thats gamey!

[MSBoxer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Thanks Boxer - I'll supply the passion, you go right on providing the rationale!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only too happy to oblige. Just remember the magic letters FOC = forward area of control.

[David Aitken]

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

I strongly resent you saying that I'm "disreputable"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must apologise for that, I said it in the spirit of the Peng Thread, as I was heckling MrSpkr at the time.

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

As has been the basis of my entire argument, if you had cared to read it, the 'front lines' in a Meeting Engagement have only been thus for the previous five seconds. The guns have been tagging along with the armour and infantry, and suddenly the enemy is encountered. Hence the name. The battle starts when both sides realise the enemy is straight ahead, and that's when you have to decide where to put your guns. The guns have no business being there, ready-deployed – they are simply part of your column. Of course it's dangerous deploying guns in the face of the enemy, but I wouldn't call it ahistorical. As previously discussed, Meeting Engagements are historically unusual, but not ahistorical. The problem of deploying guns under enemy observation is inherent in the situation.

[Treeburst155]

David defines an ME like I do. Boxer defines an ME like Stalin does. That's the issue. What's an ME?

I think the ideal ME would be a long map with a road from setup zone to setup zone. Both players would start on their respective ends of the road, embarked, except for infantry screening the flanks of the road. That would simulate a surprise meeting of the forces, my definition of meeting engagement. If you really wanted to push it you could say nobody disembarks until contact is made.

[MSBoxer]

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

As has been the basis of my entire argument, if you had cared to read it, the 'front lines' in a Meeting Engagement have only been thus for the previous five seconds. The guns have been tagging along with the armour and infantry, and suddenly the enemy is encountered. Hence the name. The battle starts when both sides realise the enemy is straight ahead, and that's when you have to decide where to put your guns. The guns have no business being there, ready-deployed – they are simply part of your column. Of course it's dangerous deploying guns in the face of the enemy, but I wouldn't call it ahistorical. As previously discussed, Meeting Engagements are historically unusual, but not ahistorical. The problem of deploying guns under enemy observation is inherent in the situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here lies the problem.

David is looking at this in a truely gamey sense (no insult intended ). He assumes that the forces have just reached their current position and are assured of meeting the enemy within the next few minutes. He reason for think in this manner is due to the nautre of the GAME. We all know that we will meet the enemy - that is why we play.

Historically speaking it was just the oppposite for meeting engagements. Usually a small detachemnt was told to leave their FOC and occupy an objective. They had no way of knowing if they would make contact along the way or not.

In my view this would ditacte that the prudant commander would unlimber his support weapons in the most advantagous position to cover his progress.

The opposite case can also be made. If we view the FOC to be far behind the setup area then the guns must be hitched and would be unable to support for a long peroid of time.

My biggest problem with David's argument is that on the one hand he states that he knows the enemy is near, yet on the other hand insists that his major support weapons be unable to lay fire on the enemy in the opening and perhaps most crucial moments of the conflict.

It al depends upon how you view the setup box...

is it the forward area of control...or is it just a peice of real estate that you decorate with your troops.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: MSBoxer ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

In short, if your opponent doesn't tell you that he wants this or that specific rule, then it is his problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the bottom line for me as well.

I have just had a similar experience in a game where on turn 19 or 20 of a 30 turn game my opponent informs me that "some people" would consider using Gerbils as gamey. This despite the fact that we had made no restriction on the purchase of infantry types.

When I took exception to this, he reminded me that he was not calling me gamey, just suggesting that "some people" would think me gamey. I found that mildly amusing.

I have nothing against requiring transport for guns, banning anything carrying an SMG or whatever. But if you don't inform your opponent of what you expect prior to the start of the game, don't come crying about it later on when your losing. You could ask 100 CM players to make a list of things they consider gamey and no 2 would be alike. It's not your opponent's fault for not reading your mind.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Joe Shaw wrote:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that guns are able to cover a large area of the map, as well as the important bit. Due to the shallow nature of CM maps, if the guns are emplaced opposite the objective, they are in a good position to pick off any enemy forces advancing on the objective, or indeed flanking from either side. The key is that they are concealed – they don't have to worry about being outflanked, because one cannot outflank what one does not know is there. They simply wait for a target and then kill it.

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

Historically speaking it was just the oppposite for meeting engagements. Usually a small detachemnt was told to leave their FOC and occupy an objective. They had no way of knowing if they would make contact along the way or not.

In my view this would ditacte that the prudant commander would unlimber his support weapons in the most advantagous position to cover his progress.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My problem with this point of view is that, in order for it to be credible, then opposing forces must have just decided to advance on unoccupied terrain at exactly the same moment. For two forces to converge on a given point at exactly the same moment is highly unlikely, hence my aforementioned attitude towards VLs. For two forces to meet head-on is quite reasonable, and of course inevitable if they are travelling roughly the same axis in opposite directions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My biggest problem with David's argument is that on the one hand he states that he knows the enemy is near, yet on the other hand insists that his major support weapons be unable to lay fire on the enemy in the opening and perhaps most crucial moments of the conflict.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the enemy is near as of the beginning of the battle. One does not have time to set up when one has a chance encounter with an opposing force advancing in the opposite direction. Battle is joined, and assets are brought to bear as soon as possible. Tanks can operate immediately, whereas guns must be unlimbered in the face of the enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It al depends upon how you view the setup box...

is it the forward area of control...or is it just a peice of real estate that you decorate with your troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have explained, in my opinion the latter is true, but only in a Defence. In a Meeting Engagement, the former is true.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

[Kingfish]

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

As has been the basis of my entire argument, if you had cared to read it, the 'front lines' in a Meeting Engagement have only been thus for the previous five seconds. The guns have been tagging along with the armour and infantry, and suddenly the enemy is encountered. Hence the name.The battle starts when both sides realise the enemy is straight ahead, and that's when you have to decide where to put your guns. The guns have no business being there, ready-deployed – they are simply part of your column. Of course it's dangerous deploying guns in the face of the enemy, but I wouldn't call it ahistorical. As previously discussed, Meeting Engagements are historically unusual, but not ahistorical. The problem of deploying guns under enemy observation is inherent in the situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something to consider:

Any commander with half a brain would deploy a recon screen ahead of his main force. That screen would most likely locate the approaching enemy early enough to get his forces deployed. That is why everybody starts off a ME in a tactical deployment, not in a marching column. That extra few minutes is sufficient to get guns deployed along likely enemy approach routes (certainly enough time for a pair of 57mm).

[MSBoxer]

David Wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My problem with this point of view is that, in order for it to be credible, then opposing forces must have just decided to advance on unoccupied terrain at exactly the same moment. For two forces to converge on a given point at exactly the same moment is highly unlikely, hence my aforementioned attitude towards VLs. For two forces to meet head-on is quite reasonable, and of course inevitable if they are travelling roughly the same axis in opposite directions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly the point I made in my first post. By it's very nature it is not historical.

David Wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know the enemy is near as of the beginning of the battle. One does not have time to set up when one has a chance encounter with an opposing force advancing in the opposite direction. Battle is joined, and assets are brought to bear as soon as possible. Tanks can operate immediately, whereas guns must be unlimbered in the face of the enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again as I said in my first point. If I am so sure the enemy is near my guns would be unlimberd within my FOC or setup box. To follow you view to it's logical conclusion the guns must be limbered and far to the rear because historically support weapons did not travel with the front line be a few hundred yards behind. They were then brought up where they were needed most. Therefore these wepons must be hitched and at the very edge of the map, or if you wnat real accuracy they should not arrive until turn 2 or 3.

I still view the setup box as the stepping off point for the engagement, and therefore part of my area of control. Therefore my support weapons will be deployed and ready to lend aid to my forces as they advance on the objective.

[imported_WARHAMMER]

I think I'm going to hearl!!

:cool:

[Spookster]

Long ago, the enlightened members of this message board determined the golden rule of QBs: ANYTHING GOES...unless you have an understanding BEFORE the battle. (See search.)

I am not sure what the argument is here?! :confused: Mr. Aiken likes 'em towed, Stalin's Organ doesn't. If they cannot agree to "common rules" then they should not play each other.

This intellectual pissing match over "towed/not towed" is starting to stink. Where's the lock? :eek:

[Panzer Leader]

Hey, Stuka, I like to chop wood!

[MSBoxer]

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

Long ago, the enlightened members of this message board determined the golden rule of QBs: ANYTHING GOES...unless you have an understanding BEFORE the battle. (See search.)

I am not sure what the argument is here?! :confused: Mr. Aiken likes 'em towed, Stalin's Organ doesn't. If they cannot agree to "common rules" then they should not play each other.

This intellectual pissing match over "towed/not towed" is starting to stink. Where's the lock? :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spookster, please give me your address and I will send the SWAT team over to rescue you from the terrorists that have taken you captive and forced you to read all three pages of a discussion that you find so distasteful

I thought we were just having a nice theoretical discussion with opossing viewpoints, had I known that we were stinking up the place I would have lit a match!!

[David Aitken]

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

Any commander with half a brain would deploy a recon screen ahead of his main force. That screen would most likely locate the approaching enemy early enough to get his forces deployed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think this the responsibility of the player, as the commander. If his reconnaissance were that good, he would already have dug in. A Meeting Engagement only makes sense to me as fresh contact between opposing forces, and whether or not recon units are involved is up to the player.

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

Exactly the point I made in my first post. By it's very nature it is not historical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, as I have argued, it is more realistic for a ME to be one situation than to be another. The more realistic situation is a head-on confrontation; the less realistic is that two sides should coincidentally have set out to claim unoccupied territory at exactly the same moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To follow you view to it's logical conclusion the guns must be limbered and far to the rear because historically support weapons did not travel with the front line be a few hundred yards behind. They were then brought up where they were needed most. Therefore these wepons must be hitched and at the very edge of the map, or if you wnat real accuracy they should not arrive until turn 2 or 3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because we cannot achieve absolute realism does not mean we should abandon all attempts at realism. It is, if the more credible definition of a Meeting Engagement is to be assumed, much more realistic for guns to arrive hitched on turn 1, than to be ready-deployed on turn 1.

[David Aitken]

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

Spookster, please give me your address and I will send the SWAT team over to rescue you from the terrorists that have taken you captive and forced you to read all three pages of a discussion that you find so distasteful <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant, I couldn't have said it better.

[MSBoxer]

Sorry david I now realize that we will never agree...

Therefore I challange you to a duel at dawn. My pistol will be unholsterd and loaded. Yours will be locked in the truck of my car

[Banshee]

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

Something to consider:

Any commander with half a brain would deploy a recon screen ahead of his main force. That screen would most likely locate the approaching enemy early enough to get his forces deployed. That is why everybody starts off a ME in a tactical deployment, not in a marching column. That extra few minutes is sufficient to get guns deployed along likely enemy approach routes (certainly enough time for a pair of 57mm).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.. 100%

I think David's (valid) counter point would be that NOT having transport on map would be gamey, even if a units position (concealed in woods) could be excused (though he has a problem with that too he he).

But in CM everything has the abstracted element to it, Attack and Defend QB's take out pre-bombardment and recon, saying its been done before the current battle been played. I see no reason why the same isnt true here, recon has been done, you both have sighted each other columns/ recon elements and are deploying for battle. The transport for this gun has left the field of battle because it is not a combat element. David has chose (through his force selection) to have both transport and a combat element (since the HT does have a machine gun and armor) for his gun, giving him maximum flexibility. Where I personally think the issue lies is the assumption that guns must have transports on map during ME's. If (as a commander) I thought this was a reasonable assumption , then I would set it as a pre-condition for the game. An opponent not reading your mind isn't gamey.

Just my .02 as a lurker / occasional poster.

I forsee the "Aitken Rules of Meeting Engagements" being formed as we speak to written down in history alongside Fionn's Rule of 75. I am sure they will be excellent and make for good ME's!

[Juardis]

I kinda like Boxer's argument, which I haven't heard anyone counter yet.

If you know the enemy is in front of you, then you are advancing expecting to meet them. You don't know if they're 100m ahead or 1000m, just that they're up there somewhere. So, in the absence of firm intelligence, it would seem to me that you would advance in bounding overwatch. You cover your initial advance with guns & tanks, then move said guns & tanks up to cover the next advance and so on.

However, if you're just advancing for the sake of advancing and are totally unsuspecting that the enemy is in front of you, then all your infantry are in columns marching along the road or embarked on transports. Your guns are hitched and on the road. Your tanks are on the road. In short, you don't expect a fight so you're moving expeditiously and that would be along the road. I don't think it was SOP to move tanks and infantry across country if you weren't expecting a battle there, but then again, I could be wrong.

It seems to me that the meeting engagement, as defined in this game, is more the former than the latter. But if BTS intended it to be a surprise engagement, then perhaps the setup zones could've been restricted to columns or roads? Did I get your gist Boxer?

And David, it appears that you are not confusing ahistorical and gamey, so I retract my 150mm inf gun remark.

[David Aitken]

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

Therefore I challange you to a duel at dawn. My pistol will be unholsterd and loaded. Yours will be locked in the truck of my car <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I will be behind the wheel of your car, travelling towards you at speed.

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

I forsee the "Aitken Rules of Meeting Engagements" being formed as we speak to written down in history alongside Fionn's Rule of 75. I am sure they will be excellent and make for good ME's!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aitken's Rules Of Absolutely Everything CM-Related

1) Field guns in Meeting Engagements must have transport and start hitched up.

How's that?

[MSBoxer]

Juardis you are dead on. I would be honored to have you as my second in my dawn duel with David. You may hold the keys to my trunk where his unload pistol is kept

[Banshee]

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

Aitken's Rules Of Absolutely Everything CM-Related

1) Field guns in Meeting Engagements must have transport and start hitched up.

How's that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfect.

Just make sure to send them to your next TCP/IP / PBEM opponent and this will never happen again!

[Juardis]

OK David, what if I start it hitched then unlimbered it without moving my transport? Like, the transport sorta started right next to where I wanted to unlimber. Amazing dudes those truck drivers. They know where I want to go before I do . By your definition, you should have no problem with that since I 1)wasted money on wheels and 2)started with the guns hitched.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

And I will be behind the wheel of your car, travelling towards you at speed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No - that's Gamey - you have to buy your OWN transport, and any attempt at ramming yuor foe will result in said transport stoping and backing off then trying to drive around him.

[David Aitken]

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

OK David, what if I start it hitched then unlimbered it without moving my transport?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the thread, this has already been asked and answered.

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

No - that's Gamey - you have to buy your OWN transport, and any attempt at ramming yuor foe will result in said transport stoping and backing off then trying to drive around him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But... but... by MSBoxer's logic, he started the ME with my guns hitched to his transport! That's even worse, using his points to buy gamey field guns, and then using my points to buy gamey field guns as well!!

[Stuka]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Hey, Stuka, I like to chop wood!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chopping wood is gamey.

Historically, wood is sawed.

I will never play you.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would think this the responsibility of the player, as the commander. If his reconnaissance were that good, he would already have dug in. A Meeting Engagement only makes sense to me as fresh contact between opposing forces, and whether or not recon units are involved is up to the player.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,

Assume your recon screen discovers the approaching enemy 5 minutes before they show up on the field. That is not enough time to dig-in a 57mm gun, but plenty of time to run them up to a patch of woods and hide them. Is this scenario really that unlikely?