thats gamey!

[Treeburst155]

To begin a battle with guns enjoying good LOS to likely routes of enemy advance is a characteristic of a prepared defense. That would not be a meeting engagement.

[Andrew H.]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Juardis's definition of gamey the the original definition, and, IMO, the correct definition. It comes from the pre-patch(es) days where the game did a lot more unrealistic stuff -- like the jeeps that could move at high speed, were difficult to kill, and had great spotting ability, even when moving at high speed. The only real gamey thing now, I think, is the flak truck crewed by an army of undead.

David's untransported gun rule isn't a bad rule, and makes a certain amount of sense, but not following it isn't "gamey."

It's sort of unfair to suggest that people are being gamey if they don't follow the untransported gun rule, though -- this is the first time I've heard of it as well, and it doesn't appear to be spectacularly unrealistic. As, say, purchasing 10 guns and one platoon of infantry would be.

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I agree with David. If you want guns in an ME they should start hitched to transportation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As one of the slandered, I'd just like to say utter bollocks.

Firstly a ME is an almost entirely un-historical type of battle anyway.

Secondly your set-up area is your set-up area.

I bet neither Tree nor David sees anything wrong with having artillery observers set up in overwatch positions without buying jeeps to transport them?

So what's the problem with guns? Do you think they all hung about "down the back" waiting to react to some enemy movement? Of course they bloody weren't - they were deployed, erady to fire, in positions considered advantageous!

Sorry, but this sounds like poor-sport sour-grapes to me.

Oh yeah, and hte guns I bought in het game with David were 1 17pdr, 1 6 pdr and 1 75mm pack howitzer.

He bought at least half-a-dozen Marders, and a simiilar number of Stuh-42's, and set teh parameters as a free for all and 2000 pts, so sorry Dave, but your bleating here is utter nonsense!

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[David Aitken]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean, it's never been brought up before? Admittedly, I haven't seen this issue discussed before, but I'm pretty sure it's been addressed. More to the point, very recently I saw someone stipulate in a ME setup that all guns should have transport and be hitched at the outset, suggesting that this is a recognised point of contention. And again, I didn't accuse anyone of being gamey, though I did point out that they might have an unfair advantage.

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

Admittedly everyone has their own perceptions of what is acceptable, but this is the only issue I have ever drawn the line at. I don't care if an opponent's force is 'historical' or not – a battalion of Jagdtigers is fine by me – but I do care if they neglect commonsense. In a way, this is gamey by your definition, because ideally the game would not allow guns in a ME without transport – which simply defies logic – and this constitutes a deficiency in the coding. However, it would be difficult to force the player to buy transport, so we rely on our opponents' commonsense.

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

By its very definition, an Infantry Gun is used in the direct fire role. A 150mm howitzer is an indirect weapon. But this is not about which country had the better weapons. The Allies did not have the MG42 or the Tiger. The Germans did not have the Garand or the Lancaster. It is hardly logical to say 'oh, you have 300mm rockets and we don't, so it's nor fair for you to use them'. This is why BTS allocates prices to each of the units in the game. I pay 94 points or whatever for an infantry gun, I might easily lose it to a stray mortar round, but it's a different matter entirely. The issue here is that it is illogical to find pre-emplaced guns in a Meeting Engagement. No coding issues, no historical accuracy, just simple commonsense. Surely that should be a refreshing departure for many people here?

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

To begin a battle with guns enjoying good LOS to likely routes of enemy advance is a characteristic of a prepared defense. That would not be a meeting engagement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of being repetitive, Bollocks.

That's how anti-tank guns are supposed to set up given anything more than a few minutes! A prepared defence puts them into bunkers or emplacements, adds minefields and range markers and DF fire tasks and the like.

Oh, and another dig at David - he doesn't know whether I have transport for my guns or not - he's never asked and I haven't told him!

Point of fact is that I DO! 2 Jeeps - 1 for teh 6 pounder and 1 for the 75mm Pack, and a truck for the 17 pdr. Also only 1 of the guns started emplaced - the other 2 have been moved to their positions in the game!

Before someone starts whinging about me buying Jeeps for the 2 guns - I'm using Brit Airborne, and that's what they actually used for these weapons!

And I've used that transport to move them around into position on the map!

But even so I would not consider someone buying them without transport to be gamey.

David I was enjoying our game until I started reading this thread - now I consider you a true whinging pom!

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[David Aitken]

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

Looks like he was just wanting some easy victory points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might help if you would read the thread before posting your knee-jerk reactions.

In that case you would have noticed that I bought a halftrack for the purposes of transporting my gun, ie. something that had combat as well as mobility value.

Of course, what you fail to appreciate is that a truck, even if it is immediately destroyed on contact with the enemy, has proved its worth by actually bringing the gun to contact. You pay the 25 points because otherwise the gun would realistically be five miles away.

[Treeburst155]

That's a very good point Stalin's Organ! From now on my arty spotters will start embarked when I'm playing MEs. Geez, I've been being gamey all this time and didn't even know it!

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

To begin a battle with guns enjoying good LOS to likely routes of enemy advance is a characteristic of a prepared defense. That would not be a meeting engagement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what if you substitute 'Guns' for 'Tanks'? Would David had objected if, during setup, Chad had deployed Tanks in the same location as the guns?

Is it because the guns were already disenmbarked and deployed? Assume the guns were embarked only 5 meters away from their firing positions during setup, then unloaded, pushed 5 meters and then deployed. Is it still gamey?

[imported_Wildman]

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

By its very definition, an Infantry Gun is used in the direct fire role. A 150mm howitzer is an indirect weapon. But this is not about which country had the better weapons. The Allies did not have the MG42 or the Tiger. The Germans did not have the Garand or the Lancaster. It is hardly logical to say 'oh, you have 300mm rockets and we don't, so it's nor fair for you to use them'. This is why BTS allocates prices to each of the units in the game. I pay 94 points or whatever for an infantry gun, I might easily lose it to a stray mortar round, but it's a different matter entirely. The issue here is that it is illogical to find pre-emplaced guns in a Meeting Engagement. No coding issues, no historical accuracy, just simple commonsense. Surely that should be a refreshing departure for many people here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You...You....You Grog!

Oh my God, we've lost another Pooler to the Outerboards.

The horror.....the horror.......

[Stalin's Organ]

Oops - factual mistake corrected here:

I bought 2 75mm pack howitzers - one got KO'ed fairly early & I'd forgotten about it.

So I had 3 transports for my 4 guns. Mea Culpa.

David your point about trucks being useful even if they're off table is irrelevant. we do not pay ofr any off-table transport elements. How would your tanks go without railways and trucks to bring them fuel or Ammo? Did your infantry walk from home to their training grounds and from there to battle?

I think not, so why don't you pay for Trucks to transport them?

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stalin's Organ wrote:

Firstly a ME is an almost entirely un-historical type of battle anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you read the thread yet, or just jumped in with your opinion?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Secondly your set-up area is your set-up area.

I bet neither Tree nor David sees anything wrong with having artillery observers set up in overwatch positions without buying jeeps to transport them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Artillery spotters can march. Guns need to be towed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry, but this sounds like poor-sport sour-grapes to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, if you would read the thread, it's all been claimed and addressed already.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh yeah, and hte guns I bought in het game with David were 1 17pdr, 1 6 pdr and 1 75mm pack howitzer.

He bought at least half-a-dozen Marders, and a simiilar number of Stuh-42's, and set teh parameters as a free for all and 2000 pts, so sorry Dave, but your bleating here is utter nonsense!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Refer to my comments about historical accuracy in response to Juardis. I don't know how common Marders or StuH42's were. How common were Fireflies? That's the tank you've got. And aren't pack howitzers the preserve of airborne troops (I'm not sure about this)? If were were being 'historical', you would have Cromwells or vanilla Shermans, and I would have PzKpfw IV's.

This is not the point. I spent my points on Marders and StuH's, and you killed off most of said Marders and StuH's, so you have no reason to complain. Neither would I have reason to complain simply because I lost, but I do feel that you had an unfair advantage. I paid extra for the wheels that brought my guns to the battlefield, and forfeited the ability to conceal them so effectively as yours. You saved points by effectively getting the wheels free – your guns just magically appeared in situ, and you were able to spend the points on extra firepower.

[David Aitken]

Note to Stalin – I see you edited a previous post to point out that you indeed have transport, and I was aware of this possibility. However, I don't think you started out with the guns hitched, which is half the problem. You could, for example, have bought units for recon purposes and claimed that they were your gun transport. Unless they're hitched up at the outset, and take the risk of getting your guns into position whilst under observation, then I have no proof of your reasons for buying the jeeps, and of course you still benefit from concealment of the guns.

[Stuka]

I like cheese.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Refer to my comments about historical accuracy in response to Juardis. I don't know how common Marders or StuH42's were.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right - so you pick something without any idea of how rare it is and then slag me......

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How common were Fireflies? That's the tank you've got. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they formed about 1/4 or 1/5th of the Sherman numbers AFAIK. And yep - it's the ONE tank I have. What's your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And aren't pack howitzers the preserve of airborne troops (I'm not sure about this)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mostly - hey, and guess what - I'm using British Airborne Infantry!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If were were being 'historical', you would have Cromwells or vanilla Shermans, and I would have PzKpfw IV's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Fireflies were used, as were Marders and Stuh's. I don't care what you use - I strongly resent you saying that I'm "disreputable" for doing the same thing as you - picking to force I wanted in an unrestricted game!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is not the point. I spent my points on Marders and StuH's, and you killed off most of said Marders and StuH's, so you have no reason to complain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not complaining about hte force you seelcted. I'm cmoplaining about your character assasination of me for daring to pick what I wanted when you said the game was UNRESTRICTED, and then whinging and moaning like an old washer-woman because what I selected didn't suit you!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Neither would I have reason to complain simply because I lost, but I do feel that you had an unfair advantage. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had 2000 pts, just like you did.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I paid extra for the wheels that brought my guns to the battlefield, and forfeited the ability to conceal them so effectively as yours. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

aw, didums! you also bought armour to make them invulnerable to MG's and small arms, and the ability to deploy and redeploy all over the place at high speed and to fire from under cover.

why is it my fault that you couldn't do it properly?

BTW - what's the cost of a Marder? 70-80 pts? Not bad compared to a 6 pdr at 40-50!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You saved points by effectively getting the wheels free – your guns just magically appeared in situ, and you were able to spend the points on extra firepower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bollocks - firstly because I bought wheels for most of them, and secondly because if I didn't buy wheels then I do NOT get mobility on hte battlefield - you bought mobility ansd used most of it in the Dance of the Sugar Plum Panzers - that's not my fault either!

[Treeburst155]

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

But what if you substitute 'Guns' for 'Tanks'? Would David had objected if, during setup, Chad had deployed Tanks in the same location as the guns?

Is it because the guns were already disenmbarked and deployed? Assume the guns were embarked only 5 meters away from their firing positions during setup, then unloaded, pushed 5 meters and then deployed. Is it still gamey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is another pair of very good questions to go along with Stalin's arty spotter comment.

This whole disagreement is due mainly to our different perceptions of what a meeting engagement is supposed to be. Define "meeting engagement" and you've solved the guns dispute.

[MSBoxer]

In my opinion unhitched guns are a valid purchase in a ME. By it's very nature the setup zone is the "Line of Departure" or the jumping off point for the operation. As the forward area of control with uncontested terrain before the prudant commander would unmount his weapons in the most advantagous position to support any potnetial operation into the aforementioned uncontested terrain.

The nature of the ME dictates the unnatural and unlikely coincidence of thrusts toward the same objective at the same time. This however does not preclude the placement of support weapons within the Forward area Of Control.

If you want to state that the setup zone is contested and that there can be no placement of guns then by logic since it is contested, there should be no mounted infantry and no soft vehicles. In fact the ability to place anything at will should not be possible.

If you want it to be a strict advance to contact then all units should be in train or in combat formation, there should be no middle ground.

Bottom line if you want to enforce the no unhitched guns then prepare to give up alot of freedom of placement in the goal of accuracy or "common sense".

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Note to Stalin – I see you edited a previous post to point out that you indeed have transport, and I was aware of this possibility. However, I don't think you started out with the guns hitched, which is half the problem. You could, for example, have bought units for recon purposes and claimed that they were your gun transport. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll send you a screen shot of the 2 that started hitched.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unless they're hitched up at the outset, and take the risk of getting your guns into position whilst under observation, then I have no proof of your reasons for buying the jeeps, and of course you still benefit from concealment of the guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what a load of utter crap.

Guns on the front line do NOT start battles hitched - they start deployed! Moving guns around by motor transport in battle withing a few hundred yards of enemy is, IMO, a damn sight more a-historical than starting them out in condcealed positions!!

[Sergeant Saunders]

I know I am getting into this late, but it has been mentioned that the different engagement types are not well defined in the manual. I never even thought of the ME the way most of you seem to. (A suprise meeting of forces on the move) I assumed that the an ME was a meeting of forces to take some unoccupied ground. In that case setting up guns and FO's prior to the attack would be SOP.

(just my two cents worth)

[Agua]

Going to have to agree with David here. Towed guns should have transport in meeting engagements and (by practical necessity) should be purchased by the attacker in the other game parameters. BUT, the transport/towed gun requirement is the sort of thing that you should agree to beforehand with your opponent.

[Stalin's Organ]

Thanks Boxer - I'll supply the passion, you go right on providing the rationale!!

[David Aitken]

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

But what if you substitute 'Guns' for 'Tanks'? Would David had objected if, during setup, Chad had deployed Tanks in the same location as the guns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not. If you get a tank, you pay for the transport as well as the gun. Also, tanks are more easily spotted than guns, and can't hide in woods.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it because the guns were already disenmbarked and deployed? Assume the guns were embarked only 5 meters away from their firing positions during setup, then unloaded, pushed 5 meters and then deployed. Is it still gamey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, because points would have been spent on the necessary transport, and the guns wouldn't magically be hiding in position – ie. I would have the realistic ability to spot them being deployed, as Chad did with my gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stalin's Organ wrote:

David your point about trucks being useful even if they're off table is irrelevant. we do not pay ofr any off-table transport elements. How would your tanks go without railways and trucks to bring them fuel or Ammo? Did your infantry walk from home to their training grounds and from there to battle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not entirely equal in this respect. Guns are cheaper because they lack mobility. One might also argue that they also lack armour protection, but this they compensate for in concealment ability. It's only possible to bring guns to a Meeting Engagement and use them because maps tend to be quite shallow. If the map were a couple of kilometres deep, the infantry could march, the tanks could drive, but the guns would never be able to keep up. Therefore, in realistic terms they're only useful in a static defence. However, because of the chance nature of the average ME map, they happen to be useful where they should not realistically be.

The fact is, everything can move itself into contact except guns, and therefore guns should not be without transport in anything but a static defence.

[imported_WARHAMMER]

That's beautiful Stuka!!

O.k. can we bury this bullsh-t

and move on. Give it a rest, we ALL got the

point! Lets have some more "gamey" topics

to fight about.

The three things not to talk about

at the dinner table: religion, politics, and

gamey CM tactics.

I've read alot of hot air from alot of members over the past several months.

(many from members with low membership numbers) Have we forgotten that this is a game!!??

Warhammer :cool:

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I paid extra for the wheels that brought my guns to the battlefield, and forfeited the ability to conceal them so effectively as yours. You saved points by effectively getting the wheels free – your guns just magically appeared in situ, and you were able to spend the points on extra firepower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very true David, however let's look at the flip side. Since you purchased your transport you now have the ability to MOVE your guns after emplacment. He, OTOH, is pretty much stuck and if he guessed wrong on the LOS or your line of advance ... he's just wasted ALL his points.

I also agree with the poster who said it depends on your definition of an ME. When I play an ME I have no compunction about placing my vehicles and units within my setup zone so that they can cover specific areas.

David has a good point in that troops placed within a setup zone are NOT in foxholes and presumably JUST got there. By the same token, there's no reason to suppose that the guns couldn't have JUST gotten there, been dumped by their transport and the transport moved off map for safety. Since the transport is now unavailable during the game and can't perform it's function, i.e. moving the guns, the player shouldn't be charged for them.

Perhaps what we need is another type of ME in which there are NO setup zones and everyone moves onto the map?

Joe

[Treeburst155]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders:

I know I am getting into this late, but it has been mentioned that the different engagement types are not well defined in the manual. I never even thought of the ME the way most of you seem to. (A suprise meeting of forces on the move) I assumed that the an ME was a meeting of forces to take some unoccupied ground. In that case setting up guns and FO's prior to the attack would be SOP.

(just my two cents worth)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the crux of the issue right here. Is a meeting engagement a totally unexpected clash with the enemy while moving OR is it simply a situation where two forces were coincidentally ordered to occupy the same "empty" terrain.

[killmore]

I see no problem here.

There is no quarantee that in ME there will be a reasonable position for At-guns. You might need to move them forward or they will be useless. Player who is not buying transports does it at his own risk. So I see no need to enforce "buy transports".

Historical point of view:

You are supposed to take point X and you suspect enemy presence near by. So Place your guns to cover point X - then move your troops toward it. Sounds logical to me.

Pupchens - now thats gamey!