Speaking of gamey tactics...

[Hat Trick]

From Fionn:

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first paragraph, but not (necessarily) with its application in the second. Vadr moved his tanks on the last turn, which extended the game by three turns. His tanks survived for three turns, which provides some (but not total) justification for his move; i.e., his plan did "heed to the ability to continue keeping the enemy back after turn" 20, at least for three turns. Would they have had a good chance of survival for longer than that? Without seeing the battle I cannot say, and therefore am unsure about whether this was a gamey move.

Of course, an even stricter interpretation is not "the ability to continue keeping the enemy back after turn X" but whether the commander would have made such an order in real life, regardless the ability of his units to hold the position. For example, in this case the question is "would Vadr have used this strategy in these circumstances in real life, even if his tanks could hold the victory location?" In other words, if there had been no time limit, would he have rushed the tanks to the victory location, or continued with a different kind of attack. If the latter option was clearly better (assuming no time limit), then rushing the tanks is a gamey move. The problem with this standard (i.e., what would one do in the absence of a time limit) is that it is highly subjective.

Which is why I like to play games with many turns, even for small battles.