Perfect means most realistic...Your definition of "Gamey"

[Jack Carr]

"So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic."

-Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002

posted March 11, 2003 08:35 PM

This is why Combat Mission is great and will continue to improve.

In a recent thread, there was a brief discussion on what "gamey" meant. I see gamey as doing anything the game engine allows that takes a great strategy/simulator and turns it into a "game".

What's your definition of "Gamey"?

[Zarquon]

I think it's a rather pointless discussion. CM is a game and will always be a game. Although it handles many technical issues very well, like ballistics or firepower, things like borg spotting and instant communications prevent it from being a simulation. I think they've done an outstanding job of creating a warfare preudo-sim within the confines of a game, i.e. for CM (and any other game), playability comes first.

So there's no 'gamey' tactics as such. Take the game as it is. If the engine allows for something and you haven't agreed with your opponent on disallowing specific tactics, it's OK.

BTS has addressed a few issues since CMBO, like lowering the spotting abilities of crews, that were unrealistic, without compromising playability. But they can only go so far.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

...In a recent thread, there was a brief discussion on what "gamey" meant. I see gamey as doing anything the game engine allows that takes a great strategy/simulator and turns it into a "game".

What's your definition of "Gamey"?

I define "gamey" as anything my opponent does that works. This is the exact opposite of the exquisite tactics I use.

Oh, and in my dictionary there is a picture of Jim Boggs next to the word gamey, so there must be a connection.

[Phemur]

My definition of gamey is exploiting a game system to gain unfair or unrealistic advantage over an opponent.

For example, if you know of a bug in an engine, but refuse to apply a patch to keep an advantage over your opponents because of that bug, then you're gamey.

Sometimes, the game itself allows you to be gamey. The controvertial "unrestricted" game type is a prime example of this. It allows players to pick an all artillery force, which is completely unrealistic for WWII combat. That option however wasn't meant to be used for regular QB games, so you'd only be gamey if you insist on playing unrestricted battles.

I see gamey as doing anything the game engine allows that takes a great strategy/simulator and turns it into a "game".

I'm not sure I understand this definition. Combat Mission is a game, even if it does an excellent job of being a tactical simulator. Certain things appear very game like because of it, like Victory Points. There were no victory points in WWII.

To me, gamey is akin to cheating. Making a simulator behave like a game isn't gamey.

Phemur

[MikeyD]

I've said it before. There are two types of CM players.

First there's the 'historical recreationists' cut from the same cloth as those Civil War reenactor types who think a digital wristwatch on the battlefield ruins the whole experience. A CM equivalent would be cherry-picking units for power instead of authenticity, hugging the edge of the map to avoid encirclement, etc., etc. These are 'gamey' tactics. Showing the game engine in action to them is like pulling back the curtain to expose the Great and Power Oz.

The second type of CM player sees CM as a GAME, not a historical tool, and considers anything the game engine will allow is perfectly acceptible -- historically accurate or not. These are the guys with the all KV-1 formations in early 1941. They play to WIN! (See Phemur's comments above).

[ July 25, 2003, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Eric Alkema]

Only two? No middle ground?

[theike]

When the monopoly game reaches its final stages, and the one with fewest hotels stays in jail, happily, for the wole duration of the jail time...to avoid bankruptcy for a few more turns:

Then that is considered to be normal play. (Even the germans played it out like that..so even reality can provide for gamey situations at times)

I think the 'gamey' situations as u try to uncover only take place when the two types of people as Mike described them meet eachother, and dont make there games rules up within this game before starting up the game.

All is related to what one expects ore not.

I for one expect the other to want to stay in jail happily when they play me

I play this game just to get them there

[ July 25, 2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: theike ]

[Chad Harrison]

To me there is still some potential gameyness in CMBB. The point about all KV armor in 1941 could be used as an example, but to me that is just smart playing. You play to have fun, and loosing is no fun so you play to win If someone does not want to face 12 KV's in 1941 then they need to say something before the game starts.

But then there are other issues. Is bringing AT guns to a ME QB without a vehcile to tow them gamey? Is using crews to hold flags gamey? Having all SMG squads gamey? From CMBO, is bringing a Flak truck gamey? Is firing on a KV with 12 20mm light AA guns gamey?

To me none of these are gamey. Its a game, and if you find a way to increase your firepower per point spent, well, more power to you then. I play for fun and I might excuse my defeat in a game on the fact that I was facing 12 KV's with Mark II's, but Ill finish the game just the same. Then the next game Ill make them play as the Germans in 1941 and Ill have 12 KV's

Chad

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Dave H:

Oh, and in my dictionary there is a picture of Jim Boggs next to the word gamey, so there must be a connection.

I agree that gamey is more of a personal trait than a game system trait. Even if there are potential issues, it's really the player that takes advantage or not.

oh and Dave we will finish this weekend, do not worry my young friend.

[Jack Carr]

What is, "borg spotting"? I've seen the term used before in other threads.

Thanks for any help.

[theike]

U know the Borg, iexpect?

Well they operate as one organism, and in a way units in cm(bb) do aswell.

When one unit sees an enemy, all will know about it.(at that exact same time)

[ July 25, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: theike ]

[Jack Carr]

Got it! Thanks for the clarification.

[MikeyD]

Some people don't play for "fun"... at least not for the kind of fun play-to-win gamers mean. They derive their enjoyment by gaining an intellectual insight into how things happened - or could have happened - at a particular point in time at a particular place. Like seeing the effect of the introduction of the long-barrelled Stug F onto the battlefield. This player's shooting for a you-are-there suspension of disbelief while playing. But when their opponent purposefully brings affects of the game engine into the battle simply to gain an advantage (map edges, time limits, borg spotting, etc.) this diminishes the intellectual 'fun' of the other guy.

[theike]

I thought about the 'gameyness' some more.

came around to this;

Its a GAME and therefore i like to spend my time on it. War is gamey and gamey is war...thats my definition of gamey.

I wouldnt want this game to be like a war, when i play humans. Ore yes that would also be ok, but only when agreed on.

HITLER: 'Hee, dear Stalin, my friend and fellow dictator...U know i told u last time i called about the operation Barbarossa being planned?...Well its about to happen this month, i mean if it would only be up to us...So! what about that getting your army up to strenght to be abble to give us a good matching? Any progress on that?'.

STALIN: 'Well a good day to u too my friend and fellow dictator...Hmm, Its like this my friend; I know u already prosponed for 10 weeks, and i know u are a true friend for getting word in to me first, but; the thing is, our main and updated battalions are still all in the Leningrad region and seated here in Moskow...It would be impossible for me to meet u at the Polish bordooooh sorry...shhhht nothing said...'.

HITLER: 'No problem, Joseph, noone is listening...But u dont mind us going in then? If u do, maybe i could...'.

STALIN: 'No, no...Its up to u, im not going to make u wait any longer...So u WILL come to Moskow?...Ill meet u here then...(Gna gna gna)'.

HITLER: '??, what are u laughing about?...Your not making a fool of me are u?'.

STALIN: 'Surely not, i wouldnt...(Gna gna gna)'.

HITLER: 'Stalin, my friend...your not telling me about something...I can feel it...'.

STALIN: (Thinking...) 'U know Napoleon??!...(Gna gna gna)'.

HITLER: 'Yes i do...why?'.

STALIN: 'Oh, ok, never mind....nothing, I have to go now Hitler, someone is at my door, im sorry...U just go ahead my friend...I WILL have our forces ready for u, dont worry.'

'Gamey'

War=Gamey. They never try to be on equal terms ever.

But games i like.

[ July 25, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: theike ]

[Jack Carr]

Zarquon stated: I think it's a rather pointless discussion. CM is a game and will always be a game. Although it handles many technical issues very well, like ballistics or firepower, things like borg spotting and instant communications prevent it from being a simulation. I think they've done an outstanding job of creating a warfare preudo-sim within the confines of a game, i.e. for CM (and any other game), playability comes first.

I see your point here with this borg spotting thing. In my opinion, you've really hit it on the head when you said, things like borg spotting and instant communications prevent it from being a simulation. As soon as the borg spotting thing comes into play it sort of leaves the simulation genre behind and immediately moves into the strategy category.

[Panzertruppe]

As I consider myself a "fun' player who will put tank crews in houses to draw fire......hide a Kingtiger in a gully until the last 5 turns...."gamey" to me is the guy who gets pissed off because he is losing and then just uses his remaining units as "Cannon Fodder"!

It's those players that make CM "gamey". I like to win....but a good commander and player looses gracefully.

[ July 25, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Panzertruppe ]

[Jack Carr]

MikeyD posted: Some people don't play for "fun"... at least not for the kind of fun play-to-win gamers mean. They derive their enjoyment by gaining an intellectual insight into how things happened - or could have happened - at a particular point in time at a particular place. Like seeing the effect of the introduction of the long-barrelled Stug F onto the battlefield. This player's shooting for a you-are-there suspension of disbelief while playing. But when their opponent purposefully brings affects of the game engine into the battle simply to gain an advantage (map edges, time limits, borg spotting, etc.) this diminishes the intellectual 'fun' of the other guy.

I agree. I'm one of those people. For me personally, I don't start a scenario with "I gotta win this one" always first and foremost in my mind, but instead, much prefer to get a better understanding of why the Germans had such a hard time with the KV series of tanks early on in the war or why even though the Panther and Tiger were superior armored vehicles to their Soviet counterparts the Germans still had a hard time with Russian armor. Its these types of things that I enjoy much more than winning.

If you pit 10 T-34/76's against a like amount of King Tigers the outcome of the scenario is generally a foregone conclusion. On the other hand, if you pit 2 or 3 King Tigers against 10 to 12 T-34/85's with a smattering of IS-2's, it is precisely then that you gain an understanding of just what the situation was like.

[Boo Radley]

It may not be the ultimate in gameyness, but putting a landing craft on top of a high hill to act as an ammo magnet and a Borg spotter certainly has a large coefficient of gamiosity in it.

Not that I've ever done anything like that...

[Stavka_lite]

I think that all of the definitions listed so far are applicable. It is up to the players to agree upon the level of "gameosity" for their game. If two players want to have at each other in an "unrestricted" (consenual combat) QB, then I hope they have fun. Same thing applies to playing the scenarios with no "gameosity" at all.

Oh yeah, my definition of gameyness...unrealistic situations.

I just want to say a word or two about Borg spotting... Every unit on the map may know that a certain unit has been seen but this is mitigated to some extent that every unit may not be able to bring fire down on it. This is less so for indirect fire units. But s'la guerre simulation. I also rationalize this as the unit in question having an" OH S***" moment. Vlad says to Igor, "I think we are in deep borsht."<G>

[_Axe_]

Originally posted by Dave H:

Oh, and in my dictionary there is a picture of Jim Boggs next to the word gamey, so there must be a connection.

I can think of a few more choice words his picture is next to.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Axe2121:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dave H:

Oh, and in my dictionary there is a picture of Jim Boggs next to the word gamey, so there must be a connection.

I can think of a few more choice words his picture is next to. </font>

[Jack Carr]

Phemur posted: I'm not sure I understand this definition. Combat Mission is a game, even if it does an excellent job of being a tactical simulator. Certain things appear very game like because of it, like Victory Points. There were no victory points in WWII.

When I say it turns it into a game, I simply mean that it takes a serious, well made, well thought out, strategy game and brings it down to a level it was never intended to be at (unless of course ,as so many have already posted, both players agree that this is gonna be the goofiest, slap-happy, spoof of a historical battle there has ever been). Can the game engine accomodate such a battle? Of course it can. Did the designers of the game intend it to be used that way???

As far as I can tell, victory points are Combat Mission's way of letting you know how well or poorly you performed. It is based upon units destroyed/killed and objectives lost/captured. Are these factors good ones to gauge an outcome in combat? What other way would suggest if any at all?

[Phemur]

I simply mean that it takes a serious, well made, well thought out, strategy game and brings it down to a level it was never intended to be

I understand now. It's the same as part of my definition. The game does allow for unrealistic situations (such as the line of KVs), effectively creating a non-historical situation. That could be gamey.

But in my opinion, it's only gamey if a user uses this to win. I've played a few what-if scenarios that were totally unrealistic, and I didn't consider them gamey, as my opponent and I agreed on the map, forces, etc.

For me, gamey is only used if one player exploited the engine or the rules.

It is based upon units destroyed/killed and objectives lost/captured. Are these factors good ones to gauge an outcome in combat? What other way would suggest if any at all?

Combat is normally a battle for terrain. Whoever "owns" a piece of land at the end of a fight has won the battle. CM simulates this by objective.

I wouldn't consider eliminated personel as a measure of victory. There are many, many instances of a force getting pounded almost to oblivion, but in the end, that destroyed force managed to hold on to a piece of real estate, so they were effectively the victors of that battle.

The game is called Combat Mission after all. If the mission objectives have been reached, then the attacker wins.

Phemur

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley:

It may not be the ultimate in gameyness, but putting a landing craft on top of a high hill to act as an ammo magnet and a Borg spotter certainly has a large coefficient of gamiosity in it.

People actually do this???? Even I would walk away from the battle if I saw my opponent try anything like that.

As far as Edge Hugging goes, I think people who complain about this are in the wrong. If your opponent sends an infantry squad advancing forward while hugging the edge of the map, you should be prepared for that kind of flanking manuever. Besides, if they panic due to your fire, half will be lost due to them running off the map, no?

If you have gaping holes in your perimeter, that's your fault--not the opposition's.

[PeterX]

Chad Harrison posted:

But then there are other issues. Is bringing AT guns to a ME QB without a vehcile to tow them gamey? Is using crews to hold flags gamey? Having all SMG squads gamey? From CMBO, is bringing a Flak truck gamey? Is firing on a KV with 12 20mm light AA guns gamey?

Yes, yes, and yes, but who cares? If a someone gets a kick out of playing with the same units, the same nationalities, the same troop quality, the same weather, in a bizzaro combat setting lilke a ME then, by all means, he should do it! Gamey? Well, it's a game. Sometimes they're fun in a repetitive kind of way.

But let's be honest; selecting one's own battle group militates against historical realism- for those who care about that sort of thing. As time goes by, purchasing units begins to ressemble a Darwinian process wherein 3/4 of the avaible choices have been revealed through trial and error as not cost worthy. You can add artificial restraints, like Fionn's rules for CMBO, but they're an unsatisfactory palliative, IMO. In a ladder ME I played a few months ago I purchased a platoon of PzIIIJs. My opponent was stunned, he had never encountered them before. Now, this is 1942.

Conclusion: Buying one's own units is inherently gamey.

Unfortunately, the random QB generator(this is random EVERYTHING) is currently fubar for multiplayer.

[ July 25, 2003, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]