Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

[Guest Big Time Software]

SuperSlug wrote:

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

We have done this and a whole lot more. Generally these features make ahistorical crew use a negative for the person using them, even if that person doesn't realize it. However, because of some other problems, there are still chances for ahistorical crew use "winning" the game. This is what we are going to fix for CM2. Basically, changing the way Autosurrender works since it is not doing all that it was designed to do.

Steve

[Bruno Weiss]

Well, once again the see-saw back and forth word semantics remind me of my original thought which is that it's all much-a-do about nothing. I'm not sure, but what a bunch of us agree, and are just conducting a debate over the riffles of semantics. Steve, I'm as impressed as the next feller with your credentials, my own Father was a member of the Moose, but he wasn't one. I myself once fired an M1 Carbine.

Your participation in this forum, which is both unique and novel from the standpoint of any other game company and the BTS way of listening to the rants and raves, if not ofttimes even credible input, is an exemplary indication of a company with high ideals and insight lacking by most all of its competition.

But, if you think for a moment your going to get everyone in the gaming world to see things your exact way... Not to mention the newbies who are looking at all this and wondering "what tha?", only to be further confused by the slight differences and variances in word semantics. Poor Ksak, now fearing to use a crew on punishment of not being the most popular feller on this here board, or maybe a two year stretch in the big house where only Hasbro games are allowed.

Now, I fully agree. Human wave charges of crews are ridiculous, as is the use of crews as you might use a full fledged infantry unit. But, what amazes me is no one seems to understand that the intricate nuances of variations in determination, perception, word semantics, and a thousand varying degrees of opinions about what is and is not gamey all play into this. So the passionate cries of foul by those who, gee whiz, lost a game because some fellow used a crew are just as ridicules. To grant to all this debate, an element of credibility by an endless energetic effort to brow beat the gaming world into a singular thought about what is and is not gamey is ah, let's just say curious.

Suppose everyone today on this board, comes to the same exact perception as BTS. Now, tomorrow somebody new buys the game. Gee, there's a potential threat we'll have to go after and convert. "Warning warning, intruder on deck 9, I repeat, intruder on deck 9", And the next day, and next day. I mean, publish a doctrine of what BTS thinks is gamey and include it with the mailer already. The rest of us are waiting for CM2. Tick tick tick tick tick tick tick, and meantime we're conducting this monumental debate over a stinkin crew! AAarrrrrrgghhh

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

"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 01-04-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pollar wrote:

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

Uhmmm... realistically BOTH sides would have called it quits. A simple headcount is not even close to a good indicator of who should be declared the "winner".

In real life mutual ceasefires happened very regullarly (most often with no formal arrangement). The attacker realized that he was spent, so he would pull back and consolodate his positions until more support could arrive. The defender, totally spent, would not go out on the counter attack because it would simply invite disaster now, or perhaps in a half hour when another attack came.

Again, in trying to justify crew use you are ignoring rather common battlefield constraints. Or put another way, you are looking at this issue in a vacuum. In a single CM battle there is too much "vacuum" built into the game system. To a large extent there isn't much we can do about it. But that doesn't mean that exploiting such limitations means that they are historically accurate tactics.

In CM2 people will find that the Autosurrender feature will kick in far more often than it does now. We are going to up the "intelligence" of the system since it is too lax at the moment. Players that wish to keep on playing to the last man will be allowed to do so, but it will be optional. This should make everybody happy.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bruno:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But, if you think for a moment your going to get everyone in the gaming world to see things your exact way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... if I ever thought that a good 5 seconds in a thread like this would clear up any such thoughts

I agree... after a point debating this issue is a waste of time (mine and everybody elses). However, it is necessary sometimes to go a bit further. I think this is one of those cases since it touches upon more than just this one issue. However... I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns, and therefore I am indeed ducking out of this debate so I can get some other things done

Steve

[Bruno Weiss]

Well put, hehe. Hey, though really. Just so you know, and others that may not have thought of it, or may not appreciate it. I keep saying it on account of that reason. Agree or disagree, (I actually think most of us are in violent agreement), the fact that BTS maintains this forum, and the additional fact that you yourself participate demonstrates a level of committment that I have not witnessessed here-to-fore with any other game company, period. We are all fortunate to have you and BTS at the helm of this enterprise. Now, when it comes to gaming I "do" have some experience. Started way back with AOE, and AOD. And I ain't trying to schmooze a free copy of CM2.

Its just the plain truth. I think I ruffeled LOS's feathers one time, but none of my opinionations bear on my admiration of, and appreciation of, BTS and how they operate which is what I feel represents the missing link in most of, if not all of the rest of the gaming companies. You guys keep doing what your doing.

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

"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)

[Ksak]

Bruno, I don't think that you are allowed to use the word "game."

[Polar]

Ahhh... but many (you too BTS, shame! ) are trying to draw a particular conclusion from the general.

Esspecially QBs... only God knows what the ultimate goal is to a QB mission... save to win. And if one guys doesn't fight by "the rules" then... well... guess he wanted it more. I could make up any story I want to justify an abinormal defense (or attack) on a particular position.

Maybe just remove tank crews ability to trip objective flags?

I have never had played a game that accurately portrayed objectives. In every game, one guy can sit atop a hill, and he gets the flag. BUt he couldn't hold it for more than 2 seconds if there was resistance...

Who cares anyway.

Joe

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

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

[Henri]

There seems to be some confusion here.

Steve rightly says that what he and other "historical advocates" oppose is the SYSTEMATIC use of crews as infantry, and others have mentioned the ahistorical possibility of the massive crew assault.

Now clearly this massive crew assault thing never happens -what DOES happen is the single crew that moves to a nice observation position from where he can spot the enemy (by eye or by drawing fire). Now who is to say from a single instance whether a player is doing this systematically or not?

The implication seems to be that if you do it ONCE, then you are probably doing it all the time and you are ahistorical, i.e. gamey.

My point is that the real question is not the about the systematic use of crews in ahistorical ways (which is impossible to verify in practice), nor about massed crew attacks (which never happen), but about the validity of a single crew (or maybe a couple) being used in a specific game as the player sees fit as a spotting unit.

My impression is that the anti-gamey people are claiming that only STANDARD WW2 procedures should be used in playing the game (tactics that were used only occasionally should not be used at all), whereas the free-for-all people claim that whatever the game engine allows should be considered fair.

There is not much middle ground between those two positions.This is partially due to each side exaggerating the other side's position, but still...

Let me add that although I belong to the free-for-all group, I have no problem in accepting any constraints suggested by my opponents. I recently accepted to restart a TCPIP scenario when I realized after the setup that I had bought a JahdPanther after agreeing to play by Fionn's 75 rule.My opponents can confirm that I never impose any constraints nor refuse any, and that I prefer to let my opponent choose the scenario and conditions.But I do prefer to play with no holds barred, which allows for more creativity.

Henri

-----------

"General Patton, Sir, I think that we can outflank the Germans if we follow the road along the edge of this map..."

"Are you insane? There will be no goddam map-edge hugging in my army, do you hear?..."

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Bruno

One more post before heading out the door (literally!).

Pollar:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I could make up any story I want to justify an abinormal defense (or attack) on a particular position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your justification would likely be challenged by people like me One use of 3 crews to charge an enemy position in a couple hundred games would be about right. But I bet it happens more like one in three. Although the same justification would be used in each case, it would only be historically accurate for just one because other forces, not simulated, would negate such action from happening the other times.

Again... the point here is about it being systemic use. A one off can be justified, but everytime after that it becomes less so even if the situation were exactly the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe just remove tank crews ability to trip objective flags?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already in the game. Crews can not take objectives.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have never had played a game that accurately portrayed objectives. In every game, one guy can sit atop a hill, and he gets the flag. BUt he couldn't hold it for more than 2 seconds if there was resistance...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't work this way in CM. A combat capable unit (like an unpanicked squad) must be within a short distance of an Objective. If there is ANY similar enemy unit within this distance, the Objective is "contested" and neither side gets points.

Steve

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

[Polar]

Hmmm.... sorry then. Never tried it so I wouldn't know.

To be honest, the only time I have ever considered using a tank crew offensively is when their tank was knocked out deep into a town and their infantry is uder heavy fire from a HMG (or similar). I see no reason why that Tank crew wouldn't run nextdoor and try and help out their guys across the street.

Is this gamey?

Joe

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

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

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

[Terence]

Every so often, I play a game where the objective is to exit my forces off one of the map edges.

In that case, Ill advance my crews towards that map edge (and coincidentally the enemy) so that I can fulfill the mission requirements.

Gamey??

Other times, when I lose vehicles, I pull the crews off to the sides of my axis of advance, where they are out of the way and wont get killed. They are not much use in combat, see.

I found once, by accident, that when I did that, the crew was also functioning as an OP, and warned me of a sneaky flanking attack in time for me to shift my reserve to block it.

Is that gamey, even though it was unintentional? Should I not do that if I play a pbem or tcp/ip game?

Also, once, I was playing a QB as the British, where I had to assault over a rather interesting map which was set up in such a way that a series of small hills and some trees on the left flank blocked LOS from the VP locations in the center of the opfor side of the map.

It looked kinda like this:

| x x x

| O

| O

| O

where the | symbols represent the map edge, and the Os are small hills and the vps are xes..

After examining the terrain, I discovered that there was path of advance that would lead me to a rather nice position on the enemy's left flank (from my pov). By coindicence (or something,) the path itself was only open to enemy fire in a few spots.

So, first I took my Stuarts and Wasps and scooted them as fast as I could behind the hills and knolls until they were in the position I decribed earlier -- which was a good sized depression on the opfor extreme left flank. I kept the visible opfor troops (and a few places I thought might contain troops) under heavy artillery fire during this maneuver.

Simultaneously, platoon by platoon, I ran nearly my entire assault force of infantry, along nearly the same route and ended up with most of my force assembled on the enemy's left flank in a kind of depression, close to vps, but out of his immediate los. More artillery to keep him from getting feisty.

(Then I attacked from out of his left flank with some more artillery and really knocked the living hell out of him.)

So, there were good reasons for me to take that covered route for my advance, but

HERE'S THE THING:

That route was fairly close to the left edge of the map. So was this approach gamey, even though it seemed tactially sound and shielded me from lots of nasty enemy fire, including that of a couple anti tank guns and a KT?

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

[Guest Germanboy]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Treeburst - you are aware of the fact that I speak of the historic battle of Villers-Bocage, while Polar speaks of a battle in CM against either the AI or a human opponent that was not me. I have never played Villers Bocage in the game, and I have never played Polar. I was saying that historically and on CM scale, as far as I can recall, the 7th Armoured carried the first day during EPSOM (?), albeit at a high cost. The evening saw them in Villers-Bocage. They lost it in the end (only to regain it again during BLUECOAT six or seven weeks or so later) because of the operational failure to appreciate the situation correctly. So all this 'My elite Tigers lost at Villers-Bocage, CM is ahistorical' we hear every so often is actually a bit of a mistake. (Caution: the above is off the top of my head, it is a while that I read up on the battle)

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Ksak]

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

So was this approach gamey<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You gotta' be kidding! Has this gamey nonsense so permeated the thinking of supposedly intelligent people that it is now verboten to use the whole map?

What is the ahistorical rationle for this particular piece of balderdash?

[Guest Germanboy]

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

That route was fairly close to the left edge of the map. So was this approach gamey, even though it seemed tactially sound and shielded me from lots of nasty enemy fire, including that of a couple anti tank guns and a KT?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in my opinion - but you would have run into a couple of AT assets if I had defended against you.

Accusing somebody of map-edge hugging in CM because you have lost IMO shows that you are a sore loser and a bad tactician. If the map-edge provides cover for an approach it is your job as defender to take care of it.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Guest Germanboy]

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

To be honest, the only time I have ever considered using a tank crew offensively is when their tank was knocked out deep into a town and their infantry is uder heavy fire from a HMG (or similar). I see no reason why that Tank crew wouldn't run nextdoor and try and help out their guys across the street.

Is this gamey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, before I bow out of this, since I seem to be incapable of making myself understood...

I don't think that is gamey at all. If it works (or even if not), I would put this under heroics, and the survivors of the crew (if there are any) can have a medal slapped on them. Dragoon stated that in his research he has come across small scale heroics much more often than I would have thought, and I now take this as a simulation of this happening in the game. Well done BTS

No problems there IMO, but you realise that it is a bit different than what Forever Babra described in his thread, and does not constitute the use of crews as Insta-Infantry™?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

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

[Terence]

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

Has this gamey nonsense so permeated the thinking of supposedly intelligent people that it is now verboten to use the whole map? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ksak!!!!

HEY!! I resemble that remark. I _never_ pretended to be intelligent, so lets nip that allegation in the bud right now. Hahaahahaha!

Truth is, Ive never played a pbem or tcip, and I'm trying to get a feel for what is considered good play before I jump in. I don't want accusations of gamy-ness levelled at me, you see.

ANDREAS!!! -- There were some AT assets along the way, but the Stuarts and the Wasps came rushing at them so fast that they didn't have much time to react and my boys took them out on the bounce. Nyah ha ha.

Terence

[Ksak]

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

I don't want accusations of gamy-ness levelled at me, you see.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your legitimate concern is exactly the reason that the object of my scorn is any recognition of even the concept of "gamey."

CM comes with a set of rules built into the game engine. While it would be unmistakedly dishonest to modify the game engine it is preposterous to me that any claim would be made that playing by the rules, all the rules, is somehow contemptible, if not slightly dishonest.

There appears to be a priesthood of forum participants that consider those that play to win (by the rules I add) as so beneath them that they are not worthy of sharing a PBEM. And that without even a clear definition of what may or may not be gamey in any given situation.

[Jackal]

In a recent QB I had an M8 destroyed by mortar fire and another M8 meet its fate by the hand of an enemy TD. The two crews scrambled and hide in the woodline. Three turns later these crews spot two arty spotters and a mortar team walk right past them (<100m). I sent the two crews, approximately 2 men each, to take out the spotters and mortar one at a time. Gamey you ask???? War is hell. At the end one man remained from the two crews.

[coralsaw]

Ksak,

That's a bit harsh a remark. I don't think any of the "priesthood" posters looked down to people that use ahistorical tactics, or implied that they are dishonest.

To everyone his own. You play to win at all costs, and that's fine. I play to win using tactics I would probably use on the battlefield and that should be fine too.

As to the definition of gamey, that's an individual thing. I define it as simply ahistorical, and as such an exploitation of the limitations of the gaming system that is supposed after all to simulate WWII tactical land warfare.

Find people that you share doctrine with and play them. I try to do the same, although it's fun to play other doctrines at times.

Regards

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

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

[Jumbo]

Holy Smokes!

I have certainly learned a lot since I began this thread. I read every post and I have to say that it would an be honor to play against all who contibuted. ( No, not all at once, mind you. )

I personally play to win in as historical a manner as possible -if I can. I'm also open to inspiration and trying something new. The ability to adapt has been illustrated as one reason why the allies won in western Europe. I mirror that when I can. I'm also willing to learn more.

I cannot agree that "gamey" is an insult and I feel that no one should take offense at it's mention. All that it means is that someone simply didn't know. To me, its an opportunity to learn something new.

I know bad sportsmanship enters into this somewhere. If someone continues to knowingly play in a "gamey" way, shouldn't they be shunned until they change? They aren't gamey, they're just bad sports.

Are ANY of the so-called gamey tactics even successful tactics? Thanks.

Jumbo

[Major Tom]

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

Not in my opinion - but you would have run into a couple of AT assets if I had defended against you.

Accusing somebody of map-edge hugging in CM because you have lost IMO shows that you are a sore loser and a bad tactician. If the map-edge provides cover for an approach it is your job as defender to take care of it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah HA!!! GOT YOU!!! That's what you are doing in our PBEM game!!!! No wonder I haven't seen your troops for 9 turns! Might as well surrender now, I am sending a lot of Jumbo Sherman's your way, along with Crack airborne infantry, and a nuclear bomb. Is that gamey?

I have used the 'side-hugging' strategy a lot of times in games. In one of my games, both of us did the same strategy, and bloodshed resulted. A good commander can see the best possible routes an enemy can take, and even better commander will actually DO something about these routes!

[Major Tom]

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

Your legitimate concern is exactly the reason that the object of my scorn is any recognition of even the concept of "gamey."

CM comes with a set of rules built into the game engine. While it would be unmistakedly dishonest to modify the game engine it is preposterous to me that any claim would be made that playing by the rules, all the rules, is somehow contemptible, if not slightly dishonest.

There appears to be a priesthood of forum participants that consider those that play to win (by the rules I add) as so beneath them that they are not worthy of sharing a PBEM. And that without even a clear definition of what may or may not be gamey in any given situation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely right Ksak, and if you don't buy an indulgence now, you are forever going to be stuck in CM purgatory with only jeeps to fight off King Tigers!!

ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY CM CULT!!!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ksak wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There appears to be a priesthood of forum participants that consider those that play to win (by the rules I add) as so beneath them that they are not worthy of sharing a PBEM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pretty hypocritical. You cry fowl at the mere mention that a certain tactic is ahistorical, yet present no counter case for defending it on historical merrit. Then, instead of trying to understand why some people want to play a different way, and accepting that, you attack and belittle them.

If you wish to perceive the "reality play" people as being superior to the "play to win" crowd, that is your choice. I and others have gone out of their way to say it is OK to play the game either way. Apparently you have some problem with people expressing choice.

Plainly you are missing the point. There are "tactics" in Combat Mission, which are allowed (at the moment) yet are NOT realistic. Very few people denny this, even the people that utilize such tactics. Some people don't mind this, others do. There is nothing wrong with EITHER position, except if the "win at all costs" people try to have their cake and eat it too. One can not exploit ahistorical flaws in a game and, at the same time, claim to be playing a historically realistic as possible. This is not a game play issue so much as it is a historical debate.

I have no idea why you, or anybody else, must try and paint such gamers as contemptable, no more than I can understand why the realist feel the need to bash people that use such tactics. Two different styles of play with the same game. There is NOTHING wrong with this.

The "win at any costs" type gamer has NOTHING to be ashamed of, so why do some feel they have to belittle the "realism purists" and denny that they are using ahistorical tactics? It is just nonsense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And that without even a clear definition of what may or may not be gamey in any given situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... since we designed the game, coded it, and did quite a bit of research to boot... I think OUR opinion should be seen to having a good deal of weight. The sytemic use of crews as Instant Infantry is ahistorical. Period. Combat Mission actively discourrages this behavior thorugh a rather substantial coding and design effort on our part. We have done a better job than any other wargame before us, IMHO, but we need to do a better job for CM2. And we will.

Where is the historical line crossed with something like crews? Like many things, it is tough to say without seeing the circumstances. But a player with a good historical background and the ability to "put on the commander's hat" knows when the line is crossed intuitively. What we will do with CM2 is to build this into the game more than it is now. No, it won't be perfect, but it will most likely eliminate blatant ahistorical uses of crews.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

New train of thought here, but still related...

People say "how can one tell what is "gamey" or not?". As I said above, it is impossible to draw a hard line. But gamers are pretty good at spotting things that are far outside the boundaries of reality.

For example, if someone say a Sherman 75 get a "gun hit" on a King Tiger at 2000m after only 3 shots... one should say "DAMN! That was a VERY lucky shot". And they would be correct. Now, if this same player saw something like this again, he would say "hmmm... twice? That is a bit hard to believe". And if this player then saw it a couple more times he would say, "there is something wrong with the way the code is working. This is totally unrealistic! BTS, there is a bug with this situation".

Now... does ANYBODY have a problem with a person who finds and reports such a problem?

OK, so why can't players identify other problems in the game, like blatently ahistorical use of crews, and present that as a problem that needs fixing? Why the big outcry from people AGAINST even identifying the problem, not to mention having it be fixed (I know that not everybody is against it being fixed, even if they exploit it now).

I just don't understand the logic here. Can people only identify and suggest fixes for things that involve angles and mm of penetration? Or should anything that is ahistorical be fair game for criticism and wanting us to fix it?

Cripes... this might be the first time in game development history where the game designers are arguing against people trying to deflect criticism of the game

Steve

[Panther131]

I have a different gamey tactic question. I learned full well of what precise use of artillary can do to my force. A very interesting lesson indeed. But my Question is this: Is it gamey to have and use five 81mm mortars bunched together targeting one target? I found that, to my surprise, that is alot of firepower. This was in an 800 point ME. The firepower was amazing, and won the battle for my opponent before I even had a decent LOS of him.

Is this gamey?