Gamey or not?

[Dragonheart]

Is it gamey to use arty in the setupzone of the attacker? (1st turn)

I think it´s more realistic if the attacker tries to soften the enemy positions in that manner.

Your opinion please.

Cheers Dragonheart

[Björn Eriksson]

I definetly think it's gamey. IRL, how often would the defender know exactly when the attack would begin, or how far away from his lines the attacker would deploy for combat?

I don't think preplanned artillery should be available to defenders.

[UPCdave]

erm...guys, you ever heard of spoiling barrages, intended to disrupt the attacking forces as they 'formed up' for an attack? Although not a WWII example, I recently read 'My war gone by, I miss it so' by a English journalist who witnessed first hand such a spoiling barrage during the Balkan war of the early 90's as it dropped amongst him and the soldiers who were forming up ready for the attack. The Serbs were a step ahead, realised the potential for this and had arty ready for such an eventuality.

Not gamey at all in my opinion.

[Monty's Double]

Wasn't the whole point of adding the pre-barrage feature so you could do just that? And wasn't it added because that's exactly what happens in war? In George Blackburn's Guns of War he often talks about calling in fire on forming up points for German attacks. When I set up an attack, I always disperse my forces, on the assumption that a pre-barrage might be in the offing. In fact sometimes I set up a few half squads or a light tank in full view of the defenders just to try and provoke such a thing. After all, the defender can hardly afford to waste points on a barrage that doesn't cause major casualties, or slow up the attack.

[JasonC]

It is gamey. Yes spoiling barrages existed. But no, defenders did not know that all local attackers would be concentrated in a 200m deep strip ahead of their positions at the exact minute a gong was rung and a great voice called down from the clouds "H Hour!"

A pretty good test of whether something is a gamey exploitation is to ask if a good opponent can do anything about it, and whether his real life counterpart could. This tactic fails that test. A real attacker could adopt a deeper formation, pick the moment of approach, etc.

It is especially gamey on open maps with very limited cover in the thin 200m attacker's zone, and with high point totals. Because then the defender is practically certain every scrap of cover will be occupied, and has plenty of arty to throw.

It can still be a blessing to an attacker to get the defenders arty out of the way early. While delay is certain, much of the suppression effect will be gone by the 5 or 10 minute mark. If you think it is realistic, you should consider giving the attack 15 extra minutes to complete his mission, as well.

[Monty's Double]

OK Jason, maybe I should qulify that remark; it isn't gamey on medium to large maps with plenty of time for the game. As ever, the best thing to do is to talk to your opponent beforehand.

[moneymaxx]

IMO, I don't think it's gamey, since it is in the game and not a bug. I agree though that it can be unbalancing on a small map with a lot of points. But then, what prevents the atacker, who got 50% more points, to do just the same with the defender.

Anyway this question fits into the category of realism. Is it realisitc for a defender to use such a tactic. No clear answer can be given here since, as this short thread already shows, there are a lot of different opinions. It goes back to the old question of the amount of realism required by your opponent. One extreme are players like me, who say that if it isn't a bug do it, the other extreme are players who find it gamey if you use weapons that historically did not fight together and/or if you choose unhistorical tactics. All you can do about this is talk with your opponent about this before the battle starts.

Even if both opponents agree that a certain tactic isn't gamey, they can still agree on additional rules for the battle, to prevent too unbalanced battles, e.g. no more than x KV-1 in early war battles etc.....

I think the following links are quite useful when talking about the eternal topic "gamey yes or no".

http://home.arcor.de/rehbold/ranger_categories.htm

http://home.arcor.de/rehbold/Gamey_tactics.htm

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006364#000000

[tabpub]

I suppose the "Gamey Police" should hop back in their time machine and issue citations to the Soviets for firing on the German concentration areas before the start of Zitadelle. This is obvious "gamey" behaviour and is quite outside the realm of realism.

[Quintus]

I suppose the "Gamey Police" should hop back in their time machine and issue citations to the Soviets for firing on the German concentration areas before the start of Zitadelle

Fie and indeed Pshaw. Without figuring in an intelligence branch / advance recon model into the game, this is all rather hard to argue without getting down to opinion verses objectivity.

The 'Oh yes it is' arguement for gamey probably hinges on whether one party or the other would know -when- to fire the artillery (too early and the enemy would not BE there for example).

The Soviets pounded away at the Zitadelle assembly areas partly I suspect due to intel and partly also because they had O.P's and recon to tell them that there were several hundred tanks 'over yonder hill'. This is not modelled in the game.

However, the fact that in the real world there were opportunities to pre-empt an enemy action with a few tonnes of lobbed TNT would probably form a reasonable part of the "Oh no it isn't" arguement.

I operate a "does it look like I am taking the pi$$" system of gauging whether or not something is gamey (other than being into historical stuff more than 'will it help me win?'). Taking 10 pupchens, paratroop engineers and crack panthers just screams 'pee take' to me and so I suspect would the act of pasting a very narrow deployment area that I know as a player is likely to be packed with a couple of thousand points of log-jammed enemy forces with five batteries of artillery on turn 1.

Back when I used to play 1/300 lead-miniature wargaming, we used to frequently play the Monty Python game "How not to be seen" and try to guess which hill an enemy HQ would be hiding behind by the simple expedient of blasting away with indirect 105's and seeing if the enemy army ran about like headless chickens afterwards. However, this happened in a game that assumed pre-game recces.

So, to recapitulate : It's all down to taste and opinion UNLESS there's a model for recon and pre-game intelligence information.

(Now, THERE would be a useful add-on for a future game - Recon pre-battle engagements and a scouting report)

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Quintus:

(Now, THERE would be a useful add-on for a future game - Recon pre-battle engagements and a scouting report)

Me likey! Lets say dedicate some points like a platoon. But they could be killed or even captured and in turn give the enemy his own recon information through interrogation (without spending any points),

The double-edged effect would make it a risk so as to counteract overuse of recon.

If only....

-Sarge

[RSColonel_131st]

Hhmm, this is indeed a cool idea for the new engine. You sacrifice points for some intel, and then you get a slight look at what your enemy is using or setting up in turn...like, for example in real life it could be know that you'd be facing such an such an armor division...

[SgtMuhammed]

Then again, why be forced to expend points for recon. Recon missions come before the battle proper and were usually from higher level assets.

A more realistic implementation would be to provide a sort of cartoon 2D map of the battlefield marked with suspected positions. This would represent the pre-battle intel assesment of the enemy positions and its accuracy could be affected by a number of factors. The current blind v blind system makes every engagement closer to a meeting engagement than was truely the case.

[Snorri]

no it`s not gamey, it isn`t really not. It`s, to my opinion, also an interesting start-point for a battle..

to those intend it`s gamey when arty strikes at turn 1..your actually right..historic correct would be..if a whole countryside..and your lousy bunch of soldiers somewhere within..is chopped by heavy artillery fire for let`s say: 22 turns..yeah, THIS would be correct...

[demoss]

A more realistic implementation would be to provide a sort of cartoon 2D map of the battlefield marked with suspected positions.

I've seen a number of scenarios that used the landmark feature to do this. I highly recommend it - it really makes things stand out.

[YankeeDog]

In my opinion, this tactic is not necessarily gamey, but it depends on specifics.

As noted, IRL defensive spoiling barrages were used on any of a variety of levels, from Corps all the way down to Battalion and even Company.

On the Corps level, we have examples like the aforementioned massive Katyusha barrages into German assembly areas before Citdelle.

On the Battalion and Company level, a local commander might see/hear signs of a impending enemy attack assembling just over the rise in front of him (shouted commands, glimpses of movement, vehicle sounds, etc.), and decide to lob a few mortar rounds over the hill to mix things up a bit.

Intermediate to this would be Regimental/Brigade level stuff where a forward OP sees/hears signs of enemy activity (dust clouds and noise from vehicles, etc.) and the area commander decides to expend some light to medium artillery on a likely assembly area.

I think it is pretty clear that both the Battalion/Company and Regimental/Brigade level examples of spoiling barrages given above are within the scope of CM.

IMHO, so long as the attacker's setup zone is reasonably deep, I don't see a problem with educated-guess spoiling barrages by the defender into the attacker's setup zone. In fact, the fact that the defender is potentially able to use this tactic means that the attacker needs to think twice about concentrating too large a proportion of his force behind/within one source of cover, as this could potentially magnify the damage caused by a well-placed spoiling barrage. I think this is also realistic. Several accounts I have read of real-life attacks have remarked on the importance of keeping forces in assembly areas at least somewhat spread out to minimize potential damage from incoming artillery.

As Jason rightly points out, though, the use of a defensive spoiling barrage early in a CM game certainly can be gamey depending on the specifics of the game itself. If you're playing on a small map with relatively few patches of cover, the defender may be able to buy enough artillery to hit all, or nearly all, likely assembly areas on turn one. Especially if the game length is relatively short, the attacker may not be able to recover from such a barrage in time to mount a credible attack.

This is not necessarily completely unrealistic - There were times IRL when the defender happened to get really good intel from a recently captured prisoner or forward patrol and so hit assembling enemy forces with a deadly spoiling barrage that basically stopped the attack before it got started.

However, this type of situation does not make for a very interesting CM fight. It basically turns the game into a roll of the dice with very little chance for either player to win by tactical skill. This is one example of why I don't particularly like to play QBs on random maps much. Such games tend to be more vulnerable to 'gamey' issues. Worse, as this example shows, many of the gamey issues that come up are not cut and dried, which means the player has to make a difficult value judgment about whether or not a given tactic is "gamey" within the specific situation at hand, rather than just in general. This tends to lead to misunderstandings and arguments, which is no fun for anyone.

So for medium to large map QBs with a good game length, I think defensive spoiling barrages are fine. They're risky to use, but within limits as part of an overall defensive plan, they may serve some use.

It's small, short QBs (presumably with small maps and setup zones) where I think you need to be careful about this one. In fact, artillery in general can have a very imbalancing effect on such small games, and IMHO it's probably best to agree to some sort of limitations on the amount and calibre of arty for such games.

OTOH, some players my enjoy 'spray and pray' games where the outcome is more or less decided by a lucky-guess arty barrage. Personally, I find such games rather boring. To each their own.

Anyway, that's my $.02.

YD

[xerxes]

In a scenario, I would say not gamey at all. In a QB with known setup zones, maybe. It's a rather risky gamble though, expending all your defensive arty points based on where you THINK the attacker is can very easily lose you the game. If you're lucky and catch the bulk of the attacker and cause massive casualties, you'll probably win.

Either way, win or lose, it would seem to make the game less fun.

[Brigadier]

Well I think the game must simulate some intel or forward recce on the part of the defenders, otherwise you wouldn't see everybody standing to , manning their guns, taking their place in trenches and sitting in vehicles with engines running, just when the badguys attack.

I'm not sure how padlocking works , but perhaps a more realistic defense senario would be to padlock certain units inside buildings and vehicles in rear areas for a round or two , to simulate troops enjoying some R & R blissfully unaware of the hell that is about to be unleashed upon them!

OH I forgot, particularly that FO who would be kicking back with the Officers in some bunker out of harms way and NOT sitting in that foxhole with a commanding view of the field from round one!

[ April 19, 2003, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Brigadier ]

[exSpecForSgt]

Yes, this is my first post (I've been having trouble for quite some time with my computer), but I'd like to throw in zwei pfennig even if everyone else is 'finished' with this topic.

A 'caviat', however. I'm a veteran [uS Army, 1963-66] and come at this game probably from a completely different angle than most posters I've read over the past few months. Now, keeping that in mind.....

Yes, I consider "pre-emptive attacks" of the sort originally asked in this topic - =especially= in CM - to be "gamey". As -a- -strictly- =personal= -opinion-, I have no use whatsoever with an opponent who "games" CM. Like I said, I come at CM from a different angle -- I look at the miniature 'men' on the screen and I 'see' real, live, human people down there.

Yeah, yeah, I know - "it's only a -game-", and it is. At the same time, though, I don't "detatch" so much that I can 'throw mens' lives away like a drunken Texan at a craps table'. Yes, it's 'only' a game, but it represents/deals with war, which deals in life-and-death.

Therefore, -to- =me=, if someone is only interested in "gaming the rules", I have no use for them and wish they would go get into a nice friendly 'game' of 'let's-pretend-we're-in-court'.

That having been said, yes, dropping a few rounds to keep the enemy off balance is quite often done ... -but- =not= when you "know" it's the 'beginning of a scenario'. In combat, you =never= know when the buggers are getting ready to do something to you, not -even- with excellent combat intelligence. Trust me, it's a true-ism, even if it's not listed in "Murphy's Rules of Combat".

BTW, what is the "etiquette" in these forums for introductions? Is it done? Not done? Nobody really cares? What?

[xerxes]

Great first post, you're introduced.