Jump to content

Question on "gamey" game play


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by nevermind:

On defense however,you would'nt use the same tactic though,right?

Right. And this thinking led me to pay much more attention to the HQ bonuses I have and to plan accordingly.

Important thing is to experiment with this suggestion and play how you have the most success either way. :cool:

-Sarge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

There's just one thing that I find gamey, and it's destroying buildings to gain LOS.

I hardly think this is the way it happened in real life: "Hmm, this field gun is hard to maneuver, and our troops need heavy support just a couple of blocks ahead of us. So maybe we'll just demolish the buildings in front of us to get a clear view!".

Haha! Whats wrong with knocking over a church to lay some surpressive fire down on the next block??? :D

[ March 24, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think there is very little in the game that can be considered "Gamey", unless its a bug in the game that can be capitalized on. As the saying goes. "All is fair in love and war." Of course, if there is a mutual agreement made before the game, then those rules must be followed.

And yet, there will always be some situations where you feel uncomfortable doing because it may be considered "gamey".

For instance, recently I have been setting up a pbem game where both sides have very simular men and equipment and are on a map that is geographically the same for both sides (mirror imaged). Now my problem/dilema. Because I know that we both start in opposite corners of the map, would it be "Gamey" to drop artillery in the first turn with the chance that if my opponent does not change his default setup for men and vehicles, the barrage could be devastating.

Although, I dont think I would do this sort of thing, I have set up my men just in case this situation would occur. My conscience does not allow me to attack this way, but I cant say for sure if my opponent would.

Same thing in a real war. There are some things that you would or could not do, but your enemy will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

Thanks Sarge, I get your point. Anyway I like to have transports for my guns, because it gives extra mobility.

The one transport one gun rule seems a little strict though since not all guns were transported by HT or trucks. I've seen pictures of tanks pulling guns and since horses are not simulated, but I don't want to bring THAT subject up again. Therefore, in the future, I'll buy a transport for every "heavy gun" like the Pak 40 and only some for the light ones like the 75mm inf. Having them in a prepared position doesn't seem gamey. If we accept, that a strange thing like MEs happen, then I would say that they definetly don't happen "out of the blue" otherwise all forces should be in transport order before the battle begins, since not only guns have to be set up, tanks, infantry, and FO, all take there starting positions inside the setup-zone before the battle begins. Maybe ermergency battle would be a better name for a ME, in which both forces have to take a vital position without adequate forces, hence without a point advantage.

And now, surprise smile.gif , I would like to go back to Nevermind's original question. Also many posts in this thread didn't answer his questions directly, I think the answers show that there is NO standard at all regarding what players consider gamey . Therefore I made it a habbit to send the list of possible "gamey tactics" to my opponent before the battle begins (I will add the subject transport for guns). In the end I or he/she can still decide to play or not (do female CM players exist? :D ). An example is the the AAR which can be found here: . I think it is undisputed that Fionn is one of the best CM players, who wants to tell him he is gamey because he bought 12 M8 HMCs. Well I definetly don't. I think surprise is the best thing about CMBO or CMBB and I'm trying to find a force mix that can deal with nearly all force mixes my opponent can have (bugs aside like the Flak SdKfz in CMBO). Though I have to admit that I mainly play Combined Arms and that it is always possible to set the parameters in a way that only one side can win. E.g CMBB open ground, dry, unrestricted force, no trees, no hills, day, 1941. I play Allies with only KV-1s :D .

And yet another answer, yes I like to discuss the game that I just played with my opponent, but I find it easier when I lose smile.gif . Winning and then talking about it, does feel a little bit strange.

I definetly hope, that this thread continues, beeing a little bit off topic at the beginning, it became very interesting recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

No Stugs are not transports. The idea is that in meeting engagements, forces are on the move and would not have guns set up ready for action on turn one. Thus the "rule" would be one gun per transport since they would need to be driven to postion and disembarked.

This is, pardon me, just silly. Who's to say the transports haven't simply already unloaded the guns and skedaddled?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Haha! Whats wrong with knocking over a church to lay some surpressive fire down on the next block??? :D

Because it ain't realistic. In real life, the building would probably create a pile of rubble high enough to still prevent LOS, or at very least create a smoke/dust cloud that'd definitely last more than several measly minutes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Joques:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

No Stugs are not transports. The idea is that in meeting engagements, forces are on the move and would not have guns set up ready for action on turn one. Thus the "rule" would be one gun per transport since they would need to be driven to postion and disembarked.

This is, pardon me, just silly. Who's to say the transports haven't simply already unloaded the guns and skedaddled? </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

[Further, if we just start making assumptions about what happened "before" the battle (ie, transports already dropped guns off) then some people may make assumptions that you don't agree with. And I think the whole point of gamey/unrealistic/unhistorical discussion is to not make assumptions that would lead to disagreements with your opponents.

But lets talk about it in terms of expectations. In an "attack" QB, one does not expect to run forward at break-neck pace to guard the VLs. For one reason, hidden/prepared AT guns will kill your armor from turn 1. In a "meeting engagement", it is expected for both sides to make for the objectives, and thus each other, in the first few turns. People do not expect to be ambushed by prepared and hidden AT guns on turn 1 of a meeting engagement! And I suggest that this is because of people's expectations of what a "meeting engagement" actually is.

-Sarge [/QB]

Who said that it is expected to run for the victory locations in the first few turns. It seems that this is an assumption too ("how one should play an ME"), much like the assumptions about "what happened before the ME".

I don't want to question your point of view about what a ME is, I just have a different one. As I've stated I think it's an emergency situation in which both parties have to take an VL with an equal force. Both parties have then of course some knowledge about of the presence of the enemy and don't just bump into each other giving time for some preparation.

Anyway, more than showing that we have different opinions smile.gif , it shows that there is definetly a need for clarifying this BEFORE starting any battle with a new opponent .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

Anyway, more than showing that we have different opinions smile.gif , it shows that there is definetly a need for clarifying this BEFORE starting any battle with a new opponent .

Exactly! smile.gif As I said before, I have some games with a "no holds barred" approach. But when approaching a new game with an experienced player, I usually follow the towed gun rule just to be safe.

-Sarge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, my towed gun rule hinges less on whether guns are available and prepared at the start of a meeting engagement and more on the unbalancing cost issue. More than a few QB ME maps would have sight lines from one setup zone to the other. A majority of them have LOS lines from each setup zone to the VLs. Without paying for any transport, it would be tempting to buy hordes (say more than 10) of cheap guns (150mm, 75/76.2mm IG, Flak, etc.) that could have an effect disproportional to their cost. This is especially true for 2000 to 3000 points QBs.

Just more to think about...

-Sarge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never agreed on the buy transport for guns requirement in MEs.

1. It's not realistic (most guns didn't have motorized transport)

2. An ME doesn't mean forces on the move necessarily.

3. Guns are quite vulnerable, Mortars eat them for lunch.

4. Guns without transport in an ME are quite risky, it's not at all gauranteed they will have sufficient LOS.

5. The game engine doesn't enforce transport for guns in an ME. (which the designers could have put in).

That said, I always buy some prime movers for my guns because I think that's the smart thing to do. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its the term "Meeting Engagement" that throws people off.I would assume that historically,a ME would be a situation where the enemy has broken through your front lines and is moving unapposed toward your supply lines,or rear area.That being said,you dont know exactly where the enemy is,or is going,you just head toward last know location,and see if you bump into him.On the other hand,you could guess what he is going to do and try to anticipate him,and set a ambush.Unfortunately,this is a game,and you know that you have found the enemy,so its up to you how you play it.I would hope realistically.

I believe that the location of the ME should determine if you have transports or not.If it is in a town or higher,i would think that any commander(in their right mind)would have something in a overwatch role before advancing,whether it be AFVs or guns of some sort.High command is often wrong as to whether or not there are enemy in a given location,and i believe this is how it should be approached.

If its in rural/farmland i would think that having preplaced guns would seem illogical,and one should have atleast one transport.Think about the scenario "A Chance Encounter",perfect example of a rural or village bumping into of one another.

A village could be a toss up,since it would be more difficult to hide a large enemy force in,and depending on your objective,you may see the risk of a blind rapid advance into said village as justified.

I will also say that after hearing differing views on this,that from this day on,i will buy atleast one transport of some type,regardless of location of engagement.Plus,i've been stuck with guns with no possible starting location with good LOS,and by the time it was pushed into a resonable location the battle was pretty much over.

[ March 25, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: nevermind ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, now that I think about it, I buy multiple transports for my guns in any ME I've played. In any case, if my opponent wants to forgo prime movers, it's his gamble. I don't like to take risks with my force selection.

(Personally I'm not too fond of MEs, they are the least historical encounter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moneymaxx,

I just saw your post and wanted to clarify something. IN general terms I'd figure that the force I picked there was definitely a bit gamey.

OTOH my opponent and I played that game in order to show off two different styles of play ( the manoeuvrist attacker vs the static defender). Since I'm an adherent of Soviet doctrine I was left trying to find US vehicles to fulfill Soviet roles.

This ended up making the whole thing look gamey within the narrow confines of the types of games most people play. OTOH said gameyness was essential to actually bringing a quasi-realistic force to the battlefield in order to illustrate how a manoeuvrist attacker could achieve decisive manoeuvre even in a small CMBO battle.

Just thought I should explain since I thought you may have been unclear regarding the context of the force purchases on both sides.

As to ideal force:

1 x Bn of infantry, 1 x platoon of medium tanks with a good gun ( armour is a secondary consideration), 2 x 120mm (or near enough) mortar FOs.

That force is perfectly balanced to attack, defend or conduct an ME with a high degree of lethality (IMO).

As to the general point being discussed here. Everyone draws the "gameyness" line slightly differently. IMO the best way to play is to set some general limits with one's opponent.

Discussion prior to play and then open discussion during play is the key IMO. Every so often you'll find someone who is not amenable to reason and then you're best to just stop the game and refuse to replay them. After all we play for enjoyment and there's precious little fun in facing an intransingent fellow.

[ March 26, 2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Fionn:

During the game I got concerned that some crews were in the vanguard of his force. We exchanged about 2 emails about it and we came up with a little moratorium on the fighting to allow his crews to retreat back into cover and begin the infantry only fight.

I know this is none of my beeswax, but I don't see the problem. Crews are essentially worthless to him, and free victory points on the hoof for you. If somebody sent their crews into the front line against me, I'd be happy to grab the extra points!

Along the same lines, I don't see how a last-turn flag rush is gamey. If I allow my opponent to rush my flag, then I haven't been defending it very well, have I? More power to him I say, for exploiting my weak perimeter.

I don't buy the concept of "gamey" play. I know some players do, but don't for a second think that you are more "worthy" of the game than I, just because you insist on playing within the boundaries of some self-imposed ruleset.

Hardly any one person on this list has the same threshold for what's gamey. There will always be dabates when one guy pulls a move which he thinks is perfectly legit, but which will make his opponent scream bloody murder. The only logical solution: Play the game within the boundaries of what the game allows. There is probably not (as somebody has already said) any single gamey tactic in this game that will give you a real advantage.

Oh, and stay away from QB's. They open up a whole other can of worms. Playtested scenarios are, like, a hundred thousand times cooler. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies are in order...

I've checked my games and found that the discussion I'm thinking of happened in the game against Cortes ( which began only a little while after our game). So, apologies, with the misapplication. FWIW though I consider IS-2s to be the equivalent of Panthers. MY Panthers are quite capable of killing them so stating that you took IS-2s was in, no way, a statement that you had broken a notional "no heavy tanks" rule.

So, sorry for the misattribution, I got mixed up between games but even if we had had that discussion you weren't breaking any notional rules by picking IS-2s so I was NOT accusing you of any bad sportsmanship. It was intended as a jokey comment.

As to the crews comment: Well I thought my point re: crews DID show that you were a good, honest opponent. I spoke of a concern I had and you dealt with it reasonably and removed that concern from the game. No-one could have asked for more. I was just trying to show that even in-game one could discuss game issues with one's opponent ( as we did) and achieve excellent outcomes ( as we did).

I've editted the post to remove that portion as it may just confuse people.

So, just to be clear. I've always found Nevermind a very nice, honest, honourable opponent who stuck within agreed game parameters and dealt with any in-game concerns I had in the most sportsmanlike manner possible.

Joques,

What worried me re: crews in the front line is that they can be used to trip ambushes saving SMG units etc from being anihilated in surprise attacks, thus making the enemy's eventual victory more likely. Crews in the frontline are mostly valuable as ambush trippers. Sure there's a cost in points but if one's attack succeeds because of those 2 or 3 platoons of SMG troops you saved from being ambushed then you more than recoup the cost.

Again, to be clear, Nevermind wasn't doing that and my mention of our game was intended to show that against an honourable opponent one can discuss gamey tactics worries on the fly.

Your opinion differs and I respect that. It is also why I wouldn't ever play you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Fionn:

Your opinion differs and I respect that. It is also why I wouldn't ever play you.

Hey that's cool. smile.gif I'm not cutthroat or anything, I'm just really laid-back and I play this game for fun. And it IS fun! smile.gif If somebody'd trip my ambush (fairly long shot, BTW) with crews, I'd kill the crews, grumble about it good-naturedly and take more care in the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Fionn:

Moneymaxx,

I just saw your post and wanted to clarify something. IN general terms I'd figure that the force I picked there was definitely a bit gamey.

OTOH my opponent and I played that game in order to show off two different styles of play ( the manoeuvrist attacker vs the static defender). Since I'm an adherent of Soviet doctrine I was left trying to find US vehicles to fulfill Soviet roles.

This ended up making the whole thing look gamey within the narrow confines of the types of games most people play. OTOH said gameyness was essential to actually bringing a quasi-realistic force to the battlefield in order to illustrate how a manoeuvrist attacker could achieve decisive manoeuvre even in a small CMBO battle.

Just thought I should explain since I thought you may have been unclear regarding the context of the force purchases on both sides.

Fionn, I know, that you bought your forces to show a Soviet tactic, should have pointed this out. But what I wanted to say was, that I don't consider buying a lot of M8s gamey at all, I love surprises. So if my opponent surprises me with a lot of them, great. I want to add that I shouldn’t have used your name to give weight to my argument, just assuming that you share my opinion, sorry about that smile.gif .

Talking about assumptions, I did a search last night and I found a discussion about "guns without transport units" that can be found here (and around 100 threads about gameyness): http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=020742#000000. The same arguments were used, most of them develop around the different assumptions what a ME is. So if anybody is interested, take a look. (Hey Sarge Saunders, you took part in the discussion, why didn’t you mention it. It’s from 2001 one though smile.gif . )

Reading it makes it even more clear: THE BEST THING IS TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT WITH YOUR OPPONENT BEFORE THE BATTLE STARTS!

[ March 26, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...