A open debate on "gamey" tactics.

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about if you get rid of the star thingies since now troops will evacuate buildings when they think they are going to collapse?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still need them so you can see what you are getting your troops into before hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then players can't take advantage of the intel of the building damage for "gamey" reasons? Another solution is to maybe only reveal building damage status to the player who is occupying the building?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if this didn't have any problems with realism, it won't prevent gamey behavior. It doesn't take that much playing around with the game to figure out roughly how many hits from this or that weapon it will take to fold up a building.

Overall, I think this is a really small problem, so it isn't worth much more time discussing. As FFE and Germanboy stated very well, for the most part what you are seeing on the battlefield of CM is actually quite realistic. Only a fool commander would put his troops into greatly damaged buildings, and under normal circumstances putting guys in the outer ring of houses is not a good idea either (yes Germanboy, standard German tactical doctrine said this was a sehr big nein-nein ).

Of course, sometimes you have to put guys in dangerous spots. And sometimes the enemy will do something to bring the building down. But this is not in and of itself unrealistic. In one battle almost an entire US platoon was killed when a Tiger whacked the side of it with an 88 HE round. Two men escaped unharmed. I don't suppose anybody would care to argue that the Tiger commander was being gamey

Where I think this tactic gets to be gamey is when the player PLANS to do this from the start. I mean, purchasing the right mix of units, positioning them to get the best shots on buildings, firing on turn one to wreck stuff, etc. Hardly realistic, even if it won't likely work against a good player. Remember, a gamey tactic does NOT have to succeed in giving that player an edge. Just the attempted use of such a tactic is in and of itself gamey.

Steve

[GravesRegistration]

I think that watch-dogging for suspected "gameyness" is one way to solve the problem.

But how about taking away their ability.

We have all seen players shoot at corners of buildings or even just outside of them to effect enemy units not seen.

The buildings come down in a predictable ammount of time (if not sooner) and drives the infantry out. (every time, like clockwork)

Near the end of a game it is very common to use up the ordanance you have (except opperations of course) including weapons like bazooka's

I have seen at least 3 games where a bazooka(or Panzerschreck) shot at a damaged building and basicaly won the game!!

Am I the only person that realizes that a 20mm or 37mm or even 40mm flak shell cannot drop a sturdy building?

If CM just excluded weapons with a HE blast rating of 30 or lower from damaging or effecting units because of the stucture they are in (not including starting fires)It would be a great step towards realism and eliminate some "gamey" tactics.

If rubble hindered the line of sight more. (It seems like a weatfield in season)

And of course if Dust was represented from the collapse(that comes up in HUGE clouds when a real structure Comes Down or is pulverized) simply with smoke.

The two sugestions above would add to realism and prevent the common tactic of leveling strutures to see past them. (and i know that almost everyone has done this at least once at some point!)

I Believe that these suggestions if put into effect would make the best game around even better and more importantly, realistic.

GravesRegistration

P.S> whats funny is that when i was in the ASL playtest i tried to convince the powers in control (Bob MacNamera) that the rules for Area firing did not create enough rubble!

[Battlefront.com]

GravesRegistration wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But how about taking away their ability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a perfect world, sure... we could do this. But in the world we live in this is not possible 100% of the time due to limited development time, hardware limitations, unyielding game constraints (like having the player actually exercise control over more than one unit), and the unrelenting creativity of people to find ways to "cheat" the system. So we do the best we can, and that is all we can do. I think the majority of people here will agree it is far harder to be "gamey" and actually get an advantage in CM than probably any other game of its type. That says a lot right there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We have all seen players shoot at corners of buildings or even just outside of them to effect enemy units not seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Borg" problem. Bothing we can do about that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The buildings come down in a predictable ammount of time (if not sooner) and drives the infantry out. (every time, like clockwork)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. Buildings come down when they semi-randomly decide to do so. This is based on damage taken.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Near the end of a game it is very common to use up the ordanance you have (except opperations of course) including weapons like bazooka's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing we can do about this itself, but we have changed how games end in CMBB so hopefully this will be reduced. But again, this has to do with the Borg problem of KNOWING that the guy is down for the count and you can afford to waste ammo. In real life units didn't do this because they never knew when they would get more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have seen at least 3 games where a bazooka(or Panzerschreck) shot at a damaged building and basicaly won the game!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I highly doubt this. If you were playing a game where the destruction of a few surviving enemy soldiers "won the game", I can guarrantee you that CM had already determined the winner long before that point. Perception might be everything, but it isn't always correct

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Am I the only person that realizes that a 20mm or 37mm or even 40mm flak shell cannot drop a sturdy building?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we realize this too. Such weapons can't drop a "heavy" building on their own. Well, maybe if you just set the thing up and let it pummel it turn after turn. But that is probably not unrealistic from a physics standpoint, but is certainly unrealistic from a real world combat standpoint. Gunners just didn't do this in the real world, so doing this in the game is inherently unrealistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If CM just excluded weapons with a HE blast rating of 30 or lower from damaging or effecting units because of the stucture they are in (not including starting fires)It would be a great step towards realism and eliminate some "gamey" tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree at all. First of all, such an arbitrary decision is and of itself "gamey" since there is no real world justification for such a rule. Secondly, the tactic is still totally doable with any number of other common weapons. Since we can not tell the player how and how not to play the game, the best way to solve this problem is to not play against people that use such tactics. Or better yet, play smart and kick their butts

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If rubble hindered the line of sight more. (It seems like a weatfield in season)

And of course if Dust was represented from the collapse(that comes up in HUGE clouds when a real structure Comes Down or is pulverized) simply with smoke.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first suggestion is something that has to wait until we recode the entire game engine. It can't be slapped in to the existing engine. The second suggestion is limited by the capabilities of hardware and the amount of time it would take to realistically simulate masses of airborn particle and smoke matter. This has been often discussed here and it simply is outside of our abilities to simulate correctly at this point in time. Probably be years before we can do this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The two sugestions above would add to realism and prevent the common tactic of leveling strutures to see past them. (and i know that almost everyone has done this at least once at some point!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never have I don't like wasting the ammo, exposing my units to fire, distracting me from doing other thigns, etc. etc. To me, this is not a good tactic in the big picture so I don't use it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I Believe that these suggestions if put into effect would make the best game around even better and more importantly, realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only things I agree with you on are better simulation of rubble and far more detailed treatment of smoke/dust. But the former requires a total engine rewrite, the latter far better computers than we are likely to have for a little while yet.

Thanks for the suggestions

Steve

[Moriarty]

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

Unfortunately there are very few controlled conditions in your typical NW-European forest. Since I have never been to a big North-American forest I can not really compare, but suffice to say that we don't get large forest fires here, at all.

In cities, buildings have firewalls in between them when they are directly next to each other, or very often would be sufficiently far away from each other or have trees between them, that can delay spreading of fire.

Due to the climatical situation, and the fact that NW-European forests are all managed, there is little fuel on the ground, and the ground itself is very moist.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so NWE is out of control? I thought so.

So the grass that is the predominant terrain tile never dries out? Then perhaps BTS should have modeled a "mud" terrain tile. The leaves never fall in the deciduous woods? And all the trees in between buildings in the towns are coniferous?

Since I never have been to NWE, I will take your word for it.

[Cybeq]

The "gamey" debate will never be resolved. Here's why: Although everyone can agree that the use of unrealistic, ahistorical tactics is gamey we cannot agree as to what those tactics actually are. The reason is that we all have varying levels of education/experience/understanding of real WWII weapons and tactics. We all have different expectations going into a PBEM and we all play for different reasons. Many people play to win. They will always be accused of being gamey. Those who play to experience the game as a simulation of WWII tactics had best play opponents with an understanding of WWII and CMBO on par with their own. The resolution to the issue of gaminess is found in the selection of your human opponent.

[Treeburst155]

As much as I detest gamey tactics I never have been bothered by any of the building related tactics mentioned by Graves Registration. I expect players to pummel buildings to the brink of collapse hoping I will occupy them. I say go ahead and waste your ammo because I won't go in there until I blast it to rubble myself.

I expect players to destroy buildings they think I may be in. I'm rarely there of course. I'm not above a little recon by HE when it comes to buildings myself. Why risk a team checking out a building when you can just lob a few HE rounds into it and see what you scare up. Heck, just blow the thing into oblivion if you're worried about the enemy being in there. Gamey tactics revolving around buildings just don't bother me much because I don't think they're that effective. Or is it because I'm also gamey when it comes to buildings? :eek: I think the whole building modelling thing is abstract enough that just about any tactic concerning buildings should be OK. I do avoid pounding buildings with AA types. That IS too effective and therefore gamey, but I don't really care if my opponent does it. Chances are he's doing it with a gamey Sdkfz anyway. I say go ahead and make us some rubble on the battlefield. I like rubble.

I played a guy once who started hammering a church in my territory from turn one. He did this because it was my best position for LOS over bocage. I'd take the church out too if I were him. I didn't put anybody in the church for that very reason. Is this tactic gamey? Naahh.....I say blow up buildings all you want. You'll rarely catch me in them. I'll be back for the rubble party.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Andreas]

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

Ah, so NWE is out of control? I thought so.

So the grass that is the predominant terrain tile never dries out? Then perhaps BTS should have modeled a "mud" terrain tile. The leaves never fall in the deciduous woods? And all the trees in between buildings in the towns are coniferous?

Since I never have been to NWE, I will take your word for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What on earth are you going on about?

[Silvio Manuel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Yep, it will fire smoke sometimes. Was the Gun Green too?

-> Yup. I had all Greenies ("the secret to realism in CM"!!!!).

You could picture this:

Gun: Well, those greenies are screwed now, here comes a Vet Ami platoon.

Cmdr: Shoot that house and collapse it on them.

Gun: That will take numerous shots, because houses are too strong, and the most of the Vets will survive, because houses are too weak. They will be unhappy and shoot at ME. I will shoot smoke instead and protect my own breechblock ‘cause those greenies are screwed anyway.

Greenies: AHHaahharrgh.

Arty: Guns! We hates guns!

Gun: AHHaahharrgh.

-> Yup, it was something like that. Oh, and my PaK40 wasn't in command or anything like that. already killed his armor, and needed the HQ somewhere else (eventually was fed to the arty god).

Sounds like there was a bit of trouble in Greenville already....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. i was winning at the start- lost 1 stug for 2 sherman, 2 hellcat, priest, mortar-HT. then squandered my hetzer to an inf.flank/rifle grenade, and lost the battle in part b/c i had no afv support left (or arty- i only gave myself 75mm &81mortar). that and my mauled Green survivors chewing on 155mm in scattered trees b4 the enemy's final push.

[dfgardner]

One comment of the gamey tactic of knocking down an building (I must confess I've been known to do this once or twice ).

Not that it makes it true, but I believe in the last episode of Band of Brothers (Arnhem one), one of the paratroopers tells the TC of a Brit Sherman to knock down a bldg so he'll have a line of sight/shot at the AFV waiting in ambush around the corner.

My thoughts are if you think an enemy is somewhere, surpress that location with fire.

[xerxes]

Hollywood was just ripping off a well-known "gamey" tactic used in the world's most popular tactical simulation of WWII combat. They really should come up with their own "gamey" tactics, those hollywood types are supposed to be creative.

-marc

[killmore]

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

Jeff wrote:

In one battle almost an entire US platoon was killed when a Tiger whacked the side of it with an 88 HE round. Two men escaped unharmed.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My problem with CMBO is that this could never happen in CMBO. HE rounds just don't seem to be doing enough damage to the infantry. "Shaken" is not a damage. I think the problem is with modeling a squad. Squad soldiers never stays in exact same point. They are spread out at least somewhat. Therefore if you put 88mm round not exactly in the middle of the squad you will still hurt someone.

All too often I see regular 75mm howitzers spending all of their ammo on infantry squads 200m away without killing anyone. (open terrain/Light trees). Yes they do hit very close...