View Full Version : entry hexes
What is the consensious here concerning Entry Hexes "behind" enemy lines? Specifically dealing with the opposing player camping out around (or on) them just prior to unit entry and jumping on the entering units before they can move.
Such as in Italy '43, Allied units appear behind what would probably be the southern or "boot" front line. With the Allied being the second player the German can easily attack them after they appear & before they move.
How does anyone else deal with this? Is the opposing player allowed to set up around / on hexes or should they be allowed to set up a defensive arch around it, or X hexes away; or to even try and "ignore" them which wouldn't be easy.
I suppose this could just be a case by case decsion.
What say ye?
:confused:
I'm probably a bit more vicious on this situation than most. In general, I feel that if a player has allowed his reinforcement hexes to be overrun, then he's got what he deserved. IMO, very few exceptions apply. The only one that readily comes to mind is a suicide drop by paratroopers or airmobiles on a map edge entry hex.
Some argue that map edge entry hexes should always be inviolate. I disagree, when the entry hexes are on the flanks and the front has already moved past the hex. The argument here goes that the front off-map has already moved past this point as well and the units which would have entered on the flank have their hands full with enemy units off-map.
Some argue that interior entry points should be inviolate from paradrops. Some even go so far as to whine, when recon or other small units have broken through the front and have overrun, converted, or occupy entry hexes in the rear. Again, I say tough $#!%! If you are not adequately covering your front, and not maintaining reserves to plug gaps, or chase down units which penetrate your lines and start tearing up your rear areas, then you are not being a good general.
Just my $0.02
Martin Schenkel
23 Aug 02, 06:03
I think for in the specific case of Italy 43 (I've been on the receiving end), the reinforcements arriving in German territory is a major bug. Think about it: If Division "X" is set to enter at Naples, which is still German controlled, in reality wouldn't the formation simply be ordered to land at a different port?
Also the enemy rarely knows beforehand where reinforcements are going to arrive, thus how could they know which entry hexes to blockade/sit on? What, so my Panzer Division can't enter because an enemy parachute company occupies a 20 square km area that means absolutely nothing to the battle/campaign? How does this parachute company know that by occupying this particular 20 square km area that my Panzer Division can't arrive? A Division dosen't simply appear out of thin air anyways. It travels along a line of communication, and if a parachute company happens to block the intersection at which the Division was supposed to turn left, the para coy simply gets steamrolled, and the Division continues on. It simply isn't realistic in the real world, even though it may be possible in the game. If someone can describe to me a situation where this actually occured in a combat operation, I will retract my staement.
I can see how off-map frontlines could move and thus potentially divert reinforcements, however deliberatly camping out on entry points for the sole purpose of blocking reinforcements is entirely unrealistic.
Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
I think for in the specific case of Italy 43 (I've been on the receiving end), the reinforcements arriving in German territory is a major bug. Think about it: If Division "X" is set to enter at Naples, which is still German controlled, in reality wouldn't the formation simply be ordered to land at a different port?
Reinforcements arriving in German territory is not a major bug, it is incentive for the Allied player to get off his ass and take Italy. The reinforcements are contingent upon success on the battlefield. If you take such and such a town, we'll send you an extra division to exploit the success. If you dawdle about Taranto for the next six months, then you might as well dig trenches, because you're wasting the forces you have now, and we aren't going to send you any more to waste.
Originally posted by Martin Schenkel
Also the enemy rarely knows beforehand where reinforcements are going to arrive, thus how could they know which entry hexes to blockade/sit on? What, so my Panzer Division can't enter because an enemy parachute company occupies a 20 square km area that means absolutely nothing to the battle/campaign? How does this parachute company know that by occupying this particular 20 square km area that my Panzer Division can't arrive? A Division dosen't simply appear out of thin air anyways. It travels along a line of communication, and if a parachute company happens to block the intersection at which the Division was supposed to turn left, the para coy simply gets steamrolled, and the Division continues on. It simply isn't realistic in the real world, even though it may be possible in the game. If someone can describe to me a situation where this actually occured in a combat operation, I will retract my staement.
Logically, your argument seems sound, but it ignores an important level of abstraction in the game vis-a-vis real-life. In many games, I've seen players rush everything up to the front, and maintain virtually no reserves. Extended flanks are covered with little in the way of recon, let alone firebrigades to react to unexpected incursions. No real-life commander would get away with that. Especially in occupied territory. Garrison of major population centers, communication corridors and their likely chokepoints, possible landing areas from both sea and air all have to be accomplished in "real-life". In the game, players often eschew such tasks, only because they can get away with it, by sloppy or lazy players. Why should they be able to get away with something ahistorical, when a few paradrops, or coastal landings on their marshalling areas might remind them of basic garrison requirements and the necessity of maintaining operational reserves?
In short, if the German army had stripped its forces from Northern Italy to fools-rush down the boot, refused to garrison major cities, and didn't guard the coast, then it would have been very easy for the population to rise up, especially with paradrops of munitions, troops, and supplies to the resistance. Then...your panzer division might be too busy fighting its way down or reestablishing control over urban centers to enter front-line combat.
Jam, you make some good points. But you're passing up the rules-lawyering type that make mockeries of your arguments.
Your examples are fine, and I agree with every one of them. I also strongly agree with your ideas on success-driven reinforcements, that's a great point. Why reinforce failure? If your troops aren't able to accomplish the objectives set out for them, why throw good resources after bad? You don't deserve the extra units if you can't achieve the successes required to 'earn' them.
But I've faced the other type of players. The ones who on the attack will make breakthroughs (as they should), but then bypass great objectives, leaving them in my control, all so they can camp on a hex in the middle of a forest or some damned thing; simply to deny me the units he know will enter there the very next turn, because he went over the scenario with a magnifying glass. This is rules lawyering at it's 'best'. (This would never happen historically. If a panzer division had a fantastic opportunity for exploitation, capturing key cities, or setting up for possible interdiction of enemy supplies, or perhaps even cutting off enemy forces; but was instead discovered by HQ to be camped out in a barren field somewhere, while bypassing all these obvious targets of opportunity; well, that division commander would soon find his head handed to him by HQ).
All scenarios should be played out as if you're playing them for the first time. There >should< be an element of the unknown. Granted, familiarity with any given scenario will let players learn where certain reinforcements are going to appear, but gentleman players should act as they would in a real-life setting.
This is one of the biggest problems with converting wars to our little pixel counters that we push around. Certain key elements of combat are lost, and players have opportunities to exploit that could only come with 'hindsight of future events'.
I consider myself to be a gentleman gamer above all else. I love to win, and I strive for it in every game. I do quite well, and have yet to be defeated in the handful of games I've played. But win or lose, the way I comport myself is far more important to me than my stats column. I'd rather be crushed out completely than to have any sort of a tarnished victory, where any of my tactics might be called questionable.
To reduce it to it's basics, there are two schools of thought here. One is that we should try to play the game as realistically as possible, not making moves that are 'gamey' or exploiting unrealistic loopholes in the game system to achieve success. The other is that this >is< a game, and both players have the same options open to them; it would be foolish to not take advantage of the game system to the fullest of a player's potential.
Which one is right?
Neither.
The end result is to determine which option (or combination of the two) best suits you, and then discuss this with your opponent prior to beginning a game.
I'd love to play you a game, Jam, or S. HEAT. (All us punks are always after the big guns!) But I doubt that we'll ever play. There was a huge thread about the tactics of tiny spoiling attacks with massed arty/air support, over and over in a single turn. Without rehashing this argument, I'll simply state that I feel the outcomes are ahistorically high in this regard. (I tested this vs. the PO in Nam65-75. I kept in almost constant reorganization 9 large units, all with 1/3 of a 1-1 recon, and two tiny artys, without benefit of air support). If I was to play you, Jam, I'd want you at your very best, but even if I achieved a victory over you, I wouldn't feel like I'd earned anything. A tarnished victory in my eyes is far worse than defeat.
You're not right. I'm not right. We're simply two players with differing views, that perhaps are not the best styles to pit against one another.
Players! Be sure to have a good long conversation with your opponents! Better to write a few novels back and forth than to abandon a game half-completed, or worse yet, to come away from a game with ill feelings towards your competitor! It's a damned game, and we play it for fun. But since such huge investments in time can quite understandably carry alot of emotion with it, invest in some insurance, and be clear on where you stand BEFORE you play, and how you'll handle situations where you don't agree.
Sheik Yerbouti
23 Aug 02, 11:44
Originally posted by Mantis
There was a huge thread about the tactics of tiny spoiling attacks with massed arty/air support, over and over in a single turn.
When did that happen? :alien:
Originally posted by Mantis
Players! Be sure to have a good long conversation with your opponents! Better to write a few novels back and forth than to abandon a game half-completed, or worse yet, to come away from a game with ill feelings towards your competitor! It's a damned game, and we play it for fun. But since such huge investments in time can quite understandably carry alot of emotion with it, invest in some insurance, and be clear on where you stand BEFORE you play, and how you'll handle situations where you don't agree.
Truer words were never spoken. Communications, both before and during games, rather than rash assumptions can make all the difference between a great time, and ruffled feathers.
Let me relate a little story about a game between Siberian HEAT and myself. It was a game of Europe Aflame, version 1.5. If you recall, that version had scads and scads of HQ units beginning the game on map. The game began normally enough with a quick conquest of Poland, and then a fall invasion of Scandanavia. My HQ's found use in "pacifying" the countryside of Norway, since they were light and easily transported by both air and sea. I wanted the bulk of my regular units to be facing the Allies in France. By keeping significant forces prominently arrayed against his forces there, I kept him from intervening in Norway as my forces, some paratroops, and a couple of Korps destroyed the Norwegian army. Why did I strike in Fall, rather than Spring? Two reasons, really. One was maintaining momentum and the initiative. The other was that I had checked out the reinforcement schedule and found that in the Spring the Norwegians were to begin receiving several units as reinforcements. I don't think it to be anything untoward having the foreknowledge of enemy training programs and mobilization timetables. In a world of spies and traitors, that knowledge is fairly common. SH had noticed the use of the HQ's and had obliquely remarked on them in our email banter that occurred with each passing turn. I explained to him that I didn't think it unrealistic that the HQ's would (in this case) represent small detachments that would fan out across the country, and that the scale of the map, and units (particularly with the projection isssues in the Far North) did not lend itself to breaking down 4 Korps into divisions to accomplish the same task. Upon reflection, he agreed. However, the seed was planted in his mind that I used my HQ's in an "unorthodox" manner. This came back to haunt us (briefly) when a late Fall probing attack occurred at the Maginot line.
I had moved several Infantry Korps, and a slew of HQ's to the line facing the Maginot. The most exposed corner of it is in range of the two German fort units. There, I launched a series of flanking minimize loss attacks against the exposed Maginot Fort and its infantry garrison. I was counting on the support from airpower, the forts and my several dug-in HQ units to give me the margin I needed for success against the fort, so that I could keep him guessing through the Winter as to where and how I would strike in the Spring. Each of the first few attacks were repulsed bloodily, but I noted the fort was weakening, and his adjacent supporting forts reducing in effectiveness as well. Finally with only about 30% remaining, I took the plunge and struck with everyone on ignore losses. If I didn't take it that attack, I would have been hosed as surprise would have been lost, and I miight not have had enough MP's to advance into the hex. Crossing my fingers and toes I started the attack and it carried, with the fort evaporating and the garrison retreating. My elation at such a (in my mind) well thought out attack was short-lived.
Siberian HEAT, upon watching the replay, and seeing the hordes of HQ units adjacent to his once proud fort, sent back an email angrily denouncing what he thought were cheesey tactics of making multiple attacks with HQ units to drain supply "unrealistically" and was ready to pass over playing the rest of the game. I was at first mildly insulted as well, knowing that what I did was entirely realistic, and eminently sporting. So, I figured that if I were to clear up the misunderstanding, I had better make good with some evidence to support my claim that I did not indeed launch the attack in the matter which he then found so distasteful. So I did a print screen of the inventory report (showing the losses in HRS) from both the previous turn, and the end of turn of which the attacks took place. Satisfied at seeing the horrific losses that I did in fact take, in capturing the hex, he conceded that he was rash in his assumption, and we continued the game. Later, I even sent him my password to the game when we reached the ceasefire period so that he could expedite the turn passing (as I had already moved everyone into position for a sharp and speedy attack on France as soon as the weather cleared. The communications between us, and the amicable resolution of this crisis allowed this level of trust, which I extend to few others.
So...the moral of the story is to know your opponent...for better or for worse...:p
Don Maddox
23 Aug 02, 13:42
I think part of this goes back to the way the scenario designer set things up. In the vast majority of cases the important reinforcement hexes in question should be located in an area that would have historically been used as a supply depot or staging area. These would certainly be a legitimate target in real life so it follows that they should be in-game as well.
In fact, when we're dealing with supply points on the modern battlefield they are the target of choice. The whole point of modern battlefield doctrine is not to fight the bulk of the enemy's forces, but to weaken and destroy these forces by eliminating their supporting units, logistics, and communications. Disrupting enemy staging areas, supply depots and reinforcements is a necessity on the modern battlefield.
Scenario designers should take these things into account when setting up a scenario and ensure that reinforcement hexes are placed in historically appropriate locations.
Having said that, the tactic of dropping light airborne forces deep into the enemy's rear area for the express purpose of occupying a reinforcement hex is somewhat "gamey." I think this question depends on the scenario being played. As several people mentioned above, communication with your opponent is probably a wise precaution.
Originally posted by Mantis
All scenarios should be played out as if you're playing them for the first time. There >should< be an element of the unknown. Granted, familiarity with any given scenario will let players learn where certain reinforcements are going to appear, but gentleman players should act as they would in a real-life setting.
To reduce it to it's basics, there are two schools of thought here. One is that we should try to play the game as realistically as possible, not making moves that are 'gamey' or exploiting unrealistic loopholes in the game system to achieve success. The other is that this >is< a game, and both players have the same options open to them; it would be foolish to not take advantage of the game system to the fullest of a player's potential.
I think this comes down to one question; are you gaming to play a historical scenario (battle) or are you gaming to play the system built around the scenario with 20/20 hindsight? A tough call.
Replaying a scenario like its the "first time" is almost impossible. How can you not react in some way knowing that in X turns a horde of "unseen" Panzer's will be hitting your flank. I think an acceptable general answer would be to allow the smallest unit possible to sit and "recon" the area in question. Other units should not be allowed to veer off a "normal" route. Why would several Armored Corps suddenly race crosscountry to sit nowhere for days, weeks or months without reason? But having them stop as close as reasonable as a recon unit checks out a rumor of enemy activity would be acceptable.
As mentioned if known "glitches" are in a scenario then the players should discuss them before the game begins.
Major Banned
24 Aug 02, 08:45
Originally posted by Mantis
Your examples are fine, and I agree with every one of them. I also strongly agree with your ideas on success-driven reinforcements, that's a great point. Why reinforce failure? If your troops aren't able to accomplish the objectives set out for them, why throw good resources after bad? You don't deserve the extra units if you can't achieve the successes required to 'earn' them.
Hmmm, that would be a good question for a certain Austrian corporal that had no talent as an artist. :p
Major Banned
24 Aug 02, 09:01
Originally posted by Kerry
I think this comes down to one question; are you gaming to play a historical scenario (battle) or are you gaming to play the system built around the scenario with 20/20 hindsight? A tough call.
Replaying a scenario like its the "first time" is almost impossible. How can you not react in some way knowing that in X turns a horde of "unseen" Panzer's will be hitting your flank. I think an acceptable general answer would be to allow the smallest unit possible to sit and "recon" the area in question. Other units should not be allowed to veer off a "normal" route. Why would several Armored Corps suddenly race crosscountry to sit nowhere for days, weeks or months without reason? But having them stop as close as reasonable as a recon unit checks out a rumor of enemy activity would be acceptable.
As mentioned if known "glitches" are in a scenario then the players should discuss them before the game begins.
Having several armored units race crosscountry to destroy the enemies supplies or to hold a vital crossroads in order to facilitate the destruction of the enemy on the front lines is what it's all about. They are in fact valid targets according to military doctrine. That also includes preventing reinforcements from reaching the area being battled for. In the "real world", if the reinforcements can't reach the area because of enemy forces, then they would be rerouted. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a mechanism in the game system that will allow reinforcements to be rerouted. I wouldn't consider it a "glitch", but it is certainly something that needs to be agreed upon up front as to targeting reinforcement entry points.
Bob Cross
24 Aug 02, 11:24
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
I don't think there is a mechanism in the game system that will allow reinforcements to be rerouted. I wouldn't consider it a "glitch", but it is certainly something that needs to be agreed upon up front as to targeting reinforcement entry points.
Each reinforcement unit can only be given one entry hex in the editor. However, as I understand it, reinforcements (and reconstituted units) that are scheduled to arrive on a mapedge hex will, if that hex is enemy occupied, arrive at a nearby unoccupied mapedge hex. Only units whose entry hex is non-mapedge can be blocked from arrival.
Originally posted by Bob Cross
Each reinforcement unit can only be given one entry hex in the editor. However, as I understand it, reinforcements (and reconstituted units) that are scheduled to arrive on a mapedge hex will, if that hex is enemy occupied, arrive at a nearby unoccupied mapedge hex. Only units whose entry hex is non-mapedge can be blocked from arrival.
Likewise for map-edge entry hexes that are fully stacked. The overflow moves outward along the map-edge to the nearest available legitimate hex(es).
Originally posted by Major Catastrophe
Having several armored units race crosscountry to destroy the enemies supplies or to hold a vital crossroads in order to facilitate the destruction of the enemy on the front lines is what it's all about.
This I agree on, sending units to hold "vital" points is just sound military strategy.
That also includes preventing reinforcements from reaching the area being battled for. In the "real world", if the reinforcements can't reach the area because of enemy forces, then they would be rerouted.
The problem with throwing in "real world" conditions misses one GAME point. That's when your opponet races past "vital hexes" to sit on or around "non-vital" hexes for the sole purpose of denying you the opportunity to use your reinforcements because he knows EXACTLY when & where they wil appear (and usually exact nunbers). Plus there is no way for you to give orders to those reinforcements to "reroute" them where you want them, they will appear on or near their entry hex and there is nothing you can do to change their entry.
Yes, you should defend to prevent this, but the point is a player using out of game information & exacting knowledge of every aspect of opponents capabilities to gain advantages he would not have had historically.
Are you playing the scenario or the game system? I prefer to play the scenario.
Originally posted by Bob Cross
Each reinforcement unit can only be given one entry hex in the editor. However, as I understand it, reinforcements (and reconstituted units) that are scheduled to arrive on a mapedge hex will, if that hex is enemy occupied, arrive at a nearby unoccupied mapedge hex. Only units whose entry hex is non-mapedge can be blocked from arrival.
Is this new to ACOW? Map edge reinforcemnts could be blocked in the WoY version. Blocked reinforcements would appear on the reinforcement list, but not on the map until the entry hex was re-taken.
Originally posted by Brevet
Is this new to ACOW? Map edge reinforcemnts could be blocked in the WoY version. Blocked reinforcements would appear on the reinforcement list, but not on the map until the entry hex was re-taken.
I don't know about previous versions, but in CoW v1.04 a map edge entry point is difficult to block. If enemy units occupy the hex, then the reinforcements will come in the nearest unoccupied hex that the units can legitimately be placed in. If the hex is simply controlled, but not occupied, then the units override the enemy control of the hex and are placed in the originally designated hex.
You can do a quick hotseat test of this, by using the German Brandenburgers in the Barbarossa '41 scenario. On turn one, move one of the units back to the airfield in (8,25) and end turn. Cycle through Soviet turn, and on the next Axis turn board airplanes and move the Brandenburger to (65,28). Cycle through the Soviet Turn. On turn three save the game before moving the Brandenburger. You can test several different possibilities on blocking the Soviet reinforcements that are scheduled to arrive in that hex on turn 4. You can break up the Brandenburger into three pieces and cover various combinations of hexes. You'll see that the occupation of the entry hex simply displaces the Soviets on turn 4, while leaving it vacant allows them to show up, regardless of previous control.
My worries about dropping suicide squads on map edges is more of a supply concern than a reinforcement entry concern, though often the same hex serves both purposes. Especially if supply points are scarce in the scenario.
Major Banned
25 Aug 02, 11:45
Originally posted by Kerry
This I agree on, sending units to hold "vital" points is just sound military strategy.
The problem with throwing in "real world" conditions misses one GAME point. That's when your opponet races past "vital hexes" to sit on or around "non-vital" hexes for the sole purpose of denying you the opportunity to use your reinforcements because he knows EXACTLY when & where they wil appear (and usually exact nunbers). Plus there is no way for you to give orders to those reinforcements to "reroute" them where you want them, they will appear on or near their entry hex and there is nothing you can do to change their entry.
Yes, you should defend to prevent this, but the point is a player using out of game information & exacting knowledge of every aspect of opponents capabilities to gain advantages he would not have had historically.
Are you playing the scenario or the game system? I prefer to play the scenario.
I prefer to play the scenario myself, but isn't using information and exacting knowledge of the opponents capabilities the same thing as intelligence gathering?
I do tend to agree with you that it probably isn't the most chivalous type of game play, but it's a fact of life and I would suggest either keep reserves back to prevent it, or agree up front with the opponent that reinforcement entry hexes of off-limits. I wasn't aware that reinforcements would automatically re-route to the closest available hex, so if the game system has it built in to deal with this situation, I would lean even farther in support of it being a valid tactic as the reinforcements aren't really being denied, just forced to appear elsewhere.
That only works on map edges, I believe. And in huge scenarios, such as EA, I can't think of very many units that EVER come in on a map edge. In that case, you just don't get them.
Siberian HEAT
26 Aug 02, 13:57
This is just a general statement, and not directed at anyone in particular :D
I am not sure why so many players think it is bad sportsmanship to study a scenario in detail. When you take command of an army you need to know where your supply sources are now, as well as where you need to go to open up new supply sources. If you see that you yourself have a tenuous supply source or entry hex then you must assume your opponent knows the same thing.
Any real-world commander worth his salt is going to know these things...and to purposely deny yourself this knowledge just makes no sense.
Italy 43 is a perfect example because the situation WAS very tenuous for both sides. Controlling small bits of real estate could make or break the entire campaign...and one unit (even a small one) could block MUCH larger forces from ever moving.
I am playing a game of Italy 43 right now (as allies) where my opponent dropped some paras in my rear areas in an attempt to block my reinforcements and supplies. At first I was surprised, but I quickly utilized some units that were resting in the area to dispatch his would-be raiders...and then placed some other units on sentry duty in case he tries it again ;)
I didn't even consider this remotely unsportsmanlike conduct by my opponent...and wouldn't even if he did succeed. It is a desperate scenario for both sides...and especially if they Axis captures and holds Salerno (as he has done in my game) it means the Allies must work hard to link up with the units coming out of the boot toe lest they remain out of supply. If not, the game will end quickly for the hapless Allies.
Having said all that...there is something that just doesn't sit quite right with me in Italy 43 by having the Germans go first...as there is a chance they could manage to grab both Allied supply hexes and essentially cancel the whole campaign before the allies really have a chance to attack. If by "camping" on entry hexes prevents the scenario from even starting I guess I would have a problem with that. :o
Southern Dandy
26 Aug 02, 15:15
Originally posted by Siberian HEAT
Having said all that...there is something that just doesn't sit quite right with me in Italy 43 by having the Germans go first...as there is a chance they could manage to grab both Allied supply hexes and essentially cancel the whole campaign before the allies really have a chance to attack. If by "camping" on entry hexes prevents the scenario from even starting I guess I would have a problem with that. :o
I think the idea of the Germans moving first in this scenario is meant in some way to model the lackadaisical attitude of Allied forces at the outset of the campaign, as well as allow for the historical counterattack by the Germans that very nearly split the beachhead into two smaller pockets.
If I recall my history correctly (and maybe I don't), in the day or two before the landings near Salerno, it was announced to the men going ashore that the Italians had surrendered. Many of them thus took the attitude that the invasion of Italy would be a snap (it didn't help that the British forces were advancing against mostly air and did very little to relieve pressure from the Salerno beachhead). Maybe this could have been better modeled using a shock event....
Regarding the thread at hand, I view the entry hex issue as follows--
If my advance allows me to overrun an entry hex, so be it...especially if I'm rolling up a flank and I have forces exploiting beyond that, screening to slow or prevent reinforcements from assisting their comrrades-in-arms. I personally would not use airborne forces specifically to hunt down arrival hexes, but if my opponent were to do so, I'd likely dispatch those forces to the nether regions with a portion of my reserve...and if I'm lucky, he'll try landing his forces on that garrison! :)
Siberian HEAT
27 Aug 02, 13:58
Originally posted by JAMiAM
Let me relate a little story about a game between Siberian HEAT and myself. It was a game of Europe Aflame, version 1.5...
<insert gripping story featuring many battles, defeats, victories, etc., with emotions ranging from ecstatic joy to tearful melancholy...and for the Axis a happy ending>
So...the moral of the story is to know your opponent...for better or for worse...:p
If you read the story you can get an excellent idea of the kinds of things you can learn by playing the best players around town. I can distinctly categorize my gameplay into "before I played Jamiam" and after I met him. This incident he describes was an epiphany of sorts in that for the first time I REALLY noticed what individual types of units could do. It was also the first time I REALLY understood how to maximize phases in a turn. There is about a dozen other lessons he taught me in that game as well...most notably he illustrated how his Axis forces could enter Moscow in 1941! I have played several games against him and have a poor record (1-5?), but he has never resorted to underhanded tactics to win. In fact, in that EA game, he brought up the issue of limiting HIS OWN TROOPS from paradropping into the USSR rear areas (the easternmost hexes of the map).
If you feel your opponent is using underhanded tactics just talk to him about it. He might be able to convince you otherwise. OR, you might be able to show him why it is wrong. Take your case to one of the veterans for their perspective. Most players I have had slight disagreements on rules are more than eager to find a solution that works for both sides. In short, you have to be a diplomat sometimes as well as a soldier!
In some situations, being the diplomat instead of the soldier is the only way to resolve things.
In one of my first games, the very turn that I started attacking the Reds, I paradropped into Baku, Maikop, and failed in the attempt at Grozny. It took only a message or two back and forth for me to be quite happy redoing my turn (how do I get all that oil out, by phone?). I don't like playing gamey, and I want a clean victory; even if it's for the other team.
But being rational about things, and discussing them with like-minded players is the only way to go! Instead of a potential confrontation and harsh feelings, we both felt good about things because we had resolved a potentially nasty event amicably!
WHUMPWHUMPWHUMP
(the sound of the vets thumping the concept of communicating into the heads of the newbies!)
Seriously, folks. I don't even want to play a game, win or lose, with someone I can't discuss things with. That's more important that any other aspect of the game.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.