Gamey, or just good tactics – what’s your opinion?

[Ace Pilot]

Here’s the situation. You’re playing a PBEM and you’ve got 5 turns left (fixed scenario length). Your infantry is holding a large VL in some buildings. However, your enemy has numerous tanks and halftracks that he is positioning to hammer away at you, after which, you expect his infantry to waltz in and easily take the VL. You don’t believe his infantry alone could take the VL in 5 turns, but there’s nothing you can do about the armor since you ran out of anti-tank weapons many turns ago. However, you do have a forward observer in a secure location with LOS to the VL.

My question is, would you consider it a good tactic or just gamey to have the FO drop smoke all around the VL for 5 turns in order to neutralize the armor support and make your enemy come in on foot? I’ve heard it said that if players don’t agree to ban certain gamey tactics before the game, then anything is fair play. While I agree with that idea, you obviously can’t anticipate every eventuality, so I’d like to know who would consider this gamey, and, for those that don’t, whether it would be a good use of the artillery (assume it is 105mm). And, whatever you answer won't affect my choice - I've already decided and set my plan in action.

[PiggDogg]

Ace,

It is not gamey to smoke or nuke or do whatever you wish with your FO. :eek:

You have a weapon (the FO) & you can use it any way that you want. In any games, it is not gamey to use any weapon that any of your units have.

Cheers, Richard

[Coffin 'Enry]

For what it's worth my view would be that if what you are suggesting is gamey then any use of smoke is too.

After all, you are intending to use smoke to protect your troops from incoming fire - what else is smoke ever used for? The issue of the VL etc is, I would suggest, irrelevant.

[xerxes]

I think there are no identified "gamey" units or unit uses in CMBB.

Smoke em!

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Coffin 'Enry:

For what it's worth my view would be that if what you are suggesting is gamey then any use of smoke is too.

After all, you are intending to use smoke to protect your troops from incoming fire - what else is smoke ever used for? The issue of the VL etc is, I would suggest, irrelevant.

True, but what I was getting at is the use of it to force an opponent into doing something that wouldn't occur in reality. Because of the game length, the opponent must move his infantry in when, in real life, he would wait the extra minute or two for the smoke to disperse, then resume shelling with his armor. To put it another way, using smoke like this in the middle of the game wouldn't work because you are back to your original problem after it disperses, only you don't have any more artillery support either.

Perhaps my view is being shaped by the perception that smoke is used to cover some type of movement, and the example I've proposed doesn't do that. Anyone know of a real life example of using smoke to cover your position then just sitting there?

[Louie the Toad]

Hi AcePilot,

Haven't talked with you in awhile.

I didn't read anyone's reply, just cut to my own answer.

Since BOTH of you know the end of game is 5 turns away that is a given. You cannot pretend it away, you can only explain it. For instance, a big storm is coming and you won't be able to fight; your orders said hold on until xx hours and that's 5 minutes away but after that you can bug out; its getting too dark to fight; huge amounts of reinforcements are just out of sight and it won't matter after 5 minutes what you do.

Smoke is used for concealment. You have the capability to make a smoke screen to the best of your ability, where you want it. You could drop HE all over the enemy instead, but you need concealment. This action may mystify and confuse the enemy per Stonewall Jackson.

I don't think it is gamey.

How it is any different from a last minute flag rush .... I will have to consider for a bit more but the last minute flag rush is tainted by suicidal tactics. This use of smoke is not.

Now I will see how far I stuck my neck out. I am one who feels you can use dis mounted tank crews to look over the next hill.

Smoke em if you got em...... Toad

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Hi AcePilot,

Haven't talked with you in awhile.

I know. And I have been remiss in getting that CMBO scenario turned around that you playtested for me. But, strangely enough, I was just getting back into it last night even before I saw your post (and gentle reminder ) and it is nearly ready (I think). I’ll send it your way this week, I hope.

I didn't read anyone's reply, just cut to my own answer.

Since BOTH of you know the end of game is 5 turns away that is a given. You cannot pretend it away, you can only explain it. For instance, a big storm is coming and you won't be able to fight; your orders said hold on until xx hours and that’s 5 minutes away but after that you can bug out; its getting too dark to fight; huge amounts of reinforcements are just out of sight and it won't matter after 5 minutes what you do.

Smoke is used for concealment. You have the capability to make a smoke screen to the best of your ability, where you want it. You could drop HE all over the enemy instead, but you need concealment. This action may mystify and confuse the enemy per Stonewall Jackson.

I don't think it is gamey.

How it is any different from a last minute flag rush .... I will have to consider for a bit more but the last minute flag rush is tainted by suicidal tactics. This use of smoke is not.

I was going to ask how this is different from a last minute flag rush (call it a last minute smoke hush? ), but you’ve already pointed out the critical difference – the suicidal nature.

Anyway, in case anyone is interested, I opted to forgo the smoke screen. My infantry got completely overrun by enemy troops and armor. Then I called in the HE. The 6 halftracks alone that got KO’ed made up for the loss of the VL.

Ace

[Vergeltungswaffe]

You probably have to look at it in terms of why is the scenario X number of turns. In this particular battle, there was some reason why things had to be concluded within the given timeframe. Whether thats massive reinforcements for the defender, or the need to tie up the defender for some period of time so they can't assist elsewhere in the sector, or whatever.

If we accept that premise, then we can accept that both sides are aware that time is fleeting. That being said, the use of smoke to hold off the attacker is perfectly reasonable.

However, I think by your post, you don't really like it, and since you didn't use the smoke, I think thats definitely the case. I agree with you and would have been much more likely to call in HE on my own position as well.

I am very happy about the variable ending turns in CMBB. While it isn't perfect, these situations are a lot less pronounced.

Speaking of not speaking in a long time, I remember you from your AcePylut days on the Taldren boards. Man, I got sick of the dynaverse problems and gave up on SFC II before Orion pirates came out. Wonder how many are still there and will play SFC III?

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

You probably have to look at it in terms of why is the scenario X number of turns. In this particular battle, there was some reason why things had to be concluded within the given timeframe. Whether thats massive reinforcements for the defender, or the need to tie up the defender for some period of time so they can't assist elsewhere in the sector, or whatever.

If we accept that premise, then we can accept that both sides are aware that time is fleeting. That being said, the use of smoke to hold off the attacker is perfectly reasonable.

However, I think by your post, you don't really like it, and since you didn't use the smoke, I think thats definitely the case. I agree with you and would have been much more likely to call in HE on my own position as well.

I am very happy about the variable ending turns in CMBB. While it isn't perfect, these situations are a lot less pronounced.

You’ve convinced me that using a smoke screen to reach the end of the game could be a valid tactic. I really thought I was neutral on the subject, but from your observations, I guess I was leaning toward it being gamey, mostly because of the definitive game ending.

You’re absolutely right that the variable ending makes this, and other “last turn” tactics more of a gamble, so I’m a big fan of it, too.

Still curious – anyone ever heard of a smoke screen being dropped on a position where there was no intended movement (i.e., to screen a withdrawal or an advance)?

Speaking of not speaking in a long time, I remember you from your AcePylut days on the Taldren boards. Man, I got sick of the dynaverse problems and gave up on SFC II before Orion pirates came out. Wonder how many are still there and will play SFC III?

Sorry, but this is a case of mistaken identity. I’m not the AcePylut you’re referring to – just a mere coincidence.

Ace

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Sorry about the assumption, thought sure you were he.

As far as a situation where smoke was used with no particular purpose, off the top of my head, the closest I can recall reading about was a case where an American tank company came upon 2 or 3 Panthers (iirc) and, doing what they were trained to do, immediately smoked things up big time. However, they weren't able to settle on who was going to bait and who was going to flank, and by the time the smoke cleared, they had basically done nothing. The funny part was, the Germans knew what the smoke meant and pulled back, so when the smoke cleared and the tankers thought "Oh S**t!", there was nothing. So, not exactly their intention, but a use of smoke that did nothing but kill time, lol.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

You probably have to look at it in terms of why is the scenario X number of turns.

For the same reason that the map has a mathematically precisely rectangular shape- because it's a game, and some aspects of reality either can't be modelled or are very difficult to model.

In this particular battle, there was some reason why things had to be concluded within the given timeframe.

I disagree with the statement when read literally. In today's Delta Force and GPS and all that world, why, I can easily see a commander saying that if you maggots don't take that hill by exactly 0700 hours then the HALO guys are gonna drop in enemy territory and it's all gonna suck.

But I can't believe that in WWII a battle which lasts twenty minutes, in which I've decimated all the enemies armor and reduced his men to a handful of routed exhausted men would be considered a "defeat" simply because another ten minutes could not be afforded.

For me, I've just about had it with the end game victory determination- from now on I'm going to set my turn limit to the maximum, and simply drive him off the board, (assuming I win!). [Ed- I mean in my QBs...]

At any rate, my point is that if both players agree to a time limit, then perforce they are agreeing to "unrealistic" end game behaviour. Otherwise, they are inviting dispute by providing an inducement for unreal behaviour; perhaps the best way to avoid bad feelings about the end game is simply not to have one- let the game run on until both sides can see exactly what the outcome is.

It's been said that people will abuse that system, refusing to admit defeat by running their last squad of peons all over the board hiding or whatnot... well, just don't play those people. ?

Eden

[ October 22, 2002, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

[Chainman]

I would have used the smoke. Let me explain.

Per definition in a game everything is gamey. You can play with every asset you have, most of the time you do to win. (In any case I still have to discover the co-operative game species yet in wargames!)

In order to make your gaming experience more fun, you will try to get closer to reality and you have to admit CM is inviting you to do so.

Now you can decide with an oppoenent that some weapons are badly modelled and should be banned as "gamey". If agreed, fine. Everything else is then NOT "gamey". After all it's war (or a game about war) and in war everything is allowed. In the game everything is allowed within the limits of the model.

If you want to be at ease, just think of your supposedly gamey tactics as an innovation.

A German Tiger was also perceived as gamey by US troops in WWII, however they had to live with it (inside their model).

Using smoke to protect your troops? As a commander I would use it, if no other option is left.

Knowing it's over in 5mins? Well that is a limitation of the model being used, but you can make yourself a reason for it: I know I will have reinforcements soon, I can leave the position now, I bet the enemy will withdraw if they cannot make it now, etc... That is just in your imagination.

If you don't like that aspect look for solutions like banning or using a last turn randomiser. I read it exists for CMBO (PC -version).

Good gaming,

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

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

You probably have to look at it in terms of why is the scenario X number of turns.

For the same reason that the map has a mathematically precisely rectangular shape- because it's a game, and some aspects of reality either can't be modelled or are very difficult to model.

In this particular battle, there was some reason why things had to be concluded within the given timeframe.

I disagree with the statement when read literally. In today's Delta Force and GPS and all that world, why, I can easily see a commander saying that if you maggots don't take that hill by exactly 0700 hours then the HALO guys are gonna drop in enemy territory and it's all gonna suck.

But I can't believe that in WWII a battle which lasts twenty minutes, in which I've decimated all the enemies armor and reduced his men to a handful of routed exhausted men would be considered a "defeat" simply because another ten minutes could not be afforded.

For me, I've just about had it with the end game victory determination- from now on I'm going to set my turn limit to the maximum, and simply drive him off the board, (assuming I win!). [Ed- I mean in my QBs...]

At any rate, my point is that if both players agree to a time limit, then perforce they are agreeing to "unrealistic" end game behaviour. Otherwise, they are inviting dispute by providing an inducement for unreal behaviour; perhaps the best way to avoid bad feelings about the end game is simply not to have one- let the game run on until both sides can see exactly what the outcome is.

It's been said that people will abuse that system, refusing to admit defeat by running their last squad of peons all over the board hiding or whatnot... well, just don't play those people. ?

Eden</font>

[demoss]

Don't know about in the real world, but I can tell you that in ASL games smoking enemy firebases (no movement necessarily involved) is a time-honored tactic that doesn't generally appear on people's "Top 10 gamey abuses" lists ("skulking" and "VBM freeze" are generally 1 and 2 - and have no CM equivalent). Smoking your own location isn't really that different. It's something that you really could have done, with the purpose you have in mind, and had it do exactly what it does in the game - buy time. No way is that "gamey." IMO, I'm not even sure the last minute flag rush is gamey in CM:BB, because the engine deficiencies that made it work ahistorically well in CM:BO have been fixed.

That said, I'd probably have used the artillery to smack the enemy around some instead, just like you did.

[Robohn]

not gamey, but in real life the inf would probably use the smoke to withdraw. VLs are themselves somewhat gamey....

[KEEF888]

Gamey - schmamey! Do it to it! I understand there are certain tactics that can be viewed as out of bounds, but still, all in all, this is called a wargame.