the little guy no one buys!

[Chad Harrison]

agua, i agree with you to a certain degree (we already had the gaminess talk!). i played a TCP game last night, and my opponet bought ALL vetern troops, and the only vetern that i had was two zooks and a 57mm. i won, and had no problem with that veterm mark V, he died just the same from my hellcat.

it would make me look at a player diferently if they showed up with 10 M8's, but 3-4 is just fine by me. like i said above, i dont think theres one of us who doesnt use the PSW 234 serie more than historically avaliable.

has anyone ever had good succes with these guys as an AT platform at over 150m when your desperate? with that low velocity, all i can ever hit is a barn!

[jdmorse]

Historically, like the Priests, the CM use of the M8 (HMC) is a bit gamey. They were not used in a direct fire situation unless it couldn't be avoided. They generally were as mobile artillery. My Dad was in the 38th Calvary Recon. from Normandy on. He generally acted as ammo carrier servicing the M8's. The recon elements would have several troops of mounted infantry, a troop of Stuarts and a troop of M8's. The M8's would be well back and provide artillery support to the various units by running "fire missions"

[ 08-10-2001: Message edited by: jdmorse ]

[Patton_71]

First off, I do offer an apology to any and all who may think my posts here so far have been a bit ummm..ascerbic. WWII is a topic i hold passionately, and perhaps i get a bit over excitable aobut it.

I also understand that a points system is necessary for these games we play. However, i find thingsd much more challenging to get forces not necessaaruily of my own choosing and learn to win with anything. After all, how much fun would it be if you ran the same 1500 point force ad infinitum? Sure, you'd get good at it, but does that make you a good CM commander?

Aqua, i completely agree with you on random sets. i have just learned to get a thicker skin when i get saddled with something lass than ideal. For tourneys, ranked games, etc, i would think a list of say a dozen pre generated sets by the person running the tourney for each nationality would be fine. that way you could say that you did 'select' a force that was human generated, buy a human that would (hopefully) would not be too abusive.

but, back to the issue, i think it is obvious that the M8 is a great buy for the points, but perhaps the 75mm armed halftracks would better suited...(SDkfz251/9?) these are classified under the vehicle category , and still frees you up to buy stugs hetzers and such. the pak 40 is a great gun, and has a flexibility for both HE and AT fire few can match.

Patton_71

[gredeker]

So it sounds like the M8 IRL is more often encountered providing the source of shells for the 75mm FO - makes sense. I still like the fact that they're proof against 20mm direct fire though - unlike my Priests which always seem to fall prey to the odd halftrack or flak gun. For the same reason, I tend to take the SPW 234/3 when playing Germans instead of the 251/9, because the former can stand up to American .50 cal fire.

[John Kettler]

Agua,

Pregame discussion is good, but what if you don't know enough to ask the right questions and negotiate competently? I've had a bunch of surprises since I abandoned my CM cloister (forever war vs Kingfish, mostly computer choses QBs) and got into tournament play. Shocks included stripped battalions, warp speed op tempos, pairs of Tigers (1 a KT) as reasonable choices in a 1500 point game, and the stunning quantity and power of heavily armed Germans in a conscript Volksturm battalion fighting against a reinforced Brit para company in a city. The 7 man VS squads are quite competitive with 10 man Brit para squads. Add hard cover and German command units. Voila! Instant Brit deadly headache.

I posted some of my thoughts and observations

on the difficulty of playing the Allies in buy your own tourney battles to the Tournament of Stars II thread on page 5 or 6.

Not only is there an art to negotiating, but how you use what you buy can be a very big issue. What may be eminently reasonable and logical to you may well freak out your opponent. I've had it happen to me.

Hope this sheds some light on a most complicated aspect of the game.

Regards,

John Kettler

[olandt]

I think using the random selection says a lot for the ability of a commander. If you're capable of winning with one particular force selection, that's all fine and good. But a truly expert commander will win with anything given to him.

Funny thing is, I don't use the random picker myself as I seem to be capable of saddling myself with less than ideal force selections anyway. I'm just finishing up a defence where I picked all infantry (american paras, 1 comp of reg, one vet) where my opponent (we were both unrestricted selections) ended up picking 2 Panthers, 2 stugs, 2 mark IVs, a hummel, and 3 different HTs. My AT assets amounted to 6 zooks, a 75mm pack howitzer, and a 57mm AT gun(which was taken out by a 150mm rocket before it even saw the enemy). Currently I'm winning because of 2 things. First, we're in large hills and heavy forest, defending a town. Ideal ground for infantry and I received a good map that provides good connection between my forces allowing me to defend thinly across the entire map to ambush and then adjust forces as necceassry. Second, I ignored his tanks and concentrated on taking out his suporting infantry. I took out everthing except the 2 panthers (one of which is apparently out of HE) and the HTs, but I shocked 2 of those making them worthless as fire support. He's losing because he spent too much on AT, and I have no vehicles for him to destroy.

The M8s are devastating because they're great vs inf, and used in numbers will overwhelm the opponents AFVs. If you're worried about historical accuracy, try one or two platoons of Cromwell IVs. Fast and slightly more survivable than the M8s (no open top) with more machine gun ammo, and they have a turret. Plus you get the added bonus of buying some wasps.

Looking back on this, most of what I said here is completely off topic. But I went through the trouble of writing it, so I'm going to post it anyway.

[Agua]

John,

I've read your posts on p. 5 of the "Tourney of the Stars" thread. You raise a good point here. When someone plays amongst just a few folks who adhere to tacitly understood conceptions of what is "reasonable", it can be a real surprise when that person steps out to play new opponents. You may even come to agreement as to certain limitations and still be amazed at some purchases/tactics utilized because you simply never concieved of using the units in the manner that the new opponent does. This is not making a value judgment on anything, here: those folks may be just as surprised at your own "gamey" purchases/tactics which seem quite reasonable to you.

In hindsight, I can see how the issue that Treeburst raised (e.g., competition v. "historic") tore the tournament apart. If you have to come to an agreement with your opponent, well, by default, those who employ an anything goes approach will have the upper hand in negotiations as, I suppose, they don't HAVE to agree to anything.

But, that having been said, for future games, I'd suggest that a simple method of finding an acceptable, generally all encompassing set of limitations, would be to use the CAL rules posted over at the TH CAL site (I don't have a link, but will post one later if you're interested). These rules utilize, as bases, the short '75/Panther-76 rules for armoured battles, with several additional limitations concerning force selection. There are also limits placed on mechanized, infantry and heavy armour battles as well. The reason I recommend these rules is simply that they are all listed in one spot and seem pretty reasonable. You and your opponent can look over them quickly and if you wish to change anything, it can be done pretty simply. Although I'm listed on the board over there, I presently do not play ladder games. I personally just don't like the "edge" that those types of games have when everything is so serious. However, I frequently utilize those rules, or elements thereof, in my games.

Personally, if I choose to play a limited game, I can throw out the limitations that matter to me pretty easily: "Panther/76 - No pillboxes, air strikes, or arty over 150, all Guns (if ME or opponent is attacker) must have transport, no mixing of forces, no more than 3 of any single armoured vehicle per 1,000 points. Those rules, each being fairly well known, will pretty much eliminate gamey purchases.

I don't have a solution to the problem you raise, but I think quick reference to the CAL guidelines provides a good framework towards eliminating a lot of things folks refer to as "gamey".

[GenSplatton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After all, how much fun would it be if you ran the same 1500 point force ad infinitum? Sure, you'd get good at it, but does that make you a good CM commander?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two different questions, but, the answer is, it may be a helluva lot of fun to some people. I'm not one of them, I'm relatively new to the game, but I don't intend to try to tell anyone what is or isn't fun for them. To some people, maybe perfecting a set of tactics with one force compisition is exactly their idea of fun. I have a few choices in this case: a) not play them or use my knowledge of their unit choices to counter it and blast them in to smithereens. As for being a good CM commander, who cares? Folks would do well to remember it is a game, and as such, it's all about fun. Like I said, if using the same units over and over is fun for someone, more power to them. It's a game, they paid for it, they can play it however they want. Yes, me and you would find it boring, but that's just us.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, if I choose to play a limited game, I can throw out the limitations that matter to me pretty easily: "Panther/76 - No pillboxes, air strikes, or arty over 150, all Guns (if ME or opponent is attacker) must have transport, no mixing of forces, no more than 3 of any single armoured vehicle per 1,000 points. Those rules, each being fairly well known, will pretty much eliminate gamey purchases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it throws out YOUR definition of gamey forces. To me, if I have to set that many rules just to play a stinkin' game, then maybe I need to remember why I'm playing, and remember the fact that I AM playing. It isn't real life, it isn't a real war, men aren't really dying. It's just a game. Besides, it still doesn't stop them from doing gamey things, like attracting a tanks attention with a 2" mortar team while his tank crests the hill from the other side of the map. Or running a jeep through the entire enemy lines to get recon.

I think someone hit the nail on the head earlier. No one cares until you attach a record or a rank to a game. Then all the sudden it's gamey this and gamey that. I believe if there was no such thing as a ladder, and if people just played for the fun of it, 90% of the threads on this board that relate to "gaminess" wouldn't ever have appeared. It's a shame really. Take a good game, attach a competitve edge to it, and suddenly people lose the ability to enjoy it.

[Agua]

Gen,

Your response indicates that you found my example of the means of communicating limitations offensive. I did not represent those limitations to address tactics. I was simply offering an example of how quickly you can communicate limitations. In fact, those limitations are simply a to-the-nub expression of the short 75/Panther - 76 rules plus the CAL towed gun/transport requirement.

I probably do not play with such limitations in half the games I play, just sometimes the mood strikes me and, when you're playing a new opponent just communicating the limitations, even if that opponent does not agree to all of them, gets the point across pretty quickly that you're not interested in a game against 10 puppchen and 8 volkstrum platoons. The mere communication has a value in itself. I did not represent those limitations as solving the "gamey" problem, and in fact expressly noted that the limitations were not a complete solution. I simply find that referring new opponents to the CAL rules, provides a convenient starting point for discussion of parameters on a single website.

As I stated, I don't play ladder games because of that competitive "edge", but nevertheless, I don't enjoy playing a wildly unbalanced game either (being on either side of it). For that reason, a lot of times when I play a new opponent, I'll simply throw out "short '75, all guns must have transports". I suppose that sounds a lot less offensive than enumerating all the details of the rules, but also, does not convey the information as to what those limitations are.

[Chad Harrison]

this is now slipping into a gaminess thread! oh dear! so i might as well throw my word in on what has been said. i think that if a player finds a certain setup of troops that they like and that works for them, then go for it. to me that is not unrealistic because this is a game, its not reality. if someone did not feel the same way and wanted me to have transports for all of my guns, then i would do it for that person despite my own feelings. to me i play this game as a game, and not the end of the world if i lose. if someone uses a gamey tactic on me, then ill play him again and exploit it. if someone asked me to adhear to a certain rule, then thats no problem. i think we stray away from the purpose of this GAME when we try to force a rule upon EVERYONE.

just to throw a word in for the little guy (M8 HMC), over the weekend i played a TCP game and purchased two of the little suckers. one of them bogged down and immobilized "hunting" in his first five feet (it was only "wet" conditions!). the game went on and the other M8 was doing good as a close support weapon for one of my flanking platoons. then a situation came up where a mark IV was pounding another platoon. so my brave little M8 HMC crests a small hill, loads a HEAT round, he fired hitting and KO'd the mark IV from over 200m! i was so proud of that little sucker, i now have a little more faith in that stubby howitzer.

[GenSplatton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Your response indicates that you found my example of the means of communicating limitations offensive <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all Agua. And I didn't mean to make my reply sound as if I did. Once again, the written word, without the ability to add vocal inflection or facial expression, bites me in the arse. Actually, what I was trying to convey was, it's a shame that we've come to the point where we feel the need to convey such limitations at all. Admittedly, I tend to think that way when playing ladder matches though I rarely communicate it. As such, I have swore off accepting ladder matches for a month or two until the game becomes fun again due to the very competitiveness of which I spoke. Apparently though, re-reading your post, you have run in to some really odd unit purchases that I haven't had the displeasure of seeing! I guess that's good for me/bad for you. Had I been playing as long as you, and (my guess) been on ladders as long as you, I would probably have had experienced allot more gameyness thatn what I have and therefore been more inclined to ask for restrictions. Fortunately, I haven't. I guess I should be thankful.

[tecumseh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GenSplatton:

I believe if there was no such thing as a ladder, and if people just played for the fun of it, 90% of the threads on this board that relate to "gaminess" wouldn't ever have appeared.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally i disagree. As i said before, i wish more top ladder players would post to this forum. Then we'd get more threads that were informative, on-topic and about playing the game,.. and less whining, flaming and pouting. I guess the problem is these guys are too busy playing to bother.

anyways...

I think players are being put off ladder games unnecessarily.

My experience with TH ladder has been very positive. Everyone i have played has been relaxed friendly and fair. Pre-game discussions involve an email or two each..usually a mention of CAL rules, a ban on flak trucks, and that's it.

I am now playing a game against the mighty Jeb, and he has bought quite a few M8s and its great fun blowing them up one by one

[PiggDogg]

A lot of the gaminess problems would dissolve quickly if the computer selects the troops. That way: everyone gets a force he would never choose = good; everyone has to improvise = good; everyone gets crappe = good.

The computer has a devilishly perverse way of choosing troops for players which is really neat. Also, letting the computer choose the force is a lot easier than carefully counting every point and analysing every unit on a cost/benefit basis.

Cheers,

Richard :cool: :cool: :cool:

[manchildstein (ii)]

at 58 points, this is the best buy for an assault gun in the game. the problem is, only a thousand or so were built, so buying them all the time is kind of 'gamey.' not only that, but most of their action was in an indirect fire role (75mm FO).

andy

[xerxes]

2 cents.

1. The CAL rules are really nice and a simple way to eliminate absurb force choices.

2. Computer picks I think is great. It produces very different unit selections and it creates great uncertainty for what the other guy will have. Surprise is good. I like to save a couple comp picks (before you hit "go"!) and send them to my opponent and ask him/her to choose one of them. Then I setup and send the completed file. That way at least the really weird picks are eliminated.

3. I've been very pleased with my TH ladder games. I'll always check peoples history and what their opponents have said, it's pretty easy to weed out the undesirables that way. If you use comp pick or the CAL rules on the ladder things are pretty reasonable. If someone wants to play with no restrictions I just say no thanks.

- xerxes