Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Welcome to the wonderful world of methodological infighting Steve

This is harking back to an important point that Ksak raised very early on. It is the notion of truth. It is the question whether a 'soft' (no pun intended) matter like SOP of crew use, smoke usage etc. can ever be protrayed truthfully. As opposed to a (supposedly) 'hard' matter, like armour penetration angles. In social science you see the same problem between researchers relying on math and statistics to prove their point, and the likes of me, who believe in participant interviews and the analysis of documents. Some of the more inventive (or bored of the discussion) philosophers contend that in effect there can be no Truth™ in social science (and therefore historical research), because it only exits for a fleeting moment in us, therefore it can not be researched. Which is very convenient of course, because it does away with the whole debate if only you believe in their argument

So it boils down to a belief in a different epistomology, and is therefore unsolvable. We will have to live with these debates, because ultimately you can never prove the truth (regardless of whether it exists in the first place) in any of these matters, be they 88L56 penetration at long range or the use of smoke grenades or white phosphorus to cover an infantry advance. The only thing you can get is an approximation, and at some point people will have to say 'I believe you, because I trust your judgment and the soundness of the research you put in it'. Or as we say 'This is a convincing story, with convincing evidence - I believe it'. But belief it is, and if statisticians and armour measurers believe they can get something better they are kidding themselves.

As Lorak said in the Peng Thread 'Learning is hard work' or something to that effect. You have to put in the work to convince people like Pzkpfw I, or Ari, or Jeff Duquette or Rexford or countless others that you have indeed learned an approximation of the truth, and that your opinion is better than that of the next guy coming along who claims it is wrong, but has nothing to back that claim up.

So far you have done extremely well on this I find, and that is why this board is such an interesting place to be and why the aforementioned people keep coming back. I am sure they don't come because of the Peng Thread.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Vanir]

First point:

Steve made on example earlier about what if a tank could levitate because of a bug in the game, wouldn't it be gamey to levitate the tank? Of course it would, but we need to differentiate between what is gamey because it is possible but ahistorical and what is gamey because it would be physically impossible in real life.

Henri wrote some things that were right on the mark IMO.

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

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 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)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That last part is the kicker.

Let's say for the sake of example that me and GermanBoy are playing a game and I do something with my crews that is ahistorical. Let's define ahistorical as something that could have happened in real life and probably did on occasion, but was not standard procedure and was certainly quite rare. Crews joining in with infantry who are defending a VL perhaps.

Let's further say that this is the first time in 30 PBEM games that I have done this. Am I being ahistorical by doing this in one out of every 30 games? Could this not have happened in real life in at least one out of every 30 battles?

The problem is GermanBoy has no idea I don't do this systematically unless he has played me many times before. He's probably thinking I do this all the time. "What a gamey bastard this Vanir chap is. I don't think I'll be playing him again".

There is very little that can be done in a game of CM that you can honestly say never happened in real life (ok, rushing a bunch of unarmed jeeps at your opponent may be one ) Does that mean a player should never use tactics that were used rarely, or that it is ok to use them, but only rarely? And how does your opponent know your current use is an aberration?

Edit I bring this point up because it seems to me that situations where the aggressive use of crews as infantry is beneficial to the user are fairly rare as is. Therefore, is this really a big problem?

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

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

[Ksak]

"We have a failure to communicate here."

I, the disrespecter of kings of all kinds(inluding Tigers) have demonstrated nothing but admiration for CM and humble praise for its creators. My criticism is towards those that cry foul for reluctance to submit to them while enforcing their perception of reality. As for not presenting any historical evidence about armored vehicle crews engaging as infantry I presented the best kind - first person. Are foot patrols and night ambush sites infantry enough? Apparently that is not credible because it doesn't come from a history book. To quote a phrase leveled at me "Why are you so afraid of reading up on the matter? Because it does not chime with your little experience?"

And you think me provocative?

I quite agree that people may differ about how they use CM. I have said repeatedly and do so again now: I will play CM by whatever rules you establish in the game engine and supplement with an established code of conduct.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Panther,

Well, I for one wouldn't think so. Those mortars came at a significant cost to you, so that means you had to pass up on something significant (like a couple of rifle platoons). Therefore you made a concious decision to have an artillery intensive defense force. While not the most typical form of defense, it certainly was seen frequently throughout the war. There are a few instances where a small bunch of men (like less than a company) was supported by Corps level artillery assets (8" Howitzers REALLY hurt )

If you played your game right (and it sounds like you did) the enemy could be in a lot of trouble. However... a lot has to do with what the enemy brought to the "party" along with how the forces were directed. So it could easily have worked out, in theory, that you would have been wiped off the face of the map.

----

BTW, I think it is HEALTHY and POSITIVE for people to ask these sorts of questions. It is all part of the process of learning what WWII was like. While CM is certainly not the only tool to learn about WWII, nor is it a perfect one, it is a good way to learn more about tactical and strategic aspects of the period. And if someone doesn't care about learning about the real deal from CM, that is fine too. Play it like Command and Conquer and I for one don't have any problem with this. CM was designed to be flexible in this way.

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

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

The problem is GermanBoy has no idea I don't do this systematically unless he has played me many times before. He's probably thinking I do this all the time. "What a gamey bastard this Vanir chap is. I don't think I'll be playing him again".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see, another one of these instances where we have a failure to communicate (i.e. you are probably not reading my posts closely enough). I don't see it in terms of gamey or not. I might mention it in an email to you, depending on the actual situation and that is that. I would not refuse to play you again based on that, and I would certainly not refuse to play you again before trying to clear the matter.

My dear Ksak, bit of a selective memory have we? That quote of mine had a wee history, in which my opinion on the use of crews was labeled as BS, and I was then told that if I disagreed with you I had, as you put it so classy 'my brain rectally inverted'. Sounds painful. Now next time you should really tell the whole story. Apart from that I agree - you have the best kind of evidence. Unfortunately it is ONE instance, and it is not the war in question, yet because of that we are supposed to abandon all the other first-hand evidence so painfully collected by historians. Please don't be ridiculous.

On a personal note - maybe in the other places you frequent you are used to not being disagreed with, because you are the strongest guy around or whatever, but that does not work here. Put in some learning, and people will respect you. Quite simple really.

Edit: The arty. Panther - I don't think it is gamey, but if it happened twice I would probably not spend any more time playing the person in question, simply because it does not sound like a lot of fun. And CM being a game&simulation should be fun. To try it against a human opponent is great, but you can not really expect other people to go through the length of a PBEM game and just have arty raining on them, IMO.

And now maybe so that all understand, let's try again:

I PLAY FOR FUN - MY FUN IS OBVIOUSLY DERIVED FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE THAN THAT OF THE 'WIN-AT-ALL-COST' PEOPLE. THEREFORE I EXPECT WOULD NOT HAVE A LOT OF FUN PLAYING THEM. MY TIME IS LIMITED AND I WILL USE IT IN THE MOST PRODUCTIVE WAY FOR ME. THAT IS NOT A CHARACTER JUDGMENT ON ANYBODY ELSE.

There, was that so hard to understand?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

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

[Vanir]

I should not have use an actual person in my example as I did not intend to say this is what any specific person, like Germanboy, would actually think in this situation. Rather, I was trying to illustrate a general point. Clearly, not everyone resolves these things the same way.

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ksak,

I am glad that you appreciate our efforts, but I think you are seeing something that is not there...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My criticism is towards those that cry foul for reluctance to submit to them while enforcing their perception of reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not one person has said that a "play to win" guy must "submit" to the "historically correct" style of play. Quite the contrary, the exact opposite has been stated over and over again. Some people do not wish to play against people who "play to win". They do not expect, nor even care IMHO, if people play a game using "gamey tactics" so long as they don't have to be a part of it. Nothing more than that. Unfortunately for some, the only way to do this now is to find, by trial and error, who plays in what way.

The real irony here is that the changes we are proposing to make for CM2 SHOULD allow someone like Babra and Dr. Brian to play against each other time and time again. When the point in the game comes up that Babra find discomforting now (the end game rush with crews), CM will stop the game and offer both players the choice of continuing to go forward. At this point Babra might say "I'm done, thanks for the game" and go away happy, or he might decide to fight it out to the last man just for the Hell of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for not presenting any historical evidence about armored vehicle crews engaging as infantry I presented the best kind - first person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm... sorry, but you did not. "First person" would mean that you had vast personal experience in a massive scale land battle that had been dragging on for years. Everything you stated was outside of this context and is therefore of questionable value to the discussion all on its own. I also "challenged" your conclusions from your first hand experience, but you did not choose to respond. A few lines of text, without responding to a direct rebuttal, does not constitute an informed presentation of a point.

Hey, who knows... maybe you are right about the use of crews in WWII battlefields. But you certainly have not provided the evidence to convince me that you are correct. And yes, you do need to convince me (and/or others) if you want your opinion to be taken as an informed one. That is what historical debate is all about

Steve

[Jumbo]

Can anyone say if these "gamey" tactics actually work?

With ver. 1.05, my opponent rushed a house with a jeep crew & an allied rifle squad. My German rifle squad was already there waiting and made mince meat out of them as they entered. (Once we talked about it, he never tried it again.)

I believe that these gamey tactics don't work. Won't a player who tries them see how crazy that is.

And on top of all of it, we don't ever have to play against them again if they become unfriendly or won't change.

If we don't set up the ground rules regarding what we want, before we play, then we only have ourselves to blame if we're unhappy with the result.

Jumbo

[von Lucke]

Man, this subject is like a nasty retro-virus --- keeps changing it's capsule and invading a new host, but still transmits the same disease:

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

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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You hit the firing pin on the head there --- as have about 50 other blokes in various and sundry similarly flavored threads.

Winning is important to me (otherwise I wouldn't be a gamer), but what's equally important is that I do it using tactics and methods like those that would have been employed by the actual participants. I try to employ this process to most games I play, not just CM.

I admit, this technique requires a little more self-discipline than some people might be able to employ, but I (and several others I know) find it rather satisfying.

I've played in various face-to-face Tourney's (even hit Gen-Con once or twice), and it's the people who "only play to win" who make said Tourneys painful to participate in: You can spot 'em a mile away. They're the ones calling time-outs every ten seconds to pull out a rule book to justify their actions by using sub-rule 16b from supliment G of expansion Pack 5.3 --- or doing the same thing to you to keep you from over-running them....

But anyway, back to the subject: Some people think a crewman shield-rush is perfectly acceptable. Some people don't. In the immortal words of George (or was it Ira?) Gershwin: "You say tomato, I say Lycopersicon esculentum, let's call the whole thing off...".

*Edited for content, running time, and to fit yr TV screen*

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Panther131]

I don't think I was clear in my post about arty and mortars. I played a tcp/ip game the other night, and in the beginning I got swamped with what I thought was 105 mm arty right off the bat (it didnt do much, mainly becouse I had my main force on the opposite side of the map) However, I got swamped with arty or mortars right off the bat. First time I have seen it. And I do think it was a great move on my opponents part. Didnt do much, but kept me nervous. Then as the game proceded, I got swamped. I had positioned men to defend in small and large buildings, just opposite of his force and the flag (ME). This was not a good move becouse, a) he had a TD sitting right in front of me with a priest and it just walloped my men and I got creamed with either a arty spotter, and or the 81 mm mortars.This leads me to my question, my question is this: is it gamey to buy five 81 mm mortars, and use them in an 800 point ME? As I tried to say before, I got destroyed by great tactics, really superior to my lousy beer and pretzel tactics, but I just wanted to know if buying five 81 mm mortors is gamey in a 800 point ME. What wound up happening in this game is I got swamped by my opponents arty and mortars, plus his TD's (2) before I had any decent LOS. Basically I got creamed by superior tactics. Really juicy stuff. It was really done beautifuly by my opponent. I was very impressed. But again, even though it was a great defeat for me, I still wonder if this is a realistic tactic? Or rather, was using 5 mortars at once in a small engagment practiced by the U.S. military? In other words is this gamey?

This of course takes nothing away from my opponent. My hat goes off to him.

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Dr. Brian]

Jumbo writes:

"Can anyone say if these "gamey" tactics actually work?"

Jumbo,

My answer is yes. However, just like "historical" tactics, sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. More interesting though is that they work more often against the "simulation" crowd. They tend to work less against the "game" crowd. It is the unorthodox use of the game pieces and unorthodox tactics that the "simulator" is not prepared for, causing what is sometime called the Boyd Cycle. This leads to his defeat, and therefore "simulator's" disappointment that he lost not to WWII tactics, but by some unorthodox approach to the game (or simulation).

Does it happen all the time? Of course not!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

I just wanted to know if buying five 81 mm mortors is gamey in a 800 point ME<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't call it gamey (ie, it doesn't take advantage of a limitation of the game's code), but it is ahistorical.

Here's a TO&E for US Infantry Batallions 1940-45:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>BHQ of 30 men, 3-4 jeeps and 4 light trucks.

<LI>3 Rifle Companies each of:

1 CHQ of 16 men (and 3 bazookas)

3 Rifle Platoons of 40 men split

into 3 sections of 12 men and an HQ

element of 4 men.

1 Heavy weapons platoon with 3 60mm

mortars, 2 MMGs and 1 HMG

<LI>1 AT platoon with 3 AT guns and motorised tows.

<LI>1 Combat Support Company with a CHQ of 16 men, 1 Mortar Platoon with 6 81mm Mortars (and 3 bazookas), 1 HMG section with 3 HMGs and 2 MMG platoons each with 4 MMGs.

Notes: Prior to the introduction of the Bazooka AT weapon no AT weapon would be issued. AT guns in the AT platoon would either be 37mm or 57mm depending on the period.

Source: britwar.co.uk

In an 800 pt ME, with 5 81mm mortars, he couldn't have had more than a company of infantry. In which case, to be historical, he should have omitted the 81mm mortars and included the Heavy Weapons Platoon.

Considering that 5 81mm mortars comprises almost all of a batallion's organic artillery support, I think it would be extremely unusual for batallion to commit that much support to one company, especially in a Meeting Engagement, which simulate, as far as I understand it, actions in which neither side was expecting to make contact in any strength.

Hope this helps.

(edited for clarity)

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 01-05-2001).]

[goodwood]

Listen up all you white knights of old, Sir Percival, Gallahad, Bedivere and purest knight of all, Lancelot, listen to your king, its gamey to send those poor defenceless crews to their death. If we are going to save our kingdom, we will do it with honour, respect and dignity or perish with honour. BLOODY CRAP.

All you honourable soldiers, cross me off your list as well, because I am one those who use crews to protect my flanks. I tried to read most of this thread until I thought why bother, we all have own opinions. anyhow to subject at hand. What is wrong with using a soldier in uniform regardless whether he is an arty, mmg, or tank crew to deny the enemy their objective, Observing movement, and holding that objective if you have no other troops left. It is sound tactical logic. In operational games, yep I see logic in getting your crews away to fight another day, however if they were only troops I had to hold a bridge, that would make the difference of starting the next scenario of the operation on the right side the river, then I would use them. If Dunkirk had never of happened, and a gamer had decided to use civilian boats to evacuate his retreating army in a wargame it would be considered gamey I bet. Also a well documented fact is at the seige of Tobruk the Cmdr of the Aust 9 Div brigaded all his service corps personnel ( tpt cooks ordinance etc etc) and created ad hoc Inf element to fight on the perimeter. In fact they were on the perimeter longer than any other unit at the seige.

There are hundreds of other occurrences,where cooks, truckies, mechanics and other non combat troops have been forced into the front line, as the tactical situation has dictated.

The bottom line of lengthy comment is, " a commander sometimes must utilize every resource and tactic at hand, to deny the enemy his goal."

[This message has been edited by goodwood (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Panther131]

Right. He had :

(2) veteran infantry platoons.

(5) 81 mm mortars

(1) sharpshooter (possibly)

(1) regular tank detroyer

(1) regular priest

Cant remember the rest but it wasnt much more then that.

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, fix the use of crew rushes. It is not historical.

With that said, I think I get peeved when the "simulator" crowd says I'm playing the game wrong, or, that they will never play me, etc. Actually, I'm somewhat sad about it. I'd love to play some of these people cause they seem like they'd be good opponents. However, even if we agree to some pre-game code of conduct, there is certain to be an instance where there could be a possible "gamey" act and the game would be ruined for him through no fault of my own. And I understand that the "simulator" crowd shouldn't have to put up with that. They want to enjoy their game, their own way.

When you have the "anything goes" style like the "game" crowd, you are never disappointed. Just upset that you didn't think of that new tactic first. And that's what it's all about for me. Coming up with new and exciting tactics to win, within the WWII simulation model.

Steve, even if BTS somehow made CM the EXACT simulation of WWII from air power to the use of latrines, I know that I would still create an unorthodox approach to use to try to win the game. That is the challenge of being a good commander. That is what I rise to. Beat my opponent senseless that they go home crying. Of course, it never ends up that way.

No need to really respond to this if you don't want to, it's just to try and give some insight as to how a "game" crowd person like myself feels. To be honest, the impression that I feel from the "simulator" crowd is not a good one. I can't place my finger on what to call it, but, it feels somewhat condescending. (This is not true for everyone, such as yourself, but it's a general impression from the "crowd.")

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also a well documented fact is at the seige of Tobruk the Cmdr of the Aust 9 Div

brigaded all his service corps personnel ( tpt cooks ordinance etc etc) and created ad hoc Inf element to fight on the perimeter. In fact they were on the perimeter longer than any other unit at the seige.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's no good using this as an example, they're Australian. The other riff-raff like you find in CMBO just aren't in the same league.

Seriously though it's a bad example. It's not like Morshead used them in the salient or anything like that and furthermore what have truck drivers and cooks got to do with non-combat units like tank and gun crews?

There would really be something suss about me if I called myself Dr Simon because I was and went around spouting a load of unmitigated portentiousness. Well then I would think I really must be a prat.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

[goodwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131:

Right. He had :

(2) veteran infantry platoons.

(5) 81 mm mortars

(1) sharpshooter (possibly)

(1) regular tank detroyer

(1) regular priest

Cant remember the rest but it wasnt much more then that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any Veteran Nuns.

[goodwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Also a well documented fact is at the seige of Tobruk the Cmdr of the Aust 9 Div

brigaded all his service corps personnel ( tpt cooks ordinance etc etc) and created ad hoc Inf element to fight on the perimeter. In fact they were on the perimeter longer than any other unit at the seige.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's no good using this as an example, they're Australian. The other riff-raff like you find in CMBO just aren't in the same league.

Seriously though it's a bad example. It's not like Morshead used them in the salient or anything like that and furthermore what have truck drivers and cooks got to do with non-combat units like tank and gun crews?

There would really be something suss about me if I called myself Dr Simon because I was and went around spouting a load of unmitigated portentiousness. Well then I would think I really must be a prat.

Simon, I don't know if your suggesting it didn't happen or or banding cooks with truckies is the offensive element of my comment, thr point I am trying to make is simple aperson in uniform is a soldier first, and a cook, mechanic and driver second. and as for the comment the service element holding the line its fact not fiction. haven't the reference at hand but your local RACT/RAASC Assoc in Perth would confirm it withot question.

[Ksak]

My personal prefrence for CM play (and Squad Leader and Close Combat before this) are scenarios which are historically accurate, to the degree possible, regarding unit composition, terrain placement, and objectives.

The CM game engine is robust enough to reward the traditonal use of fire, movement, concealment, etc., and replete with enough eye candy to make the experience downright enjoyable.

But after the first GO - leave me alone. It detracts from the experience to have the self anointed High Priests of History (and I include Steve in that group) lurking in the forum to demean my use of a tank crew on a flanking force, or whatever. The High Priests do not have an exclusive on WWII. I suspect that my library card is as frazzled as anybody elses in this forum. Very, very few books on WWII get into the nitty gritty of small unit tactics. You can interpolate what might have happened but it ain't the Infantry School at Ft. Benning.

I agree with DOC that this thread intentionally or otherwise attempts to leave a pungent odor on those of us that play each and every scenario to win as big as possible, or that we are somehow "unworthy" of playing a PBEM game with the High Priests.

[Jumbo]

Maybe, the solution is to apply some prohibitively high point value for eliminated crews that get eliminated after they bail out of their vehicle/ tank. I know, that right now they are usually shocked and cannot be moved right away. Apply this high point value one turn after they are able to move again.

That way it would be a situation of HIGHLY diminishing returns and a player would do his darn best to get them to a safe location or safely to the rear.

Jumbo

[Simon Fox]

Firstly,

You should read my sig

Secondly,

I don't disagree with the truth of your example. My point was that it wasn't particularly relevant to this discussion since those guys essentially became an infantry unit and weren't expected to do much until they were.

Thirdly,

You've come in at the tail end of one of these interminably "gamey" (a very inappropriate word IMO) threads and used an argument that seems divorced from all that has gone before. What has 'honour' got to do with it? Who raised that one? Knights of old?

Your argument is tending towards that of Ksak the self appointed Don Quixote of the forum, tilting at the windmills of the 'High Priests', and doesn't he do it so well.

Characterising this as some sort of argument between two camps is the easy way out and doesn't correspond at all with my reading of this thread. Some people like to have their neat little 'simulator' and 'game' boxes to put others in. Well it's neat but it's unrealistic and I curl my lip at them.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

[tss]

Chupacabra wrote:

Considering that 5 81mm mortars comprises almost all of a batallion's organic artillery support, I think it would be extremely unusual for batallion to commit that much support to one company

Extremely unusual, but possible. On 21 June 1944 near Vyborg, roughly 9 artillery batallions (~100) guns boosted the defence of approximately one Finnish infantry batallion (the defenders were a mixture of several units and I don't know its exact strength). That's 3 artillery batallions or 9 CM FOs per company.

I would certainly be surprised if my CM opponent had that ratio artillery/infantry.

Similarily, at the focal point of Soviet attack at Ihantala there were 21 artillery batallions and one infantry regiment (12th) on defence. IIRC, the regiment had two batallions manning the front line and one batallion reserve, and the front line batallions had two companies in front and one in reserve. The companies were very depleted, having 30-60 men each. So, there were actually more artillery pieces (~250) than front line defenders (~200). (Soviets had ~500 guns there if I'm not mistaken, so there were 2 guns per each defender).

Of course, that example is very poor because Ihantala was probably the most artillery heavy battle of the whole war, all fronts counted. And it definitely was not a meeting engagement.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Henri]

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

Here's a TO&E for US Infantry Batallions 1940-45:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I don't remember playing against Panther and I don't remember ever buying 5 81 mm mortars, this sounds suspiciously like a game I played, where my mobile artillery unit (maybe a Priest-but seems to me I had the GErmans...) has wedged between two buildings in the town, which was assaulted by 2 or 3 infantry platoons right along the narrow line of sight of the Priest and of an assault gun.

Now what worries me is this: apparently a player is supposed to know what the standard TO&E of every army in WW2 was, and buy his units in accordance to their proportion in the TO&E? Jeez, and I can't even remember what Fionn's rule of 75 is!

OK, just for argument's sake, let's suppose we enforce this; but it is well known that the Germans especially had a habit in 1944 of creating ad hoc battle groups with whatever was available. so are we going to forbid the Germans to do what they did historically? Or is someone going to make a list of all those "historical" battle groups to which non-gamey players will be pressured to follow? Are we going to let the Germans do it and forbid it for the US? Then to make it more even, give the US more points to be used only historically? Then while we're at it, make the point balance historical so that the Germans can almost never win?

Where the hell are we going with this anyway?

Henri

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Now what worries me is this: apparently a player is supposed to know what the standard TO&E of every army in WW2 was, and buy his units in accordance to their proportion in the TO&E? Jeez, and I can't even remember what Fionn's rule of 75 is!

OK, just for argument's sake, let's suppose we enforce this;

Where the hell are we going with this anyway?

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The real question is: where the hell are you going with this? Nobody says you have to know TO&Es, apart from you, and nobody here speaks of enforcement, except for you, Ksak and Polar. I don't expect my opponents to know TO&Es, and I have never forced anyone to play in a way he does not like.

What on earth is your problem? You don't like it - fine, play as you like. I don't like to play the way you do, so I won't, and I am sure as hell not going to force you to play the way I like. Fortunately enough we all have our freedom of choice.

What is wrong with you people?

Dr.Brian - I understand your frustration at the fact that some good opponents may not want to offer you a game. But that is the way it is, pre-game rules or not, it is a question of the spirit behind the game. Some people like to go for a beach holiday, others like to go skiiing. Although they may have a great time with each other, the circumstances are not such that it is likely to happen.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Guest wwb_99]

I have been reading this topic for a little while now and I have one general comment:

Is tactical innovation gamey?

For example, was it gamey for the Romans to loose a bunch of flaming pigs at the Carthaginian lines at Zama to spook the elephants?

My god! The gall of those Swiss farmers, actually standing up against cavalry instead of scattering to be slaughtered like good little peasants.

That devilsh Erwin Rommel. How dare he use the divisional AA battalion to blunt the counterattack at Arras.

I could continue, but I think my point is clear. One man's gamey tactic is another man's tactical revolution.

WWB

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

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.