A open debate on "gamey" tactics.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague:

Oh yeah, Redwolf what is it exactly, about rushing MG's in CM that you find distasteful?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have a problem with that myself, but many others have, so I mentioned it.

In CMBO, a MG is modeled to have just one rate of fire. It cannot raise its rate of fire in case of emergency self-defense, as it historically would.

Also in CMBO, running units are mismodeled to be able to deliver too much supressive fire.

The effect of the combination of these effects is that the MG is overrun in a situation where it historically would have wiped out the attackers.

Both problems are to be fixed in CMBB.

So, while a MG covering a mixed infantry force from behind works fine, a MG strongpoint, e.g. in a house or on a ridgee, which would be a perfectly valid thing to do in real life, requires that the attacker does not just run troops towards it.

P.S. I forgot to mention the flamethrower target area issues. You shouldn't burn buildings or terrain without firing at enemy units.

[Redwolf]

As others mentioned "gamey" ladders, I'd like to add a few words.

A ladder like tournamenthouse.com agrees that they will use every mean the game allows to overcome the enemy (exept bug exploits like I outlined earlier in this thread).

While this leads to selection of unhistorical forces, I don't think this is as bad as people seem to think:

- you have too many light guns compared to reality

- you meet a more than realistic amount of HE-intensive vehicles like self-propelled guns in direct fire and howitzer-equipped tanks

- for German infantry, you have many automatic weapons

The positive sides:

- You still have combined arms. These guys are often very infantry-heavy, they always have some AFVs, always artillery, often guns. It is not that one single unit is so overpower and underpriced that it makes it attractive enough for massive misselection

- The U.S. rifle squads are seen often

With regards to the "normal tank" versus the rate of SP guns or close-support tanks: this is realistic in the sense of "what would a real commander choose in a battle like CMBO"?

Certainly, not normal tanks. A full tank with a turret, radio, optics, a gun that is a compromise between blast and AP capabilty is a waste to use in a battle like a CMBO battlefield. A turretet tank is not meant to beat on infantry in foxholes. It is not meant to fight other tanks. It is a breakthrough weapon, meaning to exploit the success in a battle like a CMBO battle. It would not fight the CMBO battle itself. Noone with the right mind would prefer four Panzer IV over two StuH and two Hetzers in a CMBO-limited battle.

So, this is a matter of taste: do you want to fight with what was historically available? Or would you like to explore which weapon of those that were available (for the whole force) would the best choice in a given situation? We are talking different meanings of simulation here, not unrealistic or realistic.

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Well I personally didn't understand or agree with comments I'd read about the Sd kfz 7/1 being gamey but in a recent game I played against the AI I now see what they were talking about. I encountered one of these super vehicles and it took out 5 of my sherman tanks just one after another. After it taking out the first tank I thought ok smart ass you're dead and sent another after him well it took that one out so I'm thinking by God you'll be sorry and sent 3 more after him. Well, shortly thereafter I had all these sherman's sitting around burning. Now the sherman's did hit or at least shoot at him but he survived all 5 so I am a firm believer in that using this vehicle is gamey. Bet I never try taking another one out with tanks. Infantry did do the trick by the way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, so what is gamey here? A unit has taken out two of your tanks - so why do you send three others to that unit? Would you send more infantry into a known minefield just to proof if it's still excists? If the tank is not the right weapon vs a SdKfz7/1, don't try it with tanks. That's only a lesson to learn.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

Anybody interested in the topic of "gamey" tactics should use the Search feature. We have had a couple of HUGE debates on this already. Not trying to disuade people from talking about it some more, but just a reminder that a vast wealth of thoughts have been logged on this forum already.

As for many of the "gamey" problems with CMBO, we have taken great care to correct them in CMBB. For example, right now all of these problems have already been fully addressed:

1. Inability to directly target soft vehicles with HE ammo. This basically was a modeling flaw (i.e. bigger than a "bug") which has been fully corrected. This means the SdKfz 7 type vehicles are dead meat very quickly.

2. MG modeling has undergone many changes, including variable rates of fire, firelanes, increased area of effect around the target, and something else I can't quite remember

3. Huge, fundamental changes to the way units can be ordered to move. Far too big of a topic to cover here and now, but be assured that things work VERY differently in CMBB. More on this in a couple of weeks after we finish tweaking some stuff.

4. Extreme Fog of War option basically tells you NOTHING about the enemy until you are right in their faces. Makes quite a bit of difference when planning stuff.

5. Variable turn endings to prevent various different types of end game strategies. I just had a 30 turn game go to 38 turns, for example, which REALLY changes things.

6. Better control of how your units engage the enemy. Should make "distraction" tactics a thing of the past.

7. Although not specifically designed to combat gamey tactics, a bunch of things have been done to make the game more realistic. In some cases this makes the game play more cautious and uncertain, two things which generally work against gamey tactics.

Probably some other stuff I am forgetting about.

Keep in mind that we are not specifically waging a war against gamey tactics. However, in our never ending quest to make CM more realistic, gamey tactics will become harder and harder to pull off. Why? Because gamey tactics are basically tactics which take advantage of flaws/shortcomings of a simulation in order to yield unrealistic, ahistorical results. If there are no flaws/shortcomings, then there should be no unrealistic results. Of course this is not 100% possible to do, but every little bit helps

Steve

[Xavier]

Greaaaat!

So many cool features. Thank you BTS

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Kruger:

I read earlier you can drive in reverse to avoid getting bogged down so I will not drive in reverse as a means of advancing my vehicles solely for advancement... ie. I'll drive in reverse if I think the enemy is now behind me <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This bug was fixed in 1.1. As Mark IV pointed out, you now can bog in reverse.

[Treeburst155]

But Scipio, the tanks SHOULD be able to take out the unarmored flak vehicles.

I don't worry about cherry picking and ahistorical purchases in general for the reasons Redwolf mentioned above, as long as players don't get ridiculous in one category such as arty for an example.

My beef is with gamey tactics. How do you know what tactics are gamey? Ask yourself these questions:

Would the order be given in real life?

Would the order be obeyed in real life?

If carried out, would the action produce realistic results (casualties, intel)?

Are you taking advantage of game limitations and/or flaws such as absolute spotting, map edges, morale modelling issues, etc.?

Think like a commander, not like a game player and you won't get accused of gamey play, except by people who think it's gamey for you to beat them.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Go ahead, Steve. Wage an all out war on gamey stuff! Let's end gamey play in our time.

Treeburst155 out.

[Mark IV]

With all of the considerable respect due BTS, a Search that worked better and an upfront Battlefront FAQ would forestall a lot of this rehashing. Maybe after CMBB?

The only way a newbie is really going to do something that is "terribly gamey that might drastically effect a game" is to terminate himself early, through lack of familiarity with the weapons and tactics of WWII. The exception would be buying an army of "heavies" in violation of a gentleman's agreement to force restrictions, which is really a different issue.

I really don't understand the general objection to setting buildings on fire or blowing them up. There are some obvious gamey possibilities, like encircling a VL with flame, although I have never seen that done (and doubt that many others have, either). A commander is always free to use, or waste, ammo as he sees fit.

If I was a covering force for a retreat, and in pulling out of the position could deny a heavy building to the following enemy with a flick of the Ronson, I would. It so happens that the only function for doing this is with a flamethrower (well, you could fire a bazooka a couple of times ). I don't really want to debate that here, other than to point that if that's considered gamey by some, then all that that proves is there are two schools of thought on the subject, like so many others, and thus enough doubt to err in favor of player creativity. People started fires in WWII.

Charging MGs: We know that Run abstracts some of the lowest-level aspects of squad movement, including leap-frogging within the squad, taking advantage of obstacles too small to appear on the map, etc. As attackers it is incumbent upon us to take MGs out. We cannot simply surround them with crime-scene tape and skirt them to avoid offense. I like to wear them down, suppress with a mortar or my own MG, then bring them under close fire with one squad while rushing with another. If they are unsupported, they SHOULD be overrun, since that is how many were taken out in RL.

When they model variable rates of fire in CMBB I'll probably do the same thing, just a lot more carefully... you can't just concede the map to the enemy because he has an MG parked in the handicapped space.

CMBB sounds like fun. I think I'll buy it.

[Thermopylae]

The primary complaint withlight stuff on fire as a barrier is the unrealistic result. The fire in real life would have a helluva good chance of spreading, especially in a crowded village with wooden buildings, untrimmed hedges and so forth...and by god you wouldn't want to be there when the fire spread.

[Herr Kruger]

Ok, is there any plans to fix these things in CMBO? That would be great... just a hope!

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Kruger:

Ok, is there any plans to fix these things in CMBO? That would be great... just a hope! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM:BO is frozen in place right now according to BTS. It would have to happen with an revist to the western front in the future.

[eeyore]

Gamey stuff is usually related to cherry-picking favourite units. Build in option to supply core OOB by computer, add percentage of points for favourites and a lot of "gamey" stuff will disappear.

Yeknod

[CMplayer]

As for advancing infantry up the edge, if they are fired upon there is a serious risk that they'll run off the board looking for cover (and won't come back). I feel this makes up for them having a 'safe' flank.

[Herr Kruger]

That's too bad CMBO is frozen.. ah well :eek:

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

Gamey is an excuse people use when something goes wrong for them in a battle.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague:

My buddy was telling me about some tourney house that had it's emphasis on balanced quasi-historical force selection and 'playing in the spirit of the game'.

Such a site may have a blacklist like the one mentioned above. I'll try and find out the address. Personally I would love to swap from RD to something like that.

It surely would make a nice change to not have to send one's frail Tommies up against Germany's seemingly endless supply of vet Pzr gnr motorised squads.

Hell, if anyone thinks they know the ladder that I'm espousing as the untainted grail of CM virtue then please point me in the right direction.

Hmm.. I expect that'll translate rather readily as - 'Go direct to 101 Wiseacre lane'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The CAL ladder is what you're looking for. It's located at www.tournamenthouse.com

Look at the top left of the CM ladder page for the link. It is a smaller ladder (about 100 people) than the main CM ladder but it's lots of fun trying out the different styles of play that result in a more historical unit selection of WWII battles.

I have to say though, since sticking with Panther-76 rules and Short 75 rules, I've been itching for an armor-heavy game so if there's any of you CAL people out there who wouldn't mind a deviation from the norm, give me a ring.

[lcm1947]

Scipio I didn't mean that the use of a Sd kfz 7/1 was gamey but that 5 tanks firing at it couldn't knock it out. But I see that that will be corrected in CM2 so am happy now. But to answer your question it's not the same thing as a mine field although I'm sure that was just trying to get your point across which I understand and agree. But the Sd kfz 7/1 was holding up my attack and had to be taken out quick before it could destroy the convey that I was moving up. It was in the open at that time and infantry couldn't even get close without being nailed and many were. I tried sneaking two bazooka teams up to pop him but that failed badly also so it was up to the tanks. Besides it pissed me off! Damn silly Sd kfz!

[Battlefront.com]

Thermopylae,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The primary complaint withlight stuff on fire as a barrier is the unrealistic result. The fire in real life would have a helluva good chance of spreading... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although not the most sophisticated modeling in the world, CMBB already has fires that spread. Fires can also start from artillery and small arms fire. Small chances for the most part, but it is now at least a possibility.

Steve

P.S. Yes, we have added tons of cool stuff like this

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947:

Scipio I didn't mean that the use of a Sd kfz 7/1 was gamey but that 5 tanks firing at it couldn't knock it out. But I see that that will be corrected in CM2 so am happy now. But to answer your question it's not the same thing as a mine field although I'm sure that was just trying to get your point across which I understand and agree. But the Sd kfz 7/1 was holding up my attack and had to be taken out quick before it could destroy the convey that I was moving up. It was in the open at that time and infantry couldn't even get close without being nailed and many were. I tried sneaking two bazooka teams up to pop him but that failed badly also so it was up to the tanks. Besides it pissed me off! Damn silly Sd kfz!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to be true - I only faced that vehicel once or twice and had never a problem with it. As all low armored vehicels, they don't like Cal.50 . Anyway, the 37mm AA has a ****load of firepower. Is this an engine 'problem'? All comes down to math. Each hit has a specific chance to cause a lethal damage. To hit often increase this chance. A 37mm AA has a high rate of fire, a Sherman a relativ bad armor and a slower rate of fire....

BTW, WUFF WUFF, thanx for the bone Steve :cool:

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

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

The primary complaint withlight stuff on fire as a barrier is the unrealistic result. The fire in real life would have a helluva good chance of spreading, especially in a crowded village with wooden buildings, untrimmed hedges and so forth...and by god you wouldn't want to be there when the fire spread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the course of a CMBO battle? I don't think so. Regardless of weather? Again, I don't think so.

To do this right requires some sophisticated modelling - since it is 'Combat Mission - Beyond Overlord' and not 'Firefighter Mission - Beyond Backblast', I think that would be a bit much to expect.

Since I can not see it from your profile - how many NWE towns and cities have you seen, and what do you know about building standards in these?

[Scipio]

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

Since I can not see it from your profile - how many NWE towns and cities have you seen, and what do you know about building standards in these?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I live in NWE (Germany). We have building standards? Have I missed something :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

Germanboy wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To do this right requires some sophisticated modelling - since it is 'Combat Mission - Beyond Overlord' and not 'Firefighter Mission - Beyond Backblast', I think that would be a bit much to expect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... well, expect it The chance of spreading does depend on weather, but of course it is a highly abstracted system. Not perfect, but more realistic than not having spreading fire at all. In any case, it won't spread that much during the course of a battle.

Remember that fires in CM often start out VERY small (especially in CMBB). Oh... sometimes maybe 3mx3m. In a field or woods this could spread quite quickly if the weather was right. But like I said, the chance of fire spreading is rather small and it does take time in most cases. We can always tweak it to be slower if folks think it is too fast.

Steve

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

P.S. Yes, we have added tons of cool stuff like this <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, is all that cool stuff included in the demo you promised to send me?

[Andreas]

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

I live in NWE (Germany). We have building standards? Have I missed something :confused: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come and live in the UK if you think Germany is bad. The Building Regs here will reach the 1950s standard of Sweden next year. And that took a major fight with the house-builders, that was ultimately lost. But hey, they won the war and the latest footy game against Germany, so living in ****-accommodation won't matter