Powergamers and ladder play.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Bruno, I agree with all your comments. I didn't start this thread, I'm only throwing out suggestions.

Abbott, I think having 2 ladders on one site is ridiculous. It's bad enough we have different ladder sites for this game, but to divide the players up into two different sections doesn't make sense.

If you don't want to play against the "gamey bastard" or the "notorious, jeep-rusher" then you simply find someone who shares your views on how to best play CM. Hence, my idea for sticking an icon next to that person's name on the player list which would denote that player to be a fan of using "The Short-75 Rule" or what have you. And yes, I see problems with doing this too but it might give people like you, Abbott, a start on where to look for opponents.

As far as your suggestion of dividing up the ladder into two sections...it won't work. Read Bruno's post to see why. He might have been addressing my idea but it can be applied just as well to yours.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by 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...

I never play ladder games with computer purchase...

Besides what is stated by Bluefalcon, the side that setups can see his forces and map, and if it doesn't like the map and/or troops, it setups a new one, it can continue doing this until it finds a good troop+map combination... As you all can see there isn't much random on this

So keep those computer purchase games for trusteed friends, even then, don't play for money

[Atlas]

Actually, there is a solution. Not a great solution, but a solution.

1. Use the computer select for unit purchase. I know, I know, sometimes you get 10 half-tracks going against a 5 PzIVs. If you play enough - as you are likely to on a ladder such as TH - the odds will even out.

2. When you sign up at TH, use the "-X" after you nick name (e.g. Atlas-X) to let people know that you will only play computer selection. [There are a few of us already over at TH waiting for more "X-ers" to join.]

3. GET OTHER PEOPLE TO JOIN THE X LADDER. We can complain all we want, but until we organize...

[Bruno Weiss]

Jagdcarcajou wrote:

Consensus is irrelevant. Historic-minded players know who they are.

Hehe, I'm not sure anyone in this crowd knows who they are. Yeah, I know Colonel, I'm not in disagreement with the historic preferences as some might have misconstrued, or maybe not, but rather the futility of attempting to herd rattlesnakes.

Sure, if your perception was shared by everyone Jagdcarcajou that would hold true. But even the few posters in this thread, do not agree with your simple defination. Go back and read what they think historic means.

Hmm, maybe an oath of loyality to historic principles of application would work.

"I Bruno Weiss, attest and certify that I am an historic player. I shall defend these principles against all enemas both forners and domesticated..."

I think it would be better to have icons that say; "I think the way you do", and one that says "I don't think the way you do", that way, you don't have to talk to your opponent, you already know that any thought you have, he/she already has, so there isn't any sense in discussing it, or that they are't going to agree with any thought you have so there is again, no sense in discussing it.

I dunno, it seems at the bottom of this all is a simple email to a potential opponent discussing the preferences. Which is what I do, which I guess is why I've never had any of the problems that seem to have caused the concern. I mean, don't get me wrong. I agree there are differences of philosophies, but an attempt to place all of the various and sundry characters in this place into nicely defined boxes just ain't gonna fly IMO.

It's like the government. Instead of just using a form in the desk drawer, they build and implement a million dollar program to store forms, that you have to log onto, search out the form, download the form, print the form out, then fill it out and still send it through interoffice mail. I just laugh at management, and continue to reach into the desk drawer from the get go.

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

"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).]

[X-00]

I think we're almost there Abbot.

I've been playing with two different ladders, Thouse and The Grognards, for the last six months.

THouse tends towards the power gamers. That means when playing against Germans you generally face either Gjagers (pre Nov 44) or SMGs (post Nov 44). Armor wise you usually have the aforementioned paired with Jagd IV/70s, Panthers and a bunch of flak. Additionally, it is very hard to get into pre-battle conversations to set "Gentlemen's Agreements".

On The Grognards it is much easier to set up pre-battle Gentlemen's aggreements. You also can play line infantry of either side (even British) and expect a balanced game.

In sum my experience has been Grognards=your more historical gamers, and THouse=powergamers. Neither term is meant as pejorative. Each style has it's place.

[Bruno Weiss]

And I would say X-00, that in my many months of playing both of those ladders, I haven't seen any such a thing. No where near it. Which, is precisely my point.

This discussion is all about the attempt to place variences in opinions, philosophies, beliefs, differences in definations, complex interactions, and multiple human characteristics into nicely squared off boxes which lable players, inaccurately I might add, since they are not going to agree on the defination of the lable, and all for as best I can figure out, the avoidance of sending a simple email to a prospective opponent outlining what your preferences are.

Good luck guys.

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

"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).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Oh, I forgot.

HI MOM!

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

"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)

[yobobo@tournamenthouse]

Well,

Not sure how that works, but all parameters are asked and agreed before any game is played. I do think though when someone gets their ass whooped, and hard they tend to complain about "gamey tactics" A few of the top 5 players at TournamentHouse will only play Historic games, so there goes the "gamey" thing out the window.

If another CM division is needed I am all ears. If we can set something up, and I have been asked before to do it, I am game. But only if it does not turn into a nasty event If the parameters are possible to set something up, lets get to work.

TournamentHouse.com

Come for the carnage,

Stay for the stats!

http://www.tournamenthouse.com/

[Bruno Weiss]

I don't think it nasty Yobo, it's just normal far as I know. Welcome to Chestnut Lodge.

If it is something simple, like a section that say, lists those who will only play computer generated games, then that'd work. Then you could create one for those who will only play Short 75, and/or Panther 76 rules. You'll need another for those who will only play with full FOG, and one for those that only play Combined Arms, oh and don't forget my favorite, those who won't play mix and match/patch forces (i.e., Frenchies with Brits, against say SS and Heer mixed). Ah, then there's those that think force withdrawal is okay... Hehe, lemme know when you get them all done. Will save me a lot of email before the game. Well, at least one.

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

"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).]

[Moriarty]

If you work out the details with your opponent before setup, whether computer-purchase or human, it will eliminate problems in the vast majority of instances. It has been my experience that most of the people I have played did so honorably.

As far as adding more switches, doo-dads and gizmos to the game or the ladders, it's not necessary. It is not the job of technology to replace old-fashioned communication.

Just my opinion.

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

"Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change." -- Oddball

"Crap." -- Moriarty

[Jagdcarcajou]

Originally posted by Moriarty:

As far as adding more switches, doo-dads and gizmos to the game or the ladders, it's not necessary. It is not the job of technology to replace old-fashioned communication.

Hey,

No one ever said this was to be a catch-all, defined type of thing. Adding an icon would simply give you some idea of where the player is coming from. You would still need to talk (points, which side, attack or defend, etc...) and specifics could be worked out (including force restrictions, etc...). It just prevents people from dealing with those of a mindset they totally oppose (even if just at the moment). Saves the trouble of shooting in the dark till you find a new player.

Of course, those of you out there that just like to be negative for the fun of it can go ahead and jump on this now.

Chris

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

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

CM Recon

[Abbott]

Here is an e-mail response I received from Tournamenthouse.

I like it,

I have been asked before about putting an Historical ladder together. Let’s do it!

More info!

Yobobo

What I am suggesting should in no way seem demeaning to any play style. I am saying when a player decides he would like to add the fun, camaraderie and competitive sprit that ladder play provides he should be offered a CHOICE that fits his play style.

The benefits of having a Historical ladder and an Anything Goes ladder would provide a place where you could be rated alongside your peers, the basic reason for ladder play. As it stands now with one ladder both playing styles are grouped together as one.

I really do not see why having a site where like minded player’s of either style can relax and enjoy the fun should be a threat to anyone. It is about choice not Rules Police or my style is better then your style.

[Bruno Weiss]

I don't see why you guys believe it is seen as a threat, or seen as negative. Rather than seeing through to the problems that exist for the ladders, and the players, not to mention Yobo, in all of this. At best it's a lot of work for the ladder for which in the end not a whole lot would be accomplished, at best, and at worst an addition of categories to which few people will agree on what the category is. After which, there is bound to be what? Yep, you guessed it. People in the wrong category. What then? You toss them out, ignore them, tell them they are stupid cause they signed up for the wrong icon, or cause they aren't like minded with you and therefore a spy.

Like minds? And what is that precisely? Those who think like you obviously, to you anyway. And what is the latest statistic as to those who think like you. Define things the same way you do, see things as you do, and possess the same definations that you do?

Okay, sign up here for historic minded games. Ah huh, and what does that mean exactly? Spell it out then for Yobo. Or do you guys figure all he has to do is stick some sort of icons up there and not explain it to anyone. And then Yobo does what exactly. Creates all this based on what you two think? What about the other few hundred players he has registered? Not to mention those that don't come to this here forum, which is a considerable amount, and those who are here and ignoring this thread. Is he supposed to communicate all of this to them, or just surprise them on April 1st.

Now what is Yobo, who is one ladder out of the five that I'm on, and the seven that I know of, going to do after adopting all of "you two's" ideas. Those several hundred members of his are just going to naturally go along with this, no questions, no debates, no problems at all. They will all just completely understand it, and agree to it and naturally see it your way. Won't cause any negative reaction what so ever. Right!

So, again the question is, what is all of this going to accomplish for the ladder?

Back to the definations? What is historic, what is gamey, and who exactly agrees to whos defination of each?

Now, those who think positively just to be postive can add to this.

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

"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).]

[azillathehun]

Interesting thought about creating a ladder for historical gamers. I think a lot of the posts here have questions of how would you do it? Your idea of a historical battle may different than my idea and the next person's idea. It would be difficult to gain a consensus.

I think a ladder by it's very nature is a way to rank who are the better players at combat mission. I define this as those players that know what is the better equipment to buy for a situation and how to use that equipment. Does a high ladder ranking make you smarter historically about world war 2? Of course not. Combat mission is just a game with different units. It's the same as Diablo 2 or Quake (gasp). As much as I would love to play a historical simulation of Custard's last stand I don't want to be the U.S. Cavalry for too many ladder games.

My suggestion is that historical players and those who detest gamey tactics don't bother with a ladder to begin with. Have a forum where you can have campaign ribbons, medals or decorations for battles you have fought in. That way you would see who is the best role player if you wish to judge yourself against other historical gamers. If your fighting in the meta campaign you could get a ribbon for that. For those who are good with scenario design their should be a medal for that. Or maybe you could get a purple heart after you achieve a certain number of total losses against tournamenthouse ladder players. That way you can sit around on your historical butts drinking your british tea and detesting those gamey powergamers over at tournamenthouse.

In conclusion, non gamey combat mission is a lot of fun but I would think it would be difficult to find out who is the least gamey player out there and put him on top of a ladder. Historical, non gamey tactics and ladders don't mix because you can't define every gamey tactic and have more than three people agree on it. (generalization of course)

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

I don't see why you guys believe it is seen as a threat, or seen as negative. Rather than seeing through to the problems that exist for the ladders, and the players in all of this. At best it's a lot of work for the ladder for which in the end not a whole lot would be accomplished, at best, and at worst an addition of categories to which few people will agree on what the category is.

___________________

I believe there is a chance that a site that offers a choice of ladders would be a boon. It would also be a unique offering among the ladder sites. Right or wrong being unique has its benefits.

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

Like minds? And what is that precisely? Those who think like you obviously, to you anyway. And what is the latest statistic as to those who think like you. Define things the same way you do, see things as you do, and possess the same definations that you do?

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

Some like it hot, some like it cold.

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

Okay, sign up here for historic minded games. Ah huh, and what does that mean exactly? Spell it out then for Yobo. And Yobo does what exactly. Creates all this based on what you two think? What about the other few hundred players he has registered? Not to mention those that don't come to this here forum, which is a considerable amount, and those who are here and ignoring this thread.

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

All the above mentioned folks would have a choice. If a few could find it in their hearts to stop trolling.

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

Now what is Yobo, who is one ladder out of the five that I'm on, and the seven that I know of, going to do after adopting all of "you two's" ideas. Announce it to everyone. And those several hundred members of his are just going to naturally go along with this, no questions, no debates, no problems at all. They will all just completely understand it, and agree to it. Won't cause any negative reaction what so ever. Right!

So, again the question is, what is all of this going to accomplish for the ladder?

Back to the definations? What is historic, what is gamey, and who exactly agrees to whos defination of each?

Now, those who think positively just to be postive can add to this.

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

The next step would be brainstorming ideas on how best to implement offering a choice to players.

It has NOITHING to do with right or wrong styles, only offering a choice.

It would be a very simple thing to do when a player went to a ladder site to enroll, click one link or the other and play.

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

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Bruno, I agree with all your comments. I didn't start this thread, I'm only throwing out suggestions.

Abbott, I think having 2 ladders on one site is ridiculous. It's bad enough we have different ladder sites for this game, but to divide the players up into two different sections doesn't make sense.

If you don't want to play against the "gamey bastard" or the "notorious, jeep-rusher" then you simply find someone who shares your views on how to best play CM. Hence, my idea for sticking an icon next to that person's name on the player list which would denote that player to be a fan of using "The Short-75 Rule" or what have you. And yes, I see problems with doing this too but it might give people like you, Abbott, a start on where to look for opponents.

As far as your suggestion of dividing up the ladder into two sections...it won't work. Read Bruno's post to see why. He might have been addressing my idea but it can be applied just as well to yours.

I understand what your are saying but you are missing the main point of the suggestion. Camaraderie and competition among one's peers.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yes, and I understand where you all are coming from, but you have ignored each and every statement that has pointed out the potential problems for both the ladder involved, the players themselves, and for someone like Yobo, who is attempting to be accommodating as he always nicely has. You have yet to answer one question that has been posted about how he might go about such a thing.

Almost certainly it is dependent upon what exactly one envisions, something simple like one fellow suggested; "for everyone wanting computer selected forces only", or something more complicated like; "everyone who wants to be historic." What I've drawn from what you guys are presenting within this thread, is two, or three, or more, differing lines of thought. Everything from a simple icon which would represent what a person is supposed to believe philosophically about playing CM, (without defining the details of what that would mean exactly), all the way to dividing the ladder into two or more segments where people would sign up on one or the other, or both maybe, without defining the details of how that might be accomplished, or maintained. So you yourselves don't even have a consolidated singular proposal, but rather a hodgepodge of ideas to which I suppose you expect Yobo to just iron it all out? Much less for the rest of us, (and his several hundred members who aren't here at the moment), to understand exactly what your talking about.

Yobo said; "if there is a way to work this out, then let's work on it", (which doesn't address what his existing membership might make of all of this). But, at least it is a positive start, instead of just insinuating that those who don't jump up and automatically agree with you are wrong based upon the singular fact that they don't agree with you, or have serious questions and concerns about your idea. Beginning with thinking this through:

1. What precisely, is a historic minded player?

2. What precisely is a gamey minded player?

3. How does TH (or any ladder), implement such a change ensuring agreement with their existing membership to avoid alienating any of them? (Connected to question (9) below).

4. How would cross matches (gameys versus historics) be rated on the ladder? (Noting that if enough of these took place, it would completely water down the theory of being rated by one's peers). If not then;

5. Are gamey ladder players and historic minded player forbidden from playing each other in a rated game?

6. Are people allowed to sign up for both ladders? (Noting ofcourse, this would clearly seem to void the entire idea in the first place).

7. What is the process for, if any, dealing with gamey players who have signed up on the historic minded player ladder (and vice versa)? (Noting that if enough people did this, by accident or by design, then the entire idea becomes a mute point).

8. Is the issue of gamey players who have signed up as historic minded (and vice versa), perfectly okay, or would it not be okay? If it isn't okay, then how would Yobo handle the situation, based upon who's comlaint, and with what ultimate outcome? If it is okay, then how do you maintain integrity of the original idea of being rated by one's peers?

9. Given these are only a fast few questions that I have thought of in just a few minutes, how does Yobo (or any ladder), ensure their existing members who want to think about this a little more indepth, get to input their questions? To whom? And who is going to address all of their concerns? Yobo? All by himself?

10. What happens if in the end of all of this, a bunch of Yobo's (or any ladder) existing membership don't agree? How is that to be resolved? Hold an election? Or does he just toss them out because they are being mean and negative, and not agreeing to your ideas? Tell them to go elsewhere, or ignore their concerns, and see how many stop using his ladder?

Otherwise, why don't you just go get a freebie site of your own somewhere, and create your own ladder.

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

"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 03-15-2001).]

[Juardis]

Originally posted by 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)

Good first post. Mainly because I agree though

I consider myself historical. I use reasonable force selections. Never have I purchased jumbos, KTs, JTs, Pershings, etc unless I do it against the computer for the fun of it. However, I also consider myself somewhat of a power gamer in that I will use the game mechanics to my advantage as I assume my opponent will. I don't use crews to attack with or scout with. But I will use an AT team without any ammo left to act as a decoy (you don't know that I'm out of ammo). I will use gun damaged vehicles to act as decoys (you possibly don't know that it's gun damaged). I will charge at one squad with 3 squads knowing they can only target one at a time. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As Volstag said, you can be both. At Dogs of War we have tournaments going on constantly and I use those for both the tournament and the ladder. I enjoy tournaments because they are moderated. Usually, you send your force selection to someone and they purchase the units for you. Or, they are custom scenarios where you have no choice of units (better than computer generated).

Which brings me to a solution I use regularly. Make a custom map, agree to the rules of force selection (short 75, rule of 76, etc), then have a 3rd party purchase the forces for both of you. That is infinitely more interesting than a computer generated QB and infinitely more flexible in that you can have regulars mixed with elites with any combination you prefer. You have no way of knowing when you've knocked out his last armor asset because you don't know what he allocated to armor.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Ksak]

What a bunch of wimps! Did mommy make you stop going to park when the big boys wouldn't "let" you get a hit or make a basket?

"Oh you poor little thing."

"Let him win dear, it's not fair because you're bigger (stronger, smarter, more aggresive, you name it).

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Ksak:

What a bunch of wimps! Did mommy make you stop going to park when the big boys wouldn't "let" you get a hit or make a basket?

"Oh you poor little thing."

"Let him win dear, it's not fair because you're bigger (stronger, smarter, more aggresive, you name it).

Didn't your mommy ever teach you that "just because you can do something it doesn't mean you should?"

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

[Bruno Weiss]

Juardis wrote:

Usually, you send your force selection to someone and they purchase the units for you. Or, they are custom scenarios where you have no choice of units (better than computer generated).

This would be the ultimate way to go about it, and a good way in moderated games to add the factor of the unknown. I think it a little beyond the CM QB setup process, but the use of moderators can add a lot to games.

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

"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)

[Guest Madmatt]

Interesting discussion but lets keep it calm and rational and Ksak you can just keep your snotty little flame inducting comments to yourself. They aren't appreciated here.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 03-16-2001).]

[azillathehun]

Kind of off the subject but I think fionn's 76 rules are the biggest collection of gamey rules ever invented. I don't think anyone has ever tried to defend them as being realistic. It's really only substituting one set of gamey rules "the game mechanics" for another. "fionns"

[bodman]

Gentlemen,

It seems to me that the most important thing is to have fun at whatever you do. Don't forget the bottom line about CM. It is a wonderful program but in the end it is a only a game.

cheers

Bodman

[Big Ron]

I'm with Bodman on this. You find out who is worth playing and who isn't according to your own style. This is epecially true on a ladder where you will rise (or sink) to a point where you are surrounded by players of similar standard. You both get the same number of points anyway. If he buys a trio of King Tigers then don't play him again, unless of course you beat him