thats gamey!

[Soddball]

When I play ME's, I always set down, in writing, what the rules and regs are. I make sure everything's discussed beforehand. I'm just starting a PBEM with Chad and specified in my email which rules we were to use, and how they affected arty, planes etc. We haven't discussed towed guns at all, but maybe that's something that, if a player feels they've been "burned", they should raise with their next opponent.

If you can't agree on rules, the solution is simple - turn down the game.

I know that:

A) It's easy to be all-knowing after the event and;

David's an experienced player;

but Chad is quite a recent arrival. If he's anything like me, he's probably spent a month or two playing and reading on these boards, and isn't aware of the unwritten rules of the happy closet that is the early CM bunch.

So good on you, Chad, for picking a tactic that your opponent wasn't expecting because he's used to playing in a different way. It clearly threw him and that is always an advantage in a battle. So it wasn't historical? So what? Who says the guns and crews weren't about to be over-run by a small German force which had broken through the allied lines, and that Chad's units had been ordered to push the intruders back to Berlin?

I think that these things need to be clarified BEFORE the battle, so that we don't get these 'gamey' discussions. It would spare an awful lot of sour grapes. David is an experienced and skilled enough player to know that these issues can crop up and knows enough to discuss these matters beforehand.

[PawBroon]

Someday it will be such a hassle to even start a game...

You know, it all boils down to how you relate to CM and your opponents.

For example, my pest peeve is that you KNOW there is an enemy.

Stupid no?

I mean, you never field the Brits and suddenly see some Yanks because you were dropped off the planned sites.

No, you KNOW there will be someone to fire on and that someone would be in the same point range as you.

I hate it!

Can't you just start a 500 Pts ME and suddenly stumble on 1000 Pts worth of fiendish pixels?

If that process was random then you'll have to sweat over pressing an attack or falling back.

In that sense I do think most QBs are gamey.

Just because you know the point spread and could count troops and know when to expect more AFVs or when to start worrying about ACs.

Some people could be so damn serious about it all...

I am in no Ladder because of the behaviour that are triggered in some fighting their way up those.

I never play with Fionn's Rules or Pikachu's Rules or whatever.

Never had been asked to and most here could tell I had played an awful lot of PBEMs.

People you know tend to be sensible or maybe you just tend to play the sensible ones.

I played a game with Moriarty.

I had a score to settle against Stugs wrecking my Cav units in a previous game that had just turned sour with Berlichtingen.

Berli sent me a screenshot of the All Powerful Stug'O'Death and it was Moriarty who was the TC of that particular Stug.

So we played an all Stugs against an all M8 & M5.

What I am saying is, I never have to agree beforehand when I play someone unless I want it to be a fantasy game.

How come most of you have to discuss settings in order to play a normal game is beyond me.

There are already so many restrictions in the game (fore knowledge of enemy size et Al) why would you spend hours over adding more?

Just so that you'll play with the added comfort to know that there will be NO Tigers?

And then, what if the guy bought one after all?

You are all always crying to Heaven about gameyness, can't you see how those Rules are adding to it?

Allow for some randomness.

Let people try things against you.

You might be surprise to see just how refreshing it could be when someone try a prank and that you were not expecting it.

Then there's a tactical challenge you have to deal with.

And as usual with those What's Gamey Threads, play people you know.

Then when a prank is pulled, it's JUST that.

A prank.

Rules! Pffffeee!!

Ok guys, gather round!

We're to play Poker.

Fact is, I had been abused lately by ruthless newbies so I'll take all Aces off your deck.

I call it Boyo's Rules of Diminishing Pleasure.

Yes!

Let's bash Steve and Charles for not putting the M16 and SturmTiger in the game and then let's create Rules where only Shermans and PzIV could play anyway.

And you can't field MP40s because the German were aware it'd give an unfair avantage over those bolt action rifles!!

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: PawBroon ]

[Soddball]

I see your point, Pawbroon. These arbitrary rules can stifle the fun of the game. (At least, I think that's the point). "Gameyness" is in the eye of the beholder. I would rather play without these rules, myself, and just go hell for leather at it. But the problem is that players like Aitken may want to play a 'historical' game and that can lead to needless bad feeling just because these issues weren't discussed beforehand.

Let's say, for example, you decided to play a QB against someone. You picked a fully mechanised infantry company - and they picked an airfield defence force, with loads of flak guns on flatbeds. You might think they were 'gamey' but if you've discussed it beforehand and agreed that this is a 'no rules' battle, then there's no bad feeling. That's why I like to discuss 'rules' beforehand. I don't want to start rowing with someone over the implementation of a unit.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Buying more than 2 flak guns per infantry battalion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, can't agree with this statement at all! You're trying to say that when playing the Germans it is gamey to purchase a Heavy Weapons Platoon (which happens to include 6 single barrel Flak Guns) when supporting a roughly Battallion sized force? You've got to be kidding me. An historical organisational unit is never gamey in my humble opinion provided it is purchased in moderation (i.e. one to every battallion in the above instance).

Regards

Jim R.

[Big Ron]

2p's worth.

I've always bought transport for my guns in QB's as they increase flexibility but I never insist on my opponent obeying any rules at all. On occasion they have selected the 75mm rules or whatever and that's fine but I enjoy playing the game not talking about whether Hetzers were deployed with StuH42's, who's got SMG's and who hasn't. I've had my butt kicked by people who've bought Tigers and demanded a wide open map and that's fine. They only got to do it once 'cos I didn't enjoy the game so I won't play them again. My point is (sorry you've had to wait so long for it)that you learn two things from these battles:

1) How to fight better

2) Who it is enjoyable to play and who to avoid! :mad:

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Herr Oberst wrote:

(paraphrasing an ancient post by someone forgotten board member)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lawyer may be ancient, but unfortunately he's not that easy to forget...

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

the problem is that players like Aitken may want to play a 'historical' game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have clearly explained that historical accuracy is beyond what I would be capable of implementing even if I wanted to. I just like the games I play to make sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>David is an experienced and skilled enough player to know that these issues can crop up and knows enough to discuss these matters beforehand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I resent the accusation that I am a skilled player!

[Soddball]

David quite validly pointed out

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I resent the accusation that I am a skilled player!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My sincerest apologies.

What I meant was:

Whilst David has hung around here long enough to be easily confused with the furnishings, he still displays the kind of tactical ability rarely seen away from the paint tray at the kindergarten.

And he should still know better

[Redwolf]

The "buy transport with guns if you are attacker or in an ME" rule is from the Combined Arms League at tournamenthouse.com.

Unless all the other CAL rules apply I don't see a reason why that should be default in a game.

[dieseltaylor]

Having read all 5 pages - so far - my gut reaction is to agree with Mr A.

Probably because I agree with his version of what constitutes an ME. When playing my brother the concept of having At guns already positioned has never arisen and I suspect we have had so many games where the forces chosen by the AI for us that when we do it ourself it does not occur to us.

But I consider , given the short ranges the game is played, that hidden guns are too powerful and that they should be limbered at game start- not to say that you do not have them near a decent site.!!

[-Havermeyer-]

I read page 1 and page 5. So I'll wade into this blissfully ignorant.

Buying guns without some transport is pretty risky in a ME (depending on the parameters). But, I've done it. I never bothered rationalizing it either. If I had to, I would internally create the following picture:

My CO said, take that (house, town, hill, farm-- map feature). I say, sure. Looking at the map, I see I can put a gun in overwatch on a road, a field, whatever. I do so. I can't move it around, but it will protect a flank. I then go about my attack to get the feature.

This isn't napoleonic warfare. Ya got a map, ya got a MLR, and ya got skirmishes and small unit actions going on along the line.

So as mentioned, ya grab some guns from Division and tell them to blow to hell whatever pops up in that field over there-- cuz we're going up that hill there and there. Don't shoot at us, thanks, and see ya in a bit.

Gamey? Whatever.

[Maximus]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all I did read the thread, you loaf, at least what existed at the time of my post. The posts that snuck in just prior to my posting was just that, the activity of this thread was so quick that they came in as I was typing.

Second of all, it sounds like you're forcing the player to buy units that have no combat value. Besides, as it was said, this gun in question was at the back edge of the map was it not?

Thirdly, as it has been pointed out that MEs are by themselves gamey as the situation never happened anyway in real war. So You either have an attack or defense. So arguing a gamey tactic or move in a gamey situation to begin with, is totally ridiculous. That's like trying to argue with a clown that his joke was funny, but in way that you thought that it should be funnier.

So I still say that wanting your opponent to waste points on a transport only just for the sakes of being ahistorical in an ahistorical situation such as a meeting engagement is purely hogwash.

OK, so the next time I play a ME scenario against the AI, and I run across an untransported AT-gun, I'm gonna yell, "That gamey bastich cheating computer!"

Besides, who's to say the ME engagement map isn't where the two armies started out to begin with? Just to transform this situation to a different era. Let's take for example a Civil War game based on the CM engine. The two sides are likely to have several batteries of artillery cannon and/or mortars. Now I know that these pieces would most definately have to of had to be moved into place by horse-drawn wagons and such, but I wouldn't expect the player to actually have to buy horse wagons just to play the scenario. I use the Civil War as the example because more times than not both sides usually camped out in plain view of one another before the battles. And most Civil War battles were Meeting Engagements.

[New Age Santa]

I'll tell you what's gamey, I made a scenario testing out the effects of artillery on infantry and vehicles. I decided to just have some fun after about an hour or so of analyzing and taking notes.

End Result: 6,500 points of rocket artillery sizes ranging from the 150mm to the 300mm and so many explosions and dead bodies in one place it became a work of art

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: New Age Santa ]

[WineCape]

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

Its real simple. If you don't 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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo!

While I understand/commend the efforts of people here to try and define the concept of gamey, by implication also that of ME etc., my question is as follows:

What good will these discussions be to your new PBEM or TCP/IP opponents that are not aware of these possible unfair concepts?

I, for one, don't know the ins/outs of when this or that gun should be towed, or pushed or if this tactic is historical or not etc.

Plus I would hate to offend anyone by mere assumptions as to what he would regards as gamey (BTW, I hate this word - it's an all or nothing concept that should be rather re-phrased as possible unfairness")

But, being fairmined, I expect my opponent to have some sort of list before we start PBEM'ing that he regards as possibly worthy of discussion. No, he does not have any list?

Well sir, here is my bullet list of things that I want to limit/prohibit etc. Lets discuss this.

Simple and in the long run the best proposition.

Make your list of concepts that really offends you as a CM gamer. Make a point of mentioning it. State that everything elso goes if it is not covered, which by implication means, if you/opponent encounter any "funny tactics" nobody can complain. If he does, politely tell him it was not covered and that he should include it in his pre-game list if it irks him that much.

This pre-match negotiations, I find, is an excellent way of getting aquainted with your opponent (if new).

And voila, before you know it, you both command by "accident" some much needed respect for one another.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

[WineCape]

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

Its real simple. If you don't 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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo!

While I understand/commend the efforts of people here to try and define the concept of gamey, by implication also that of ME etc., my question is as follows:

What good will these discussions be to your new PBEM or TCP/IP opponents that are not aware of these possible unfair concepts?

I, for one, don't know the ins/outs of when this or that gun should be towed, or pushed or if this tactic is historical or not etc. Plus I wouldn't like to offend anyone by mere assumptions as to what he would regards as gamey (BTW, I hate this word - it's an all or nothing concept that should be rather re-phrased as possible unfairness")

But, being fairmined, I expect my opponent to have some sort of list before we start PBEM'ing that he regards as possibly worthy of discussion. No, he does not have any list? Well sir, here is my bullet list of things that I want to limit/prohibit etc. Lets discuss this.

Simple and in the long run the best proposition.

Make your list of concepts that really offends you as a CM gamer. Make a point of mentioning it. State that everything elso goes if it is not covered, which by implication means, if you/opponent encounter any "funny tactics" nobody can complain. If he does, politely tell him it was not covered and that he should include it in his pre-game list if it irks him that much.

This pre-match negotiations, I find, is an excellent way of getting aquainted with your opponent (if new). And voila, before you know it, you both command by "accident" some much needed respect for one another.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

Regards,

Charl Theron

[WineCape]

Damn, must have double posted while busing editing my post. Sorry gentleman...

[rleete]

I will play anything. Heck, maybe somebody does the jeep rush, and I get lucky. Maybe not, but it doesn't matter, just play another. Unless a particular unit is specified as not allowed, I feel it's okay to use. And, in any quantity. If it's a human picked unit game, and no rules are established, it is "anything goes". Now, if an opponent routinely buys several flak HT every game, I would probably ask that he not use them in the next game. But it is up to me to say so.

I usually get setups with the description, force type, etc. that includes a comment like "no arty". I select my forces without any, and assume he does the same. Fair enough. If you want or expect historical setups, just a short message with the setup is all that's required.

The dialog that goes along with sending turns or the chat in the TCP/IP are at least half the fun. The more you get to know other players, the more you can relax the 'rules'. I often encounter strange force mixes with long time opponents, and if it makes for a one sided or otherwise lousy game, one of us requests a cease-fire, and we go on to the next. Play another game, where the two of you work out things like transport for AT guns. Within a few weeks, you'll know what the other expects as far as stuff like that, and it is no longer an issue. Communicate with your opposite, and you'll end up getting a lot more out of the game.

[Chad Harrison]

wow ive created a monster! when i left work, there were 30 posts, got home at night for some PBEM's and there was 80 posts, now theres over a hundred! looks like i was not the only one who has an opinion on this. i spent some time thinking about this and reading the previous points, and i would like to put a word in.

in a QB ME where do we all start out? in a deployment zone. so what do we all do? we spent 5-10 minutes looking over the terrain we are in, the victory locations, possible advance and counterattack routes, and every little nick and craney in the terrain. we then deploy our forces, however small or large they may be in any area within that zone that best suits our now developed tactic. so lets think about that. if our "forces" had enough time to deploy their forces in such a manner, know the terrain ahead that well, theve been there for some time.

yes a ME is not a good historical representation, but CM is just a game, and will never be a good historical representation, no game ever will. CM is the best GAME i have ever played, but no game will ever be able to FULLY capture the essense of combat. so we need to view CM as a game representing reality, which it does an excellent job of. but since its a game, it will never be a perfect war simulation. so we all need to understand that there are non historical representations in it, such as the ME.

in my mind, if we have that much time to overlook the battlefield and setup all those other forces in hiding positions, even to the very front of the setup "line", then why not tell the gun crew to unlimber and set up hidden in the woods. would that really take more "time" in reality than those soldiers running up to the front?

the gun crew is not stupid. somehow the game assumes that each side knows that combat is coming, or else everyone would still be embarked and not in fighting positions. so if everyone else knows combat is coming, why not that gun crew? so they do their job, find a good position and set up, not DIG IN. if they were dug in, then it would be unrealistic and unfair. but they are just sitting there, just as if you had moved them there on turn one anyways.

also, i have bought guns in other QB ME where i did not have a transport and they never fired once. wasted points. but in davids game, they were a critical element. its a chance that i take, sometimes i waste those 100+ points, other times i get lucky. if you buy a transport, your buying yourself some flexibility.

so the point i think that this has come to is that if you have a big problem with guns without transports, let the other player know before hand. if you forget and it comes up in the game, let them know in a mature way during or after the game. this is what david did, and he was very mature about it. the game continued to the end, and not much more was said about it. i would expect the same out of other players. if you want to be that anal, only 88 psw 234/3 were built in the war. but we all buy them! who cares! it just a vehicle in a game.

so i think we should just all have fun playing this game and love it for what it is! if you want others to play this game in a certain way, let them know. if you dont, never assume any thing, becuase we all know what happens when we assume . . .

thanks for all the posts, and have fun enjoying the ultimate strategy game of all time!

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Can we put a lock on this now!

:cool:

[Chad Harrison]

agreed on the lock! i think we are all out of comments now . . .

[imported_WARHAMMER]

That's what I love about this country, everyone has an opinion. Thanks Chad for the topic, I'm sure we all are a bit more enlightened now!

:cool:

[Juardis]

group hug

hi mom

[David Aitken]

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

Thirdly, as it has been pointed out that MEs are by themselves gamey as the situation never happened anyway in real war. So You either have an attack or defense. So arguing a gamey tactic or move in a gamey situation to begin with, is totally ridiculous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm still not convinced you're reading the thread. We have concluded that Meeting Engagements are and worst unusual, but certainly not gamey.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So I still say that wanting your opponent to waste points on a transport only just for the sakes of being ahistorical in an ahistorical situation such as a meeting engagement is purely hogwash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has also been discussed. Historical accuracy has nothing to do with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, who's to say the ME engagement map isn't where the two armies started out to begin with?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has also been discussed. If they were just 'there' to begin with, they would be dug in. And why would two sides advance from their front line to meet each other in no man's land at exactly the same moment?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I use the Civil War as the example because more times than not both sides usually camped out in plain view of one another before the battles. And most Civil War battles were Meeting Engagements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what relevance does your example have?

[MSBoxer]

David,

One final thought. If you state that my guns could not position themselves without your troops seeing them that would mean that you had the area under view for a period at least equal to the time that it would take me to place my guns. Now since you have no idea when my guns were placed this means that you kept a vigil for an extended duration of time.

It would seem that if you had this area under survaliance for that length of time and suspected that you may be asked to take an objective in the area would you not place some guns in advance.

If you were not there long enough to set up your guns then you could not be there long enough to insure that I had not set up guns in advance.

All you know is that you have been tasked with taking a piece of ground, how can you be sure of what you will find unless the area has been under your scrutiny for a long period of time, and I maintain that if you had troops there long enough to ensure that I had not placed guns then your troops could have dragged a gun into place by hand while crawling, lord knows the NVA did it often enough.

Mike

[Stalin's Organ]

HI MOM!

[Yosoce]

if BTS thought transports were essential to guns, they would put them together, much as company commanders are only available with their subordinates