Speaking of gamey tactics...

[Joques]

Originally posted by Heavy Drop:

If you had executed this using an unsupported, lightly armored vehicle, say a flakwagon for example, I would have considered it gamey too.

How can you say that? If it had been a flakwagen, it would have died. And if it didn't, that that would have been even better/gutsier! I liked the reference to Peiper and his Gamey tactics.

[Nidan1]

Hey, Vadr, you twit, how about posting a spoiler warning before you describe just about every aspect of an operation I havent played yet!!!

Now that is Gamey !!!

[Vadr]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I really appreciate it

If you had executed this using an unsupported, lightly armored vehicle, say a flakwagon for example, I would have considered it gamey too.

I concur. I used two PZ IVs and a PZ IIIJ. I was bringing up 2 more PZ IIIs and another PZ IV and a platoon of Pioneers in support.

Of course, any knowledge of 'point limits', unit 'point values', etc. automatically leads to a player's ability to calculate potentials that would never exist on a real battlefield.

True, but the briefings for this operation don't include point totals, it's just described as 'huge'. I've never had the time to sit down and do all that math anyway.

Lindan thanks for the offer, but the opponent is an old friend and I've no desire to rub salt in the wound. For the same reason, I won't post his name here. I just wanted to put my version of events before the court of public opinion and get some feedback. Maybe I'll send him here to read if the subject ever comes up again.

I'll make it up to you Nidan1. After we finish our current gamey battle we'll do 'Der Manstein Kommt' followed by 'Failure on the Aksai'. You can have either side, but you play the same side through both Operations...

Cheers all

Vadr

[-E]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Unfortunately, weiners aren't easy to discern.

Blood testing. Urine testing highly recommended for non-pengesites. (never urine test a Pengesite... just run a few mental images through your mind and you won't ask why)

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I had a truly sad individual quit a game after 20 turns or so because

By just blindly choosing an opponent at closing time without the blood tests being run, proves you to be just another gamey weiner chooser.

(C'mon folks, if you can't abstain, at least practice safe cmbb!!!)

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

20 turns or so because, after picking computer generated troops, he decided one of my tanks was "obnoxious"

This is even worse!!! Not only have you proven yourself to be a gamey weiner opponent chooser... you forced them into it! Wow! That has to be even more gamey than this whole thread!!

(Choosing obnoxious tanks is, in and of itself, definitely gamey!!!)

[Bruno Weiss]

Very true. One must be careful to pick only tanks that will please the opponent. In CMBO there were well established and regulated requirements as set forth by the Geneva Gameyiness Convention. Flakwagons were banned, any tank that was better than your tank was banned, at one point I think someone tried to ban the jeep. This new war with CMBB is definately out of control. The next thing you know, people will be actually trying to win. Entirely bad taste.

[Snake Eyes]

"Taken by surprise, the Americans failed to destroy the bridge structure, and a Panther made a dash about 0800 which carried it onto the north bank. More tanks followed."

Gamey Germans!! For more detail on this Battle of the Bulge incident I refer you to this site.

[Treeburst155]

Although I see nothing gamey in Vadr's actions, there is an interesting CM fact relating to fast moving tanks on roads. No Russian molotovs or even RPGs will get off a "shot" if a vehicle speeds right by the point of ambush. The key is speed.

You can line up 20 ambushes along a city road (from buildings) and run a tank right by them all day long if the vehicle is at full speed the whole time. I suspect this is true of ALL thrown weapons.

Treeburst155 out.

[Scipio]

BTW, I thought the key to the most successfull operations in WWII were the fast advancing armored troops that encircled the enemy and cut his supply lines? Aint that the central point of Guderians/Nehrings teaches about tank warfare, and back further of the cavallery???

Of course it is unfair from the viewpoint of the loser. But I really can't remember a battle that was won because of fairness. I propose that BTS add Sunzi's 'Art of War' as appendix to the next CM tactics guide.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Although I see nothing gamey in Vadr's actions, there is an interesting CM fact relating to fast moving tanks on roads. No Russian molotovs or even RPGs will get off a "shot" if a vehicle speeds right by the point of ambush. The key is speed.

You can line up 20 ambushes along a city road (from buildings) and run a tank right by them all day long if the vehicle is at full speed the whole time. I suspect this is true of ALL thrown weapons.

Treeburst155 out.

Indeed it was necessary and common practice to 'catch' the tank in some kind trap or with obstacles first to immolize it before the AT teams started their work - before Zooks or Fausts etc were available.

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Vadr, this guy/gal is a Weichflöte (loser, softie & and some worse), you should inform him about that. You should also recomment him/her to play vs the AI only, and maybe to stick his head in the own arse instead of wasting good peoples time.

Well, since I'm being portrayed as the someone that doesn't understand just how real this game is, then I guess it's time for me to respond on behalf of all "Weichflöte" people. This is a very long post and I do apologize to everyone for being so verbose, but I hope those sincerely interested in an opposing viewpoint will take the time to read and digest what I have to say, because I think I do represent a group of players with another point of view. Perhaps a group who want to enjoy something different from CMBB then what vadr and most here seem to get from it.

First of all, everyone should know that Chuck (vadr) and I are very good friends in real life outside of this virtual "let's pretend we're soldiers" stuff. I'm new to CMBB and never had the good fortune to play CMBO, although I have both because of the bundling purchase that Battlefront offered when they released CMBB. I've played 4 or 5 matches with my good friend vadr. I've come to really enjoy CMBB and he taught me an incredible amount about the game mechanics. He's a terrific individual and a awesome CMBB player.

Let me qualify my statements, just so you know a little about where my experience lays. I haven't driven or gunned a Sherman in over 30 years and I've only ever sat inside a stationary captured German WWII vintage Panther, Pz IV and Jagdpanther at the RCAC Museum. I taught at the Royal Canadian Armored Corps gunnery school (Camp Borden) from 1963-65. That combined with an additional 2 years of in-field "grunt" experience as a Troop Sergeant, gives me some real world knowledge of at least the late 1940's and 1950's vintage M4A2E8 76mm Sherman tanks, which the Canadian Army was still using then. I also trained on the "then new" Centurion with the British 105 smooth bore gun that was just appearing for us canucks and had some brief introduction to the standard Panzer Leopard as the Canadian Army bought 50 of them from Germany. I served with veterans of both Korea and WWII, most notably two close friends who fought with the 1st Hussars (6th Cdn Armored Regt) and served from 1941-68. They both fought on the afternoon of June 11th of 1944, where the 8th Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment (12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend") counterattacked the attempt by Canadian 6th Armored Regiment (along with support units) to capture the area of Le Mesnil-Patry. The 12th SS Panzer Regiment commanded by SS-Obersturmfuehrer Hans Siegel destroyed some 37 Shermans, while losing 2 Panzer IVs and forcing Canadians to retreat. I listened and learned from their experiences of that day. Both are no longer with us, but they are not forgotten.

So, to the game.... I say game because gentlemen, it is just a game and not real life. The scenario Chuck (vadr) and I were playing was called "SP-Der Manstein Kommt". Vadr had performed an outstanding advance across a broad frontage to a position roughly parallel with and in front of, the major built-up area ahead of the bridge. Up to that point the match had been playing out in a very similar fashion to the way real world military engagements happen. He was steadily advancing with his 6 tanks, mutually supported by infantry and I was in deep "ca ca" trying to hold ground until re-enforcements arrived. Now, here's the part that moves it (at least for me) from playing a military simulation to a "capture the flag" Quake type game. It's move 20 of a 20 move game. All of a sudden, exactly on move 20 (not 16, 17, 18, or 19), but right on move 20... my good friend suddenly abandons his infantry, just as they begin engaging me at the edge of the built-up area. He charges down a road at high speed (5th gear) with the only three tanks he has in the area (50% of his entire armored force), doesn't even know whether the road is mined or not, but simply drives across the bridge and stops on the game flag. The game engine's A/I does the best it can with this movement in trying to resolve and simulate during the movies how RL troops would react, but it is limited in what it can do under the circumstances.

I simply sat their stunned. I didn't know what to say, except that IMHO there's no way in real life that would ever happen with real troops in a real life combat situation, particularly to a side who were trying to conserve ever increasingly scarce people and equipment resources. IMHO, this wasn't some "bold military" move to be compared to real life past glories and isolated instances of WWII. On the Eastern front there was no artificial move 20 and no little flag to capture for points, or as a set-up positioning for new front lines to be drawn. Those soldiers would have been real people and comrades being ordered to their deaths, not just little anonymous computer figures to whom we have no emotional or personal attachment. I actually commented to vadr how proud I was that I had performed a "fighting withdrawal" though to that point with an absolute minimum amount of casualties. I even took the time during moves to carefully withdraw my "crews" and "out of ammo" personnel to save their lives, instead of just ignoring them to concentrate on more important units that would win points and flags.

IMHO, there was no reason to "risk" throwing away 1/2 his armor (and his young warriors) since he was well on his way to achieving the objective anyway, particularly without increased risk of taking more needless casualties. It was obvious to me that the turn 20 move was just about that, motivated by the fact it was turn 20 and the scenario was ending. New front lines would be drawn by the game engine and the predictable re-enforcements (never happens that way in RL either) will arrive like clockwork. Here's the real "let's suspend reality" part. The scenario ended with his three tanks sitting on a flag deep behind enemy lines with a company of T-34's on their way. I wondered why he'd do such a silly (non-military) maneuver since 50% of is armor (and their crews) were now trapped behind enemy lines with no access to P.O.L. Vadr informed me that because of the way the game worked with the scenario ending, he could now decide if he wanted to simply pick them up and "teleport" (beam me up Scotty) them back across the front line to safety on their side of the newly drawn front. Huh?

I said I really didn’t want to continue as the match had lost its sense of real life immersion and enjoyment for me. I indicted that I really wanted to play CMBB as a military simulation, not a game. Understandably, vadr was upset as he saw (sees) nothing wrong with this type of move in the game. I agree with him.. There's nothing wrong with this move when approaching the limited capabilities of this excellent software as a game, or using these tactics to win one of the various "game" tournaments held here. However, there's also a genre of player out there like me, who simply want to enjoy it as an immersive military role-playing simulation, using the weaponry, units and re-enacting the actual engagements as if one had been there.

Anyway, it is an excellent game for "wannabees" like us who'd like to pretend from time to time, that we're real life military commanders like Rommel, Patton and Von Manstein. It's not a military simulation unless the players choose to play it like one, ignoring the turn 20 capture the flag stuff etc. I don’t believe either Chuck (vadr) or I are wrong in what we want to experience from this software. We simply want to get different kinds of enjoyment from it and that doesn't make either of us "Weichflöte". The moral is to make sure both you and your opponents have a clear understanding as to each other's mutual expectations about game play. Vadr and I still play combat flight simulations and Ghost Recon together, but we avoid CMBB matches. I have since found a few PBEM opponents who approach the software from a similar paradigm as I do. I've won some and lost some, but have really enjoyed them all. We've had some terrific battles with a stimulating sense of real life immersion, so now both vadr and I still share the enjoyment of this excellent software, but take away different things from it.

Whoa this is long post... Sorry about that folks...

Finally, for fun, here's a little experiment for everyone to try. Load up "SP-Der Manstein Kommt" and pick the German side. Do nothing except plot a FAST move of your six tanks straight forward and down the open terrain to your front, cross to the road anywhere and continue the FAST move plot to the flag on the other side of the bridge. Now, hit play and do nothing except quickly cycle through the movies for about 10-11 turns, letting the A/I resolve all of the combat as it normally does. I did this exercise 3 times until I got bored. First time, 5 of my 6 tanks (one hit a mine) and mounted infantry ended up with the German flag flying over the objective. The second time, 4 out of 6 captured the flag (1 hit a mine, 1 bogged transferring to road via scattered trees). The third time, all 6 of my tanks and mounted infantry reached and captured the objective with no casualties I could see. I then "clicked" past turn 11 and kept going to turn 22. During all of that time, none of the Russian forces were able to recover and deal with those tanks that had simply charged through their lines at FAST speed without stopping to engage and ended up behind them sitting on their flag. At turn 22 or 23, the game engine stopped the scenario and I'm sure you can imagine the mess it was faced with resolving drawing new front lines. Did I win? Of course, I won the flag, got the points and left my Russian opponent wondering what happened, but I certainly didn’t enjoy the experience. For me, the exciting part of CMBB is really enjoying the journey of the simulation towards the game's end as an immersive experience, not the "win or lose" part. At my age, you really don't worry about the latter too much anymore.

A big salute to Chuck (vadr) for turning me onto this product and also to the CMBO/CMBB community for possibly recognizing that players come to a game for its entertainment value and perhaps some of us have slightly different expectations as to what we want from it.

Regards,

Doug (Badger)

Qualifed on Sherman (M4A2E8) & Centurion

Group 3 Gunner (RCAC)

Group 2 Driver Mechanic Tracked (RCAC)

Group 2 Signaler (RCAC)

CC and Trooper Leader Instructor

wow....that sure was a long time ago. You guys are stirring up a whole bunch of old and hidden memories. Some good, some bad. BTW, if anyone would like to take on an old warrior who enjoys the type of game play I've described, don't hesitate to send me an email and let's try a match.

[Horus]

very interessting stuff

btw. you don´t have a email addy in your profile

and yes i want to play with you

so email me (addy in profile)

just for me - my second guess was right but no i don´t edit the post again. see the second post of this thread. LOL

and yes this game is GREAT because it brings humans really in touch with the mind of her opponent :cool:

[Andreas]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

Lots of sensible stuff

Feel free to send me a set-up anytime. Email's in the profile.

[ January 17, 2003, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Scipio]

BadgerDog, if this has happend in turn 20 of a 20 turn match, then I don't see the point, cause the battle was over anyway!?

Beside that :

a) if you don't like capture the flag actions, try to use random game ends.

I may have missed it, but you din't mentioned how (or why not) you guarded that bridge/flag with own troops. I suspect you had no troops close to it, otherwise the flag would be 'unresolved'!?

[Mr Byte]

what a superb post.

please update your profile with a email address I would love for you to teach a CMBB lesson or two

sometimes we can know too much about the game we play.

update your profile!!!

[xerxes]

There's always 2 sides to a story. Both are understandable. It's too bad you both had different expectations.

But, there were more than a couple actions on the Eastern front were armor continued to advance when their infantry was halted.

It sounds like you were playing an advance operation. Unfortunetly, the last turn dash can be used to artifically advance your line. This technique doesn't work in Assault operations (or static ones).

[Vadr]

SP-Der Manstein Kommt is a static operation.

Probably one of the best maps I've ever seen. Lots of subtle nuances in it. You really have to pay attention to get the most out of it, but you can get a lot out of it if you do.

Vadr

[CombinedArms]

I want to thank BadgerDog for his most interesting and informative post. At the same time, I want to put in a few words of explanation that may place Vadr's tactic in context and explain why we found it so interesting and were virtually unanimous in defending it as not gamey. Perhaps my explaination might even be able to demonstrate that Vadr's tactic was realistic within its timeframe of late 1942.

BadgerDog's experience and training with tanks is very impressive, and I'm sure from what he says that he would have been trained NOT to do what Vadr did. The fact of the matter is that most of us CM players have also been trained NOT to charge forward in tanks w/o infantry support (in CMBO), and for exactly the same reasons--bazookas! In CMBO, which is set from June '44 on, bazookas and panzershreck/fausts pervade the battlefield, and we all learned the HARD way that you don't go charging with tanks down urban streets when facing those weapons. We all learned to "lead with infantry"--one of the most commonly heard phrases on the CMBO tips board--and we kept our tanks back at a safe distance in supporting positions. I'm sure that 1950s tank training rightly emphasized the dangers of hand-held anti-tank weapons.

But the Stalingrad battle happened before really effective hand-held AT weapons, like bazookas, had been deployed. And in that pre-zook world, tanks have, potentially, a lot more freedom of movement when facing infantry. Also, as some posters have noted, speed is of the essence against thrown weapons like molotovs and grenade bundles. So, if you're going to try to take the bridge, racing through the streets would be the right tactic. It's definitely risky, and I'm sure Vadr's heart was in his mouth, esp. given that he was violating his engrained CMBO training. But arguably, such a coup de main is NOT an invalid tactic in 1942 if the prize is valuable enough. One thing that CMBO vets are experimenting with is just how free we can be with our tanks in a pre-zook world. So I think that Vadr's attack can validly be viewed as a tactical experiment--and it's that freedom to experiment with different tactics in different time frames that I would be moved to defend. We're all learning what the war was like in 1941, '42, and '43 and in each case it's different from our mid-1944-'45 experience in CMBO.

I've seen accounts suggesting that the Germans tried this sort of tank w/o infantry drive even in late '44, if the prize was important enough. For example, in the Ardennes battles for the twin villages of Rochrath and Krinkelt (sp?), which were key road junctiosn needed for to their advance in the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans had their infantry stripped away by a ferocious artillery barrage. Their tanks, however, didn't retreat. Instead they raced through the American lines into the villages (because they were viewed as crucial). Many tanks were lost to AT guns, zook teams, and lurking Shermans and finally the remaining German tanks were forced to withdraw. It might not have been a good idea, but the Germans did it in real life. This is just one of many examples I've encountered in my reading.

Mines are something I haven't mentioned yet--arguably these might be a risk worth taking if the goal were urgent enough. In any case, CM features both daisy-chain AT mines and buried ones which can't be detected by infantry but only by tanks running over them, so infantry support is of only so much value in dealing with mines and Vadr did take the precaution of having two tanks follow behind the leader, so they could pull up short if the first one hit a mine.

[tar]

Of course, the game does make such tactics much easier to pull off successfully by letting you see all the details of the map. Even with a normal field map, there are a lot of details that would not be present on the map, are just plain wrong, and that would cause some confusion in the navigation through the streets.

A good description of that type of confusion can be found in the book "Blackhawk Down", where in addition to maps, the armored columns had helicopters flying overhead to try to direct them. It was still confusing and difficult for them to properly navigate.

The extreme amount of information, and even more extreme positive control of all the units means that you can do things in the game which would hardly ever succeed in real life.

[Joques]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

I didn't know what to say, except that IMHO there's no way in real life that would ever happen with real troops in a real life combat situation,

This is, quite simply, not so.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Joques:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BadgerDog:

I didn't know what to say, except that IMHO there's no way in real life that would ever happen with real troops in a real life combat situation,

This is, quite simply, not so.</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

[snips]

So, to the game.... I say game because gentlemen, it is just a game and not real life.

Although I have snipped practically all of this excellent post, I'd like to say that I think it illustrates another good reason for not bandying the word "realism" when discussing CM (or any other wargame). If "realism" makes any sense at all, it is only in the sense it is used in literary criticism. I suppose we could regard CM as a piece of cybernetic audience-participation improvised theatre. Clearly, BadgerDog's enjoyment of the play has been spoiled once it becomes impossible for him to continue to suspend his disbelief.

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

Those soldiers would have been real people and comrades being ordered to their deaths, not just little anonymous computer figures to whom we have no emotional or personal attachment.

One of the things I sometimes think about, when looking at the AAR and gloating about my 98% to 2% victory over the AI with (say) only two of my own men KIA is what it would be like to have to sit down at the end of the day and write the letters to the mothers of those two men explaining how thay had been killed. When looking at the AAR for a draw or a lose, it doesn't bear thinking about.

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

I actually commented to vadr how proud I was that I had performed a "fighting withdrawal" though to that point with an absolute minimum amount of casualties.

ISTR that one of SPI's tactical boardgames -- it might have been the original "Sniper!" -- had an interesting scheme whereby, once a side had reached its "preservation level" of casualties, its victory conditions changed completely, and victory points were awarded only for getting your remaining people out OK. I would be interested to see if a similar scheme could be made to work in CM.

All the best,

John.

[rucrazee]

Badgerdog/Vadr,

You both sound like reasonable men and I see the points both of you have made. I used to play chess competively in high school and after a tournament game, I would be totally exhausted. You see I had invested a great deal of myself into the game, but the outcome and the way things should have gone was not what it should have been. I felt at times it was wasted effort and time.

You guys played a long and intense game and invested a great deal of yourselves into the game and it didn't turn out the way either one of you wanted simply because you both had different expectations and attitudes about the game before you even started. If you wanted the game to be played a certain way, you needed to lay out those guidelines before you even started. If you choose to play grog style, you are ALWAYS going to have someone questioning whether something might be just a bit gamey, simply because this is still a game and it is impossible for a game to totally simulate war. Now there are folks like Fionn and others who have come up with rules to try to make things more realistic and less gamey, but there are still arguments even playing with these confines. I used to play with other folks but got tired of the fussing and have pretty much confined myself to mostly historical/semi-historical scenarios against a beefed up AI. If I ever get back into PBEM or IP play again, it will be with people who are willing to play scenarios and/or play computer generated forces and who don't argue about gamey tactics. I would rather lose a game to a gentleman, than win a game against a complainer.

I hope you fellas can come to an agreement because it sounds to me like you both are missing out on a lot of fun over a simple disagreement.

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

Hey, Vadr, you twit, how about posting a spoiler warning before you describe just about every aspect of an operation I havent played yet!!!

Now that is Gamey !!!

Simmer down, Altzheimer, we've played it .

As for the matter in hand.

After reading BOTH sides of the story, there is in my opinion a gamey aspect to what Vadr did.

He clearly rushed his tanks across the bridge with the intention of withdrawing them again after the end of the battle during the next setup phase. This is where the game takes a necessary break from reality and Vadr exploits it.

Moreover, the manual states that :

In Assault and Static ops, isolated units ending the last turn of a previous battle in this zone (meaning no man's land) are "trapped" and can not be moved back into the rear areas (they are padlocked).

If we assume the manual describes how the game should function, then Vadr should not have been able to use his tactic.

This issue was raised before in this thread but, to my knowledge, never picked up on by BTS.

[ January 18, 2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

[Joques]

John D Salt picked a nit:

I disagree most strongly. I think it is practically certain that that is, indeed, BadgerDog's opinion.

Ok, how is this: BadgerDog's assertion that this sort of thing wouldn't happen in real life, is manifestly untrue.

Also, to add my 0.02 Norwegian kroner to the philosophical side of this debate: I find it inherently useless to label something as "gamey" and get upset when it happens to you. Every single player on this forum has different thresholds as to what they consider to be acceptable behaviour in a game. So if people start huffing and puffing every time something happens that they don't totally agree with, then there's going to be a lot of bad feelings. Me, I play a game that i quite thoroughly dig. Also, one where "gamey" tactics almost never work. So I play my game within the confines of what it will let me do. In the process, I have fun, and hope that my opponent does also.

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Joques:

Ok, how is this: BadgerDog's assertion that this sort of thing wouldn't happen in real life, is manifestly untrue.

Hello Joques...

I notice by occupation you're a translator. So, first the acronym IMHO translates to "in my humble opinion". I never used the more forceful expression such as "assertion".

Second, for whatever reason, you lifted partial text from my post and paraphrased it out of context. What I actually said was " .........IMHO there's no way in real life that would ever happen with real troops in a real life combat situation, particularly to a side who were trying to conserve ever increasingly scarce people and equipment resources."

The latter of course is only my opinion, formed from my own military experiences. It wasn't stated as gospel but it still holds as my entitled opinion, which I was simply expressing here, just as it's your opinion it would happen under those circumstances.

Thanks for listening.

Regards,

Badger

[ January 18, 2003, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]