TH is Gamey?

[yobobo@tournamenthouse]

Here is the deal in my mind about the gamey issue.

Most players don't know what the he|| it means. New players don't have a clue, and vets of the game are mostly confused by the small print. Some say 2 jeeps in a QB is gamey. Others say they have never seen a KT in a game yet and are proud of it! What is that? I mean come on, this is nuts. I played a few players from other ladders. I have also played great players form outside TH in QB games. The first bought 4 Jumbos, the second only bought one, but yes he did buy the beast so is that gamey? I don't think so, or really care. I have also played strict none gamey rules with the above and then watched crews rushing a flag. Again do not care as we did not stipulate this before the game. This gamey thing has such a fine line. I hear TH has a few gamey players? Well when you play a QB with someone make sure you know and accept all the params in the game. Very simple I think?

If you don't like seeing 2 jeeps in a QB please say so then and there before whining in here. There are many historical players at TH, GravesRegistration ranked #4 at TH will only play historical, and a great player at that. Most of my PBM opponents only play historical, or have certain params set BEFORE we play. It is that simple I think? Figure the params out before you play. No big deal. But if you get your ass whooped, and you will by the top players, don't cry about it after because you did not help set the params. If you think you walked into a trap then you are the only one to blame. TCP/IP games are fast in setting up and many things can slip by. With the soon to be new chat at TH, will also come game room info popup parameters. http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/CMnewsoon.htm This will help in making sure everything is clear BEFORE the game starts.

Sorry, had to rant and with 1500+ games played at TH's CM site and over 600 members you can not tell me they are all gamey.

Yo

TournamentHouse.com

Game Ranking Ladder

Come For The Carnage, Stay For The Stats!

http://www.tournamenthouse.com/CM/

[Moriarty]

your points are well taken, Yobobo.

My view is that no matter whatever the other guy does, your job is to accomplish your mission with the resources you have available. In a nutshell, that's about as historical as you can get.

In an unrestricted QB, my AFVs consist of 2 M-10s, 2 HMCs, 2 Priests, a Stuart and 3 HTs.

Was I happy to see the KT roll down the road? Well, no. But it's part of the deal. But if my opponent trots that beast into open country, I have a chance. I have damp ground, slow turret rotation and two functional M-10s that are faster, lighter and hopefully will be firing at point-blank range at the flank or rear ... if all goes well.

If not, c'est le guerre. It was my choice to buy nearly seven AFVs with various sizes of main guns for about what he paid for the KT.

WWII commanders rarely, if ever, had the luxury of choosing what they would get to fight with and what support/armor they would have.

I am a big fan of setting the ground rules before the game starts. That's the best way to deal with it.

In many instances, the people who complain about edge-huggers are actually complaining about their own lack of flank security. Jeep-rush complaints often mean their MGs were out of position to shred the convertibles. In short, they're venting at their own bad tactics or plain bad luck.

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

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

"Crap." -- Moriarty

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 03-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 03-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Jarmo]

Moriarty, you're gamey!

To bring in arty units to frontline just because they're cheaper

than regular Shermans? Shame on you.

Or in other words: Yes, I agree with you guys...

[Guest MantaRay]

Ya, well most of these people think that this is some kind of crime if you dont purchase units that suck. Or if you dont use Fionns rules that you are some kind of asswipe who has no respect for history.

Personally, I will never use any rules that dictate what I can purchase. Ruins the surprise of what I will face and gives a great idea of what the best armored units I can have are. And believe me when I tell you I am much better using infantry than tanks anyway. A few people on this board can tell you just how bad I am with tanks, especially with an agressive play-style.

So if ppl call me gamey because I buy all SMG squads, a King Tiger, or 2 Jeeps, that is fine, I can live with that. But battlefields aren't limited to what you think is fair, and the people who limit themselves to playing only against a weakend player, are gamey IMO. The truth is that makes the Axis player not have 2 of his best strengths, Better Armor, and surprise.

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

"To step on walls of dead, composed of the bodies of his former friends and companions, makes not the slightest impression on him and does not upset his equanimity at all; without so much as blinking an eyelid he stolidly continues the attack."

-Colonel von Mellenthin on the wave attacks of the Red Army soldiers in WWII.

Click now for shelter from the Peng thread

New Site of the PLA:Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

Moriarty, you're gamey!

To bring in arty units to frontline just because they're cheaper

than regular Shermans? Shame on you.

Or in other words: Yes, I agree with you guys...

Actually, I was experimenting with just buying less expensive stuff. As far as bringing in the SP arty, well sometimes that's just cuz I don't always know what's what with AFVs and OOBs and TO&Es.

Which serves to illustrate another point. Sometimes what some attribute as "gamey" is simply a lack of knowledge on the part of the opponent. They may be using vehicles or units in a non-historical or "gamey" manner, but they may not know any better.

Now, as to your accusation and chastisement and use of those infernal emoticons ... as a 'pooler who escaped for a turn about the board, how 'bout a game?

If you're interested my e-mail's behind the first little thingy.

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

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

"Crap." -- Moriarty

[Moriarty]

Manta, personally I would have no problem with a game like that. I would just want to know the rules ... or in this case, the lack of them ... before I selected my units.

A slugfest is great fun, too.

And as far as the whining about SMG squads (or the top armor) and such, my basic point remains: You have no idea what you're going to come up against, so you just have to deal with it as best you can.

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

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

"Crap." -- Moriarty

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Moriarty]

server burp. move along, nothing to see here.

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 03-23-2001).]

[VonHeinrich]

Jesssssusss

Russian front: 200 T34 assaults a German company position, completely destroying it. The German commander: hey, the Russians don’t play fair. He is gamy.

War is not fair. I like playing historical battles, and sometime that means playing against impossible odds.

I understand if people want a fair chance, like in chess. I like that too sometimes, but is not gamy or unhistorical if one attacks you with 5 KT, it is a challenge.

[yobobo@tournamenthouse]

A game starts. QB meeting, 44 med. and mod. everything, village 1500 points Axis vs. Allies. How is one player going to know what the other thinks is gamey with these settings? Cant happen, no way. Lists must be compared before the game starts if you have any gamey issues, including all the fine print. There is no such thing as gamey, only bad pre-game communication from the "none-gamey" player. I think some only play 5 or 10 players, they know each other and play the same type games and like it that way. When they venture out into CM land and see all the carnage, they lose it and scream gamey!!! Only because they did not fill in their opponent with all their ideas of what gamey is, and all the gamey gray areas before hand.

Yo

[von Lucke]

"Gamey is as Gamey does."

--- Nathan Bedford Forrest Gump

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by MantaRay:

...Or if you dont use Fionns rules that you are some kind of asswipe who has no respect for history.

I think you lost it here. Fionn's rules are not meant to be historical, they are meant to enforce a game that is tactically interesting. Your attack on these rules is exactly as unfair as the "gamey" attacks on TH.

Also, the Fionn rules are easy and unquestionable to follow. Most other "gamey" things are soft borders and players may get into conflict even when both thought they follow the rules. One point more for Fionn's rules.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

If you allow me, I'd like to say that some of you in this thread do not understand what the "gamey" problem is about, as much as many of those attacking TH do not understand what your point is about.

The problem with the Königstiger facing the dead normal allied crowed is not that such an event may not happen historically.

The problem is that in reality the Allies would flee, not fight. However, people don't have this option in CMBO, there is no difference between fled and dead.

So, some players want to ensure that forces on the OOB battlefield are of that kind that a real-world commander would fight.

For the record, I just joined TH (redwolf).

Not because I like playing gamey. I like the ranking system of TH. And when I know that everyone will max out the selectable units, I will prepare for that, I will always choose a force that can withstand the mass LMG/Pueppchen defense as well as the Tiger II. The great thing about CMBO is that even if you meet an ahistorical force, you still have very real-world tactics at your hand, that is good enough for me.

But, people, please understand that for a player who knows all CMBO units well and who wants to win, that will mean that sooner or later he can choose only amoung a very limited set of possible forces. Even worse, this force will not be excellent in anything. Also, in many games you have your fair chance, but only up to unit purchase, afterwards you may see that you have no chance. With extreme forces allowed, you raise the number of games that follow predictable paths from setup up.

If your game setup agreements guard against extreme forces, that means that you can have much more interesting and varying own forces without giving up the chance to win.

As I said, I don't have a problem with it myself, especially since many of the best players don't tend towards extrem forces anyway (even if allowed).

But there is obviously room for both opinions. While this tread has been started well to defend TH against the (really) unfair attacks, some followups are as ignorant as those who attacked TH, sorry.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'd bet the only people screaming gamey here are the grogs who play the technicians and find out the techs have bought their favorite heavy tanks. Only the grogs do not come prepared for this, not because they didn't expect it, but because they could not bring themselves to pick such ahistorical units.

The smart thing for the grog to do would've been to bring some heavy arty or some fast tanks with powerful guns that could've flanked the Ubertanks. But of course that goes against their religion and so they don't do it, and then they lose and cry gamey.

If you are worried about having to go up against this sort of force and must abide by these historical rules, then simply order up a QB with a lot of trees and houses to hide behind. Problem solved.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I'd bet the only people screaming gamey here are the grogs who play the technicians and find out the techs have bought their favorite heavy tanks. Only the grogs do not come prepared for this, not because they didn't expect it, but because they could not bring themselves to pick such ahistorical units.

It is alwayes nice to see a debate enlivened by someone coming along with a grudge, pulling some stuff out of his rear-end and proclaiming it to be the truth with no back-up whatsoever. You'll go far.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[VonHeinrich]

Or just let the computer pick the forces. You never know what you will get, I kinda like that even if it means that I wont get my veteran sturm company

[von Lucke]

Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies".

I think this single example of paranoid projection pretty much exemplifies what is wrong with the "power gamer" mentality: What they're saying is, "I'd cheat if I could, so I expect you would to". (Uh, no --- I wouldn't). You're also telling me that your grasp of tactics is so feeble that you can only win by playing the same game, with the same units, over and over and over again. Anything unexpected and they crumble.

So far in this thread I've seen no examples of "Gaminess". More like examples of personal preference. Now this is "Gamey": Fought a QB against a gentleman (who shall remain nameless) who bought a platoon of trucks and proceeded to run them back and forth just behind the MLR. So what, you say? Well, the TacAI just looooves to target trucks --- above all else, the Deuce-and-a-half is a fire magnet par excellance. So much so, that whenever I attempted to engage his advancing armor, my armor would target his cruising trucks instead (even if specifically targeted on his tanks at the start of the round!), giving his armor essentially a free turn to pop mine! When asked about his "Truck as Target" tactics, my opponent pleaded ignorance of the effect --- though he had obviously used it to his advantage. Now that was "Gamey".

If I buy a platoon of vanilla Shermans, and my opponent buys 1 King Tiger, that's a matter of choice.

[Freak]

Germanboy:

Down boy! Down!

Yadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayadayada...

[aka_tom_w]

"Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies".

I think this single example of paranoid projection pretty much exemplifies what is wrong with the "power gamer" mentality: What they're saying is, "I'd cheat if I could, so I expect you would to". (Uh, no --- I wouldn't). You're also telling me that your grasp of tactics is so feeble that you can only win by playing the same game, with the same units, over and over and over again. Anything unexpected and they crumble."

PERFECT!

This is no different from the rules lawyers in board games who attempt to cheat because they assume their opponent is trying to do the same. (ok exploit grey areas in the rules, not cheat)

This thread has not addressed the issue of the preference for picking the Germans.

I'm still not sure if it is easier to win with the Germans? I suspect it is. But this might be another way of saying you have to be a better tactician (leader, arm chair general, commander Whatever?) to win with the Allies. In the other thread here there is a discussion about a bidding system for picking the Germans. This is not really an issue of "gameyness" but one of play balance.

I think it is easier for the "technicians" ( I don't really know who they are?) to use a now well known formula of heavy tanks and cheap SMG squads as the germans to to give themselves an edge that is very difficult to deal with as the Allies.

I'm not whinning or complaining just trying to define exactly what is the problem?

IS the problem here that most players prefer the germans because when you "buy" your own units it is easier to gain the edge because, the way those German units are presented and priced in the game, favours the ability to "cherry pick" the most cost efficient units?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

This seems worth repeating here:

"Abbott

Member

posted 03-22-2001 12:52 AM

Here you go Col_ an AAR from two highly rated player's at Thouse (posted today).

AAR:

7 guns in a 1000 point game. Throw in an uber map and a Panther and it felt like I was playing

(name blanked out). Serioulsy GUNS, Guns and more guns followed by a human wave of SMGs

is the axis concoction to vic. We might need to start bidding for axis, cause I dont lose with

em either. I been playing Allies alot lately against newer players. Some have crested the

learning curve and realize that their is no excuse for losing with axis. (name blanked out)

knows how to win with em. Winning with Axis has become like holding serve. Yet it is far

harder to break em with allies then it is in Tennis. YOBO, hurry up with the new chat so we can

start implementing a bid for axis to even this thing out.

"

[Bruno Weiss]

Freak wrote:

Germanboy: Down boy! Down!

Ya just can't get a good fight going now-a-days without someone trying to play Jimmy Jackson, or Jesse Carter.

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

"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)

[Abbott]

I stayed out of this thread for quite awhile to avoid more of the BULL****! I have decided I have something to say though, so bring it. A simple suggestion was offered a week or two ago about offering an option to players seeking refuge from the canned “Powergamer” play that is often found on ladder sites. That caused all kinds of crap to be spewed.

I have noticed after reading and re-reading several of the threads that anyone who has something to say constructive to the idea is immediately attacked. Cries of “You should expect this type of play ”, “If you lose you are a whiner”, “You cried gamey only because you lost”, We didn’t know”, “Use more trees”, “You’re a Grog” That’s often Bull**** and the person spewing it knows it most of the time while they are hurling it out.

I have never once said to anyone ”Oh, you bought a Royal Tiger, you are gamey”, I have never ever said “I do not like seeing them on the field now and again”. I like seeing all the equipment and modified files, every last one of them. I enjoy playing all the avenues that Combat Mission provides. Heavy armor, light trees, heavy trees, Infantry firefights, Combined Arms, Operations and personal battles verse the AI. And so on….

I personally do not care how anyone else finds his or her enjoyment playing Combat Mission. You purchased the ENTERTAINMENT software so use it to be entertained. If a person wants to use nothing but the most effective units in game-after-game, so be it, so what? Realize not everyone always finds his or hers enjoyment in those types of games and does not deserve to be lambasted for it. If a person wants to play an “Anything Goes style” say so up front, just like you ask those who do not to speak up. Why is it so hard to understand that not everyone wants to play this way and is not wrong for it? The site is known as a “Powergamer” hangout, so what? It is not everyone but many and almost everyone knows it. I am not a Powergamer (in Combat Mission) and I use Thouse almost daily.

I have 6 or 7 games going through Tournamenthouse right now, every one of them is enjoyable. I find the site to be very easy to use, very well setup and operated by a fellow who really cares about what he is doing. I thoroughly enjoy the opponents I play there. For my time it is the best ladder site going. A gaming site well built by gamers, for ALL gamers who want to use it.

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Subvet]

I find the site to be very easy to use, very well setup and operated by a fellow who really cares about what he is doing. I thoroughly enjoy the opponents I play there. For my time it is the best ladder site going. A gaming site well built by gamers, for ALL gamers who want to use it.

I was going to write a big long reply, but Abbott summed it up nicely with the above.

Personally, I don't usually pick what most people would consider "gamey" forces. I've only used the super heavy tanks once in a game against a human opponent. That being said, if my opponent wants to use them I have no problem with that. I also don't mind letting the computer pick our forces.

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

Craiger

All your victory flag are belong to me

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies".

One way to avoid this and save time typing is to do a screenshot of the setup window and send the jpg to your opponent.

Side note: I, too, have no problem with letting the AI do the unit selections.

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

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

"Crap." -- Moriarty

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Col Deadmarsh]

It is alwayes nice to see a debate enlivened by someone coming along with a grudge, pulling some stuff out of his rear-end and proclaiming it to be the truth with no back-up whatsoever. You'll go far.

This coming from someone who's every post is worded as if it's written in stone and handed down by the Lord himself....

I think we need a "stick it up your ass" smiley in this forum so I can put it to good use on people like yourself.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

...So far in this thread I've seen no examples of "Gaminess". More like examples of personal preference. Now this is "Gamey": Fought a QB against a gentleman (who shall remain nameless) who bought a platoon of trucks and proceeded to run them back and forth just behind the MLR. So what, you say? Well, the TacAI just looooves to target trucks --- above all else, the Deuce-and-a-half is a fire magnet par excellance. So much so, that whenever I attempted to engage his advancing armor, my armor would target his cruising trucks instead (even if specifically targeted on his tanks at the start of the round!), giving his armor essentially a free turn to pop mine! When asked about his "Truck as Target" tactics, my opponent pleaded ignorance of the effect --- though he had obviously used it to his advantage. Now that was "Gamey".

You're right, that IS gamey! So much so, if I was in that position, I would've walked out of the game. Hard to dispute that sort of play.

Tom said:

This thread has not addressed the issue of the preference for picking the Germans.

I'm still not sure if it is easier to win with the Germans? I suspect it is. But this might be another way of saying you have to be a better tactician (leader, arm chair general, commander Whatever?) to win with the Allies. In the other thread here there is a discussion about a bidding system for picking the Germans. This is not really an issue of "gameyness" but one of play balance.

Exactly. You have to be a better general while playing with the Allies. Meaning you can't just pick the largest hill in your rear area and stick a big tank there. You're gonna have to do some manuevering around the battlefield to obtain your best chance for success against that German Ubertank.

By the way, I'm in agreement on a bidding system if that's what it takes to even things out even though I haven't observed a problem with the game yet. 3 of my 4 losses have been with using the Germans so I don't see what you people see.

Now since Germanboy thinks I talk out of my ass, I'm gonna bring up some points here that he or others can address on how to deal with Ubertanks inparticular. The SMG platoon gaminess and others can be debated in another thread. I would like comments on the following:

If your opponent uses an Ubertank that you can not match up against with another tank, you have the following choices:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>You use heavy arty to take out his Ubertank.<LI>You use smoke to advance infantry and AT teams towards the Ubertank to obtain a side or rear shot on it.<LI>If you're on a medium or large map, and you are the Allies (which you probably are if you're up against this problem) you flank the beast with faster vehicles to 1)get the Ubertank to turn around to expose it's side and rear to your tanks that have stayed back and 2)to obtain a side or rear shot with your advancing armor if the Ubertank does not turn around.<LI>You simply go where the Ubertank cannot target you. In detail, you attack his forces that the Ubertank cannot protect, making him fight you without his "Queen Piece" or making him move the Ubertank to engage you, thereby causing him to forfeit his desired position for that tank.

Okay Grogs, go at it. I haven't even brought up the fact that using dense terrain would eliminate the effectiveness of the Ubertank. I just want to hear your comments on the above tactics and why you think they will or won't work in this situation.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[This message has been edited by Colonel_Deadmarsh (edited 03-23-2001).]