thats gamey!

[Treeburst155]

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

Because of the length:width ratio of QB ME maps and the layout of the setup zones this description of an ME is more appropriate. The only problem I see is that guns advanced as described above are ALWAYS hidden until they fire the first shot. Wouldn't they, at least occasionally, be seen moving into position during these bounding overwatch advances?

[Spookster]

Ouch, MSBOXER. Ouch.

I did not mean to imply that this topic was not of the highest CM theoretical value! I was just concerned that this angry thread not devolve into prolonged, awkward and unnecessary war of words between two otherwise well-respected members of this board, Aiken and Stalin.

That being said...what the hey, I'm game for a little CM discussion redundancy!

THE SOLUTION to the whole ME dippity doo-doo has already been mentioned above: MAKE THE DARN MAPS LONGER in CM2. Until then, the way we have been playing MEs is to require both sides to start in OPPOSITE CORNERS, 100m away from the side! It works.

p.s. I'll light the match.

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

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!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Triumvir]

As a quick injection of physical experience, manhandling even a 25pdr 200m uphill across grassy terrain only takes 3 minutes without ammunition, and ammunition back then came in a neat handy wheeled container. A modern 105mm gun weighs about the same and can be moved equally quickly. I don't see why we can't allow AT guns to be manhandled into position, especially light ones like 6pdrs.

I know that another battalion when I was doing conscription regularly did 4km route marches without transport for their 120mm towed mortars. I don't think it is at all either ahistorical or gamey to have AT guns, or any gun under 76mm for that matter be manpacked.

[olandt]

Definition of a QB Meeting engagment:

2 forces of equal point value situated at close range with a VL between them.

Anything more is what you personally put on top of it. If you wish to believe your forces just got there, buy transport. If not, fire away. The ME is there to allow QUICKLY CONSTRUCTED BATTLES. If you want to be picky about setup, play a scenario. I don't think BTS will wish to model evey possible type of battle for a QB.

As someone else pointed out, it would be nice in a future version to allow map size be selected in the startup. I think number of VLs would also be nice.

[Simon Fox]

It seems to me that some of the issue here is the definition of what is meant by "meeting engagement" as rightly pointed out by Kingfish. David seems to have adopted the position that the game starts at the time of contact between two forces. But as pointed out by Kingfish it is most likely that any commander would have some indication that the enemy were active in the vicinity of the objective and accordingly deploy his support weapons in overwatch postions. Thereby supporting the advance on the objective. As pointed out the setup zones permit one to do exactly this.

Personally I think it is less a "gamey" issue and more a question of whether one is playing in the 'spirit' of the meeting engagement. My definition of which is rather wider than David's obviously. I would like to make a distinction between the two things being discussed which I think are quite seperate:

-whether guns in meeting engagments should have appropriate transport

-whether they should start limbered

In my opinion the spirit of the meeting engagment dictates that they should have transport available. Typically the vehicle was attached to the gun crew (in fact probably driven by it) and wouldn't just dump the gun and drive off to do something else. Personally I find it rather useful to have transport for the guns although in the midst of battle halftracks and bren carriers are rather more useful than trucks etc. People should lighten up a bit and not get so vociferous. Always assume your opponent is a gamey cheating cunning bastard and then you will never be disappointed or suprised.

I would not go so far as to expect them to be limbered at the start as my concept of a meeting engagment is more akin to Kingfish's. Indeed it seems to me that to play the "David's Rules" one should start with all support weapons mounted and with transport. You really think people marched with 81mm/3in mortars or Vickers MGs or even .50 HMGs? I don't fink so. In fact I get annoyed with scenario designers who give you them in a meeting engagment and don't give you any way to deploy them apart from plod plod plod.

Funnily enough the only time I have encountered stinking cheating gamey deployment of guns which could only have got there by matter transport was a malingering kiwi so maybe 'disreputable' is some sort of national characteristic and not far off the mark

[Stalin's Organ]

Um...just a quick note on what yuo can do in the game - guns CAN be manhandled.

I do it a lot. Even in CAL games where transport is mandated the trucks will often be off teh back of the map in the first few seconds, nd my guns get moved around the battlefield by hand.

It's something that's happened ever since they first put wheels on a Bombard.

Even when I do use transport to move guns up it's usualy just to theedge of some trees and then they get manhandled to the other side, and usually do not get seen when they'er moving and STILL ge the first shot - that's what guns do - they get eth first shot, and that's why 90% of tanks were lost to them or mines!

[Fieldmarshall]

Oh man I have played the Beta demo, not when it first came out mind you...I only played the gold demo before I got the game in November, but in february I wanted to see what it was like so I went to a site and downloaded the beta demo. And with all the cool terrain/vehicle/sound mods I have now, I only have one word for the beta demo: sad if your interested in old times you can get the beta demo right here:GAMESPOT

Also considering its a game....isnt it by definition "gamey"?

-Fieldmarshall

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

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Funnily enough the only time I have encountered stinking cheating gamey deployment of guns which could only have got there by matter transport was a malingering kiwi so maybe 'disreputable' is some sort of national characteristic and not far off the mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You lost that one huh?!

[Stalin's Organ]

A couple of related anecdote:

Wittman's Tiger was KO'ed at Viliers by a 6-pdr I believe. This attack was while the Brits were not expecting any enemy and were having a brew up. SOP for guns? In a suitable position.

Manhandling guns: Anyone remember teh Royal Navy gun team races at tehEdinburgh tatoo's? Do they still have those? 2 teams each with a naval 12-lbr gun vintage 1900 or so (1-1500 lbs weight?) heaving teh thing though small holes, over walls, passing gaps by flying fox, etc etc for a couple of hundred yards in a couple of minutes, including dis- and re-assembling the thing as required!

[Simon Fox]

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

You lost that one huh?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, not so far. Remember what I wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Always assume your opponent is a gamey cheating cunning bastard and then you will never be disappointed or suprised.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wuz ready!

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

I wuz ready!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What - you got there fustest with the mostest guns ov yerown?

Actually I would like to complain about gamey behaviour - gamey is anything that my opponent does that I haven't thought of in a game that I lose, or win or draw.

Especially killing my little pixel men.

I hate the bastards who do that - it's totally unfair and takes advantage of teh games programming and physical features!

BTS please fix or do sumfink!!

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

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Funnily enough the only time I have encountered stinking cheating gamey deployment of guns which could only have got there by matter transport was a malingering kiwi so maybe 'disreputable' is some sort of national characteristic and not far off the mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah Humbug, the trucks drove full tilt to the village deployed there sIG's and then I ordred them off the map. Your little forest trek was taking far to long so I used it. Besides which you decided to call the game off due to historical problems in the senario. A pretext because you had begun to lose.

You'll never beat me ratty

[Treeburst155]

One aspect of MEs with guns, especially pre-hidden ones with good LOS, is that it discourages the use of vehicles. It is arguable that the best course of action for MEs would be to buy a preponderance of guns rather than vehicles to go along with your infantry, essentially turning MEs into infantry only engagements. This is not a bad thing, but I like tanks and ACs in my meeting engagements.

[Stalin's Organ]

OK - who wants a game?

Ground rules:

Guns must not have any transport and you must buy at least 1 per 500 pts or part thereof.

German infantry must all be SMG armed

Allies can have as many Wasps as they like and mix .50's with Brtiish para's

[Simon Fox]

I wasn't talking about you, git. A 6in naval FO was more than adequate antidote to those sIGs. I consider running full tilt through the woods to be laughable rather than gamey, I hope that's not standard kiwi jungle tactics.

How's the footrot going? Nice and hilly up there eh?

[Treeburst155]

That wouldn't be a bad game Stalin, but you should also include a minimum arty size of 210 mm. It's also gamey to allow the British paras NOT to take .50s. You should change the "can" to "must" in that rule since the German player MUST take SMG squads. If it's a meeting engagement you need also require 5 TRPs per side since the prevailing opinion IMO is that meeting engagements are far from surprises.

[Stalin's Organ]

The Arty limit's too high and is obviously one-sided 'cos the Jerries get lots of rickets at that calibre. Let's just make it arty must be more than 155mm calibre - nuthin' much wrong with 7.2's and 8" guns I reckon!

Otherwise I accept - let's do alternate picks for het other features eh? You can choose any 1 feature not already decided at a time.

You go first 'cos I did most of the first 3 and have just changed the Arty to.........

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]

[Panzer Leader]

SO, I have to say, that it is pretty well documented that Whittman was taken out by a fighter-bomber. Here is a link and an excerpt:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Until 1983, the destruction of Wittmann's Tiger was an mystery even for crews of sSSPzAbt 101. Many sources say that it was destroyed by the "Firefly Ambush", but different units claimed to ambush and destroy Wittmann's Tiger, including those of the either 1st Polish Armored Division, 4th Canadian Armored Division (Canadian Shermans supposedly surrounded and shot Wittmann's Tiger to pieces) or 33rd British Independent Armored Brigade. In the memoirs of a former member Mr.F.R of sSSPzAbt 101, official version at the time stated that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by an airplane bomb. Both presented a picture of Wittmann's Tiger without its turret with the gun barrel placed on the hull which in fact is the picture of SS-Untersturmführer Alfred Günther's Tiger destroyed by an airplane bomb at Evrecy. Along with those two versions, some claims were made that units, which were not even present in the area at the time, were responsible for destroying Wittmann's Tiger. In 1945, Mr.Serge Varin found Tiger #007. Mr.Varin was interested in this tank because its turret was teared away from the hull. Mr.Varin examined Wittmann's Tiger and noticed that it was not penetrated by any shells fired at it during the fighting. The only damage to the hull was a big hole in the rear, near the engine deck.

Remains of Wittmann's Tiger No.007

After further examination Mr.Varin concluded that the impact came from the air. The rocket hit Tiger's rear deck (made of 25mm thick armor), penetrated the air intakes and exploded causing the explosion in the engine compartment and fighting compartment which ignited the stored ammunition. The second explosion instantly killed the entire crew and blew off the turret into the air. According to Varin, Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by a rocket fired from a Royal Air Force Hawker "Typhoon" MkIB - attack aircraft. Typhoons were armed with HE (High-explosive) rockets and took heavy tow of German tanks during the Normandy battles (for example on August 8th of 1944, Typhoons destroyed 135 German tanks and among those Tiger #007).

Finally, it was proven that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by fire from tanks of "A" Squadron of Northamptonshire Yeomanry. British Firefly crew observed advancing Tigers and opened fire at when Tigers were some 800m away. According to original War Diary of "A" Squadron, at 12:20, 3 Tigers were moving towards the Squadron and were destroyed at 12:40, 12:47 and 12:52 without any losses. After the first Tiger was destroyed at 12:40, second one returned fire but was hit and blew up in a loud explosion. Following that, third Tiger was knocked out after receiving two hits. Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed as second at 12:47 by British Sherman VC "Firefly", armed with 17 pounder gun capable of penetrating Tiger's armor at range of 800m. The force of explosion blew off the turret, which landed upside down away from the hull. Wittmann did not know that British had Firefly in the area and felt confident in attacking their position with his Tigers, otherwise he would take different approach to the whole attack. After Wittmann failed to return from the battle, search for him by the members of the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" and his battalion took place during the day and on the night of 8/9th.

Michael Wittmann and his crew was killed in action on August 8th of 1944, at Gaumesnil near Cintheaux and were buried in an unmarked grave. In March of 1983, the unmarked field grave of Tiger #007's crew was discovered during the construction of the road and was excavated. It was possible to identify the remains by Wittmann's dental records and Heinrich Reimers's (driver) identification tag. Wittmann and his crew was then officially buried in the German Military Cemetery of "De La Cambe" in Normandy, France. The cemetery is located on the National Road 13 (RN 13) between Isigny-sur-Mer and Bayeux. Michael Wittmann is buried in square 47, row 3, grave 120 of "De La Cambe". On August 8th of 1944, crew of Tiger #007 from 2nd Kompanie of schwere SS-Panzer Abteilungen 101 of LSSAH was as follows:

SS-Sturmmann Rudolf "Rudi" Hirschel (radioman) 24/1/3 - 44/8/8 (20 years old),

SS-Unterscharführer Henrich Reimers (driver) 24/5/11 - 44/8/8 (20 years old),

SS-Unterscharführer Karl Wagner (observer) 20/5/31 - 44/8/8 (24 years old),

SS-Sturmmann Günther Weber (loader) 24/12/21 - 44/8/8 (20 years old),

SS-Haupsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann (commander) 14/4/22 - 44/8/8 (30 years old).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the link is:

Missing Links

[New Age Santa]

About the use of Ubertanks...I tend to use one or two of em in wide open battles for their obvious advantages. Not to mention I have a certain penchant for Panthers and Hetzers..is this gamey???

[Stalin's Organ]

Panzer I'm not talking about who killed him, but IIRC his first Tiger at Villiers was destroyed by a 6 pdr so he went back and got another??

[Treeburst155]

New Age Santa,

Naah, what you described isn't gamey. It sounds like Panther 76 rules to me.

Stalin's Organ,

Are you serious? I was just kidding, but it could be real fun. Why not have a 5,000 pt battle with a max of 1,000 for any mix of infantry you can imagine. That leaves 4,000 for uber weapons. No German rockets (too cheap), No naval guns, No planes, No forts. ANYTHING else goes on a large map. We may have to do this in the editor.

[Nick Carter]

"On D plus 16, a hurry call from Sisson's CP summons me to where I can scan the stream and shallow valley which mark our boundary. There at a bend in the road near the peaceful village of Vidouville, several indistinct figures are sauntering and reclining around a motionless tank. The 2500-yard range is too far to even determine for sure what nationality or model the prize is; Sisson believes it to be a Mark V Panther, while I think it is a Mark IV. A soldier who is a debunker of tanks and Antitanks calls it an American Sherman, but when S-2 definitely states that Vidouville and it's environs are in enemy hands, Hoppie sets up his 57 under the concealment of an apple orchard.

Observing through binoculars from a tall tree, I see the first round go off right on the front of the armored vehicle, a direct hit. Hoppie's crew is doing real shooting, and far beyond the usual range of our direct-fire gun, so that ten rounds practically destroy the tank and scatter the loungers..."

From "One More Hill" by Franklyn H. Johnson, Bantam, 1983 ISBN 0-533-23442-0

Draw what conclusions you will....

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nick Carter:

Draw what conclusions you will....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gamey bastards!

[Herr Oberst]

(paraphrasing an ancient post by someone forgotten board member)

What's gamey is my opponent uses only hi-res mods for all his armor, and low-res originals for my armor.

Here I have to drive around my low-res armor, while he uses hi-res uber-tanks.

It just isn't fair. My units are constructed out of bmp's using approximately 3/4 fewer bytes to compose the armor. Fewer bytes means my low-res armor is less effective than his uber-armor constructed out of denser bmps. He is using color density unfairly to gain an advantage in the game...

And I have a sneaking feeling that he modded the little graphic for his shells as well...

While my stock-issue low-res shells bounce off his hi-res uber-armor, his hi-res shells slice through my less-dense armor at an alarming rate...

It just isn't fair that his bigger, better video card lets this happen!

BTS, plz fix or do somefink!

[KiwiJoe]

Its real simple. If you dont discuss it BEFORE the game you dont have the right to bitch about it DURING/AFTER the game. Most people have been around long enough to know what they personally believe is gamey.

Use word to type up a document of bullet- points about the rules you like to play with.

* No scouting/drawing fire with AT teams

* Crews must withdraw or hide and can only be used for local defense if needed

* No flak trucks

* No jeeps/kubbelwaggon suicide scouting runs

* Must have transport for each gun bought

ETC

Send it to you enemy as your discussing the settings. Debate it, add to it, delete from it, and decide on whether or not you want to play each other. SIMPLE!

It might take a bit of extra time to get the game going, but it stops all the hassle later on.