What is "Gamey"??

[82ndReady]

Gamey, I have heard this term used over and over about game play that is considered not ahistorical or in my terms "Very cheesie!".

When playing SC against a human opponent is it not about winning?

I always except defeat as long as it was within the rules of the game by which they won, shame on me for not thinking of it first!

So when someone uses a move that should not be allowed in the game, is this what were calling "Gamey" or is it really more about that it was not "Historical" and therfore should not be allowed????

[JerseyJohn]

I'd go with the non-historical definition, but at this point I only care about history in suggestions to the forums, where the ideas might be put into future game design. In playing the game; as Axis, if it lets me invade Canada, so be it. I know it's historically doubtful, probably even an impossibility, but if I want to do it, that's the way it is. Call me gamey, so what, I've been called worse.

[ October 31, 2002, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Zeres]

To me nothing is gamey except taking advantage of game mechanics that need work. Strategy that takes the sport out of a competive game. For instance taking Italy out of the war on it's first turn, which Norse has shown you can do. Or building 16 air units with German plunder. It's basically cheating. Any bonkers strategy should be fair game as long as your not taking advantage of a weakness in the current game design that takes the sport out of the fight. Who want's to win a rigged fight anyway?

[Norse]

82ndReady, the definition of Gamey is one of double-morals.

Look thru the forums here, and you will notice a pattern.

Germany / Italy can attack it's own minor allies, noone will call it gamey.

Germany / Italy can attack nations not historically in the war, noone will call it gamey (Sweeden for instance).

The Allies are only allowed to sit still and get beaten to smitherins, anything else is gamey.

For example, buying a French HQ is gamey. Yes, it is true, that exact sentence have been said on this forum (just look thru the threads and you find many other "pearls" like that).

If you move more than 2 French units to Britain (to get the Free French), then you are gamey.

If you use your Soviet forces and retreat to the Moscow / Urals to force the arrival of Siberian troops, then you are gamey, some would even say you are a fool AND gamey to use this one.

Oh my god, using USSR to attack Sweeden is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN!!!!!

But if you use Germany to attack Sweeden, then noone will call it gamey, even if that is a move as gamey as it gets.

So there you go.

~Norse~

[JerseyJohn]

Gamey -- What the other guy does that you don't care to do.

---

The earlier definition that abusing the game system, as in the Italian case, seems a good example. Other than taking advantage of game mechanics, any way a player cares to go about conducting his war should be okay.

People forget England and France were on their way to mine the Norwegian fiords and land troops to occupy strategic points almost simultaneously with the German invasion. Why was one an invasion and the other an action?

Then there were the fiascos in Syria and Iraq, very flimsy provocation for allied takeovers -- Vichy neutrality was treated as a joke by Britain, the shelling of Mers el Kebir and the failed assualt on Dakar are two examples.

As late as 1944 Churchill wanted to land in Portugal and have the allies fight their way north through Spain instead of landing at Normandy, which he feared would be a failure -- meanwhile, what about Portuguese and Spanish neutrality?

Those were blurred, confused years. The game leaves a lot of actions open to both sides and not attacking a given country because someone else says it's gamey seems meaningless.

Meanwhile, what are they doing that's so pure?

[Zeres]

I'm in total agreement with everything Norse and John said. Gamey is basically how people feel when they lose!

[Canuck_para]

I don't see a problem with attacking Sweden with the Russians. Particularly in conjunction with an Allied attack on Sweden and when there is a stalemate on all other fronts.

[Henri]

Originally posted by Zeres:

I'm in total agreement with everything Norse and John said. Gamey is basically how people feel when they lose!

I totally agree, and my view is that if the game allows it, it is OK to do it. Once a trapped Rommel put a white flag on his car and drove his column right through an allied-occupied town. Was that gamey? He used to drag branches behind a truck on roads to make the British think that a big colymn of tanks was moving there. Game? Sure! So what?

The Germans dropped some paratroopers on a supposedly unpregnable Belgian fort and dropped gas through the ventilation vents. "No fair!, cried the Belgians, you are supposed to attack us with tanks!"

Unfortunately there are people who do not like the unextected, so they yell "gamey" when they are caught with their pants down.

Having said this, I have nothng against players who mutually agree on "house rules", for instance to take into account weapon availability. But I have not much sympathy for those who yell "foul" when one attacks a column with MG-equipped jeeps, which is exactly what the British did with the Desert Rats.

Henri

[JerseyJohn]

Exactly --

What's worse, a lot of the work at that Belgian fort was done by German contractors (Eben Emal) and German troops had the blueprints! God was that Gamey.

A Union hero, Joshua Chamberlain, was not a military man yet he became a general. One of his gamier days ocurred in "The Wilderness" where, covered with dust he appeared to be wearing gray -- several southern infantrymen approached and saw him holding an officer's sabre -- instead of surrendering he faked a southern accent and said, "The jig's up, boys, them bluebellies are all over the place -- they got us surrounded" and, instead of surrendering himself, returned to his lines with prisoners.

Histories full of these things -- formations marching in circles so they'd be counted over and over again by observers -- you name it.

Tactical limits should be built into the game engine, not defined by self-appointed purists.

The sort of exception is the one mentioned much earlier by Zeres where Italy is knocked out on the first turn due to faulty OB placement. That's something that should be corrected within the scenario. The place was defended, period. True, defended by guys with obsolete weapons and pressed cardboard boots, but defended none the less.

[ November 01, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Exactly --

Tactical limits should be built into the game engine, not defined by self-appointed purists.

Agreed. But my definition of gamey is doing some-

thing which the actual combatants were absolutely

not capable of doing. It is possible for the

Germans to have jets by 42/43 (if they had

pursued the tech relentlessly); it wasn't possible

for the Luftwaffe to have 100,000 front-line-

quality planes (and pilots!) by 1942. It is

possible for the French to have an HQ, or even an

armor unit or two (if they had been more astute,

among other things); it wasn't possible for the

French to ship the bulk of their army to England

the instant their position on the continent

started to fall apart (the logistical not to

mention the political limitations would be hugely

prohibitive).

If the game somehow let you use Star-Trek like

transporters to zap units from one part of the

map to another, instantly, at a minimal cost and

with no other limitations, would I be accused of

being a caviling purist by pointing out the flaws

in this 'feature'? (oh wait we can already do

that... )

John DiFool

["Cavil": old grognard term describing someone

nitpicking some relatively minor game feature/

detail to death]

[Flash Gordon]

Part of the gaminess is due to the fact that you "buy" units using MMP's that you save up.

The game would be much better if instead of buying units, you put the MMP's towards certain aspects of industry within your country, i.e. instead of "buying" air-fleets, you put MMP's towards gearing up the air-craft industry of your country, which results in increased production of air-craft AS TIME GOES BY.

It should be possible for any country to build up a massive air fleet or navy or whatever...but it should take time and not be instantaneous.