Question on "gamey" game play

[moneymaxx]

Sorry, wanted to edit my post, but quoted myself .

[ March 26, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

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 . )

That thread is just a little before my time. But as you can see this has been discussed before. I dunno how I feel about it now and that is what a good discussion can do.

I guess it does not need to come down to one's definition of what an ME actually is. For me, it comes down to the possibility of having an a-historical balance that is heavy on field guns.

But my thoughts are now slightly more mixed on the subject than they were. Either way, I've never insisted on this towed gun rule to any of my opponents. But I have had opponents insist on it and thus I mentioned it in the context of this discussion.

-Sarge

[ March 26, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[nevermind]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

Speaking of a battle,how bout dropping some more of that 300mm arty on my company of infantry.PBEM,or tcp/ip.....and you know me,id rather it be tcp/ip.Let me know,either here or in email.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

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

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 . )

That thread is just a little before my time. But as you can see this has been discussed before. I dunno how I feel about it now and that is what a good discussion can do.

I guess it does not need to come down to one's definition of what an ME actually is. For me, it comes down to the possibility of having an a-historical balance that is heavy on field guns.

But my thoughts are now slightly more mixed on the subject than they were. Either way, I've never insisted on this towed gun rule to any of my opponents. But I have had opponents insist on it and thus I mentioned it in the context of this discussion.

-Sarge </font>

[Fionn]

" I guess one has to start somewhere "

Yeah Nevermind... Soon I hope to add HMG target to your list of bests .

Moneymaxx,

I actually do agree with you. If you ever read the Rules I came up with for CMBO you'll see that they never limited the number of any unit one could bring to the battle ( although they may have suggested certain practical limits from experience). IOW in a Short 75 game one could have 25 Greyhounds if one wanted.

So, I agree with your basic standpoint although I'd probably be a bit more "realistic game" than "fun game".

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Fionn:

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,

I dont see the logic here. any good player would use a half sqd to scout ahead, do you consider that also gamey? The half sqd means less point lost instead of using a crew.

[Fionn]

Panzer76,

A good player using a half-squad to recon forward of his main unit is rather closely replicating real-world tactics.

A player using a crew which has just scrambled out of their destroyed, possibly burning, vehicle for forward reconnaissance is NOT closely replicating real-world tactics.

Therein lies the reason I find it gamey. Anyways, you're allowed your opinion re: this. I just have mine.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Fionn:

So, I agree with your basic standpoint although I'd probably be a bit more "realistic game" than "fun game".

That's exactly the problem that I have, what is the definition of a "fun play" vs. a "realistic game" ?

I can only present some of my force selections from recent PBEMs and TCP/IPs here and ask if this seems to be the selection of a “fun” or more or less “realistic” player, whatever those definitions mean.

900 points ME Allied (Americans):

1 x Rifle Company, 1 x Greyhound, 1 x M8 HMCs, 2 x M10 TD all regular.

1000 points Allied attack (British airborne + British Army), 1500 points for the attacker, 1000 for the defender (against Nevermind by the way, who I wish to thank for helping me in my first TCP/IP and PBEM):

1 x Parachute Company, 2 x 6 Pdr. ATG, 2 x Pack Howitzer, 1 x Daimler, 1 x Wasp, 2 x Wolverine, 2 x Cromwell VIII, I’m not so sure about arty but it was something like this:2 x 5.5inch, 1 x 4.2 inch mort, all regular.

2000 points ME Axis (Wehrmacht):

1 x Panther G, 2 x StuG IV, 2 x PSW 234/3, 5 x Mot. inf., 3 x 75 mm ATG, 2 x 50mm ATG, 3 x 75 mm inf. gun, 2 x Sdkfz 7, 1 x Spw 251/1, 5 x Panzerschrecks, 2 x 81mm mrt. FO, 1 x 120mm mrt. FO, all regular except maybe 1 or 2 Schrecks.

If I knew what kind of player-type this is, I could include it in my profile .

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

900 points ME Allied (Americans):

1 x Rifle Company, 1 x Greyhound, 1 x M8 HMCs, 2 x M10 TD all regular.

1000 points Allied attack (British airborne + British Army), 1500 points for the attacker, 1000 for the defender (against Nevermind by the way, who I wish to thank for helping me in my first TCP/IP and PBEM):

1 x Parachute Company, 2 x 6 Pdr. ATG, 2 x Pack Howitzer, 1 x Daimler, 1 x Wasp, 2 x Wolverine, 2 x Cromwell VIII, I’m not so sure about arty but it was something like this:2 x 5.5inch, 1 x 4.2 inch mort, all regular.

2000 points ME Axis (Wehrmacht):

1 x Panther G, 2 x StuG IV, 2 x PSW 234/3, 5 x Mot. inf., 3 x 75 mm ATG, 2 x 50mm ATG, 3 x 75 mm inf. gun, 2 x Sdkfz 7, 1 x Spw 251/1, 5 x Panzerschrecks, 2 x 81mm mrt. FO, 1 x 120mm mrt. FO, all regular except maybe 1 or 2 Schrecks.

If I knew what kind of player-type this is, I could include it in my profile .

I can only say that these are well considered and balanced forces IMHO. I call you both a "fun" and "realistic" player. (Because fighting against a balanced force like this would be challenging: ergo "fun").

-Sarge

[moneymaxx]

Thanks Sarge .

By the way, I just wanted to open a virtual bottle of champagne for all the readers of this thread because it finally made me a member (so some would say that "JUNIOR MEMBER" better describes the quality of my posts ).

[ March 26, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

[Fionn]

Well, a lot of people might have an issue with you mixing airborne infantry and tanks since, usually, the airborne operated without tanks plus lots of people find the airborne units very powerful and find their lack of tanks a balancing factor.

As to the others... I think they'd be fun/realistic. You went heavy on the arty in a couple of them and I wouldn't go for all those light guns myself but that's just a tactical difference.

OTOH you have to bear in mind that while I'd be OK with you using those forces in a free for all battle others might have very different ideas.

Again, the best thing is just to discuss it with your opponent before beginning the battle. If you're opponent is worth a damn he'll be open to the discussion. If he isn't open to the discussion or acts avoidantly then I just wouldn't play him/her as there may be more going on than you are aware of.

Nevermind,

I sent you a file yesterday and was actually waiting on you to reply.. I sent PBEM_53...

As to the 300mm arty. Hehe, I wish. No, as far as I remember it is only 105mm arty ( 2 x 105mm FOs).

Anyways, will resend the file and accompanying email.

[Sarge Saunders]

Found this from a while back. The ramblings of a drunken CMer and funnier than hell, but it defines the extreme view of "fun" versus "realistic".

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=017641#000000

Enjoy!

-Sarge

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Well, a lot of people might have an issue with you mixing airborne infantry and tanks since, usually, the airborne operated without tanks plus lots of people find the airborne units very powerful and find their lack of tanks a balancing factor.

Thanks for your quick reply Fionn. I actually chose the airborne units to get the 75mm Pack Howitzer, I just like to use guns . Buying a lot of guns has the advantage to overload the defensive capabilities of the opponent against guns, which are mortars and arty. Therefore freeing my infantry from the arty threat. If the opponent doesn't use arty, then I have a quite powerful weapon.

Just one more little question. Is it OK then to chose Fallschirmjäger as the Axis player together with the StuG IVs ( while not buying anything from the other force types). Also I'm no history grog, I know that this should be considered a realistic choice since the Canadians who liberated my hometown faced exactly that type of forcemix.

[ March 26, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

Found this from a while back. The ramblings of a drunken CMer and funnier than hell, but it defines the extreme view of "fun" versus "realistic".

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=017641#000000

Enjoy!

-Sarge

Great link Sarge, it's a must read!

[Louie the Toad]

I wish there were a way to settle the Tank Crew question. Some time ago a lad on the Forum stated that his grandfather was a FO in North Africa, for a tank regiment IIRC. He said he would ask him but I don't think there has ever been a posting about it.

My FEELING is: the crew is part of a larger unit which is more than just their tank, and if they are not hurt or dead then by god they can at least crawl up to the next crest and let the rest of us know what's out there before we go over the top.

I can readily appreciate Fionn's opinion as well and I have played both ways.

Craving the facts.... Toad

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

My FEELING is: the crew is part of a larger unit which is more than just their tank, and if they are not hurt or dead then by god they can at least crawl up to the next crest and let the rest of us know what's out there before we go over the top.

What a bunch of cowards, instead of going up that hill to take a look themselves, they send some shell-shocked crews who just escaped from their burning tank . It doesn't sound gamey, but the CO should definitly be court-martialed.

[ March 26, 2003, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

[Louie the Toad]

Yes, getting out of your tank to do it yourself would be the way, but that option is not in the game. If the crews are shell shocked then they would be panicked in the game and could not be given orders. When they can be given orders it follows that they must be ok.

As I said, it would be great to hear from someone who really knows.

Still waiting.... Toad

[xerxes]

There are definitely cases of gun crews running out of ammunition and picking up rifles and fighting. It certainly happened. Whether or not someone wants to call this gamey is different.

Personally, sending crews forward looks more like free VPs to me. Even more so in CMBB with the more effective mgs. I use my crews in very limited ways (ones that don't get them killed).

[Fionn]

Louie,

I agree with you re: tank crew dismounted recon. It is SOP and, IMO, should be allowed in the game. OTOH with borg spotting its loss is easily compensated for.

Moneymaxx,

Well if you select FJs you'll see that by default you are allowed to amte them up with StuGs since this was what happened often in real life. As such I wouldn't have a problem with it. Then again that's me and others differ.

There's no real right or wrong in this thing, just differences of opinion.

[Redwolf]

Gamey tricks in CMBB? I agree there are less than in CMBO, but lets see.

All Flak guns <= 37mm except the Russian 37mm are extremly hard to spot. There is an ultra-hard barrier in the game which immideately switches guns from easily spotted to almost unspottable once they go into that group.

Knocking out heavy tanks with 20/23mm FlaK guns works far too predictably. With a few tests you can exactly figure how much fire is required to make a crew of a given quality to abandon the sucker. usually such gamey tricks would fall victim to statistical variance, however in this case statistics are out because you accumulate so many shots that you have a hard predictable event. I won't tell what the threshold is, you have to figure it out yourself.

Combine those two points.

The slow turn rates in CMBB make certain attacks against turretless vehicles much more effetive than anything I read about real WW2 would support.

Exploiting the fact a tank which is current turning its hull will never fire. Make it turn with one unit, rush by all others. Works especially well for tanks with slow turrets which are likely to use hull rotation to make up for it, e.g. Tiger.

Exploiting the fact that planes shoot on trucks. Park a few trucks far away from your valuable units and you are all set.

Exploiting cover arcs. On tanks you can often see what kind of cover arc the player set for this tank and/or whether it's an armor arc. Rush other stuff by outside the arc.

It is too predictable when a gun will switch targets. By extension it is too easy to cause a gun to spend all its time turning back and forth.

The oversimplified artillery models leaves some totally unrealistic countertactics which I wrote down in my anti-artillery guide on thforums.

Try German 8-wheelers in snow and mud and compare to tracked vehicles.

[BlackVoid]

Nice list, 1 more:

Hiding your platoon (split to half squads) and setting an ambush arc for one half squad. Enemy platoon approaches hiding place and sends ahead a half-scoud. Your half squad in ambush kills the recon half-squad. Now the enemy platoon will use its superior firpower and route your half squad.

So now you set another half squad an ambush arc. Repeat....

Unless the attacker can use some MG or HE suppressive fire set to the area, he is screwed.

[Fionn]

BlackVoid I would have thought that was realistic ( if unorthodox).

If an enemy force doesn't thoroughly suppress an ambush site then it deserves to be repulsed time and again.

[lcm1947]

Ok I'm having a problem about the dismounted tank crews etc not being able to be used in certain circumstanes. Example; Here's your crew, fighting all around them. Where is he going to go? To the rear? Where's the rear and might the enemy not be in that direction anyway? I say crews would try to make thier way to the rest of the force in the area. If that's around a flag then I know I at least would try to hook up with these other troops. Would that be considered gamey?

[Fionn]

lcm,

It is fairly clear. If fighting is raging all around them and nearby then sure they may try to protect themselves but if you read actual accounts from WW2 you will be struck by how many times crews report bailing out under fire and how VERY, VERY seldom they say anything about fighting back.

No, the vast majority of the time they just talk about getting the hell away from the enemy and back to the rear where they can wrap themselves in a few inches of steel again.

As I said, you can draw the line wherever you want personally but if you're going by "realism" then crew accounts leave one in no doubt that realism equates to "get the hell away from the front line".

[nevermind]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Ok I'm having a problem about the dismounted tank crews etc not being able to be used in certain circumstanes. Example; Here's your crew, fighting all around them. Where is he going to go? To the rear? Where's the rear and might the enemy not be in that direction anyway? I say crews would try to make thier way to the rest of the force in the area. If that's around a flag then I know I at least would try to hook up with these other troops. Would that be considered gamey?

Heres what it all comes down to,you need to discuss these things with your opponent.I had the idea of a numbering system earlier in this thread,but only one person responded and everyone else seem to have over looked it.Look at this siteHERE ,you will see that there are only 5 categories,and that probably isnt enough,but it gives you an idea of what im talking about.I for example am close to being a number 4,i would know that i wouldnt get along with someone who was a 1 or 2.This numbering system(or a much improved one)would be put to perfect use at the Proving Grounds web site.That way there would need to be very little discussion as what rules to go by.There may still need to be some clearing up,but it would cut down on the time spent dealing with the terms.Another good idea for use at the Proving Grounds,would be a simple check list,that would ask you,for example,if you believe the use of "crews" in certian ways is gamey.It could be added to the details feature that is already in place.

Another possibility is to write a short summary of your gamey beliefs and mail them to your opponent before a game,and see if you can agree on terms.i think it was moneymaxx that said he was going to start dong this.