Kubelwagens as scout vehicles ?

[slysniper]

I will not blame people if they use gamey tactics.

Only thing that bothers me is, we have the best ww2 tactical game in the world with all kind of game tweaks to prevent gamey tactics. And still people will try to find the flaws.

My Gamey XP CMBN PBEM until now.

Arty in attackers deployment zone in turn one (sometimes very small in most of QB maps)

Running a US scout team in front of a German tank and after 10 seconds move a US tank in position to take out the distracted German tank.

Exploit US 60mm sniper mortars.

Kamikaze Kübelwagen.

At the end gamey tactics can spoil this beautiful game and people will play only single or play another game.

Arty in attackers deployment zone in turn one (sometimes very small in most of QB maps) - might be some plain cheating here also. If a map is selected where the known set up zone of the enemies is.

Running a US scout team in front of a German tank and after 10 seconds move a US tank in position to take out the distracted German tank. - personnally I do not think that is gamey, I have been using that one for years, I think it is a tactic that real soildiers use, destracting the enemy is not just done in games

Exploit US 60mm sniper mortars. - have not seen how this is incorrect, unless the game needs adjustment to realistic abilities

Kamikaze Kübelwagen. - gamey, yes. If you have not learned how to deal with it, oh well. All my years of playing and I have only seen it pay off once for my opponant, normally they are just points for my forward listening post or recon.

[Blackcat]

How do I exploit US 60mm mortars? Or rather, so as not appear gamey, what should I do so as I am not seen to exploit 60mm mortars? Should I not fire them? Aim to miss? Use them only in situations where they won't harm my opponent? I am confused by this one.

[Jaws]

How do I exploit US 60mm mortars? Or rather, so as not appear gamey, what should I do so as I am not seen to exploit 60mm mortars? Should I not fire them? Aim to miss? Use them only in situations where they won't harm my opponent? I am confused by this one.

No use them as you would like ofc. At this moment they kill infantry in buildings in a few seconds. A few rounds will take out any single halftrack and even heavier vehicles. 60mm grenades are like remote hand grenades… you won’t take out infantry in a 3 stock building by throwing 10 hand grenades on the roof the 60mm mortar can at this moment.

[womble]

No use them as you would like ofc. At this moment they kill infantry in buildings in a few seconds.

Pics or it didn't happen... I find that they don't kill infantry in foxholes, let alone in a building... Is there something particular about buildings? Or is it particular buildings?

A few rounds will take out any single halftrack and even heavier vehicles.

Are you talking direct lay shots, or spotted by a forward observer? Sure a few bombs, even one, dropping into the back of a halftrack will kill it, but that's hardly a surprise. Are you saying it's too easy to get 'em on target?

60mm grenades are like remote hand grenades… you won’t take out infantry in a 3 stock building by throwing 10 hand grenades on the roof the 60mm mortar can at this moment.

There's about 6 times the explosive filler in a 60mm mortar bomb than in a grenade, from my 5 minutes' Google. Still, I wouldn't be expecting the M2 to be having a great deal of property damage effect. I guess I've not used it in this role because of this; are you saying it'll bring the building down?

[Jaws]

Are you talking direct lay shots, or spotted by a forward observer? Sure a few bombs, even one, dropping into the back of a halftrack will kill it, but that's hardly a surprise. Are you saying it's too easy to get 'em on target?

Sorry I should have tell before. I talk about direct fire with 60mm mortars. How indirect fire with 60mm works at this moment is a complete other story. Once a 60mm mortar targets its target the 1st round will almost hit it direct without ranging in.

There's about 6 times the explosive filler in a 60mm mortar bomb than in a grenade, from my 5 minutes' Google. Still, I wouldn't be expecting the M2 to be having a great deal of property damage effect. I guess I've not used it in this role because of this; are you saying it'll bring the building down?

The 60mm will not bring the house down but kill most of the infantry or and will panic/flee them.

[Vanir Ausf B]

So getting back to the Kubelwagen recce, if someone were to do the exact same thing except with a SPW 251/1 halftrack, would that be "gamey"?

[Blackcat]

No use them as you would like ofc. At this moment they kill infantry in buildings in a few seconds. A few rounds will take out any single halftrack and even heavier vehicles. 60mm grenades are like remote hand grenades… you won’t take out infantry in a 3 stock building by throwing 10 hand grenades on the roof the 60mm mortar can at this moment.

Well, it never occured to me to use 60mm mortars against troops in buildings. However, as you raised the possibility I thought I'd set up a little test and try it.

I can definitely confirm that troops standing or kneeling looking out of the windows when a 600mm bomb goes off outside that window do have a high chance of being hurt. I am not sure I should be surprised at that.

I fired a full load (32 bombs) indirectly at a house of which 28 were used in FFE. All FFE rounds landed within 15 metres of the building (some very close indeed). Out of 20 men in the building 9 became casualties (including "1 yellow"), but six did rout out of the building. Casualties were worse on the ground floor (6) that the first floor (3). Bombs landing on the opposite side of the building to the defenders didn't cause any casualties.

Is that really so far off the mark? In the real world when a bomb goes off outside a building people inside get hurt, especially if they are looking out of a window close to the seat of the explosion and directlly facing it. A quick glance at google shows that the HE round for the M2 weighed in at 3lb (so maybe a pound of HE), produced around 200 framents and had a burst radius of about 17 yards. Stand, effectively, in the open a few yards from one of those going off and you are going to get hurt. There was no sign of any structural damage to the building.

I could spend lots more time repeating the test and trying it with the defenders hiding, but I don't really see the need as there was nothing particulalry shattering about the first trial.

By the way 60mm mortars firing in direct mode do not always hit first time every time. In fact in my experience it usually takes them three or four ranging shots before they get the mark. Thereafter as one would expect the rounds land in a tight group.

[argie]

So getting back to the Kubelwagen recce, if someone were to do the exact same thing except with a SPW 251/1 halftrack, would that be "gamey"?

Absolutely.

Even with a Sherman is gamey, as far is something you will not do in RL.

Recon by fire is more common and better use of those assets than recon by being killed.

[Bruce Robert]

"Gamey" might be in the mind of the person using the tactic. If you know you are throwing away the unit in order to expose the enemy, that - in my humble opinion - is gamey. But to put a unit in harm's way, in order to carry out your mission, is not. The unit in question would have some reasonable chance to carry out its orders without committing suicide in the process. While being at great risk is the nature of combat, even the Japanese mass infantry charges had - in their commander's minds - a chance of success and therefore worth the risk, without destroying the entire unit.

To say that anything the game allows "goes," is not in concert with the repeated statements on the game's accurate simulation qualities. If one is looking for that, then why look for loopholes? We used to call them "rules lawyers" who tried to win by niggling the rules to death. Usually, we simply stopped asking those types to join in the micro-armor games we hosted.

Bruce

[herr_oberst]

At the end gamey tactics can spoil this beautiful game and people will play only single or play another game.

Or the players who resort to 'gamey' tactics will find opponents somewhat scarce in supply.

'Gamey' tactics are a point of discussion between opponents. If you find a particular action or set of actions 'gamey', there's nothing wrong with getting a gentleman's agreement with your opponent before starting the scenario or QB.

Back in the CMBO days, there were a nice set of 'Rules of Engagement' (IIRC, they were referred to as 'Marco's Rules', which dealt with the purchase side of things to ensure relative parity for QBs, voluntarily adopted by opponents. I don't know if those have been re-created for CMBN.

Of course, if you're in the mood, there's nothing wrong with an all armor big cat and heavy/jumbo slugfest (as long as the map doesn't resemble a pool table)...

If you're refereeing a bigger operation, it would be best to 'set the ground rules' early, but creative players will always try to push the edges.

What's gamey?

Final turn 'jeep/kubel' rushes to a victory locations (exploiting the game clock)...

Shelling opponent setup areas turn 1 (just bad form)...

Cherry-picked units (rarity points deal with this quite well)...

Just the fact that we have map edges in the game is unrealistic, but something that we know is a limitation, and everyone leverages. I don't need to extend my covered arc to the right if I'm moving up the right side of the map, or my HMG is positioned at the edge of the map.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Absolutely.

Even with a Sherman is gamey, as far is something you will not do in RL.

Recon by fire is more common and better use of those assets than recon by being killed.

So what units can lead an advance, and how far in front of the main body can they be? What about 2-man scout teams? Or is it only proper to advance en masse?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Back in the CMBO days, there were a nice set of 'Rules of Engagement' (IIRC, they were referred to as 'Marco's Rules', which dealt with the purchase side of things to ensure relative parity for QBs, voluntarily adopted by opponents. I don't know if those have been re-created for CMBN.

I assume you are thinking of Fionn's Rules, although I suppose Marco could have had his own

[thejetset]

Driving an unarmored vehicle (like a jeep, or truck) straight into the area where the enemy has already been roughly confirmed to be located is gamey.

A CM battle is taking place because the enemy forces have already roughly located each other and have decided to engage.

I can see where a battalion commander might send some 2-3 man teams in jeeps (or Kubelwagens) out a few kilometers to see if they detect any signs of the enemy.

But to have a company commander send two guys across a bridge and right along a line of hedgrows that you KNOW have enemy troops .... just to see where the "Flashes" come from that are going to kill the guys driving the vehicle .... that's COMPLETELY gamey .... Hell, not even the Russians did that with their "active recon" prisoner units. ...... (well ... it was SIMILAR ... but not that extreme! )

Think of the human side of the thing in RL. .... As a US or German soldier, would you obey that order?? .. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with the court marshal. It can't be worse than what I've just been ordered to do.

[argie]

C'mon, Vanir.

There are no rules for that. Everybody knows that there is a point in which you have to expose your assets if you want to kill the enemy. Thats not the issue.

In RL, there are many constraints to orders that in a game work just fine. That is the very thin line between daring and aggressive tactics and gameyness.

As I've said at the first post I made, there are proper tactics to prevent it also. In a game like this, which enforces realism over all, those tactics tend to be exactly the way the operations are conducted in RL.

[Vanir Ausf B]

C'mon, Vanir.

There are no rules for that. Everybody knows that there is a point in which you have to expose your assets if you want to kill the enemy. Thats not the issue.

I think that is exactly the issue.

In RL, there are many constraints to orders that in a game work just fine. That is the very thin line between daring and aggressive tactics and gameyness.

Then we are all gamey bastards, each and every one of us. Well, maybe not Franko.

[Other Means]

To me, shelling the deployment area in turn 1 is the only no no.

Owt else - bring it.

[herr_oberst]

I assume you are thinking of Fionn's Rules, although I suppose Marco could have had his own

I stand (well, sit) corrected... Marco was the mod guy, wasn't he?

[Vanir Ausf B]

To me, shelling the deployment area in turn 1 is the only no no.

Owt else - bring it.

^^^ This, for the most part.

Although I do find some logic in the contention that in the absence of armor covered arcs that this could be effective. I tend to keep everything on tight covered arcs regardless, so if someone recces me with a Kubelwagon they are unlikely to discover much more than a single squad or machine gun. If they send anything bigger I will just smile and ask if I can have some more.

IMO, the most cost effective ways to conduct recon are by fire, and/or by letting your guys with binoculars observe the area undisturbed for 5 minutes. Sacrificing a unit to find a unit is inefficient and is a tactic of last resort.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I stand (well, sit) corrected... Marco was the mod guy, wasn't he?

He still is the mod guy

[cool breeze]

Ok all yall rule nazis JK no offense guys.

After I unload my armored infantry from my 2 mg US half tracks, put my scout teams back in the half tracks to get the 2 mgs back online, move the remaining footsoldiers into position and start battling with them I now REVERSE me half tracks into firing positions to have em open up on the already engaged enemy positions with both their mgs, is that too gamey or am I just a creative commander using what hes got to the fullest? or how bout Ive got some extra half tracks in a courtyard kickin it like in that meeting engagement A Strange Morning or something like that. anyway Im not using the half tracks for transport cause they are already on the scene. But I want more firepower so I have one HT driver bail to man the gun of another half track and away we go. Gamey or realistic? I dont think he would really just sit around all battle so what else would he do?..... actually eventually they coulda picked up those extra foot sloggin reinforcements if I had though about it.

[Childress]

Not gamey. Jeeps and kubelwagons were used for recon-but- most likely dismounted. Which you can do in CMx2.

The jeep/truck rush was a hot topic back in the day. I recall that Battlefront addressed this issue by lowering these vehicles scouting abilities and raising the cost for getting them blown up. One suspects that similiar restrictions are in force in CMBN. So the pay-off not longer exists.

[Vanir Ausf B]

As I recall there was also some issue with soft-skinned vehicles being unrealistically difficult to destroy with AT guns in the CMx1 games.

[JonS]

So what units can lead an advance, and how far in front of the main body can they be? What about 2-man scout teams? Or is it only proper to advance en masse?

It's not an advance. The "tactic" being talked about here is sending a 'thing' - be it a jeep, a tank, or the USS Enterprise - off into the wild blue yonder completely unsupported in the certain knowledge that it will draw fire and die.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If it's not done in front of an advance then there is no point.

[gunnergoz]

I don't play MP so this really doesn't affect me in games much...if the AI throws a truck or kubel at me, I'll kill it for points and if I waste my jeeps that way the AI will happily kill them too.

I think it is worthwhile for human players playing each other to define such questions beforehand, as this thread intelligently tries to do. Clearly people are divided on the subject. What is "gamey?" I'd say it is using a game object in a manner unrealistic compared to the real world.

Is it "gamey" to recon in a kubel or jeep? No, AFAIK it was done all the time. As noted, the scouts might dismount if they felt the enemy was around the bend or over the rise, but that is just good scouting technique...to remain unobserved while you observe and evaluate the enemy. Nor do I see it to be "gamey" to have a jeep or kubel at the head of a column going into contested territory, though I suspect that most of the time real commanders would prefer to lead the column with something a tad more survivable than that just in case it hits a mine or does draw fire from a surprise encounter.

Is it "gamey" to use a jeep or kubel to conduct a reconnaissance by intentionally drawing fire? I'd have to say yes, since most of the time the crew is going to be very exposed and vulnerable. If they are going to survive their mission, they won't have time to sit and carefully observe who or what is firing at them. If you are going to do recon this way, I'd suspect that most armies would send a slightly more survivable vehicle like a scout car or light tank to check out if the enemy is going to shoot at it.

War entails risks, obviously, and sometimes commanders are forced to order subordinates to take great risks. But I'd vote with the side that says that, most of the time, most commanders will not throw the lives of their troops away for some short-term tactical advantage. It is one thing to drop a para regiment into enemy territory to hold a bridge and another to tell a couple of soldiers in a jeep/kubel to "keep going until you expose the enemy's firing positions, without regard for your own skins."

Which is not to say it was not ever done in wartime. That is one thing that reading about the war for a hobby will do for you - teach you that almost anything you can conceive of happened during wartime. And probably more than just once.

In the end, if both sides consent to such tactics, then fine, go ahead and use them. I suspect that the particularly competitive players will be all in favor of it, where the more "historically minded buffs" will say, "Now wait a moment, that's just not realistic." If you can get two such diverse personalities to agree upon anything, more power to you.