Is this gamey or realistic?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />he painted a picture of the scene and gave me a print; if anyone wants to see it I could scan it.

Ah ha! Proof positive. I wanna see it Michael Dorosh. It's ever bit as good of evidence as some moldy old training manual saying German tanks did some such or other. </font>

[Bruno Weiss]

Hey Thanks Michael Dorosh. I love original soldier art from the war. They are usually a snapshot of history that only the artist saw happen.

Ah hem, well, there you have it. Fire being used as a weapon. "Look what I have done. I, have made fire!"

[JasonC]

newlife thinks he is having fun with me. He thinks the Germans didn't light fires with cans of gasoline because gasoline was scarce - and he is defending lighting fires with gasoline shot out of flamethrowers. This is called willfully missing the point. If the fire is more useful than the can of gasoline, the fire would be set. Not flamethrower necessary. If the flamethrower can afford the gasoline, then so can the whole German army.

Then he thinks actually they would have used fire all the time just like he does in his gamey CM outings, except it was usually raining. Um, no. And the inside of buildings doesn't get wet when it rains anyway. Dryness is actually needed only to help spread fires over wide areas of forest or wheat or open ground. But fires don't spread in CM, at all. And men would be more reluctant to use fire when it could easily burn down their own position, not less.

Then he thinks his balanced force of all arms could defeat any of my extreme forces of gamey single underpriced and overmodeled forces. He is on. He gets 1000 pts of combined arms Americans, meeting engagement. I get unrestricted German force type to take whatever particular gamey types I want. He won't get out of the starting blocks. We can do several rematches, so he can vary his techniques. But I won't pick the same gamey force twice, I promise. He won't win once.

[newlife]

Hi Jason,

I'm mostly having fun because we really shouldn't be that far apart on this issue. Basically my point is fire isn't modeled perfectly, but not so horribly that it should be outlawed by the Gods of Gameyness.

It doesn't matter how the germans started their fires, whether by FT or not. Conditions were very often wet, or damp if not raining and therefor fires outside wouldn't start all that well. Fire in buildings obviously still would. In addition, fires are only useful in specific situations tactically (and as you point out, heavily time dependent). Finally, you need a fighting force whose doctrine includes the use of fire in this way. Otherwise you need a commander willing to go against doctrine.

This all sums up to say that fire wasn't used very often in real life as we are seeing in the game. And the reason may have more to do with the conditions right required for fire, and not necesarily because it is modeled SO badly in CM that is gives an unfair advantage and encourages people to do so.

The game includes Flame Throwers. That means we should be able to set things on fire. To do so in a nonhistorical way doesn't make it wrong (unless you insist on playing historically).

In CMBB we will be seeing improved fire behavior. Guess What? You will still see plenty of buildings going up in smoke. Why? Because fire can be effective. With the wind at your back, why not risking setting that field ablaze?

As for the game. I'll agree to play only if we do so in a friendly manner. Life is to short to be wasted in grudge matches. I regularly offer my opponents unrestricted force selection so I don't see why I shouldn't with you. However, we play in random weather with random time in realistic terrain. (Town, moderate cover and any hilliness). No, I'm not dumb enough to attack an 88 position over 1km of open terrain.

I won't be here this weekend, but I can play on Feb 23 or 24 (I live in Boston). I would prefer TCP/IP as I'm horrible about returning PBEM on a regular basis.

Pete

Originally posted by JasonC:

newlife thinks he is having fun with me. He thinks the Germans didn't light fires with cans of gasoline because gasoline was scarce - and he is defending lighting fires with gasoline shot out of flamethrowers. This is called willfully missing the point. If the fire is more useful than the can of gasoline, the fire would be set. Not flamethrower necessary. If the flamethrower can afford the gasoline, then so can the whole German army.

Then he thinks actually they would have used fire all the time just like he does in his gamey CM outings, except it was usually raining. Um, no. And the inside of buildings doesn't get wet when it rains anyway. Dryness is actually needed only to help spread fires over wide areas of forest or wheat or open ground. But fires don't spread in CM, at all. And men would be more reluctant to use fire when it could easily burn down their own position, not less.

Then he thinks his balanced force of all arms could defeat any of my extreme forces of gamey single underpriced and overmodeled forces. He is on. He gets 1000 pts of combined arms Americans, meeting engagement. I get unrestricted German force type to take whatever particular gamey types I want. He won't get out of the starting blocks. We can do several rematches, so he can vary his techniques. But I won't pick the same gamey force twice, I promise. He won't win once.

[newlife]

hi Jason,

Just to let you know, I'll be skiing in NY this weekend so I won't be aound to answer email. It will be your choice of month. Do I get a choice of Nationality? Plus, let me know what I'm not allowed to use.

Pete

olandt@mac.com

[JasonC]

Let me get this straight: the *only* terrain type you will play in is "town"? - lol.

[Gates-slut]

Looks like some of us point at the extreme edges to make our points clear. This is pointedly a distraction that points out the pointlessness of pontification. I'd punt if I could but patsy picked perhaps the perfect peeve.

So is what them wot's agin setting fire to stuff saying that they would holler "Boo - HISSS" at an opponent who denied them egress by torching a bit of land or a house? Lets say its a 700 point quick battle with computer picked forces, (and not some ridiculous thing where someone takes an unrestricted force of all wasps against an opponenet whom, like myself, attempts to pick historically accurate {within my feeble understanding of what that means} and simply sets fire to everything in sight). I got some engineers and the loverly little FTs wot goes with em and you got a company of guys with guns and stuff. The enemy is coming to town and I torch a building that is oh, say near the edge and is the only cover around for about 50 meters and I have some nice fire lanes covered with HMGs in the open spaces on either side of the building. Are you going to scream bloody murder because I can't really keep you out of that house, but I can force you to seek an alternate route into my undermodelled yet withering and not at all gamey machine gun fire? Would you say to me "You RAT BASTARD I AM NEVER PLAYING YOU AGAIN?" or would you say, "Damn. Time for plan B?"

As with most of these discussions, there is a tendency toward the edge (not gamey edge hugging) to make the argument, when in some reasonable circumstances a reasonable person might do something like set fire to a building in order to prevent someone else from being in it, not thinking that doing so means that in all circumstnaces they will always set fire to anything around just because they can. The originator of the thread asked a question, and by golly I pegged the way the responses would go.

I will continue to set fire to things when it seems like the thing to do (at least until the local constable asks me down to the station to assist him with his inquiries), and not feel a jot gamey by doing so.

And speaking of ways to set fire to things, Idjit Yeknod set fire to a building he was in from the back-blast of a zook shot. That was MUTHA beautiful to watch. Two squads in there with the zook had to run out and they are in the process of being mowed down by mg fire from the spw250/1 that the zook was shooting at, and some supporting infantry. Golly I love this game!!!

Gates-slut

[Yeknodathon]

Originally posted by Gates-slut:

Looks like some of us point at the extreme edges to make our points clear. This is pointedly a distraction that points out the pointlessness of pontification. I'd punt if I could but patsy picked perhaps the perfect peeve.

So is what them wot's agin setting fire to stuff saying that they would holler "Boo - HISSS" at an opponent who denied them egress by torching a bit of land or a house? Lets say its a 700 point quick battle with computer picked forces, (and not some ridiculous thing where someone takes an unrestricted force of all wasps against an opponenet whom, like myself, attempts to pick historically accurate {within my feeble understanding of what that means} and simply sets fire to everything in sight). I got some engineers and the loverly little FTs wot goes with em and you got a company of guys with guns and stuff. The enemy is coming to town and I torch a building that is oh, say near the edge and is the only cover around for about 50 meters and I have some nice fire lanes covered with HMGs in the open spaces on either side of the building. Are you going to scream bloody murder because I can't really keep you out of that house, but I can force you to seek an alternate route into my undermodelled yet withering and not at all gamey machine gun fire? Would you say to me "You RAT BASTARD I AM NEVER PLAYING YOU AGAIN?" or would you say, "Damn. Time for plan B?"

As with most of these discussions, there is a tendency toward the edge (not gamey edge hugging) to make the argument, when in some reasonable circumstances a reasonable person might do something like set fire to a building in order to prevent someone else from being in it, not thinking that doing so means that in all circumstnaces they will always set fire to anything around just because they can. The originator of the thread asked a question, and by golly I pegged the way the responses would go.

I will continue to set fire to things when it seems like the thing to do (at least until the local constable asks me down to the station to assist him with his inquiries), and not feel a jot gamey by doing so.

And speaking of ways to set fire to things, Idjit Yeknod set fire to a building he was in from the back-blast of a zook shot. That was MUTHA beautiful to watch. Two squads in there with the zook had to run out and they are in the process of being mowed down by mg fire from the spw250/1 that the zook was shooting at, and some supporting infantry. Golly I love this game!!!

Gates-slut

Oh, that's spoiled the suprise... send me that turn again... I like fires, pyromania runs in me mother's side... gawd, what a childhood. Pleasant winter evenings as me mum would race around the council home lobbing gasolene-soaked solid fuel fire-starters at any combustable material. Ah bless, her, she never got the knack for matches... I can sniff the fumes now. If only she had a zook in a confined space...

Gates-slut that was v. pleasing... lets try that again.

Idjit Yeknod

[Bruno Weiss]

[Desertor]

I promise. He won't win once.

LOL

The people who play wargames develop an mental illnes?

[newlife]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Let me get this straight: the *only* terrain type you will play in is "town"? - lol.

Fine, Pick a terrain. Just make sure it will be tactically interesting.

Pete

[newlife]

bump

[newlife]

bump