Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

[Polar]

Here is the thing that I don't get...

Why do the "play it right, not to win" crowd even bother? If nothing was ever done differently in the historical missions, why bother playing them, since we already know what happens when you do it the classic way.

In QBs, who is to say what the motivation is for any given engagement. Any given "gamey" strategy could have actually happened given the right set of circumstances.

Hell, Audy Murphy was awarded a chest full of medals for being "gamey", by these definitions anyway.

Just expect that your enemy wants to win at all costs and play it that way.

Joe

Ps. I'd like to see whether this discussion comes up again if/when we get a Combat Mission: Pacific Theater.... now THAT was anything goes for sure!

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Polar]

Germanboy,

Again, what is the point of trying to replay history if you refuse to approach it at a different angle?

I posted this before, but essentially what people are saying is "I want to charge my men up Little Round Top... but I want to win!".

Very few victories (or whole wars for that matter) are won conventionally. The winner, more often then not, has been the guy willing to do something different.

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Ksak]

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

Why are you so afraid of reading up on the matter? Because it does not chime with your little experience?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will withdraw from this engagement. Perhaps we can meet again in a PBEM battle at some time.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Germanboy,

Again, what is the point of trying to replay history if you refuse to approach it at a different angle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have studied history (not only WW2, although that has been my focus recently) for about 20 years, it has always been my prime interest and I wanted to become a historian at some stage. I have always been very interested in accurate representation of the way people lived, and try to understand (little as this is possible) the way in which people who lived in a particular time must have experienced it. What-if scenarios are of little to no interest to me.

If you want to play the game a different way, and are interested in how GOODWOOD would have ended if all the dismounted Sherman crews had picked up rifles and charged the AT guns (perfectly possible in some cases), than that is your choice. You bought the game, and it is your right to do with it as you please. If you can find a PBEM partner to play it (and I have no doubt you will), even better for you. But I am not the right person for that.

Please understand that I have few issues with that kind of play - I have rarely experienced it, and the one time both of us used crews ahistorically (I as defender started, BTW) it was understood it would not matter, and it just served to create a 'Last Stand' atmosphere very appropriate to the scenario (Nijmegen by WBW). If it had been different, I might have been upset, or maybe my opponent might have been. In that case I am sure we would have cleared the issue via email. No sweat.

What I am concerned with are those largely unsupported statements that the use of crews as 'insta-infantry' was not only historical but also common and therefore presents no problems to the simulation aspect of the game. That is wrong information that, if peddled enough on the board, will become accepted wisdom amongst those less well-read in history on the board. I feel it is necessary to correct these statements and refer the readers to reality (call it German Oberlehrermentality if you will). I have no problems with reasoned debate, and I readily concede in public if somebody shows me that I am wrong in these matters. I am glad about every bit I can learn on this board, and I have learned an awful lot. But if false statements are not refuted, people arriving here with less understanding will learn crap, and that should not happen. That is why I responded in this and the other crew-use thread, not because it bothers me in the game.

I am not saying: 'It is gamey and therefore wrong and you should not do it' I am saying: 'It is ahistorical (unless proven otherwise), therefore you should not claim the contrary here, and I won't play you because I am not interested in that sort of game.'

The good thing about these kind of threads is that I find out more about potential PBEM opponents and those I will never play, because it would not be an enjoyable experience.

(Edited for embarassing typo)

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-04-2001).]

[Ksak]

Germanboy

If you habitually distort your so-called historical findings in the same manner that you distort the few sentences of those posters who disagree with you, there is little reason to expect that your research is any more honest or any less arrogant than your forum pronouncements.

[Polar]

IT is simply a microcosm of what is wrong with the Wargaming public GB.

You have two options in any given game, allow for heroics, or not. Maybe when CM2 comes out, the toggle that people are asking for here should be labbled as such. Just have a little Radio button in options labled "Heroics".

What really annoys me though, GB (and I am not saying you do it), is when people complain about tank crews (for instance) and want them disarmed for historical reasons, yet have no qualms about fielding 5 Sherman Jumbos, or 3 King TIgers in a given QB.

I wonder, do the German players EVER play late war QBs? If so, why don't I hear complaints that there are no dirt cheap schoolboy rifle squads? Where are the Hitler Youth?

There HAS to be inherrant inconsistancey with history unless people enjoy no-chance scenarios.

The etirety of Wargaming is a "What-if" scenario GB. If you think otherwise you are kidding yourself.

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Germanboy

If you habitually distort your so-called historical findings in the same manner that you distort the few sentences of those posters who disagree with you, there is little reason to expect that your research is any more honest or any less arrogant than your forum pronouncements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ksak my dear boy, all you offered was a strong opinion supported by one fact that is not particularly relevant. Yet you proceeded to label concern about ahistorical use of crews as BS AND you simply dismiss accepted methods of historical and qualitative research (participant interviews and sample selection) out of hand. Not I did that, you did. That is a style of argument my 3-year old niece is slowly growing out of. So where exactly did I misrepresent you?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Dr. Brian]

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

Very few victories (or whole wars for that matter) are won conventionally. The winner, more often then not, has been the guy willing to do something different.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joe, this is sooooo true. It goes along my thoughts that a "good commander" will do what it takes, whatever it takes, to win attitude.

Again though, I'm more than convinced now that there are two trains of thought.

Simulation first, then a game second. (Therefore, winning is not importnat, modelling WWII is).

The other, is a game first, and simulation second. (Winning by whatever means the game allows is the driving force, and it models WWII makes it cooler).

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest Germanboy]

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

What really annoys me though, GB (and I am not saying you do it), is when people complain about tank crews (for instance) and want them disarmed for historical reasons, yet have no qualms about fielding 5 Sherman Jumbos, or 3 King TIgers in a given QB.

*snip*

The etirety of Wargaming is a "What-if" scenario GB. If you think otherwise you are kidding yourself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do have such qualms. I have yet to buy a KT, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Jumbo or Pershing, 14" 300mm rickets FOOs in a QB, regardless of whether we agreed to use any rules or not. I bought two Panthers once though

As for the second statement, I agree. Yet there are degrees in that, and I just prefer not to go too far away from what I think was Real Life. You are right, it is a microcosm, and I do not pass any judgement on players who prefer a different style. I do not think that is worth more or less, it is just different. If you or anybody else is happy with it, good for you.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[wie201]

Well, I guess this is just a case of to each his own. Some players prefer to play against members who fight as they thought the war was actually fought; others play to win regardless of whether the tactic was common, extremely rare, or "gamey."

I prefer to play attempting not to lose a single soldier, while annihilating the enemy. And Polar, although I don't ring up any great winning percentages doing it this way, it is fun for me, and is what I am looking for. It may not be as fun or interesting for you or others, and that is fine. But for me, I am more interested in understanding what went on and why to the extent that CM can do that.

When I see unrealistic or "gamey" tactics being used against me, my fault for not clarifying the parameters of the game I want to play with my opponent to see if he is in agreement, or if would prefer not to play me, which is fine.

[coralsaw]

I am one of the people that play to simulate history, and don't care if I lose, much like Lorak and Germanboy.

I am interested in military history and tactics and therefore enjoy learning a new tactic even if I am crushed the first time I witness it. Heck, I even enjoy playing the short end of lop-sided scenarios.

I would not particularly enjoy crews rushing towards my MLR, because the current spotting system gives crews the power of the all-seeing eye, and thus I can safely assert that it is non-historical.

Polar, this doesn't mean I don't like to explore what-if scenarios. I do, but I respect the limits of the system I use to simulate the conflict I am playing.

I don't see CMBO as a competitive sport, let alone game. I see it as an exercise in history.

There is a certain sense of satisfaction about the system and about one's own leadership abilities when one reproduces a historical battle. Kinda geeky and strange, but kinda cool too.

I for once, can't understand the competitive mentality that some people have, whereby all is fair as long as they win! Then what, will they go to some sort of hall of fame or something? The proponents of the "all is fair in war" attitude should keep in mind the Geneva convention and the Nurenberg trials and think again. And even if war is such, I'd rather be fair in a simulation anyday, since my life doesn't depend on it.

So don't rush me with crews next time we meet, OK?

My .02

[Polar]

Germanboy (thumps keyboard after losing third Tiger... fires off following e-mail) -

To: Opponent

Re: Latest turn in Villers-Bocage scenario.

Dear Opponent, I see from your latest turn that your unarmed sherman refuses to flee the field of battle! This is drawing undue fire from my Remaining Tiger! Not only that, but I have now lost a third Tiger to your badly mauled, yet highly coordinated, forces. This will not do!!! If you refuse to lose in a historically accurate rout, I am affraid you will have to go on my list!

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Germanboy (thumps keyboard after losing third Tiger... fires off following e-mail) -

To: Opponent

Re: Latest turn in Villers-Bocage scenario.

Dear Opponent, I see from your latest turn that your unarmed sherman refuses to flee the field of battle! This is drawing undue fire from my Remaining Tiger! Not only that, but I have now lost a third Tiger to your badly mauled, yet highly coordinated, forces. This will not do!!! If you refuse to lose in a historically accurate rout, I am affraid you will have to go on my list!

Joe

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Off the top of my head:

Newsflash!

Tactically (CM scale) the Germans lost the first day at Villers Bocage. All German Tigers were knocked out by the mauled 7th Armoured, Wittmann's by a 6pdr AT gun IIRC. Operationally they won, because the UK COs Gen.Erskine and Brigadier 'Loony' Hinde got a bad case of jitters and withdrew the next day, despite sitting pretty.

Try a different example

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Polar]

I think the recreationists may be overblowing the "gameyness" of some of these strategies.

People just get annoyed when they think they have a mission wrapped up and someone refuses to bow. That happened in real life too.

Would it help if I sent my turns to you attached to an E-mail if all it said was:

To: coralsaw

From: Polar

Re: Surrender?

Dear coralsaw,

Nuts.

Polar

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I think the recreationists may be overblowing the "gameyness" of some of these strategies.

People just get annoyed when they think they have a mission wrapped up and someone refuses to bow. That happened in real life too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. I don't call it gamey anymore, I call it ahistorical, and maybe you are right, maybe not.

2. I don't think so. I would agree with Dr. Brian though that we simply have different thoughts on the matter.

So I don't want to play someone who plays only to win. What's the big deal? I.e. why do you continue trying to make clear that you are right and we are wrong. This is IMO one of the cases where there is no 'right' or 'wrong' - you like beer, I like Whisky. Same thing, what's the point in arguing?

Just don't come claiming that a tactic consisting of collecting the crews of 15 knocked out Shermans, putting them under command of a Coy HQ and charging them in a latter-day Balaclava is historical.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Bruno Weiss]

Ksak said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How is employing the crew of a wrecked vehicle considered gamey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't by everyone Ksak. And, it is also dependent upon how that is done. A human wave of crews, or something else. I'd interject though, that it seems to arise to a point of contention when someone loses a game, then wants to blame it on someone who in their opinion was "gamey", and maybe used crews in the process. My own attitude is fine, use your crews, use your tanks, use your artillery, use your Grandmothers doileys if you like, if I'm in such a poor tactical position as to be defeated by the use of crews, then I deserved to lose in the first place, and if I'm not in such poor tactical state, then the use of crews isn't going to change a thing except to add to the list of dead troop tallies for my opponent at the end game.

Now, there are gamey things. No doubt about it, but the deployment of crews as spotters, or to defend a position, particulary near their vehicle is not at all gamey or the least bit inappropriate.

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

"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)

[coralsaw]

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

People just get annoyed when they think they have a mission wrapped up and someone refuses to bow. That happened in real life too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And do what instead, keep running for the flag that never was? Hug the map side and assault? Did those happen in RL too Joe?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Would it help if I sent my turns to you attached to an E-mail if all it said was:

To: coralsaw

From: Polar

Re: Surrender?

Dear coralsaw,

Nuts.

Polar<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von Paulus comes to mind. Maybe Nuts doesn't translate well in German...

Regards Joe.

[This message has been edited by coralsaw (edited 01-04-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, let's keep the heat down, OK?

Ksak, as has been discussed, in depth many times, the SYSTEMIC use of crews as cannon fodder, scouts, decoys, etc. is absolutely, without question, ahistorical. Put another way... as a rule it did NOT happen. Sure, in some individual cases it most certainly did. But there were very real reasons why, in the vast majority of cases, crews were not deployed as regular infantry. This is as true today as it was back in WWII.

Having crews be armed and trained in basic infantry tactics does not mean that they are supposed to be used as such. All it means is that a bailed out crew has at least some training and weaponry to survive in an infantry type enviroment. Emphasis on the "surviving" part. The problem with the "gamey" crew tactics used by some is that they are done as a rule rather as an exception. That is what makes them "gamey".

My opinion is not pulled out of thin air, but the result of 15 years of fairly intense historical research (4 years getting my degree in History too I might add). To date not one person in support of crew-as-infantry tactics has been able to demonstrate that my opinion (independently shared by many) is wrong. You have not done so either.

Pollar, you are confusing the issues of historical reality of warfare (in particular WWII warfare) with historical events.

Nobody, but NOBODY, is saying that in a historical scenario you, as commander, shouldn't have the freedom to move Tank A down Road 1 instead of Road 2. That would be idiotic to imply since the replaying of a historical scenario will be different from the first turn simply because of random factors.

What people are saying is that if the game allows a particular tank to levitate 50m off the ground, due to some game engine problem (bug, design flaw, limitation, whatever), that players should NOT utilize this "feature" in a battle. Or at least not when playing them. But more importantly, regardless of anything else, users of such a "feature" should not claim it is historically correct to somehow legitimize (in the eyes of the accuracy crowd) their tactic.

In short... if a commander COULD have done something in the same given situation, keeping in mind all sorts of factors that might not be explicitely simulated (like the need to be alive for the next battle), then the player should be able to do it. To the degree that the commander would NOT have been able, or likely, to have done something, then there should be restrictions placed on such actions.

Note the key phrase above is "to the degree". Sticking with crews here... yes, in some limited situations crews WERE used for various purposes to help secure victory. This is why we do not have the AI take control of your crews and just march them off the map. But the player shouldn't have a free hand as if crew use operates under the same real world constraints and concerns as on a real world battlefield. So yes, use your recovered crews to guard some prisoners or provide a little extra securit for the Bn HQ unit. But no... don't group them together as a Banzi unit and charge them into the guns of the enemy while your last capable infantry unit pulls a flanking move THEN try and justify the tactic as historically correct.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-04-2001).]

[Polar]

I just don't like it when people are overtly exclusionary GB.

And my guess is, the hyperbole you state of the 15 Sherman crews is about as likely to happen in CMBO as it was in real life.

I'll put thois to you, given your above scenario...

Were Patton given the ability to communicate and rally 60 crewman to his tactical advantage, wouldn't he? Damn straight he would! Hell, if he had his way they would all be issued a Garand and a gold football helmet!

Now, I think the problem here is that Patton (or any commander) didn't have access to these guys when the tank went boom.

Maybe your complaint should be targeted at the games omnipotence, and not the individual tactic... because the lack of control probably was the cause of the absence of such tactics.

Now, given the games mechanics, you are just as ahistorical when you give orders to that rifle squad 300 yards from their commander after their Halftrack bogged... or do you just leave them where they are until you can get an HQ within ear shot?

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[coralsaw]

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

Now, given the games mechanics, you are just as ahistorical when you give orders to that rifle squad 300 yards from their commander after their Halftrack bogged... or do you just leave them where they are until you can get an HQ within ear shot?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case where a squad is out of C&C, the player gives order impersonating the squad leader, not the HQ or Patton. The increased latency simulates the effect of being out of C&C. Chances are that in real life, the squad leader would have a pretty good idea of what his squad is supposed to do according to the plan then.

About the only occasion of "the game's omnipotence" I can see is absolute spotting, in which case you have a valid point. Relative spotting is a big can of worms and difficult to implement while keeping the game playable and enjoyable. It's a system compromise.

[Dr. Brian]

Funny thing about this "gamey" vs. "non-gamey" debate. Until I came to this discussion group, it was never a problem (playing gamey, that is).

In every game tournament I've been in (a lot of ASL with that), in the hundred or so different opponents I've played against (computer and board), there was always one objective. It has been to win the game, by whatever is allowed by the rules (or game engine). Historical or ahistorical, does not matter.

From my perspective, which is outside this forum, the "play the game historically" crowd, to me, was non existent. When I think about it, it's like, "Where were all you guys hiding all this time?"

Funny how information-exchange like this… changed that view.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[SuperSlug]

I posted this in another thread and it seems to have been hand-waved away by another forum member without, I believe, due discussion.

So I'll post it again.

BTS, if historically tank crews were a precious resource. To be protected and saved then this should be reflected in the game engine. Victory points for crew deaths should be inline with their historical value.

If a player wishes to charge your machine guns with is valuable crews, to try and take an objective, (or whatever) and they are promptly shredded then he should pay the price. His oppenent would receive an appropriatly HIGH number of victory points

for destroying this VALUABLE asset.

Taking away a crews weapons is a poor solution at best. IMHO

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

I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather,

than screaming like his passengers.

[Treeburst155]

Germanboy speaks of "badly mauled, but highly coordinated forces". It sounds to me like Polar's forces enjoyed strong leadership. Broken and routed forces certainly couldn't be described as highly coordinated. The fact that these badly mauled, yet highly coordinated forces bothered Germanboy leads me to believe Polar had a rugged defense going on. There's nothing ahistorical or gamey about putting up stiff resistance facilitated by excellent leadership and/or experienced troops. However, if Polar's situation was absolutely hopeless then he should have withdrawn or surrendered. That's a judgment call for Polar to make, not his enemy. If holding on for a few more minutes will save a victory I will hold on.

As far as the gun damaged tank sitting in a vulnerable position drawing fire, Shame on you Polar. Get your people to safety. You need them for future battles. Think like a commander.

Treeburst155

[Guest Big Time Software]

Polar:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Were Patton given the ability to communicate and rally 60 crewman to his tactical advantage, wouldn't he? Damn straight he would!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seriously, I am sure he would not if they were tank crews. They were in short supply (with Shermans vs. Panthers, go figure ) so he would most likely take those 60 men and kick their asses all the way back to the motor pool, slap them around until they got back into new vehicles, and then yelled at them until they went back into combat (you can't slap a guy in a tank, not even a thinly armored Sherman ). This is one of the historical points against using crews for general battlefield use.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I think the problem here is that Patton (or any commander) didn't have access to these guys when the tank went boom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is part of the problem. The other part, touched on after your post, is that a crew most often would have NO idea what was going on from the infantry perspective. At least not to the degree necessary to pull off some of the moves people use crews for.

Aside from that, crews might actually disobey orders. One reason is that if the tank commander survived, he most likely would outrank (or equal in rank) the average "leader" in the field (i.e. a Sgt commanding a squad). Cripes, he might even be a Major! and instead of being told what to do by some lowly Company leader (Captain), take command himself. So the notion of crews are just a bunch of fancy grunts is flawed from the get go.

Dr. Brian:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Funny how information-exchange like this… changed that view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Learn something new every day, huh? I think the reason why you don't see this type of player in competitive events is due to the nature of the events themselves. They are likely set up by, and for, players just like yourself. If a Historical Purist tried to play in such an environment, how likely would he surivive the first round? How likely would he ever come back and try playing the same way again?

Competitions like what you describe appeal more to people like you than people like me (or Germanboy I would assume). I am interested in winning, sure, but I am far more interested in the historical aspects. Therefore, competitive play is secondary for me, and therefore I am less inclined to take part in a tourny that stresses "win at all costs". If it was a Tourny with people just like myself... I would be far more interested in it.

Steve

[Polar]

Coralsaw said:

"keeping the game playable and enjoyable. It's a system compromise"

EXACTLY MY POINT!! It's all about keeping the game playable and enjoyable. But that mythical wayward rifle squad always seems to make a be-line to the action, as opposed to the rally point, doesn't he?

It's all orders of magnitude... how often do you think the 15 omniscient tank crews will turn the fortunes of war? Hell... all we can gather from this scenario is that the guy controling those crews has 2550 points blown.

If the infantry is so whipped that these 50-60 crewman can take their position, then shouldn't THEY have retreated in an effort to avoid "gameyness"?

If the defender didn't keep fresh reserves to fill in, is that MY fault?

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

Great moments in Gamey history:

"I said: General, give me one regiment and I will take that hill... and he ignored me. I asked again: General, give me one REGIMENT and I will take that hill!... AGAIN HE IGNORED ME! So finally I said: GENERAL! Give me one COMPANY and I will take that hill!!! And his reply was 'No'. BUT WHY I implored... 'Because it would be too gamey.' was his reply."

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

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz