recon. Piling all of your forces on the map edge and running them right down the side. Buying more than 2 flak guns per infantry battalion.

[The_Capt]

A drunken fool's definition.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=017641

"Toot, toot" (sound of my own horn)

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

my opponet brought up the point that he had brought a transport for his gun, and that not doing so is gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. What a discovery.

You know, I bet if you shoved a couple of lumps of coal up your opponent's backside, in two weeks you would have a diamond.

Outside of one tournament I am in, I have never encountered a 'Thou Shalt Buy Transport for Thine Towed Guns' rule before. The 'Fionn' rules are the most common you will encounter. Sometimes people set forth other guidelines in the pre-game discussions (like no TRP's, no planes, limits on arty size, etc.). If your opponent did not bother setting up his laundry list of 'rules you must play by otherwise I will call you names you nitwit' in your pre-game discussions, then it seems to me it was not an important issue to him until you kicked his butt. Then, he needed an excuse for his poor play, and was just looking for something to whine about. Is it YOUR fault that he deployed his forces in such a manner that nearly half of his force was whacked by one AT gun? No.

Most people I play against buy semi-balanced forces and play somewhat along historical lines. I have never played a person trying to use 75 bazookas and ten MG jeeps or anything like that (though, if I did, I would probably find it amusing and not be too bothered). It sounds like your playing style is similar to mine -- try to be semi-historical, and have fun.

In short, if your opponent doesn't tell you that he wants this or that specific rule, then it is his problem. Or you could just tell him that the gun was towed by horses and a cart, but you weren't able to purchase those because BTS doesn't model them.

[Captain Wacky]

I believe that other gamey tactics include:

running jeeps or scout cars right up to the enemy to find their strength

using bailed out vehicle crews to hold victory locations and scout for the enemy

the purchasing of large numbers of ubertanks

the use of fighter-bombers (not sure if this is gamey (its realistic) but I've heard people complain about it as an unfair advantage, ur not defeating ur opponent with ur skills but those of the game, etc)

Basically gamey is anything that would not be done in real life (like carelessly sacrificing your mens lives) but can be done in CM becuase it is a game and there are no real world repurcussions. Ex- You're not going to get court marshalled for ordering that poor jeep to buzz by a german column during an intentially suicidal recon mission

BTW maybe your opponent is complaining about ur AT guns becuase most were vehicle-towed during WWII and would not have been used alone (im not sure about this fact so dont take my word for it, its just a possible explanation)

[olandt]

Why would not buying a transport for a gun be gamey? So the truck dropped it off, and went back to pick up more. Buying an unrealistic selection of troops is gamey, but picking up a couple of extra support guns and putting them in a good static position is NOT gamey. A perfectly even ME battle is not exactly a historically common event in itself, so if you can imagine a situations where those guns might be located the way they were, you're on as solid ground as any.

By the way, asking a questions like this puts you in danger of starting something awfull like a SMG thread. I'm going to run away know before that happens.

[Chad Harrison]

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

Why would not buying a transport for a gun be gamey? So the truck dropped it off, and went back to pick up more.

By the way, asking a questions like this puts you in danger of starting something awfull like a SMG thread. I'm going to run away know before that happens. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i hope that this does not turn into a SMG thread! that was not my intent and i hope that we can all be mature enough to not let it become that way.

and in no way was i trying to prove my point in buying a gun w/out transport. i got lucky, and its a game. like MrSpkr said, i try to play with a historic mix and have fun! thats why i play, its a blast!

but, who says i did not have a truck that dropped off my gun and then left? i had never thought about it, because i assumed that that was a realistic possibility, esp. for the americans. and the AT gun was right on the back (not side) of the map. the truck was behind those woods!

in no way is this an attack to my opponet (you kicked my butt with the last mark IV and 150mm INF gun! BTW, i would love to play you again.), i just wanted to know for future reference what is considered "gamey" by the masses!

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

running jeeps or scout cars right up to the enemy to find their strength

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That one's iffy. I've done "the recce rush" though usually over bridges when it's just suicide to dick around and do it any other way. What else is a Jeep or Scout Car good for really?

[olandt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

using bailed out vehicle crews to hold victory locations and scout for the enemy

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I would disagree that using crews to "HOLD" VLs is gamey. I think of it more like, "You guys sit here and come running if the enemy shows themselves. The idea of having units on the VL is to make sure the enemy isn't there. I'm constantly using degraded units to hold VLs that my main force has moved beyond. If the enemy does find the VL, well, they'll have an easy time of occupying it. VLs are an abstraction.

[kburns24]

I've had the occasion to witness regular half squads rush across the map towards my positions for a little suicide recon. It didn't bother me in the least bit though.

The more I kill of him, the better my chance of attaining victory in the end.

[Spookster]

Simple rule to prevent CM "gaminess": ANYTHING GOES...unless you have an understanding BEFORE the battle.

p.s. It is quite bad-sportsmanship for the loser to cry "Gamey" after the fact. A better method of expressing indignation is to say something like, "Gee, I thought your tactic of buying all Volks SMG squads and rushing them across the board was most delightful. I particularly liked seeing all those 88mm Puppchen and 20mm Flak Guns..."

[David Aitken]

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

Then, he needed an excuse for his poor play, and was just looking for something to whine about. Is it YOUR fault that he deployed his forces in such a manner that nearly half of his force was whacked by one AT gun? No.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, MrSpnky, you might be interested to know that the opponent to which Chad refers was actually my fine self. I didn't call him gamey, I just politely pointed out that some people might regard bringing guns to a Meeting Engagement without transport as gamey. Prior to a couple of recent games I had no stipulations about what kind of units my opponents could buy, but this is likely to be my first.

I might point out that you brought several guns to our current PBEM, but this is infantry-only, which both entails a lesser degree of mobility and restricts unit choice, so choosing guns is more understandable. They would, however, have been a serious problem for me had I lacked some extremely effective mortars and artillery (which is unusual considering they are regular).

I have just been waxed in two combined-arms games where I bought armour and my opponent bought guns. One was Chad, the other was the disreputable Mr Stalin's Organ. I regard this as gamey because to buy guns, eschew transport, and conceal said guns in appropriate vantage points before the game starts is to take an unrealistic advantage in a Meeting Engagement. Pre-concealed guns should be the reserve of Defence scenarios, and the attacker's points advantage reflects the difficulty of locating enemy defenses without being destroyed in the process.

Essentially, it would cost points to bring a low-mobility assets such as guns to a ME. They're not just going to teleport into overwatch positions as soon as the enemy is spotted. By eschewing transport you're unrealistically gaining points for other assets - such as more guns - giving yourself considerably more firepower than your opponent. With the added advantage of being able to conceal this firepower, you can just sit back and wait for your opponent to advance upon the objectives, blowing him away at your leisure as you would in a Defence. This is hardly in the spirit of a Meeting Engagement. In a true ME, you would take the objectives and then set up your guns to hold it. They wouldn't just magically start in overwatch positions.

Using my game with Chad as an example, I bought one gun (an 150mm IG), bought not a Kübelwagen or a truck, but a whole 250/1 halftrack to tow it; and at the start of the game, towed it down to an appropriate position to support my advancing infantry. In other words, I spent money on transport which could have been used to buy more useful things, started the game as though contact had just been made, and risked having my gun spotted by the enemy as it was set up, which is all perfectly realistic. The gun was indeed spotted, and it survived 60mm mortar fire, 81mm artillery fire, and attempts from both a Sherman and a Priest, before eventually succumbing to the latter.

On the other hand, my two PzKpfw IV's advanced with my infantry, and one was immediately knocked out by unseen enemy forces, which I subsequently identified as an AT gun concealed atop a hill opposite my positions. I brought two 234/1 and two 234/3 armoured cars around the left flank; the first two (a /1 and a /3) were again taken out by a previously unseen AT gun. As my 150mm gun was otherwise engaged (Chad being aware of its presence and making every effort to kill it) I was forced to attempt to engage the second AT gun with my second pair of armoured cars. I carefully ordered them to crest a fold in the ground at the end of the turn, and gave them area targets where the gun was. Despite their combined fire, they were both immediately plinked by the gun (which had a veteran crew).

So I don't take kindly to suggestions that I lost both of these games through my own incompetence. Indeed I might have done better, but the fact is that my opponents were utilising an unfair advantage in their unit choices, which significantly altered the dynamics of the game in their favour. I shall hereafter be sure to provide transport for any guns I bring to a ME and ensure that they arrive hitched up, and shall expect the same of my opponents.

[Treeburst155]

I agree with David. If you want guns in an ME they should start hitched to transportation.

[Marlow]

Please. Sounds like sour grapes to me. The meeting engagement as it is used in CM quickbattles is a historical anomaly to start with, so playing a ME QB is in itself gamey. The only reason that it exists is to provide a fairly balanced battle, not to model any historical battle.

Using guns without transport doesn't take advantage of a game flaw (e.g. flack trucks or SMG hordes), and so it represents at most an unhistorical force selection.

[James Crowley]

I don't play CMBO by PBM or TCP much, partly because of lack of time but also because of the preceeding bollickology.

Real, i.e.historical, tactical-level commanders did not "purchase" their forces; they made-do with what they had. So if you don't want "gamey" then let the computer pick the forces. Simple as that. IMHO buying your force is big-time gamey.

CMBO was designed to pick historically accurate and balanced sides, which it does very well. It can also produce some interesting and surprising force mixtures.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Well, MrSpnky, you might be interested to know that the opponent to which Chad refers was actually my fine self.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it seems my remarks involving coal and diamonds were right on.

As to whether a towed gun could make it to a meeting engagement . . . sure it could have. Who is to say the meeting engagement is not occurring just forward of one side or the other's front lines? A gun in an overwatch position would not only be logical, but expected.

Besides, as I alluded to earlier, until BTS puts in horses to draw the guns, it is actually a bit ahistorical for the Germans to have ANY towed guns, since a large portion of their forces in 1944-45 were horse drawn, not motorized.

[David Aitken]

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

Sounds like sour grapes to me. The meeting engagement as it is used in CM quickbattles is a historical anomaly to start with, so playing a ME QB is in itself gamey. The only reason that it exists is to provide a fairly balanced battle, not to model any historical battle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Meeting Engagement is no less realistic than any other Quick Battle. It most certainly does not just simulate a balanced battle. Is it called a Balanced Engagement? It is by no means an "historical anomaly" for two forces to meet each other head-on, it's just unusual. What sets it apart from an Attack/Defence is that both sides are supposed to be on the move.

How do you explain that guns should already be set up in concealed overwatch positions? Did both sides meet up, and then agree to ignore what the other is doing for fifteen minutes whilst they construct an arena to do battle? Granted, a Meeting Engagement is not representative of many historical battles, but it does have a credible basis, which is destroyed by the presence of predeployed units as described above.

[David Aitken]

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

Who is to say the meeting engagement is not occurring just forward of one side or the other's front lines? A gun in an overwatch position would not only be logical, but expected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case it would be dug in. There is a good reason why barbed wire and pillboxes aren't available in a ME, and troops don't start in foxholes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, as I alluded to earlier, until BTS puts in horses to draw the guns, it is actually a bit ahistorical for the Germans to have ANY towed guns, since a large portion of their forces in 1944-45 were horse drawn, not motorized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But in either case the player would need to spend points on transport. In the absence of horses, the points go on vehicles. Moreover, in an infantry-only battle horses would be the norm, but where armour is concerned, lesser types of motorised transport will be necessary to keep up; so in a combined-arms ME horses would be irrelevant.

[Fred]

as this is a game,nearly all you do is 'gamey'.

If you attack a set-up enemy defense position, do not expect that his trucks are near the frontline; so why spending points on it?

About crews, well, believe it or not, all crews are normal soldiers, skilled in using their weapons, skilled in infantry fighting style, not only driving a truck.

And reconing with recon units is not this gamey...most of the time a recon jeep e.g. is killed this fast, that he has no idea who shot at him.

The flak trucks is another thing; this is simply a bug in the game.

Just consider all rules BEFORE you start a game with another player, so that no one can call 'gamey!' when he loses.

And if someone really uses all loopholes in the game, well, don't play him again...

Fred

[olandt]

David,

You are presuming that the units involved have just arrived to the board. Not neccesarily a bad presumption, but it excludes other possibilites such as the enemy secretly moving guns into position during the night.

You lost significant assets to a hidden gun emplacement. You are not the first, and it happened a whole lot in the war. In a real battle, you could not safely assume that the enemy had NOT put guns there. So to assume so because you are running an artifical ME may not be a good assumption.

I would say your arguement is correct if you assume the opposing forces JUST moved onto the battlefield. But that is something that is probably better discussed beforehand, and is usually a restriction better saved for scenarios.

A QB is a rough abstraction that was designed to allow endless battles between players. Players were not intended to read too far into the phrase "Meeting Engagment" for a QB.

Gameyness pops up anytime players are thinking too much about GAME asspects, and not real life fighting strategies. If you think like a military commander and not a player, you're not likely to run into gamey problems.

A side point on Flak guns. Constant use of Flak guns by a player would probably be considered gamey, but occasionally the allies will have the misfortune of running into a German Battllion's Flak battery of 20mm. One could make the arguement that it is unrealistic to find the 20mm ALONE, and not part of the battery. More than 6 20mms, would be most unlikely.

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Granted, a Meeting Engagement is not representative of many historical battles, but it does have a credible basis, which is destroyed by the presence of predeployed units as described above.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I recognize that meeting engagements did happen (if not all that often), but what I said was:

"The meeting engagement as it is used in CM quickbattles is a historical anomaly.

In a real ME, each side would not know ifthe enemy was already occupying the objective, and would take far greater steps to assure their security as they approached said objective.

As far as setting up guns, the person who doesn't purchase transport runs the risk of not having any locations with favorable terrain and line of sight, thus wasting the points spent on the gun.

[Chad Harrison]

David, i appreciate your comments. and to clear up some confusion, i REALLY enjoyed my game with david and he was not being a cry baby in any way. we finished the game to the end, and david actually was a very good sport with what he considered unrealistic. please dont let this become a bash on david, thats why i did not name names, i think bickering at players is a waste of space on this forum (despite it at times being hillarious . . .)

the more it is talked about, this seems to be one of those no passe situations. it could be argued either way. but to combine two comments above, i think if you want TOTAL realism, the best way is to let the computer pick. if each player picks, unless some pre game parameters on which units should not be present is set, anything realistic goes.

for the sake of those who are not historic grogs and may not know that the 88mm pupchen was not in every unit, might take advantage of its cheap prize and effectiveness. they may also see the cheap prize of Volks. SMG squads (93pts reg.) and make them all veterns for about the same price as the regular 45 squad! the same is to be said about the allied 57mm recoiless rifle. so if someone has a pet peeve about a certain tactic that one feels strongly is "gamey", let the other player know.

otherwise, play for fun and enjoy the game for what it is worth! and david, i appreciate you doing this for me. i used a tactic that you did not entirely agree with, but instead of calling me a "gamey bastage" and quiting, you worked around it and played it out to the end. i would hope that all other CM players would be able to show the same level of maturity.

[David Aitken]

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

You are presuming that the units involved have just arrived to the board. Not neccesarily a bad presumption, but it excludes other possibilites such as the enemy secretly moving guns into position during the night.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why aren't they dug in? And more to the point, how did the enemy know that he was going to meet you at that exact point? A Meeting Engagement only makes sense to me in the context that two forces have run head-on into each other. In any other context, it would be an Attack/Defence scenario.

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

In a real ME, each side would not know ifthe enemy was already occupying the objective, and would take far greater steps to assure their security as they approached said objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the presence of VLs in the first place is probably the most unrealistic aspect of a Meeting Engagement. The concept is much less credible if we are led to imagine that two forces have converged on the objective at exactly the same moment. I prefer to see the VLs as an incentive for both sides to advance, as though they were realistically just moving up the line when they encountered the enemy. Otherwise one or both sides might be inclined to sit back and treat the scenario as an Attack/Defence, which is of course the whole issue.

[Juardis]

David, I understand your point and I even agree with it IF you look at a meeting engagement the way you laid it out. I guess what I'm confused about is that you've been playing this game as long as me (i.e., over a year now) and this is just now a problem? I'm am soooo glad I was not your opponent because I don't take too kindly to being called gamey and to accuse a person of such on a point that has NEVER been brought up before, however valid it is, is ridiculous.

It's getting to the point where a person has to send out a 50 question questionaire in order to play a game that doesn't piss someone off.

I mean, some of the things people consider gamey I quite frankly am flaggergasted about. Buying a jabo is gamey?!?! C'mon people, jabo's are as likely to drop their 500 lb'r on your own troops let alone his. Sending a crew to man a VL that you already control is gamey?! You are ordering them AWAY from the fighting, how can that be gamey?

And finally, people seem to be confusing gamey with ahistorical. Gamey is taking advantage of a limitation in the game's coding or engine, ahistorical is buying forces that were never together or did not represent the right mixture. I am not enough of a grog to know what's historical or ahistorical, so until BTS codes an historical option in the game, I'm guess I'm always in danger of being labelled ahistorical. Just don't confuse it with being gamey.

And David's example falls into neither gamey (concealing an AT gun is not taking advantage of the games coding deficiencies) nor ahistorical (AT guns were present on the battlefields). It falls into the category of unrealistic at best, pedantic whining at worst.

How often was a 150mm inf gun present on the battlefields AND used in a direct fire role? I don't know, I don't care, but I bet someone could take offense to one being there. Especially since the allies do not have an equivalent.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

my opponet brought up the point that he had brought a transport for his gun, and that not doing so is gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not buying a truck or halftrack to haul around a AT-gun, gamey?

Your opponent wanting an extra truck or halftrack to kill just for the sakes of it being a "transport", now that's gamey!

Looks like he was just wanting some easy victory points.