Guest wwb_99 Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 [edit: double post] [This message has been edited by wwb_99 (edited 01-05-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <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! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To be frank, I don't care what you know or don't know. Panther 131 asked a question which I attempted to answer, using a historical source to back up my answer. I even provided a link to the source I used. I don't recall saying anywhere in my post that if you don't know a TO&E, you're not as cool as I am, drive a ****tier car, and have a smaller penis. By some of the responses I've seen on this thread, however, it seems as if that's how my post and the posts of several other people have been interpreted. Well get the hell over yourselves. No one is attacking you. Play however you want. I believe that's all the "historical" people have been calling for this entire time. Before I bought my copy of CM, I had no idea what a TO&E was, let alone what they said. I did some research because I was interested, not to carry out some sort of slander campaign against people who choose to play the game differently than I do. ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Andreas, I'm with you. It's just a shame. Sort of limits the game pool of potential players, through no fault of my own or anyone elses. Sometimes, I just wish there was a better way. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 Ksak wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, I don't "lurk" in your games. That is impossible. So how the heck can my views possibly "detract" from your gaming experience? As stated about 100 times so far, you can play the game ANY WAY you choose to. I do not belittle your choice for style of play, why must you go out of your way to belittle mine? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The High Priests do not have an exclusive on WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite true. But those who you call "High Priests" actually present their historical cases, cite sources and examples, and engage in what is called a "debate". You appear to be unwilling to do this, yet at the same time you wish to be treated as if you have. Sorry, this doesn't work. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly my point. The Infantry School at Ft. Benning might train each soldier how to fight, no matter what the specialty, but in real combat any commander that willfully wasted specialists for any offhanded reason would most likely be brought up on charges. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry you insist on seeing it this way. Kinda smaks me of low self-estime, but that isn't my problem. Henri wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, this is our job, not the gamers'. In CM2 we will have an optional "Rarity" factor for purchasing units. This will increase the cost of things like 81mm mortars based on the size of the engagement. The smaller the engagement, the more expensive they will be. This is a good system because in the real war strict TO&E was rarely evident on the battlefield. However, it certainly had a strong influence on what was generally available in a given situation. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: I could continue, but I think my point is clear. One man's gamey tactic is another man's tactical revolution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's how I feel in a sense. It's trying to develop new tactics to win and use. There is nothing more enjoyable (for me) to develop a creative plan, and actually watch it work. Something that has never been tried before... something totally unorthodox, when possible.. But that's the difference between the "simulator" and the "gamer." (both are tm) ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 Back from lurking... This thread is suspiciously similar to a monster "gamey" thread that I participated in a few months back. A few comments: wwb009: You're confusing "ahistorical" with "gamey". In the eyes of most "simulation-style" players, I think that gamey is a more serious deviation from reality than using ahistorical tactics. The problem with using something that is gamey, is that you could NEVER reproduce it in real life. A gamey move is one that happens in the game purely because of how it's coded in the game (eg. Steve's levitating tanks). I personally love trying out ahistorical tactics from time to time...but I also realize that they are ahistorical for a reason (equipment rarities, TOEs, etc). As far as this nonsense about "I was in the real military so I know more about infantry tactics than you grogs" (you know who you are ... I was a tanker, and I can back up most of the claims that crews are given basic soldier skills for survival reasons only. We NEVER trained to use those skills offensively to assault positions. It would be a foolish commander that took his crews and threw them away by using them as infantry by taking a tactical objective. That would be no different than taking fighter and bomber pilots and making an assault force out of them. Makes for a cool movie perhaps, but don't fool yourself into believing that it was common practice. Cooks, mechanics, etc were occasionally used for defensive purposes (eg. 82nd AB at Bastogne), but they were rarely (if ever) used as shock troops! Crews will almost never fight in an infantry-role as well as well-trained infantry. Period. There's a good reason why infantry have their own MOS. Germanboy: Having participated in that monster "gamey recon" thread, I truly sympathize with you. Some people perceive these types of discussions as being directed at them personally - and they just don't get it. If people want to use gamey tactics, there's no police force out there preventing it, and the vast majority of this forum has no problem with them doing it. Amazing that many people miss this point... ------------------ "Oooh, tough crowd. A real bunch of nihilists. Let them eat chads..." - Lawyer (who else!?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 wwb_99 wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is tactical innovation gamey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it is not provided it follows acceptable historical constraints. Trying to blanket ANY "creative" use of game elements as being legitimate is faulty logic. My favorite example is the Bovine MG42 Sponge™. Those who have seen this "tactics" vs "gamey" debate will fondly remember its use over the last two years on this BBS Basically, some GIs weren't able to make it to the other side of a street in a small town in France. The Germans had a MG42 positioned in such a way as to make such a crossing suicide for at least some of the platoon (i.e. guaranteed high losses, not total losses). So after many attempts to silence the MG using traditional, and even innovative, tactics one guy hit upon an idea. There were a bunch of cows on their side of the street. So they herded them out into the street and ran behind them, allowing the poor critters to be hit with all the MG42's firepower. Now... is this "gamey"? No. Is it a legitimate tactic? For this one circumstance, yes. Did it work legitimately? Yes. But should we allow the game engine to let you do something like this any time you want? No. Therefore it is not a "tactic" as such. Rather, it was simply creating an advantage in a unique situation in a very creative way. If this happened more than twice in the entire war in France I would be surprised. And there is the key element... One-off use within certain realistic constraints = "not gamey" Systemic use without certain realistic constraints = "gamey" Those of you that play ASL... note how many little special rules were not recreated in CM. The one that comes to mind right away is the "kindling" ability to light fires. Troops did NOT go lighting everything and anything during a typical engagement. But since ASL allowed for this, without enforcing realistic rules to limit its use, in the end you get something that creates situations that do not, in general, conform to historical reality. Some of these pitfalls we could avoid by simply not coding in certain abilities (Bovine MG42 Sponges™, kindling fires, manning enemy vehicles, etc.), other things we have had to resort to lots of coding to fix (ahistorical crew use is the biggest of them all). And it is because of this attention to detail and historical perspective that people feel CM is a good simulation of WWII combat. Not perfect, but certainly damned good. In other words, our attempts to eliminate or limit "gamey" tactics is a fundamental reason why people think so highly of it. Ironically, even the "play to win" type gamers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But that's the difference between the "simulator" and the "gamer." (both are tm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't worry professor no one else wants to play with your little boxes. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: ]Don't worry professor no one else wants to play with your little boxes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What little boxes? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ksak Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 At some point in time enough will be enough on this subject, and we are probably there. I entered this fray after reading Germanboy's condensending reply to an innocuous post about vehicle crews. I made the simple statement that it was more likely than not than an abondoned vehicle crew would continue in the engagment rather than get a free pass. AND THAT IF THE GAME ENGINE ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN IT WAS IPSO FACTO OK TO DO. My game playing tactics happen to be right out of the Field Manuals not because it's historical (which it certainly is) but because they are time tested and work the best. My admiration for CM stems out of its ability to simulate and reward the application of those very traditional tactics in a visually pleasing manner. I never intended to engage in an historical debate about vehicle crews or anything else. With the resources immediately available to me I don't suppose that I could offer any convincing evidence that there were left-handed tank drivers in WWII either. Does that mean there were none? I have not belittled anybody's style of play or the purposes for which they bought and use the game. I have not refused to play with anybody else becasue they don't smoke the same cigarettes as me. You have artfully created a simulation of small unit combat but you have not, and cannot, simulate or duplicate the infinite vagaries of human behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: I don't recall saying anywhere in my post that if you don't know a TO&E, you're not as cool as I am, drive a ****tier car, and have a smaller penis. By some of the responses I've seen on this thread, however, it seems as if that's how my post and the posts of several other people have been interpreted. Well get the hell over yourselves. No one is attacking you. Play however you want. I believe that's all the "historical" people have been calling for this entire time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't be so defensive. You said about the five 81 mm mortars: I wouldn't call it gamey (ie, it doesn't take advantage of a limitation of the game's code), but it is ahistorical. Now if I misunderstood, I apologize, but in the context of this discussion, I took this to mean that it is one of the "things" that players who want to play the "historical" types should avoid. I am not attacking anyone; my question was a bit rhetorical, but it is a serious question: do the "historical" advocates claim or not that units should be chosen taking into account the historical proportions of the TO&E ? Your comment seemed to say "yes", and if I misunderstood, again I apologize. But if your answer is no, then does it mean that SOME ahistorical choices of units are OK and some are not? If so which ones? I already said that I have no problems with my opponents requesting any kinds of constraints for a given battle. I had no problem recently when my oponent requested that we enforce the rule of 75 in a game (no Tigers or other ubertanks); I would have a problem if someone claimed that this rule should ALWAYS be enforced in "historical" games, which would imply that there were no Tigers in WW2! Henri Sheesh, and I had resolved not to get embroiled in any forum controversies this year: so much for New Year's resolutions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ksak Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 I entered this fray after reading **'s condescending reply to a harmless post about vehicle crews. I made the simple statement that it was more likely than not than an abandoned vehicle crew would continue in the engagement rather than get a free pass. AND THAT IF THE GAME ENGINE ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN IT WAS IPSO FACTO OK TO DO. I encourage you to continue development of the game engine to make it more historically accurate, and have stated more than once that I would accept whatever results you might implement. At the same time I believe that it is inherently unfair (and illogical) for you to support a position that the written rules are only sometimes the rules - that there are other "higher" rules also but the unwashed don't know what they are. You have artfully created a simulation of small unit combat but you have not, and cannot, simulate or duplicate the infinite vagaries of human behavior. If there is a list of game tactics that are so innocuous that using them results in derision or blacklisting then that list should be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 This debate reminds me of the debates in Everquest revloving around the same issue : "The engine allows me to do it so it must be ok". The people at Verant basically said that certain tactics were to hard to code out, but were against the spirit of the game, so just dont do it. I think the whole debate about crews fighting is a little funny. For all of you people who want crews to fight try this: Get in your car, go crash into another car while having one of your friends firing on you with a gun, now after your crash you have 2 choices, you can try to go after your friend shooting at you, or you can run away to safety. Oh by the way did you remember to grab your gun on the way out of your flaming vehicle? Crews didnt join the battle, especially after such a demoralizing event as having your vehicle or gun blown out from under you. TO&E issues are a much more difficult debate imho, which I think are easiy settled in the dialogue going on before the start of a PBEM or TCP/IP game. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: For all of you people who want crews to fight try this: Get in your car, go crash into another car ... [snip] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is what gets the "game" crowd peeved. You're telling them to play a certain way, or to accept a style of play that you prefer. It seems to me you're presenting an argument that says, "You guys have to accept this point of view." If I'm wrong , I'm sure you'll let me know, but, it does seem that way. No one in the "game" crowd is saying that crew usage and rushes were a common occurrence. The "game" crowd just doesn't want to be told how to play (at least me). It's like you're taking away from the "game" crowds fun (at least, that's what I'm perceiving). I know that what you say, or what anyone says, should just be "ignored" if it bothers me. But, as a fellow grognard, there is a respect that I have (as well as others) of your opinion. Hence, the diatribes being thrown around by many others. Banshee, for me, I know crew rushes and some tactics are not historical. If BTS changes the game engine, that's okay with me. In fact Banshee, I welcome it. Nevertheless, I'm not going to worry about playing "historically." That's not the way I like to enjoy the $50 or so that I spent on the game. Perhaps that can help some of the "simulator" crowd understand this "game" persons mentality better. Hope that some of that helps. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 Exactly (on all points), Dr. Brian. I think that most of these disputes arise when the game-crowd claims that they're still playing "historically" (for whatever that means by this point). I've been watching this debate for a few days now, and it looks to me like most of the historical guys respect the right of the game-crowd to play their way, but not vice versa. To those who are offended by the term "gamey"", repeat after me: "Gamey" is NOT a dirty word, but merely an adjective. For the record, more than a few people hurl out "grog" as though it were an insult, much like "liberal" or "conservative" is thrown about in recent political discussions. Pretty funny, really... ------------------ "Oooh, tough crowd. A real bunch of nihilists. Let them eat chads..." - Lawyer (who else!?) [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 01-05-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted January 5, 2001 Share Posted January 5, 2001 To just echo what MT wrote: I have absolutely no problem with anyone playing the game in any manner they want. It doesn't bother me in the least. I personally enjoy playing the game in a way I believe approximates historical WW2 actions as closely as possible, and as such I prefer to play people that feel the same way. It's no slight to folks who feel otherwise - y'all paid your money for the game, it's not my or anyone else's place to tell you the "correct" way to play. I don't like being misrepresented however. I never stated that anyone is "supposed to" memorize TO&Es, consult Achtung-Panzer! before giving their orders, or do anything else. Yet it seems like every time a "gamey" thread springs up, those of us who do enjoy sticking as closely to reality as possible get attacked for trying to force others to conform to our style of play. It's simply not true. Dr. Brian and MT, I'd like to thank you two for trying to keep this thread somewhat reasonable. I don't think it's a pointless discussion, otherwise I wouldn't try to wade into it each time it comes up. But unfortunately, it always gets needlessly polarized. ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 Ksak, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My game playing tactics happen to be right out of the Field Manuals not because it's historical (which it certainly is)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It most certainly is not. I guess Manheim Tanker's post above means nothing to you? You appear to value first hand information so highly, why not learn from his far more relevant experiences instead of ignoring them? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I never intended to engage in an historical debate about vehicle crews or anything else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, since this is at the heart of the debate, it is impossible to NOT discuss this aspect. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With the resources immediately available to me I don't suppose that I could offer any convincing evidence that there were left-handed tank drivers in WWII either. Does that mean there were none?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously not. But if someone, like myself, has researched this extensively, have debated this very thing many times on is BBS, and been a fundamental part of the development of the game you yourself say is so historically accurate... perhaps you should question your convictions, if even a little bit. If you were led into a dark room and told by someone who lives there that the walls are green, would you tell him that he is wrong simply because you believe them to be black? Or would you at least extend the benefit of the doubt that the person might really know what color it is? Dr. Brian wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think this is what gets the "game" crowd peeved. You're telling them to play a certain way, or to accept a style of play that you prefer. It seems to me you're presenting an argument that says, "You guys have to accept this point of view." If I'm wrong , I'm sure you'll let me know, but, it does seem that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sure this is not what he meant, and it gets back to the heart of the matter. What he was illustrating one reason why the use of crews as infantry isn't realistic or historically accurate. Inspite of what Ksak wishes to believe, the use of crews as Insta Infantry is absolutely not realistic. This has NOTHING to do with game play style. It is much more fundamental than that. Example... Outside the sky is blue and there is not a cloud in the sky. Simulation Gamer - The sky is blue, therefore it can not rain. Play to Win Gamer - If I can figure a way to make it rain, even though the sky is blue, I will if it helps me win. OK, so now the two have a discussion about the way REAL weather works in the REAL world. The Simulation Gamer says his bit, the Play to Win Gamer his. The problem here is that the Simulation Gamer is presenting a point of view, about REAL world weather that is consistant with the way he wishes to play the game. The Play to Win Gamer, on the other hand, can only admit that it doesn't rain without clouds, and therefore using such an event to his advantage goes against the laws of nature ("gamey"), or he stubbornly tries to say his tactics DO conform to the laws of nature because it can rain without clouds. Thus the Play to Win Gamer's point of view is inherently inconsistant (i.e. playing a historical game with ahistorical tactics) or artificially consistant (i.e. playing a historical game with ahistorical tactics in denial that they are in fact ahistorical). Most Play to Win Gamers don't have a problem with being inconsistant. Most Simulation Gamers don't have a problem with them being this way either. What they DO have a problem with is someone who tries to distort reality in order to "justify" that they are not being "gamey", when in fact they are. So the problem is not, and should not be, that people exploit reality flaws in CM. However, someone who wants to have their cake and eat it two generally ruffles some feathers. It is as if CM were a racing sim that allowed a car to travel sideways at 100mph without spinning out of control, and having one person say "yeah, I know it isn't realistic, but it is fun and can be usefull" vs. someone that say "cars can really do that". Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ksak Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 Steve It's easy enough to create extreme, mocking analogies but as the game's creator why not take some genuine responsibility and define EXACTLY what constitutes an unacceptable, ahistorical tactic? Since you did not automatically kill off every crewmember when a vehicle or gun was destroyed, and instead left them armed and functioning, I assume that you had a purpose in mind. What EXACTLY was that purpose? Since you keep trying to beat me up with it I'll field the catch and toss it back at you. Are you willing to put your reputation on the line that for the 30 minutes or so that a scenario represents, that vehicle crews and gun crews in WWII did not engage in offensive or defensive operations of any kind? What exactly do you suppose they did? If your response is that they probably did "something' then define EXACTLY what part of that something is acceptable to a Simulation Gamer. What is your official opinion on the historical accuracy of a player rotating the screen 180 to see what his positions look like from the enemy's perspective? Why was that feature built into the game? Is it OK for a Simulation Gamer to do it during a scenario? I think it's cheating and do not do it. In fact I make a point of never going Level 1 beyond my most forward unit because there are no eyeballs beyond that point. This is not a clear cut issue and you are not providing any legitimate help to the many people that have posted in this thread looking for some answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goodwood: .. 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is a differance between being a good soldier and just being a soldier. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: Is tactical innovation gamey? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Innovation or taking liberty with the limitations of a game engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: I could continue, but I think my point is clear. One man's gamey tactic is another man's tactical revolution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And so people see no problem using cheats, cheat codes and/or bugs in games because they are IN the game. I guess whatever floats your boat... Cav ------------------ "Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade "AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Dr. Brian wrote quote: "I think this is what gets the "game" crowd peeved. You're telling them to play a certain way, or to accept a style of play that you prefer. It seems to me you're presenting an argument that says, "You guys have to accept this point of view." If I'm wrong , I'm sure you'll let me know, but, it does seem that way." I am sure this is not what he meant, and it gets back to the heart of the matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve, I'm with you here, and i hope no one, including you or Banshee got an impression that I was being aggressive in this. It just seemed like Banshee's comments could serve as a good jump off point for how some "gamers" (this one, in particular) feel and perceive what is happening. I'm really an easy going guy, and if you want to play a certain way, I'm really fine with it. I'll play anyway you want. Just as long as we're playing by the same rules, that challenge I crave for is still there. And I'm going to work within whatever is established (either engine or a code of conduct) to pummel that opponent into submission. Again, hope I didn't ruffle anyone, and I did clear things up a bit more! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ksak: What exactly do you suppose they did?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In most but not all cases they retreated to safety, to be able to take over another tank in the next battle. They rescued their comrades. Troop and Squadron leaders took over another tank and continued to command their unit. End of story. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ksak Posted January 6, 2001 Share Posted January 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: In most but not all cases they retreated to safety <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why assume that every crew is a tank crew? What did they do in the cases that were part of that "but all" phrase? What did they do if there was no clear line of withdrawal? What did they do if the nearby infantry batallion commander drafted them? And since you know so much you can certainly tell me the number of incidents you researched on this specific issue, and the percentages of each type of behaviour upon which you base your "end of story" certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts