2 More Gamey Play Thoughts--Opinions?

[Nemesis Lead]

Guys,

Here are two more POTENTIAL examples of gamey play--I want to see what your opinions are (I will withold my opinion until later). Events similar to these occured in two recent games (against two really cool guys I might add).

1) Mixing Units of different nationalities in your force. For example, you are attacking with the Allies and like American infantry companies better than British infantry companies (larger squads with better rifles, better light mortars, HMGs, better AT weapons, etc.). You also like the fact that American armor is often much cheaper than British armor FOR THE EXACT SAME TANK. However, those British 3 inch mortars really kick tail. British recon assault platoons are also a good way to get lots of SMGs. The British 17 pounder has no (Allied) equal in penetrating power. Hence, your attack force consists of the following:

a) One US infantry company
b) Two British recon assault platoons
c) Two British 3 inch mortars
d) Two US Sherman tanks.
e) One British 17 pounder.
f) One US Halftrack (to pull the 17 pounder).

Is this gamey?

2) I think everyone is OK with attackers conducting pre-assigned artillery bombardments on defenders (FO picks target on turn one and fires all of his ammo on turn 1 or with a delay and the strikes are always on target). But how about pre-assigned bombardments by:

a) Defenders on attackers. Looking at the map you have a good idea of where the attacker's forward start line is. All you have to do is correctly guess the attacker's likely route of advance and drop a barrage by a conscript FO on turn 1.

b) By players in a meeting engagement. Again, you know where the other guy's start line is. You can make a good guess on the attackers route of advance because of the placement of flags and covered routes.

Is this gamey?

Let me know what you think of these scenarios.

Best Regards,

Jay

[ER_Chaser]

Jay, in BB at least, in ME, you cannot pre-assign arty.

[Nemesis Lead]

Ah--that is true for AK and BB MEs.

For all Attack/Defend games, pick a target on turn 1. Shells will start falling almost immediately. If you want to delay the strike, hit the "Q" key and it will introduce a 1 minute delay for each time you hit the key.

The shells will always be on target. Even for targets that are out of LOS.

[Mad Russian]

I think everyone is OK with attackers conducting pre-assigned artillery bombardments on defenders (FO picks target on turn one and fires all of his ammo on turn 1 or with a delay and the strikes are always on target). But how about pre-assigned bombardments by:

a) Defenders on attackers. Looking at the map you have a good idea of where the attacker's forward start line is. All you have to do is correctly guess the attacker's likely route of advance and drop a barrage by a conscript FO on turn 1.

The Arabs thought that pre-attack strikes were gamey on several occasions that the Israeli's have used them. If you have artillery and you know you are going to get attacked you have the option.

The problem is that when it hits the intended target...the attacking forces out in the open...it's AWESPOME :devil: , OTOH, if it misses, you just lost a considerable part of your defensive capability. :cry:

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lurker]

I think mixing nationalities is gamey; it's the ultimate cherry picking. For AK and BB as it is the allies may have an edge in units and modeling (perhaps a topic for another thread?), so they really don't need any more of an advantage. I would simply agree on not doing it ahead of time. On the other hand for those times you forget to specify...

That being said, I played this one fellow a series of games (cmbo) and he loved to mix Brits, US and Canadians. After he did that to me twice I started doing it against him. Finally I got his agreement not to. His view was that it gave him a better chance. US VT 155 mixed with Hellcats, Churchill crocs, abundant on-board 3" mtrs, etc and you may get the idea.

I would have no problem with defender pre-assigned strikes. The defender has to take the attacker's pounding the entire game, whether it's pre-assigned or at the attacker's leisure. So why not reverse it? It's a risk in any case.

[Palantir]

Haven't really thought about mixing nationalities in QB's.

But off-hand to me mixing forces in QB's is not really gamey (I can't remember if I've ever done it or played against anyone that has) since each side gets to purchase the exact units he wants anyway.

I figure it's about the same as a guy buying all Vets or Conscripts - that's just as realistic.

Besides points what's the BIG difference in the Allied player cherry picking his units and the German selecting say all Vet/Crack Tigers etc?

Like I said, never thought about this so I probably don't see the devil in the details.

[Twotribes]

How does one mix units? I have not seen that option.

As to doing it in a Player versus player game, it may not be gamey in the sense that points are points, but it isnt very realistic if done piecemeal as suggested here. I would recommend house rules on it.

[Waleed]

Guys,

Here are two more POTENTIAL examples of gamey play--I want to see what your opinions are (I will withold my opinion until later). Events similar to these occured in two recent games (against two really cool guys I might add).

1) Mixing Units of different nationalities in your force. SNIP...
Is this gamey?

2) I think everyone is OK with attackers conducting pre-assigned artillery bombardments on defenders (FO picks target on turn one and fires all of his ammo on turn 1 or with a delay and the strikes are always on target). But how about pre-assigned bombardments by:

a) Defenders on attackers. Looking at the map you have a good idea of where the attacker's forward start line is. All you have to do is correctly guess the attacker's likely route of advance and drop a barrage by a conscript FO on turn 1.

b) By players in a meeting engagement. Again, you know where the other guy's start line is. You can make a good guess on the attackers route of advance because of the placement of flags and covered routes.

Is this gamey?


Jay

1. Mixing units - if only one player has done it, it is gamey IMO. I feel the parameters should be the same for both sides.

2.a) Depends upon the map size, but gererally not gamey - let the defender waste his ammo, even if it is cheap conscript ammo...wry grin.

2.b) I do not consider it gamey.

I would not like any of them to happen to me, and If I ever played that player again doing any of the above I would do them all back...

[Palantir]

Actually the best response to players who you think are "gamey" players is to say, "no thanks" to a replay.

[Twotribes]

I ask again , how does one mix nationalities? Is it a Multiplayer option? In CMBB unless I use the editor there is no way to get more than one nationality and only one base division type.

[Nemesis Lead]

Hi Two Tribes:

In the setup screen you will see a nationality e.g., "American" and a drop down menu.

You can pick a few American units and then use the drop down to select "British" and select some of their units.


You can restrict nationality when setting parameters (e.g., force the enemy to select only Americans).

[Waleed]

Actually the best response to players who you think are "gamey" players is to say, "no thanks" to a replay.

It has only ever happened to me twice...and both players jumped at the chance of a replay...and in both cases I easily beat them, and they were then too busy to play me after that...big grin.

...I like the idea of giving them a kicking back, and it is so easy when you pick a gamey force and use gamey tactics...lol.

[Nemesis Lead]

Guys, Thanks for the input--I will offer up my own opinions.

1) Defender artillery strikes on attackers. When I was a newb, I thought this was very cool. I justified this as the real life tactic of "defenders conducting a fire mission on suspected enemy assembly areas prior to an attack" and wrote of the merits of this on Battlefront.com. I had strikes that inflicted over 100 enemy casualties in a 1000 point QB...

However, over time people became furious with me and I came to understand why. An attacker on a medium map only has so many covered routes into the defender's zone. Hence, you can plot the "X-Axis" of your pre-planned strike with decent accuracy in most cases. As a defender, you know the attacker's set up zone is exactly twice as deep as your own. Hence, you now you have a perfect plot of the "Y-Axis."

The problem is that in real life defenders did not know that exact time that attackers would be lining up to attack. There was no artificial "start line" that you can calculate perfectly like there is in CM. Most CM attacks occur with artificial time pressure which was discussed ad-nauseum in threads on flag rushing. Hence, attackers tend to bunch up on start lines instead of attacking in depth like they would IRL.

In a recent ladder game, a start line bombardment inflicted 42 casualties on me. I was furious, but did not say much because I did not ask for a rule up front. I will always ask for such a rule going forward.

Note that this story has a very happy ending--my attack auto-surrendered my opponent. :cheeky:

2) Mixing forces. I think Lurker said it best. This is the ultimate cherry picking and mixed attacks like this rarely happened in real life. It is like playing high school football with your team, but "borrowing" a few star players from another team. Gamey as hell.

The best part of CM is learning how to overcome obstacles with what you have. The Americans do not have a 17 pounder to kill Tigers and Panthers with. You have to manuever to close range/flanks by using smoke and speed--two areas that American equipment excels in. The Italians have that gamey SMG infantry with something like 56 shots (a mistake in the game, but not corrected in patches so I guess it's OK). However, the downside of playing the Italians is that you have lousy AT weapons. Please don't show up with silly Italian SMG infantry AND German Panthers/75mm PAKs. :blab:

This happened to me in another ladder game, but again I said nothing since I did not ask for a rule up front. I guess that is the bottom line--you have to spell things out clearly up front. However, part of my feels like a Philadelphia Lawyer when you have to ask for 50 things up front.... :cry:

It gets me wondering if there should be a "standard" set of rules for all ladder games. Players could deviate from those rules on agreement before the game.

Probably not workable, but a thought.

[Lurker]

I guess that is the bottom line--you have to spell things out clearly up front. However, part of my feels like a Philadelphia Lawyer when you have to ask for 50 things up front.... :cry:

Thoughts? I know there are those who will say "it's only a game so take whatever is tossed at you and deal with it without whining". The chess player in me ultimately wins out in the long run though and I prefer balanced games, free from the exploitation of system flaws or excessive gaminess. Because of this I will always establish the rules before hand. At first I use to feel somewhat embarrassed about inquiring into game rules, but that quickly changed as I became burnt out on certain aspects. The only way I know of to weed out the gaminess that you find vexing is to specify it ahead of time. In all of my games at two clubs my rule requests were always welcomed as far as I know.

Maybe one reason for the use of the gamey is that it's happened to them before from others and they suspect that it will continue, so they're just returning the favor?

[Twotribes]

Hi Two Tribes:

In the setup screen you will see a nationality e.g., "American" and a drop down menu.

You can pick a few American units and then use the drop down to select "British" and select some of their units.


You can restrict nationality when setting parameters (e.g., force the enemy to select only Americans).

In my version of CMBB ( dont have AK) once you move onto the purchase screen, there is no changing base Divsion type ot nationality, sure there is a drop down and you can click on it and see the other choices, but they are ALL greyed out.

Is this just something that was "improved" on in AK?

[Nemesis Lead]

2 Tribes,

Looks that way. I can understand having the option for mixing forces. You might want to re-enact that rare, historical, combined-national operation (e.g., US paratroops supporting British armor in Operation Market Garden). But historical mixing like this was VERY rare. Armies had very strict boundaries and rarely saw each other, much less fought with one another. Even mixing of different types of troops (e.g., mechanized and airborne) was rare on the allied side (but not for the Germans).

Most people in CM use force mixing as a mean of picking a gamey "All Star" team.

[Lurker]

In my version of CMBB ( dont have AK) once you move onto the purchase screen, there is no changing base Divsion type ot nationality, sure there is a drop down and you can click on it and see the other choices, but they are ALL greyed out.

Is this just something that was "improved" on in AK? The ability to select different nationalities in QBs exists in all three games and BB is no different. If everything is set to "unrestricted" you can pick different nats in the drop down. Keep in mind that not everything is available at all time periods or in all theaters of the war. For instance, I think the Finns are only available in the early years and only in the Finland, while in the north only German forces are available. In the south however the other axis nations are available.

[KG_AGCent]

It is an unwritten rule in games among KGers that the nationality in QBs are always SET and not left open, it is part of the game selection parameter the players hash out before files are exchanged. Usually one person proposes a date and size and the other person then chooses his side and nation with the other misc. parameter set to afford maximum fairness (branch, division type, etc.)

Cherry picking is only done by mutual consent.

Pre-planned defensive barrages sound a bit silly as far as I am concerned especially when defensive forces generally get TRPs which allow much more flexibility.

As far as gameyness is concerned, fortunes of war suck and the roll of the dice (which is what the entire CM series comes down to) can suck as well. Can you make the best of a shitty situation? Are you in this to win or to have a good time? I have found that those two things can be mutually exclusive if one has the wrong attitude.

[Palantir]

I have never seen this done.

But I guess pre-planned defensive bombardments do stand high on the gamey list since the attacker is pinned into a limited setup area, and the covered approaches are just as restricted.

That said, if the defender wants to spend his points "hoping" the attacker is "there" so be it.

A lucky guess will be devastating, a bad one a waste of points.

[Tripps]

I agree with Palantir here, if someone drops a defensive barrage on my attack, then they are rolling the dice :)
I've only done it twice IIRC - with average results, i dont think its gamey

Mixing units is a little different, if the parameters allow it I expect it, but 99% of the time they are not, so its not an issue.
The only time i can think I mixed units was the 2nd round of the Gunny Bunny 5000 point tourney, where you could take German and Finnish, so - mainly German troops, supported by a few companies of Sissi squads, needless to say, the KV I and II's didnt last long against the demo's, and reverse slope defenses with the backup SMG's made short work of the Russian infantry :)

But, like i said in the other thread, i consider "gameyness" to happen pre-game, if the parameters are set this way, then expect dodgey things to happen!