thats gamey!

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Here we go again!!

[Moriarty]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're mad, Pawbroon, completely and utterly mad. What an outstanding idea.

When you get back from vacation and get your computer working again, let's scrap the 5,000-point map I sent you.

We could set a point range or, in the true spirit of fighting against Boyo's Rules of Diminishing Pleasure, no point range. (And no VLs, either. I hate those in MEs and am not too thrilled with them in Att/Def).

You take what you're comfortable with and I'll take what I'm comfortable with. And, if my recce company meets your Army Group, c'est la guerre.

What say you?

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

[Priest]

Let me start off by saying that I have not read all 5 pages of this thread, but I have been involved in just about every "gameyness" thread from the old days. First off this whole special rules for games and so on and so forth is really getting out of hand. Next the term "gamey" is being thrown around way too much. Heck even though I am constantly involved in three to four games (PBEM or TCP/IP) at all times I still have yet to see these unbeatable FLAK trucks (I just keep killing them!). Personally I think there is nothing wrong with "gamey" because it has yet to produce anything that even mildly scares me. Send your crew and jeep rushes and I will send you dead pixels and crushed jeeps. But more to the core of the problem, buying transports for guns is not a needed feature. Personally if I have a "sweet" spot near or in my startup zone then I either setup or walk my guns there. Did trucks and HTs transport me there? Probably and abstracted them by my gun forces just being there. Now what if I want to move those guns or maybe use them in ways other than overwatch fire, well then I will need transports to stay with (see on map) the guns so I will purchase their presence (spend more for the MG equipped HTs or less for the mundane trucks). Here is an interesting question (and one that may have already been asked), how did your infantry and heavy weapons teams get there? Do you buy a transport for each of them? Where do we draw the line people? Personally if I feel that my "spots" for my guns are within my "walking" range for the crew then I will self deploy, but if I want options then I will include transport.

Now I am not going to say this is sour grapes or not (I do not care) but if it really matters then play another game with either the "rule" for transport in place or not but then you both can be on "equal" footing and see what happens.

Lastly the Stuh was semi-rare and I cannot remember the Marder III production numbers but I believe most served on the eastern front with the majority seen on the west during the Bulge and the last days of the war. In 1944 the initial Firefly production led to one Firefly per armor troop. Hope that settles that.

Later

[David Aitken]

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

Let me start off by saying that I have not read all 5 pages of this thread<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did trucks and HTs transport me there? Probably and abstracted them by my gun forces just being there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is an interesting question (and one that may have already been asked), how did your infantry and heavy weapons teams get there? Do you buy a transport for each of them? Where do we draw the line people?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lastly the Stuh was semi-rare and I cannot remember the Marder III production numbers (snip)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with not reading the discussion and just dropping your opinion in at the end, is that it confuses the discussion and rehashes issues which have already been settled. The only way a discussion can develop is if people consider the points already made and expand upon them, or indeed, choose to say nothing if they have nothing new to add. Otherwise the thread just keeps repeating itself and goes nowhere.

Not particularly important in this thread, as I think most of us have said all we're going to say, but just a point of order.

[Richard Morgan]

Before someone puts a lock on this... One example of gaminess: installing the Austin Powers Universal Carrier Mod :mad:

Tootle pip old bean!

[GenSplatton]

I just wanted to say, I read the whole thread. Can I have a cookie now?

[Chad Harrison]

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

I just wanted to say, I read the whole thread. Can I have a cookie now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes you can, but make sure you get milk with that cookie or it will be gamey. everyone knows that its unfair to have a cookie without milk!!!

[Shipmonkey25]

Hi Dad!

[GenSplatton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>yes you can, but make sure you get milk with that cookie or it will be gamey. everyone knows that its unfair to have a cookie without milk!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But can I pour the milk near the refrigerator, or do I need to transport it to the table before pouring so as not to gain an unfair advantage over others that may also want milk?

[Louie the Toad]

Using view levels 3 and 4 is the gamiest of all.

Exactly who / what is viewing from those levels? Is it Rommel in his Storch? Is it

a Union Army officer in a balloon? What factor or unit in the battle is actually capable of this?

And what about mousing around the battlefield way out in front of your forces scouting areas you should not be able to see? D*mn gamey.

Of course if we could buy Foo Fighters there would at least be an excuse.

Level 1 headed Toad.

[Bruno Weiss]

Washington, D.C., August 10, 2001

National Union for Technical Studies (NUTS)

by Ira Wissenheimer

"Scientists say world will end!"

Details at 11:00 p.m.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Louie the Toad wrote:

Using view levels 3 and 4 is the gamiest of all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the best example of an unrealistic aspect of the game which is necessary to make it playable. There are few aspects of the game which are as totally removed from reality as the omniscient camera. This does not, however, justify all other possible unrealism, as people have claimed in the past in discussions similar to this.

[Chad Harrison]

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

But can I pour the milk near the refrigerator, or do I need to transport it to the table before pouring so as not to gain an unfair advantage over others that may also want milk?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you see what your gamey problem is that your pouring from the whole milk container. dont you know anything? they only built 12 whole milk containers during the war and you always buy 4! and you dont give me time to set up my cookies before you pour your milk! gamey milk user, thats the only reason you ever win!

[Louie the Toad]

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

This is the best example of an unrealistic aspect of the game which is necessary to make it playable. There are few aspects of the game which are as totally removed from reality as the omniscient camera. This does not, however, justify all other possible unrealism, as people have claimed in the past in discussions similar to this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no excuse to be allowed to mouse around the battlefield and scout out terrain.

That is not a playability factor at all.

What you see from the location of your units is what you should get. Anything else is cheating. But some would say... if both players cheat then it's fair... (But I don't think so !)

I know from experience that playability is not compromised at levels 1 and 2 in actions of less than 2000 pts per side. These battles are more fun actually IMHO.

In battles larger than 2000 pts at levels 1 and 2 it is quite possible that omniscience is not necessary. I'll bet not many have tried it. I would find it quite challenging. It certainly would take longer.

But mousing around all over the place is really gamey.

Anti mousing Toad

[Juju]

I gave up after page three, so no cookie for me, I guess.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Louie the Toad wrote:

There is no excuse to be allowed to mouse around the battlefield and scout out terrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM does not present you with a realistic view of the battlefield, and never will. It does not provide you with all the little cues you need to understand a situation in reality. It does not allow you to converse with your subordinates to work out what is going on. It cannot present you with pure suggestion and leave you to work out what is going on on the basis of your prior knowledge of the circumstances.

Very often, due to the shortcomings of the graphics engine, and the simple fact that this is a game and not reality, you cannot see from your mens' perspective what you would realistically be able to see; for example, trees get in the way, objects are modelled abstractly to an extent, squads do not visually cover the area they would in reality, and so on.

Therefore it is necessary to use the graphics engine to its optimum, moving around the battlefield and looking at things from different perspectives, in order to approximate the level of knowledge you would have in reality. The fact is that in CM you do not play the role of your men, you play the role of each of the commanders on the battlefield, as well as the overall commander, and you should have an overall understanding of what is happening which cannot be provided by viewing the battlefield purely from the perspective of your units on the map.

The "Ironman" rules seem realistic, but only because it makes sense visually. It does not make as much sense in the wider context of the role you play, or in the context of a computer game, where it is necessary to issue orders in a "gamey" way because you can't speak to your subordinates and tell them what to do.

People are constantly clamouring for greater control over their units, because in reality you would be able to issue detailed instructions about where to go and what to do – but if you use the "Ironman" rules, you cannot even use the current interface to its optimum, so your orders are going to be very clumsy. Again, it may seem realistic, but it's not really, it just looks that way.

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Nice one David, Ironman's rules are for jar heads! I'll take the cookie crumbs if no

one wants them?

[Bobbaro]

Using AT guns without transport in MEs is not gamy, it just looks that way from one point of view.

Points of view are very relative.

Of course if gamy is defined by view point then to debate about gameness is to debate points of view.

That is rather like debating religion.

The great thing about points of view is that they can be changed for the convenience of the argument. And how often may one say about argument that winning is not the most important thing, it is all there is in debate.

As CM is only relatively realistic, but realism is what we say we seek, then we can have the best of both worlds; that is when it suits, we can declare that guns without transport are gamy but Ironman rules are unrealistic, bending the mind to the accommodating comfort fit for a particular selection for one's own version of reality and its antithesis.

It does not appear that there many absolutes in this CM, a worthy approximation of a kind of reality. And rather than insisting that one's individual pursuasion concerning constraints on what BTS has provided to its buying public, it may be profitably suggested what has been said before. players will be happier finding an accomidation before playing. And for those instances where foresight has not found its mark, then tolerance and amusement are the best medicine.

Fecies pases, and not always convienently. So clean between the toes and grin.

That might also be said about debate.

[Richard Morgan]

"You take what you're comfortable with and I'll take what I'm comfortable with and if my recce coy meets your Army Group, c'est la guerre."

Moriarty is to be congratulated because in one brief sentence he hits the nail squarely on the head. The whole art of war revolves around avoiding anything like an equal contest and only offering combat on terms advantageous to yourself. In the 1300's, the smelly peasant English longbowmen decimated the fragrant flower of French chivalry notably at Crecy and Agincourt. Gamey as hell - but it worked! In fact the Frogs had a major sense of humour failure with any of our archers they got hold of which involved removing the first two fingers of the right hand, thus preventing them ever drawing bowstring again. This resulted in the great two fingered English salute, still in use today, when bowmen would raise their first two (still attached) fingers in the form of a V - in derisory manner - in the general direction of their foe: but I digress!

Excepting restrictions which are the result of mutual agreement, surely anything goes. The only strategies/deployments that I would dispute and call gamey, would be those that took advantage of flaws in the actual game system itself - for example, if it was found to be possible to teleport Stuarts, Command and Conquer style!

Please remember, CMBO is just a game, not a religion. Extremist fundamentalist authentibores can take the fun out of everything

Your sentry was on the ball - extremely on the ball as it happens. However, somebody should tell him that "Freeze motherf*cker or you're history" is not standard British Army parlance. (CO 6LI to OC DCoy 6LI)

[New Age Santa]

oi..not using view levels 3 and 4. If I may quote the CM Manual..

"The armor slope of that Panther is off by 0.5 degrees! My life is ruined!"

[Priest]

Aaaaaaah! The Ironman rules. I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Well personally I tend to play mostly in level 3 view. No tactical reason I just think the game looks best there. So I tend to watch movies there and because I use it so much have become adept at plotting orders in level 3 also. Though I still use the interface as much as possible also so all camera angles are fair game. Because you see it is a better not worse simulation that way. The interface allows the commander on the battlefield to make up for the lack of "feel" for the battle. Rommel himself said that most of the time he ran on "feel" and instinct and that is why he was always at the front. In CMBO we cannot be at the front. There is no front only a monitor screen. And really what is Level 6-whatever really good for, I only use it to track planes. If I was on the real battlefield I could just look up but that is not possible in CMBO. Oh and Ironman, uhm what is to prevent you from still looking around the map to your hearts content. Not only that but if I look around the map at level 2 I will be much better off than at level 4 because the contours of the land will be much more prevalent. In the end you slow games and hinder your abilities with these limitations because they were never intended in the first place.

[Scipio]

I haven't read all the other posts, here is just my five pence:

It's gamey to be an asshole and complain about something that wasn't excluded before the match. Extra rules like the Fionn's are extra spice, but not anti-gamey.

It's gamey to replay a turn. But that isn't possible in CM anyway.

So aside from that, nothing is gamey. What do you think are we doing here? This is war. I try everything to win, and I also expect from my opponent to try everything to beat me.

If it would be possible, I even would order my men to fart in the general direction of the enemy!!! :eek:

[Scipio]

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

The problem with not reading the discussion and just dropping your opinion in at the end, is that it confuses the discussion and rehashes issues which have already been settled. The only way a discussion can develop is if people consider the points already made and expand upon them, or indeed, choose to say nothing if they have nothing new to add. Otherwise the thread just keeps repeating itself and goes nowhere.

Not particularly important in this thread, as I think most of us have said all we're going to say, but just a point of order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the most gamey of all is : telling other people how to act on a free forum. Some people are so boring...

[Priest]

Geez tell a guy his sound mods are the greatest (they are superb) and he is you friend forever.

Thanks for the backup!

[Louie the Toad]

To David A and Priest:

Priest --

If you are playing to watch a movie that is one thing. If you are playing to fight a battle that is another. I think the view from levels 3 and 4 give a great perspective. It reminds me of my days playing with GHQ tank miniatures on a sand table. As I stated, I currently have no experience playing games over 2000 pts at level 1. The last large game where I used levels 3 and 4 was August Bank Holiday. Level 1 would be a tremendous challenge playing that scenario.

David A --

If there is a big hill in front of me I should not be able to see the terrain behind it unless I get one of my units in position.

Could it be that you are arguing from the perspective of a larger battle? See my note to Priest above.

Have you played using FTCR? There IS a whole lot of interplay between squads and platoon leaders. You get your information about the battle and the battle field by observing from each unit's position, just as it should be, not from the god's eye position which I think gives you more information than you should have or especially by being able to fly like superman over to an enemy position and check it out from 10m away.

How much fog of war should there be?

Foggy Toad.