Game option idea for those "Gamey-Tactics"

[TeAcH]

I have been around this forum and a fan of CMBO since the beta demo as probably most of you are too and as such have played CM many, many times. One thing that seems to becoming somewhat common is a tactic that I feel is somewhat gamey, that is a tactic which is unrealistic in its design and one that I feel detracts from this game.

How many times have you or your opponent waited until the last few turns of a match then charged the flag positions with everything you have? Your hope is that when the game ends, and you know precisely when it will end, that you will have either sent enough troops to cause the flag's point to be undecided or wrest it from your opponent at the very last possible second.

Now, my opinion is that this isn't at all realistic and I propose this seemingly simple fix. During the turn limit selection phase when setting up a scenario or quick battle, there could be another option under the setting for game turns that allows the game to end at the specified turn OR it to end plus or minus another set of turns (perhaps a max modifier of fifteen turns).

Therefore when, lets say you are playing a 35 turn game with a turn modifier of +/-10, then it COULD end on turn 25 or 45.

This way no more rushes of troops that can't sustain and would surely be decimated if another turn or so existed.

In war, I would imagine that some orders indicated: "We need that bridge captured at noon by the time X happens" as opposed to "We need that bridge captured at precisely 12:01 and 35 seconds." This makes the ending more randon and less expected and abused.

With this being programmed as an option, those that didn't want to use wouldn't have to while those that did would have some flexibility.

TeAcH

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Teach, I am with you... preach it , brother....

[barrage]

I agree this is gamey tactic. My thought was to keep some assets hidden until end of game. Then as the last rush of troops on AC's comes down the road, unhide and blast them.

[Flashman]

An oustanding idea that needs to be implemented. I hope it will be added one day.

I would even go a step further and say there should be an option for random endings for named scenerios, in addition to QBs.

[BattlingBigBob]

I like it! This would keep an element of the unknown in throughout the whole game.

[Bruno Weiss]

I kind of like it, because one of the things that tend to remind me of the fact that it "is" a game at hand, is I know full well there is a clock ticking, and can see the turn and I'm therefore acutely aware of when the "game" will end. If I wasn't so sure about that, it would most very likely alter the way I played it. I'm not so worried about flag rushing, I figure if I'm not in a position to defend it by the end of the scenario, then I wasn't doing such a good tactical job. But, your right it does detract from realism.

On the other hand, keeping some amount of force in reserve, and using an element of surprise, and tactics which might require some length of time to develop could be impacted. In addition, Steve has said that for CM2, the auto-surrender feature will be enhanced, I believe he said, and to the point where at least the last man standing syndrome won't take place. Not sure how, if at all that would affect this idea. I think it's an idea worth thinking about though.

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

"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 01-13-2001).]

[Jumbo]

TeAcH,

Your idea is so simple and yet it is profound. I like it.

One thing though. If the game ends early -say 10 turns early, it may be that neither side is in control of the victory locations and hence there could possibly be a high number of draws as a result. It may make people artificially race to the VLs which is also just as "gamey" as what you and others want to avoid.

Would it be better to leave the minimum number of turns untouched with there being the possibility of only extra turns? With these extra turns, you could then take your reserve and smash these last ditch gamey "banzai" charges. Say- ten extra turns max?

There is also the thought that if you had enough resources to smash the gamey charge in the extra turns, why didn't you use your forces in a way that simply wouldn't allow the gamey event in the first place? AND are these really last minute "banzai" charges or a charge that would happen in it's own time? Surely you would agree that a player has the freedom to consider any historical tactic he deems necessary -whenever he deems it.

I think that we rely too much on the victory flags to determine a victor. Surely, a force that nearly looses all of it's units but controls the victory locations is not a true winner if his opponent still has the majority of his units intact and able to counter-attack. That is a VERY hollow "victory" indeed. You can just imagine that the so-called "victor" with the flags under his control wouldn't last very long after the "timer" runs out.

Rather, I think that it is incumbent for both players to look at ALL aspects of the battlefield at the end before determining a victor.

While I strongly encourage the playing of CMBO, the highly competative atmosphere that exists in trying-to-get-to-the-top-of-the-ladder encourages the idea that "the end justifys the means" at any cost -and that is the real root of the problem. Is CMBO a game to be played for the enjoyment of historical simulation or is it just another way to beat someone up? I admit that both can be fun -at times. There are plenty of other fantasy types of games that I can play for a fantasy kind of experience. Personally, I prefer the historical simulations aspect of CM and trying to do even better the next time I play it. Good luck in getting an answer.

Jumbo

[Guest Michael emrys]

I made this same suggestion a couple weeks ago and was shouted down. I am glad to see that this is an idea whose time may be near.

The only thing where I think I would differ from your approach, TeAcH is the number of turns +/-. I think the number you suggest is too many, and could result in a lot of people either spending a lot of time sitting around waiting for the goddam game to finish, or having time run out way before things can get rolling. IIRC, what I suggested before was that the number of turns +/- should range from one to five. That provides enough uncertainty to discourage outright gaminess, while also (I think) giving the players a realistic notion of roughly what their time frame is going to be.

Why is that realistic? Certainly in the case of the attacker, he had some amount of time by which he was expected to have achieved his objective as part of a larger plan. A delay (or in the case of a holding attack, even reaching his objective too soon) would equate to a reduction of his success.

Likewise, a defender would have been expected to hold against a certain sized force for a prescribed period to permit higher echelons to respond.

Ergo, everybody has some kind of idea by what time they would have achieved or failed to achieve their objective. They just shouldn't know down to the minute.

Michael

[U8led]

I realy like the proposed idea but I am also of the opinion +/- 10 turns is too drastic. 1-5 or even 1-3 would certainly make that last minute charge tactic risky.

Now how do you get games you are finaly winning to get within 1-5 turns of the end? LOL.

U8led

[TeAcH]

Thanks gang. Well, Im not saying that it would HAVE to be 10 turns, I was saying you could select any number of "modifying/random" turns from 1-10. 10 was just the max as I thought any number higher than that was too much. Again, this would be an option on for those who want it. It's exactly like the timed TCPIP turn limits is arranged in v1.1.

Also, I feel the effect has to be + and -. The location of the exact last turn needs to be "random" not at 35 (for example) and beyond.

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-13-2001).]

[karch]

I really like the concept. I do have some questions...

1. What does BTS have to say about the concept?

2. If you are in uncontested control of the flags, the game does end at the predefined end.. right?

3. I would like a more complecated method of deciding whether or or not to extend the game. If you have 2 major and 1 minor flags in your possesion and your oponent contests the 3rd minor flag, should the play extend, or do you just take the win.

4. how about the person who is winning getting to decide if they want the game to end right then or to fight off the last second charge of 2 man squads.

just thinking.. I like it though.

[Major Tom]

I am not totally against having random turns, but, having a maximum of 10 is way too much. A maximum variance of 2 would suffice. I am in a game right now where we are on turn 16-17 of a 30 turn game. My opponent has just started his offensive using the previous 11 turns to manuver. If somehow the variance left the game over at turn 20, it will be too unfair. That is like losing 1/3 of the proposed battle time. It is totally unfair to the Attacker.

Now, having a 1-2 turn variance will result in flag rushes being not quite as beneficial (not knowing if the game will end on turn 28, 29, 30, 31 or 32). HOWEVER, if the attacker makes a flag rush on turn 28 of a 30 turn game, and takes the flags, the defender would probably not have enough forces to push them back off anyway in any possible remaining turns. This would be just as bad for the defender if the turn ended at 30 (ie. the attacker assumes that turn 28 will be the last one). Again, having a variance maximum of 10 will just result in games ending just when both are starting up, usually with the defender retaining all/most VP areas.

In a way, I do not see flag rushes as quite as gamey as people make them out to be. If you aren't defending your VP areas by the end of the game, and the attacker has enough to break through, then maybe they deserve to take these VP areas? Just like a defender not defending his flanks, one who does not effectively defend his VP areas does not deserve to win.

[TeAcH]

Well, I agree it isnt always gamey, it just gets predictable. Even if that werent the case, it just seems more realistic to me to have a random ending.

Also, for those that dont want to use "10" as a max, consider this: just tell your opponent "lets not use "10", let's use "2", OR, you select 45 turns +/- 10 so you get at least a 35 turn game.

A modifier of 10 turns might only be desired if you are playing a VERY long game or maybe you want to try something new in a short scenario; a mission that is basically "____ could happen at any moment". Therefore you pick a 25 turn game and use a 10 turn modifier.

Also, when in an operation it might have an effect on when those reinforcements arrive instead of the old "They will be here on turn 35.".

For those that wanted a 1-2 turn modifier, pick it. For those that wanted a 10 turn variable, they have that option.

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-14-2001).]

[JoePrivate]

From Steve's last comments it appears CM:BO is pretty much fixed, apart from a couple data fixes, so I wouldn't expect any action on that front, especially since this has been brought up before, perhaps for CM2. Like Major Tom I don't see fixed turns as a problem or being gamey. I like the idea of a variable turn ending though, say +/- 0-2 turns. It would add a bit of uncertainty without unduly helping or hindering one side.

[TeAcH]

Thanks Joe. I like the idea too (hehe). If it were enabled, you could pick 1-2 turns and I could pick 10 if I wanted too. Who knows, I might use 5 as me and my opponent see fit.

Also, if we all took the stance that nothing will change, then what's the point? We arent here to talk about our battlefield exploits

Who knows, maybe this never gets implemented in CM1...maybe it does. Perhaps you are right.

I still like the discussion on the idea though and I hope it continues.

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 01-13-2001).]

[JoePrivate]

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

We arent here to talk about our battlefield exploits <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no, never that, else all threads would become Pengian threads

[Jimmy 4 Eyes]

I REALLY, REALLY like this idea. I have been involved in many games that have been decided by this last minute rush. I am usually the type that makes a steady push towards the objectives while using as much cover and concealment as I can and trying to set up good defensive fields of fire and approach. I saw mentioned in one of the posts under this thread that you should be be able to set up for this so it should not matter. I disagree with that in that If a player hides the majority of his force until 10 or so turns left and then unleases them on you in a dead run and there are two or three objectives your defense may not get them all prior to the end of the game. I know in some of the games that I have played that in another couple of turns I would be able to push the enemy back, but as the game ends it shows the flag in question.

I think this feature would add more realism to an already great game and like Teach has mentioned a number of times in his reply's you could choose to use or not. Just like FoW or the time limit on the TCP/IP games or choosing or you units or making your own battles... So why not add it (if it is possible) as an option for those of us who would like it. I think the basis for having it is valid and it seems that there is quite a bit of support for it.

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

Jimmy 4 Eyes

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

You just tell you opponent, lets not use "10", you say, "let's use "2", OR, you make the turns 45 +/- "10" for example so you get at least a 35 turn game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we may have a fundamental misunderstanding here. My suggestion was that at the time that the number of turns for the QB were being decided by the players, the program would choose how many turns would be randomly added or subtracted, and the players would only discover that number when the program announced that time was up.

The other thing is that its choice would be weighted. For instance it might look like this:

20% of the time it would choose +/- 1 turn.

15% of the time it would choose +/- 2 turns.

10% of the time it would choose +/- 3 turns.

5% of the time it would choose +/- 4 turns.

2% of the time it would choose +/- 5 turns.

The rest of the time, it would make no change at all.

Thus, nearly half the games would play to the limit that the players had chosen, but they couldn't be sure in any particular instance that it was so. Does this seem reasonable?

Michael

[TeAcH]

I like it, but with it as an option, those that dont like it dont have to use it, like the timer in TCPIP games.

TeAcH

[Guest Michael emrys]

Sure. I've got no problem with that. That kind of thing should always be optional.

Michael

[Franko]

Let me add my voice to the masses! This would be an EXCELLENT addition!

Frank

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

Toil is the sire of fame

[citizen]

I agree that there should be variation on when the final turn comes. I have a simple idea on how many turns could be added or subtracted from the set number of turns.

Make the range of variance coincide with the number of turns the scenario was designed for at the rate of 1 for every 10 turns. So it would look like this:

1-19 turns: +/-1

20-29 turns: +/-2

30-39 turns: +/-3

and so on...

Matt

[TeAcH]

Thanks citizen! The only thing Id like to add again is that I would like to see it as an option like the TCPIP timer. Those that want it, use it and have control over it's impact. Those that don't, ignore it.

TeAcH

[Scipio]

I like the idea.

BTW, the VLs are a bit to important in the game. IMO, of course.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Geez its not that novel of an idea. Its been standard on Steel Panthers for awhile. Problem is all of the things all of us want to have, take time. BTS cannot make new sequals to CM while consently improving their old products. We Wargamers are still in that niche market. Most big corps have killed half the games could have come out this last year. Yeah it would be nice but lets face it, Our familes miss us already because of this great game. BTW not trying to burst anyone's bubble, I would like it too.