Speaking of gamey tactics...

[sgtabell]

Ok, I have a gamey tactic.

Air game,,,one side flies to a spot in a remote area on the off chance that the highest ranking admiral of the nme would be found there, using a small force of lightly armored fighter planes....

Oh yeah,,not gamey...Yamamoto....

SgtAbell

[Joques]

Originally posted by sgtabell:

Air game,,,one side flies to a spot in a remote area on the off chance that the highest ranking admiral of the nme would be found there, using a small force of lightly armored fighter planes....

You should read the novel Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stevens. It has a number of things to say about this, and other unlikely occurrences of WWII. Besides, it is a really, really monster cool novel.

[Gpig]

Ok!

Here is another example of what "could" be considered gamey play by some, but was actually ok in a weird way.

I was playing a TOTALLY RANDOM (every QB paramater was spec'd as RANDOM) QB versus GravesRegistration last night.

I got some weakened German Recon elements and set them up for a probe on the russian lines.

I set them up behind a big hill, out in the open and out of LOS of the enemies side of the map.

Well orders for turn one are to move up to the wooded hillside. Three platoons start moving out with MG's in overwatch.

Suddenly, at about the 20 second mark a "light armor" contact comes racing along a road towards my side of the map.

Sure enough, a light russkie armored car comes barrelling down the road and turns into the open ground and obviously sees all of my forces (a whole company) marching across the steppe.

I couldn't believe it. My entire force "found-out." Axis of advance. Numbers. Equipment etc.. All beans spilled and slipped on.

Next turn his armored car opens up on the whole company, and merrily strolls through the force, scattering them. One of my HMG's eventually takes out his car.

Now I'm left perplexed. But I decide to just end the game because he's sniffed out my probe. Foiled it, you might say.

At first I was a bit miffed, but quickly realized that it was actually pretty cool. Even though that armored car might NOT have had a radio, it still was an intel coup for the russian defenders.

I surrendered, only because I didn't want to do 4 turns of tactical withdrawl off the map.

I do think this could qualify as a "gamey jeep recon" for some people. But it was kind of fun for me to experience. It taught me a lesson (don't set up in the open, despite LOS issues) and was still kind of fun.

Kind of too bad that the game had to end on turn 2, however.

Whaddya all think?

Gpig

[Joques]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

Hello Joques...

Why hi there, Badger.

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".

I'm well aware of what IMHO is supposed to mean, but it seldom has this meaning any more on the internet. Nowadays it is generally used with more or less forceful statements, for the single purpose of making said statements more palatable. However, these are generalities and I digress. I dare say that in this particular case you must have held your opinions pretty strongly, since you quit the game over them.

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."

I'll agree that I did lift out what I felt was relevant. I did not feel that the last part of the sentence was relevant, since I as a gamer have no idea if in fact the Russians in that particular historic instance "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.

There have been numerous reminders of equally risky, or worse, actions performed routinely during WWII. I dare say, also, that tactical doctrine in WWII and during the 50's, 60's or 70's were quite remarkably different. Consider only the fact that in 42, the germans had no infantry AT weapons with a longer reach than a man could throw.

Interesting debate.

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Joques:

I did not feel that the last part of the sentence was relevant, since I as a gamer have no idea if in fact the Russians in that particular historic instance "were trying to conserve ever increasingly scarce people and equipment resources."

A clarification...

It was not the Russians ....

We're speaking of the German forces who were attacking and facing dwindling re-supply, hence the qualification to the opinion that they "were trying to conserve ever increasingly scarce people and equipment resources."

Thanks for the feedback...

Regards,

Badger

[Andreas]

I amm beginning to feel like I should dig out Scheibert, and just check if KG v. Hühnersdorff actually did a 'gamey' tank rush. I don't think they did, but you never know

[Joques]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

We're speaking of the German forces who were attacking and facing dwindling re-supply, hence the qualification to the opinion that they "were trying to conserve ever increasingly scarce people and equipment resources."

Aha, I see. Still I must say that from my perspective as a gamer, the predicament of the 6th Army as a whole is irrelevant to me in the specific scenario. If I had spotted the same opportunity that Vadr did, I would have done the same. It takes all kinds.

[Jagdratt]

I would like to jump in here and compliment those contributing to this discussion. It is one of the most interesting and informative I've read in a while. What I particularly enjoy is not having to scroll past personal attacks and juvenile language.

The next foul mouthed 'Airfix historian'* should be directed here to see how real people conduct a discussion.

* 'Airfix historian' - one who's military knowledge was gained exclusively by reading model boxes.

[Fionn]

Using tanks, unsupported by infantry, to rush through enemy positions is NOT inherently gamey. If a player chooses to send unsupported tanks deep into the enemy lines then so be it. Such a tactic has advantages and disadvantages and unless one is careful the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Still, it is the sort of thing that was done in war ( coup de main efforts to take important towns or cross bridges etc).

What IS gamey is when one does such a thing in close proximity to the end of the game and RELIES on the end of the game to save one's forces. In real war the "end" of the scenario never happened. Both sides fought until the attacker decided to stop pressing the attack ( assuming the defender didn't decide to counter-attack). Therefore a plan which relies on the game ending at a certain point is gamey since it relies, as one of its central points, on a game parameter for victory.

A plan which relies on exhausting the enemy's will and ability to attack by turn x is fine but a plan which relies on keeping the enemy away from a flag until Turn X ( but pays no heed to the ability to continue keeping the enemy back after Turn X) is gamey.

So, Vadr was actually gamey since he would not have done what he did on Turn 20 of a 60 turn game. The reason he did what he did was because it was the last turn of a game. Hence it was gamey.

[Tero]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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.

That would be interesting. The "luck vs skill" debate indicated there is something to be done to the less than perfect scoring which uses only casualties and the flags as yardsticks.

[-E]

Originally posted by Jagdratt:

'Airfix historian' - one who's military knowledge was gained exclusively by reading model boxes.

Like that's a bad thing! LOL (consider the alternative! ...a "Frog [models] historian")

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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.

[/QB]

Good god Sniper..those wacky parallelagram tanks......!!! going back a few yeas thou 1975-80 ish. Had a sister game called patrol

played on naff geomorphic 10X10 hex boards

i rememember panicing squadies randomly running around based on a little hex based compass thingy....cool little smoke counters and staircases....we could use stairwells in CM ....I Digress

preservation levels.....how does morale effect play in CMBB not at all until you 0 or is there a cumlative effect like ASL ELR decay and Battle field integrity?

Boris

london

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by tero:

That would be interesting. The "luck vs skill" debate indicated there is something to be done to the less than perfect scoring which uses only casualties and the flags as yardsticks.

I second that

victory conditions seem simplistic...especialy when compared with the level of effort but into other areas of the game.

Boris

london

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Fionn:

What IS gamey is when one does such a thing in close proximity to the end of the game and RELIES on the end of the game to save one's forces. In real war the "end" of the scenario never happened. Both sides fought until the attacker decided to stop pressing the attack ( assuming the defender didn't decide to counter-attack).

and other good stuff snipped

Good thing I decided to read the entire thread before posting, because Fionn said what I wanted to say after reading the first page of this thread. If vadr had rushed his tanks on turn 1 of 20, then the tactic is valid. Waiting until turn 20/20 is a cheap way to get a victory. All IMHO that is.

[RSColonel_131st]

I'd say, if it wasn't a last turn flag rush (like I assumed in my first post) I would not have considered it gamey.

But rushing a flag at the last turn is indeed not my version of reality - your mileage may vary.

If he would have advanced by turn 16 or 17, and defended the position for at least 3 or 4 turns, it would have looked way better. So it remains unclear if Vadr could have kept the position in real battle with no artifical 20 minute limit.

[Joques]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Waiting until turn 20/20 is a cheap way to get a victory. All IMHO that is.

I must disagree. The game format places a number of constraints on us that we must abide by. Game length is one. Map boundries are another.

Stating that taking a flag on the last Turn is "gamey", is untenable. Why? Because there are a host of variables that affect each and every game. Would Turn 19 be "gamey"? Turn 18? Turn 17? What if the opportunity to grab the flag didn't arise until Turn 20? Should he then refrain from doing it, just because it might be considered "gamey"? Obviously not, that would be silly.

We operate under a different set of circumstances than did our historic counterparts. For one, and most importantly, we don't put our lives on the line. We have artificial constraints on our actions and maneuvers. Artificial victory conditions. We have artificially good intelligence about what each and every one of our soldiers is doing. In short, it is a game.

It is a superb game, and it is maybe the one that most closely of all games models the hell that was the Ostfront 1941-45, but a game nonetheless. We play this game in friendly competition. To imply that, in the course of this friendly competition, we should limit our conduct to some arbitrary set of rules, that it seems none of us are even able to agree completely on, is patently untenable.

The only sane way (in my opinion) to avoid arbitrary disputes like these, is simply to stipulate that what the engine allows, is allowed. God knows there are few enough ways to exploit the engine, and they can hardly make this a less real experience than it already is, considering we're a bunch of geeks sitting in front of a computer screen looking at little army men.

Now somebody will indignantly ask me if I would ever rush a depleted halfsquad to grab a victory flag. Well no...but I am of half a mind to say that if my opponent had been so silly as to not guard the flag better, then he deserved to lose it.

(Besides, depleted halfsquads is hardly what this debate is all about)

[ January 20, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Joques ]

[Juardis]

obviously if you fight your way to the flag and capture it on turn 20, then congratulations. But if you decide to race unsupported tanks to the flag and hope to hold on for 2-3 turns, then that is taking advantage of an artificial limitation on the game. As Fionn already stated, IRL, there are no time constraints. So if vadr wanted to grab the flag and hold on with his tanks, then he should do so much earlier than turn 20 of a 20+ battle to simulate that the enemy has plenty of time to recapture the flag, destroy the tanks. So being gutsy with your tanks on turn one is quite acceptable because it simulates that ballsy commander that decided speed was the best option but also simulates that same ballsy commander having to defend that which he just captured so easily. Waiting until turn 20 takes the 2nd part of the simulation away (i.e., he doesn't have to defend).

Here's another thing. Vadr already said it was 1942 and organic AT capability is non-existent in Russian troops. So his same logic for rushing the flag on turn 20 is just as valid as rushing the flag on turn 1. Why not do it on turn 1 then?

[Louie the Toad]

In some scenarios you must wear down the enemy in order to make 'no man's land' safer to cross to get to that pesky flag. So as the turns are elapsing one is faced with the dilemma of timing vs risk.

I can think of some situations where you are organizing your forces to launch an attack, and its taking you longer to jump off than you anticipated. Thus delaying your attack to near the end of the scenario.

Alternatives: set all games at 60 turns; use an end game randomizer; agree ahead of time that the tactic is/is not allowed; play vs the AI - it won't complain; stop playing with a player who uses the tactic.

It's a rush......Toad

[M Hofbauer]

I think that what lies at heart of the matter of this whole affair is the ooooold problem of the artificial "turns" of the game.

Discussed since the inception of the game, and again and again thereafter, there are still two sides to it.

Those that say that the absolute turn limit (even now with the relative variance in absolute ending) just models the orders to "take that bridge by 15:07 hours so that X company can travel across with its guns to reach their destination Y to support other element Z". In other words, time limits are for real, and if you fail to take the objective by a certain fixed absolute date then you lost, no matter how good your preservation of forces or kill ratio. (counted into this group are also those that maintain that one coherent amount of battle action is always around 30min and never longer. IMHO these ppl do not actually belong into the first group, because their reasoning still doesnt justify the absolute turn limit).

Then there is the other party that maintains that such an absolute time limit is rather the exception than the rule, and usually the order would be to advance towards a town or other general direction, but with a speed and method at the discretion of the commander undertaking the action. If the CO stumbles into some special opposition, he would think of a way to tackle that, and not rush headlong into it because "it is already turn 24 of 25 turns". If it takes ten extra minutes, so be it (Some of these players/people are even inclined to go so far as saying fixed restricted VLs itself are more the exception than the norm). Plus, whats even more important, these people maintain that the fighting does NOT have an absolute end at all. In reality, life (or rather, fighting) goes beyond turn 30. IRL you cannot leave your advance elements exposed and isolated, and you can not use up all your troops in an all-out battle for one objective. And the map is not a world unto itself, but only a small sectuion of a larger picture.

So there you have the two types, the Peiperesque "we need a daring action and take the VL within 28 minutes, because need to secure the bridge by 13:06 before the enemy relief company gets there" type of daunting breath-taking exchange of stunning heroic and daring action(aided by the absolute map knowledge and beehive information and C&C of such a game) vs the unglamorous, gradual and careful advance in a general direction/towards a general objective (which usually involves several hours of fighting flaring up and down, resupply, reinforcements etc.). Both types of action occured historically, and there are some players preferring the former and some the latter. And I think the conflict between Vadr and BadgerDog stems from the fact that Vadr would be categorized in the former group, and BadgerDog in the latter group of players.

The game favors (=better applies to) the former, for a number of reasons.

[ January 20, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

I think that what lies at heart of the matter of this whole affair is the ooooold problem of the artificial "turns" of the game.

good point

perhaps VPs awarded relative to turn captured and maintained..if you grab something on last turn of game you gain less VPs than if you controled it on turn 16...again greater flexability in victory condition design required.

Boris

london

[Dirtweasle]

Well, just a couple of things I've learned along the way. A wise man should try to;

1) Keep some indirect HE ready for the final few turns.

2) Always have some AT and AP units around what VLs you intend to defend. Even if it's a split Panzergrenadier squad with an AT mine.

Just my 2 cents on the VL rush, and so if this VL rush tactic is gamey or not... beats me. I suppose it's possible to make a case either way. I know I've done something simaler a couple times. I think once in a game against I tried it, only thing was he had a Tiger overseeing the area too and my HMC did'nt last too long!

[PiggDogg]

Vadr,

I just happened to see this thread.

What you did was in no way gamey. It may have been somewhat risky or foolish, but it is not gamey. :eek: You guessed right and got lucky.

Most anything that BO or BB allows "during" play is fair and right.

Generally, the only gamey things can be things done "before" play starts. Examples may be picking German Flak trucks or mixing Brits and Americans.

Other fine people may be able to think of some other gamey things.

Somewhat surprisingly, CM contains not many gamey gameplay issues. Certainly, that is quite good. Indeed, CM is a game, thus it should be played as a game.

Cheers, Richard

[ January 20, 2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Vadr]

Hi all,

I've been out of touch for a few days, but I'm happy to report that Internet via Satellite seems to work OK (if you can stand 2500 ms ping times).

Having read the recent postings, I'd like to say two things:

1) - I did not rush the armor forward because it was late in the game. I rushed the armor forward because the opportunity presented itself late in the game. Hell, I would have welcomed 5, 6 even 10 more turns in the battle. I would have brought up all of my infantry and the rest of my armor, perhaps a few MGs. On turn 20, it was 2 PzIVs and 1 Pz III vs what I estimate to be two platoons of 1942 (Molotov-equipped)Soviet infantry for control of the flags/bridge. Is that a one-sided battle? Anyone?

2) - Now I'll be honest: I would not have taken that bridge in this way in a CMBO battle. Even given the fact that I thought I had enough force committed to where it wasn't "a flakwagon and some trucks" situation. I thought this was one of the Major improvements in CMBB? In CMBO I grab the bridge on turn 20 and na-nha-na-nha-na. In CMBB, I might have to hold that bridge for 7 turns(!) with 3 tanks vs 2 platoons infantry? Doesn't that increase my risk in such a manuever?

Anyway, thanks very much for all the commentary, it's made for most interesting and informative reading. Most appreciated.

[PiggDogg]

Vadr,

1) In my cold, calculating, and realistic opinion, in BO ord BB, it is 'NOT' gamey to send a) any tank anywhere, c) at any time, d) for any reason, e) for not any reason during a CM game. If it was not gamey to pick the tank in the first place, you can use it any way that you please.

2) Further, since your action was in a variable end BB game, you opponent has even less of a justifiable gripe. Indeed, I feel that he has no gripe if you had been playing a fixed end, BO game.

If you send a halftrack, a jeep, a truck, a PzI on a suicide mission on the last turn of a game, so be it. Your opponent may not like it, but he should have battered you so badly that you could not have made that suicide move. In short, you can use any weapon that you have, in any manner that you wish.

If you would have pulled such an evil move against me, I would have congratulated you on a good move. If required, I would have pulled such a move against you or anyone. I expect that my opponents would do the same to me.

Remember, CM, both BO & BB, are just games, pretty accurate ones, indeed. One plays by the rules whether imposed by the game itself or by the players by agreement.

So don't feel guilty about your action. Your opponent was a whiner.

Cheers, Richard

[Cpt Kernow]

my 2 cents.

In cmbo a last turn flag rush by armour to a flag to either hold it or change its status to disputed is gamey. Especially when in a lot of situations I have witnessed that armour would not even survive the next ten seconds of the next turn were there to be one.

I consider it gamey because it invalidates everything that makes this game great. Why pay attention to tactics and all the subtlties that make this game the pinnacle if you then proceed to just brutishly fast move some armour without regard to the cconsequences to VL's.

To me we can argue about whether this is gamey or not, but I would go one further and say it is simply bad taste to play in such a way and when I see opponents doing so I just find for me it undermines and devalues the whole experience of playing this game.I now only play CMBB variable ending games now as I just cannot stomach this aspect of CMBO. I am very very relaxed about other issues of gameyness and can live with them all, but last minute flag rushes grrrrrrrrrrr.

In a cmbb (variable ending) game I would consider such actions much less gamey. Any change in flag status means the game will go on and the commander will have to live with the situation he has just put himself into. So even a last minute flag rush still forces the commander to make tactical decisions.