Powergamers and ladder play.

[Abbott]

Powergamer’s and Ladder play.

Powergamer’s play a game and learn its mechanics and/or bugs. Then try to exploit the most powerful units and bugs in the game to a victorious result. This is all well and fine with play between those who think alike. To many of Combat Missions players however this detracts from the enjoyment and the reason for even purchasing this fine tactical simulation.

Many of Combat Mission’s cast of characters here are drawn due to the fact it is more of a simulation of combat then a game. Yes a simulation. To disquiet the crowd that says “No simulation of warfare is ever possible’ I would like to draw your attention to the US Army’s command and General Staff school at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and the so many other training facilities found throughout the worlds armed forces. Millions of dollars and man-hours are spent training for combat world wide with simulations.

I enjoy ladder play very much myself and after a few extreme surprises have learned to talk with my opponents before starting a ladder game. I grew tired of facing Royal Tigers and Churchills supported by a mix of British or American Glider and Airborne troops game after ladder game. Now with the unrestricted OOB choice you have to be even more diligent with your discussion prior to set-up. Maybe it is time to separate the Combat Mission ladders at the better ladder-sites into Historical ladders and Powergamer ladders?

Thoughts, comments?

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

Well, I simply avoid the questions by insisting on computer purchase. Leads to well balanced, interesting games with a full variety of units.

WWB

------------------

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Well, I simply avoid the questions by insisting on computer purchase. Leads to well balanced, interesting games with a full variety of units.

WWB

Yes, that is a workable idea and I use it from time to time myself. However most ladder games are played with human purchase in my experience. What I would like to get at is the core reason for ladder play, competition among one's peers. I wonder if at the present time if that is possible on the current ladders?

[CavScout]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Well, I simply avoid the questions by insisting on computer purchase. Leads to well balanced, interesting games with a full variety of units.

Yes computer purchase is the way to go, IMO.

[Windopaene]

But in a PBEM situation, how can you ever be sure that your opponent in fact chose Computer Purchase?

[Bruno Weiss]

Ah hah! There you have it. The Allies WERE gamey for using airpower at the Falise Gap. They fought a few battles, learned the German's weaknesses, and used the mechanics of war to a victorious result robbing the German's of the enjoyment of the very reason for their purchase of their Whermacht equipment in the first place. After all the trouble the Reich went to, to arrange such a fine tactical and strategic war, the Allies turn out to be gamey and place such an importance on winning.

You just can't trust an enemy anymore!

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Leonidas]

Doesn't computer purchase give each side a pretty solid idea of what the other guy has? Seems like it would take a lot of suspense out of the game.

A feature I'm hoping for in CM2 is more control over QB setups. For example, I'm a fan of Fionn's Short 75 rule. With every opponent I must go over the rule in detail and occasionally quibble about the details - does no arty over 105mm exclude 4.2 in? What about 4.5 in? Then I have to hope that my opponent actually has applies the rule correctly - and my opponent has to worry about the same thing.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could write a little file that automatically imposed rules on the QB? The file lists the only units that are permitted, and it is enforced in the unit purchase screen. Then there's no quibbling, no interpretation, and no worrying.

Suppose you take that a step further, and a history buff writes a set of rules that push players towards more historical purchases. The little file could be a simple list of the available units, including available quantities: "The battalion has no Tigers available this week. Sorry."

Take a step beyond that, and you could write routines that generate availability pools based on the game's parameters, with some randomness thrown in. So a grog could say that tank X was technically available in month Y, but its numbers were tight, so there's only a 40% chance of one being in the pool. In later months, the chance of it appearing and the numbers available might increase. The size of the pool might also depend on the size of the battle: 40% chance of tank X being available per 1000 points in the battle. A somewhat random availability pool could make buying units very interesting.

This would be some work for BTS, but I'm not suggesting that they write the actual probabilities. They could just allow QBs to be limited to a force pool list, and then implement the ability to probabilistically describe what should appear in the list. Then respected grogs could fill in the actual numbers.

This is probably just a pipe dream. But would you history buffs like it?

[This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Abbott]

Ack! I am not trying to open the debate again. I am suggesting that a choice is offered when you sign-up for ladder play, Historical/Powergamer.

Thoughts? comments?

[Private Paurtz]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Ah hah! There you have it. The Allies WERE gamey for using airpower at the Falise Gap. They fought a few battles, learned the German's weaknesses, and used the mechanics of war to a victorious result robbing the German's of the enjoyment of the very reason for their purchase of their Whermacht equipment in the first place. After all the trouble the Reich went to, to arrange such a fine tactical and strategic war, the Allies turn out to be gamey and place such an importance on winning.

You just can't trust an enemy anymore!

LMAO

------------------

when evil is spoken about you, live so that noone can believe it

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Ah hah! There you have it. The Allies WERE gamey for using airpower at the Falise Gap. They fought a few battles, learned the German's weaknesses, and used the mechanics of war to a victorious result robbing the German's of the enjoyment of the very reason for their purchase of their Whermacht equipment in the first place. After all the trouble the Reich went to, to arrange such a fine tactical and strategic war, the Allies turn out to be gamey and place such an importance on winning.

You just can't trust an enemy anymore!

Not every battle was fought with Royal Tigers, Churchills and airborne troops

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-15-2001).]

[Bruno Weiss]

That's why there is a suggested Short 75, and Panther 76 rule. As for the unrestricted option in v1.12, you add one sentence to the discussion that says, "I prefer to use the Combined Arms option, after the sentence that says, "I prefer historical force mixes." If you feel that strongly about it, and your potential opponent does not agree to your preferences, then the next sentence reads; "Thanks anyway, I prefer to play someone else."

For those unsure about 4.2 inch mortars, personally I never paid any attention to it, and the arty cap is only an additional suggestion, but I'm sure if someone wrote Fionn about the problem, he update the rule again to highlight where those mortars fall into the allocation spectrum.

I agree that indeed one needs to discuss the game parameters with their potential opponent, but why is that a problem? It only needs to be done once, there after you copy the text of that email, and send it to future potential opponents. I don't see where this is a BTS problem, and since the various ladders don't even use a standard victory/loss measurement, I rather doubt there is going to be a general consensus among them as to separating players into categories of "Historics", "Half Historic Gamey's", and "Total Gamey Bastages". Me thinks that game parameters are the responsibility of those entering into the contest, not the WOGPME, World Order of Game Perception Management and Enforcement.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-14-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Windopaene:

But in a PBEM situation, how can you ever be sure that your opponent in fact chose Computer Purchase?

How do you know much about what the PBEM opponent selected?

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Ah hah! There you have it. The Allies WERE gamey for using airpower at the Falise Gap. They fought a few battles, learned the German's weaknesses, and used the mechanics of war to a victorious result robbing the German's of the enjoyment of the very reason for their purchase of their Whermacht equipment in the first place. After all the trouble the Reich went to, to arrange such a fine tactical and strategic war, the Allies turn out to be gamey and place such an importance on winning.

You just can't trust an enemy anymore!

Unfortuantly, they never figured out how to "game" the mechanics of physics or had the benefit of map edges to secure flanks and so on.

It is odd that those "pro-gamey" generally attack those who are not as trying to be too realistic but always seem to try and resort to realsim to explain why what they do is somehow not "gamey".

[Bruno Weiss]

CavScout does have a good point as to the full disclosure of what the game parameters "are" exactly, post setup. Wherein I believe, Steve has stated it is on the inclusion list for CM2 to be looked at and worked on. (And you can't tell me that once they do get CM2 on the shelf, that they ain't gonna come back and patch old CM at least one more time).

Their patch animals at BTS I tell ya's.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Jarmo]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Maybe it is time to separate the Combat Mission ladders at the better ladder-sites into Historical ladders and Powergamer ladders?

But how can you separate 'em?

If you simply forbid the use of heavies, this doesn't lead to historic results. There WERE King Tigers and panthers out there. Paratroopers did fight with sherman support every now and then. You'd have to deny using such combinations all the time, but how could that be controlled.

Or would it just be a voluntary self-grouping? Then I would toss myself into the group "historic" players, but I'd still use any unit in the game. Not panthers on all the fights, but they'd be there in numbers anyway.

The thing is, almost any force combination happened at some point, it only becomes ahistoric if you use the "winning combo" all the time.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Bruno Weiss]

CavScout wrote:

It is odd that those "pro-gamey" generally attack those who are not as trying to be too realistic but always seem to try and resort to realsim to explain why what they do is somehow not "gamey".

I don't know for sure, I never ran a statistical poll on the subject. I'm too busy playing and enjoying games to worry about hollering "gamey" all the time when something doesn't go my way.

ALRIGHT YOU GUYS, LISTEN UP!

How many of you guys are really pro-gamey and blaming the poor fellows who really aren't gamey for being too realistic but are actually yourselves resorting to being realistic to explain why what your doing is realistic and not gamey, because if it were gamey then it wouldn't be too realistic?

ANSWER ME NOW! Were you being gamey then, or are you being gamey now?!?

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Col Deadmarsh]

Abbott, I think it would be a good idea to somehow identify those on ladders which are historically-minded grogs from those who are recreational players.

I don't think a seperate ladder is in order though. For one thing, it suggests that the non-historical/gamey ladder is non-legit.

Secondly, it would only lead to everybody being on both ladders because inevitably you will want to play a friend that is on the other ladder and then what will you do? There's no reason why a historical buff couldn't play a friend who just likes to play for the fun of it and have it count in the ladder standings on one ladder.

No, having two ladders is not the answer. I think you simply need an icon next to that person's name on the ladder site which would denote that person's preference and make it easier for other's who are in the same group to find opponents that play the game for the same reasons.

If somebody were to go to Yobobo from T-House and present him with this idea, it could probably be implemented before this thread reaches Page 2 on the forum. It seems to me it would be a simple checkbox or two in the "edit" section of one's profile on how one likes to play the game. This seems to me to be the easiest answer here.

Edited to make the PC happy...PUKE!

------------------

Youth is wasted on the young.

[This message has been edited by Colonel_Deadmarsh (edited 03-14-2001).]

[BlueFalcon]

A trick to computer set up.

Set it up. Before, after or while you are e-mailing the file to your opponent open said file, give it your own password (password is not set till after this turn), now look at your opponents force.

He can never look at yours (he doesn't have this opportunity) he will never know you know what you know (what you say?) and probably doesn't realize you can do this.

Now before the backlash begins, I have never done this (honestly), though I was tempted as all heck one time.

Beware the computer set up, especially when you are receiving the first file.

So, are computer set ups just a screen for "gamey" players?

------------------

Ours is not to reason why, ours is to do or die!!!

[This message has been edited by BlueFalcon (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Leonidas]

You're not the only one to think of these things.

I doubt you would need to go to these lengths to know the opponent's force. Just start a separate game with the same parameters. I don't think the computer's choices vary much from game to game, unless you've got random countries or services.

[John Kelly]

Obviously, the ladder has evolved separately from Combat Mission. Don't join the ladder if it offends you, or simply stick to user made historical scenarios. Cheers, John

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

But how can you separate 'em?

If you simply forbid the use of heavies, this doesn't lead to historic results. There WERE King Tigers and panthers out there. Paratroopers did fight with sherman support every now and then. You'd have to deny using such combinations all the time, but how could that be controlled.

Or would it just be a voluntary self-grouping? Then I would toss myself into the group "historic" players, but I'd still use any unit in the game. Not panthers on all the fights, but they'd be there in numbers anyway.

The thing is, almost any force combination happened at some point, it only becomes ahistoric if you use the "winning combo" all the time.

I agree 100% with your statements. What I am asking is when/if you signed up to play on a ladder site, would it interest you to see two categories listed for Combat Mission?

I am not trying to say one side is right and one is wrong. I am saying a choice where a more comfortable grouping of players for one’s style may be found.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Abbott, I think it would be a good idea to somehow identify those on ladders which are historical fanatics from those who are recreational gamers/gamey players.

I don't think a seperate ladder is in order though. For one thing, it suggests that the non-historical/gamey ladder is non-legit.

Secondly, it would only lead to everybody being on both ladders because inevitably you will want to play a friend that is on the other ladder and then what will you do? There's no reason why a historical buff couldn't play a friend who just likes to play for the fun of it and have it count in the ladder standings on one ladder.

No, having two ladders is not the answer. I think you simply need an icon next to that person's name on the ladder site which would denote that person's preference and make it easier for other's who are in the same group to find opponents that play the game for the same reasons.

If somebody were to go to Yobobo from T-House and present him with this idea, it could probably be implemented before this thread reaches Page 2 on the forum. It seems to me it would be a simple checkbox or two in the "edit" section of one's profile on how one likes to play the game. This seems to me to be the easiest answer here.

I understand your reasoning and it is fairly sound. However it would not provide an accurate reading as to ladder standings. It would be better to be rated among ones peers, would it not?

[Bruno Weiss]

Colonel Deadmarsh, while your idea is not without merit, and could potentially be implemented, I would submit that it would take a substantial amount of documentation outlining precisely what is historical, and what is, gamey, and could not account for the lack of consensus concerning all the gray areas in between.

There is no real consensus on the definition of each, and there are numerous gray areas involved in both. Add to that, the fact that each player perceives the various gray areas differently and it would be very difficult at best to attempt to categorize players, even if they themselves agreed to it, and attempted to list themselves into one or the other. In the end, it would come down the the perception by the individual themselves as to what they believed themselves to be, and invariably you would end up with a multitude of players in each category that someone somewhere would still yell "gamey", at something they did. Then what?

Enforcement? Based on what? By who, and what is the punishment? I rather doubt the ladder pages want to get involved in enforcement issues where there is no real agreement as to what equates to what. It would be like splitting hairs with a chainsaw. And at the bottom of it all, you would still have the exact same problem. Player (a) perceives player ( to be gamey, or historical, and player (, doesn't agree. So what would have been accomplished.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Volstag]

Power-gamers will be power-gamers regardless of what "historical" restrictions you attempt to place on ladder games. Creating two different ladders wouldn't help much anyway. They will min/max no matter what unit selection is available to them.

Later,

Volstag

(long-time lurker -- 1st post)

[Jagdcarcajou]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

There is no real consensus on the definition of each, and there are numerous gray areas involved in both. Add to that, the fact that each player perceives the various gray areas differently and it would be very difficult at best to attempt to categorize players, even if they themselves agreed to it, and attempted to list themselves into one or the other.

Hey,

Consensus is irrelevant. Historic-minded players know who they are. Only the hopelessly anal are going to nitpick the OOB of their opponent, as long as totally goofball selections aren't made. Voluntarily denoting yourself a "Historic" player with an icon gives a general indication to your opponent that you won't be taking all-arty forces, or British Airborne supported by Polish army and American tanks every battle. Similarly one shouldn't expect to see a fleet of Kubelwagens ladened with Flamethrowers rushing across the board.

Thankfully I have never had to deal with this type of stuff, but I don't see the harm in adding a sort of "personality" icon on the ladders.

Chris

------------------

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

CM Recon