Is this gamey?

[RCHRD]

I play exclusively vs. the AI, quick battle. I'm trying to build the skills to give a good account of myself in a face to face game. I always buy a couple of sharpshooters for the sole purpose of poking around the opposite side of the map. Point men and outposts. Is this considered gamey?

[OGSF]

No.

[Joe Shaw]

It's always a good idea to check with your opponent prior to a game as to any "gamey" issues they may have. Some find it gamey to use sharpshooters in a recon role, others find it gamey to run jeeps at high speed through enemy lines and still others find it gamey to use a processor that's different than the one they use.

In your specific case, it's been established that the use of a purely biological processor provides a significant advantage over digital, electronic processors. Based on that you're a gamey swine and I wouldn't blame the AI if it never plays you again.

Joe

[Patgod]

side note...does the jeep have that same issue as the flakwagons where it wont die?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Patgod:

side note...does the jeep have that same issue as the flakwagons where it wont die?

In principle yes.

However, the nature of the bug is that the owner of the unarmored vehicle has to keep it moving fast. But the Jeep is only fast on road, where the halftrack has good going in open ground. The usual CMBO map doesn't have enough streets to exploit this in a jeep, except in city games where smallarms will kill the Jeep quickly.

And even more important, you have to keep a long distance to keep away from smallarms which will kill unarmored vehicles just fine.

The flak tractors have the flak guns which are very accurate and still deadly at long range, in fact longest range is best for them.

What useful thing can you do with a Jeep that lets you keep long distance?

[YankeeDog]

The reason why some consider the far forward deployment of sharpshooter as an OP to be gamey is that IRL, a unit like a sharpshooter in WWII would not have a radio or any other way of communicating what it saw in it's far forward position to other friendly units without trekking all the way back to friendly lines and relating the information verbally. Needless to say, this would take a long time.

Basically, the gameyness issue here is an extension of the whole 'relative spotting' debate.

Of course, sharpshooters aren't the only unit that presents this problem. Any far forward unit used as an OP that wouldn't have a radio could fall victim to the same gamey argument.

I personally am a fan of the "if it's not agreed upon before the battle starts, it's not gamey" rule. There's just too much in the the way of tactics and units that could be seen as gamey. If you and your opponent don't specifically agree on a tactic's exclusion before you start.

[RCHRD]

What if the sharpshooter is always within about 40-60 meters, relaying by hand signals?

[Patgod]

what if he's a pothead and relays smoke signals?

[Mud]

If he's within a reasonable distance -- 40-60m doesn't sound too bad... -- then I doubt that there would be a problem.

I think the problem threshold for recon is crossed when units are sent ahead, well out of C&C, and small-enough quantities that the only reasonable explanation is suicide recon.

Sending a group of several armed ACs on a flank probe isn't gamey recon, although it may be bad tactics depending on the terrain.

Sending a single AC on each edge well ahead and having them race forwards on contact to gather as much intel as possible before they die, instead of withdrawing to safety, would be far worse.

Sending crews and out-of-ammo troops well ahead to trip ambushes and find minefields would be downright despicable -- on the level with exploiting game bugs wrt. the flak trucks, for instance. Basically, I find it implausible that they would be willing to do that duty, or that they'd be telepathic and able to transmit their ill-gotten information gains.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by RCHRD:

What if the sharpshooter is always within about 40-60 meters, relaying by hand signals?

Well, I can't speak for all CM players, but I have difficulty seeing how this type of deployment could be seen as gamey. In fact, I have read an excellent first person account of a U.S. WWII vet who was a sharpshooter in the ETO. Much of what he describes in terms of the action he saw was basically ranging a little bit ahead of an advancing platoon to try to spot enemy positions.

Another curious element of his story - he was issued a scoped Springfield rifle rather than a Garand, and his ammunition was red tracer ammo only. The idea was that when he saw an enemy position, he would fire off a couple of rounds so the rest of the platoon could see the tracers and therefore see where the enemy position was.

Unfortunately, the old "tracers work both ways' rule came in to effect, and he usually found himself getting fired upon by every german within 500m when he loosed off those tracer rounds, so he traded in his Springfield for a Garand. He said the Garand worked just fine for sniping, but it wasn't as accurate a extreme ranges.

I'm not exactly sure how CM could model the use of tracer rounds by sharpshooters to mark enemy positions, or how that would enter in to the whole gameyness debate.

And, yes, both sides did send recon units forward with radios or wire sets to serve as forward OPs until CM gets rid of absolute spotting, though, trying to simulate these units is pretty much moot - right now, CM basically treats all units like they have radios and are in constant communication.

I imagine that the whole relative vs. absolute spotting issue will be one of the major debates for the engine rewrite. There's already a lot of discussion about it going on here.

[Patgod]

i really hate the flak truck bug, because i would really like to be able to use them. yes the 20mm's are very acurate...but then they were in real life as well.

[lcm1947]

I couldn't have said it better or agree with you more YankeeDog. I don't see why everybody just can't agree that this is not gamey and just kind of except it as being OK to do. Now the jeep thing is another story.

[xerxes]

The whole jeep rush is gamey thing is lost on me. I've had it happen a couple times to me and I was confused by what my opponent was doing. My mgs would just open up and kill them, then kill the crews. Wasted purchase points and easy knockout points for me. So what if they throw a little HE at my mgs? I'll make that trade any day. I'd prefer having my opponent expose his HE throwers by firing at mgs then by firing at my squads.

Jeep rushes are just stupid.

And using sharpshooters for recon is perfectly acceptable. Borg spotting is not a bug, it's a limit of the modelling. There is now way not to take advantage of borg spotting.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yes. Everything's gamey.

[Panzerfaust]

I dont see how it matters if sending snipers ahead as recon is gamey or not, considering that in any case snipers will be sent ahead of everyone else on sniping missions you have no control over how much info said sniper is going to give you. Im not going to stop sniping missions because the game doesnt factor in the fact that my snipers dont have radio contact with hq. Some gamey issues are going to exist with no remedies for them because thats the way it was coded. I dont to take advantage of minor flaws in the game mechanics but I wont change my normal strategies because it may give me more info than a real commander would. Snipers were sent behind enemy lines and I will do the same with mine, if I get instant information on troop positions as a result well so be it. I mean really whats more gamey the info I get from that sniper or the fact I know the dispostion of all my forces at a click of the mouse. Its a game and to make it work sacrifices have to be made, Im happy with decisions made by bts in regards to the way info is relayed and respect the fact that they did the best anyone could possibly do to overcome these issues.

[ May 14, 2002, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Panzerfaust ]

[zukkov]

games at this level(tactical) are extremely difficult to simulate accurately. the fact that we can instantly give orders to all troops under our command and have nothing more than a few seconds delay(depending on their experience) is unreallistic. but as many have said, there's just no way to completely overcome this in a game. with regards to gamey manuevers, i never intentionally move any of my guys in such a way as to put them in harm's way unnecessarily. it never even ocurred to me to send jeeps/ht's/whatever down the map edge or drive hell bent for leather into a suspected enemy position on a suicide mission just to see if anyone's home. but it doesn't surprise me that some do. i just try to behave as if i were actually there in the battle. if some officer ordered me to hop in a jeep and ride into an enemy held position, i think i'd kill him on the spot. lol...

[Chelt]

Brings to mind a case of recce-with-fast-vehicles down at the company level: British armoured divisions each had a Motor Battalion attached - usually cavalry troops (often some flavor of dragoon) - all of whom were mounted in tracked vehicles. Motor Battalions were divisional troops, mind, and not the same as the motorised units which formed the bulk of the division's infantry.

Each company within the battalion had a Scout Platoon of ten Carriers organized in three three-vehicle section plus an HQ carrier. The crews carried 2-in mortars and PIATs, and they were accustomed to working dismounted.

Now this suggests to me that checking terrain ahead using fast, cheap vehicles, at least if you do have dismount scouts, is a reasonable idea - even in the small-scale engagments that CM tries to model.

I've tried it, and you can get good results, whirling around to the back of a patch of woods without drawing fire, disembarking a scout team to sneak about in the woods, and happening upon AT gun positions that never quite saw you. At least in rolling terrain with fair cover, a Universal Carrier - a small target, with good speed across country - has a reasonable chance of survival, especially because their crews tend to pop smoke and back out of sight.

The only trouble is, even then, it's uncommonly hard to pull that sort of recce work off because the embarked infantry don't cooperate. PIAT and mortar teams are too slow, and split infantry squads that are out of command break left, right, and center, even if you don't want them to get involved in any fighting. Pity that there's no two or three-man "scout team" unit. I'm waiting for the day when crews can abandon and then remount their vehicles!

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Patgod:

i really hate the flak truck bug, because i would really like to be able to use them. yes the 20mm's are very acurate...but then they were in real life as well.

No problemo! Just use the towed version or Wirbelwind, and not many will call you gamey.

Cheers

Olle

[Lanzfeld]

Guys I've been gone for awhile playing other sims but I am back now! (Note the old member number!) I have not heard of this "Flak Truck Bug". I did a search but I only got this thread. Please explain.

[Shapeshifter]

Yes please explain this flak truck bug,currently Iam playing in some pbem games in one of tham i use also that flak truck,but I think it is shurly not gamey to fire with it against Infantry,because this was also common in WWII as far as i know.

[Redwolf]

Broken unarmored flak halftrucks:

http://thforums.com/CMBO/modules.php?op=modload&n ame=FAQ&file=index&myfaq=yes&id_cat=2&categories=CMBO+FAQ%27s&parent_id=0#11

[ May 17, 2002, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Lanzfeld]

Wow, thanks redwolf, I never knew.

[Bruno Weiss]

I did a search but I only got this thread. Please explain.

Aaah, I think it came about when someone decided it was an uberweapon on account of it worked and their zooks didn't kill it right off, so it got labled bad form by the Gamey Polizei.

[Shapeshifter]

Thank's redwolf for the great link

[Redwolf]

All that zoffing around the Flak halftrucks comes from the fact that they are so effective for two reasons:

1) They are hard to kill (when the opponent knows how to exploit the bug)

2) They have the autocannon with its extremly high hit probability in CMBO

Only the first item is a result of a clear brokenness in CMBO, but the second item also holds nasty surprises for people not aware of it. While the wisdom of the computer model chosen for the autocannon can be argued as well, it is clearly not a bug, but intentional. See http://thforums.com/CMBO/modules.php?op=modload&name=FAQ&file=index&myfaq=yes&id_cat=2&categories=CMBO+FAQ%27s&parent_id=0#12

Not all people rate these two issues with the same view, and not all people enter discussions with the same pervious experiences, (that the so-called taste and opinion thingies), and that leads to misunderstandings.