View Full Version : What is Gamey?
Hey guys, I have head this term used often around the entire community especially at the TPG and SDII and here. I haven't enough experience with PBEM's to really know what gameyness is, but I have read about often enough to get the gist of it. I think that it has something to do with making a very unorthodox move that would never have been pulled off in real life by the soldiers. However, I think that it shows the "generalship" of that player, but to others(and many at that), it is as sinful as using cheat codes to beat a game. My questions are, what is gamey and what isn't. When is gameyness allowed in a game(s)(ie quickbattles, semi-historical, historical, etc..). To me, from what I have read from the CM community, gameyness or being gamey means that a player has the ability to utilize his forces in their own methods to achieve his objectives, whether it is by hugging the board edge to flank the enemies line(yes I know that is a reeeeal no-no), or making a rush at the end of a game to achieve a win/draw whatever. I know that all of you guys have delt with this issue in your games and I would like to see your views on the subject.
You hear the word "gamey" in ASL just as much as in CM, and it usually refers to something that is clearly unrealistic, or unfair or possibly both.
It's when a player has such an intimate knowledge of their game that they know all the game's weaknesses of design and how to beat their opponent over the head with them.
Blackcloud6
23 Feb 07, 14:21
"Gamey" is usually used the recipient of such a tactic.
You hear the word "gamey" in ASL just as much as in CM, and it usually refers to something that is clearly unrealistic, or unfair or possibly both.
In ASL it is called "sleaze."
Blackcloud6, try hunting through the old posts for topics on CM gameyness. I know there has been alot already said on the subject.
The one who loses is more apt to scream "gamey" then the winner. :) I find very little of it gamey (it is a game after all) to the point that I'd get really annoyed about something. One of my biggest irritants is the blatant end game flag rush, the kind where one player intentionally waits for the clock to tick down before doing a suicidal rush. On the other hand if a player is fighting his way to a flag the entire game and can't get there until near the end then that's one thing I've no problems with.
IMO there two basic types of outlooks on gamey: the player who needs historical accuracy and optimum realism will find much more to be gamey then the player who doesn't care about that stuff and just treats it as a game like any other game. The key is to establish your criteria before starting a game. If the players don't do that then no one really has any complaints.
IMO there two basic types of outlooks on gamey: the player who needs historical accuracy and optimum realism will find much more to be gamey then the player who doesn't care about that stuff and just treats it as a game like any other game. The key is to establish your criteria before starting a game. If the players don't do that then no one really has any complaints.
Would not people who only play certain parameters all the time be gamey?
I think moving crews towards the enemy or taking flags with them is game. Most tanks crews were told to return back to their lines as best as possible. It was hard to find/train new crews. :smoke:
Also, it is well noted that tank crews are highly valued in the game. Losing them unrealistically, will cost you points.
Other ploys I've seen, used and read about are using zooks to search. Some folks hate that use as well. What are the opinions for using snipers, zooks, BARs etc for scouts???
Why wouldn't snipers be used as scouts? It seems perfectly natural to me. I can see BARs(and other LMGs) and zooks(and other ATGs) as not being scouts since it would be ridiculous, but how come you wouldn't use snipers? As for tank crews... I use them offensively, all the time(of course against the AI Mr.Numbers is already experiencing this tactic;) ) and usually for helping the front lines like plugging gaps or tying an enemy unit down so I can maneuver other forces in to kill it. I can see for saving tank crews for campaign games like your Sealion game, but for reagular battles and all. I think that as long as both players are fighting hard and having a great time, and each is using tactics that normally wouldn't be used in RL, I think it just shows their ingenuity and knowledge and capabilities of the forces that they are using and are willing to put it all on the line so-to-speak.
Would not people who only play certain parameters all the time be gamey?
I think moving crews towards the enemy or taking flags with them is game. Most tanks crews were told to return back to their lines as best as possible. It was hard to find/train new crews. :smoke:Gamey is in the eye of the beholder. :)
As for wanting certain types of game parameters all of the time - well that's part of the game isn't it? Everyone has their own tastes and preferences, and what makes one set of these gamey and a diversity not gamey?
Again, it depends on your viewpoint. If you crave realism in terms of historical accuracy and usage of units then there will be much to gripe about and many things will be gamey.
I seperate historical accuracy /realism into 2 basic categories: 1) do the units involved respond realistically and are they modeled with historical accuary, or 2) are they poorly modeled with unexplained tweaks, and respond in ways quite contrary to RL. I certainly prefer #1 while instances of #2 irk the crap out of me as I've gone into in other posts. So while I want my units to fit into the #1 category, that's about as concerned over historical accuracy/realism as I usually get.
Some players really get their knickers in a bunch over unit selections they consider to be unrealistic, but in my case I don't know what the detailed OOBs were for all nations involved, nor do I have the time or inclination to do any on-line research to determine what realistic unit picks should be like. So other than absurd end-game flag rushes there isn't much I'm bothered by.
Also, it is well noted that tank crews are highly valued in the game. Losing them unrealistically, will cost you points.
Other ploys I've seen, used and read about are using zooks to search. Some folks hate that use as well. What are the opinions for using snipers, zooks, BARs etc for scouts??? Good point. Crews will cost you if you get them killed in offensive actions. So if my oppo wants to send them at me I'll be happy to kill them for extra points. :halo:
Also, there are missing elements in CM - many I'm sure - but one that stands out are the lack of scouts. In ASL you can detatch individuals from a squad for this purpose, but not in CM. As a result we have to improvise with "other stuff" to act as scouts. HSs don't make good scouts, too large for one thing, and they mess up the integrity of the unit. I'd prefer a single man for the role but sharp shooters are too expensive. By the way, that's sharp shooter in the game IIRC, not sniper. If he sends zooks and piats my way as scouts I will happily kill those too for that means they won't be around later to KO my armor. :)
KGPanzerschrecK
24 Feb 07, 13:35
Also, it is well noted that tank crews are highly valued in the game. Losing them unrealistically, will cost you points.
Other ploys I've seen, used and read about are using zooks to search. Some folks hate that use as well. What are the opinions for using snipers, zooks, BARs etc for scouts???
Interesting points my friend.
If some ill educated Brampot wants to send his highly valued tank crews to die under the barrels of my MG-42's and .50 cal's, i say bring them on!
I see no problem with someone using Bar teams, Bazookas or Panzerschrecks/AT-teams as Scouts. The samething that applied above applies here. If someone want to waste a valuable support asset on scouting duties ill be glad to hand them their heads on a silver platter and scoop up some extra points to boot. Id never do it unless i had no other choice. I would however use combinations of Bazookas and Bar teams as lookouts to watch flanks, but thats a whole 'nother subject.
Snipers are a different story. They can be effective scouts if used properly. Get them into position up on a rise without being seen and their ability to spot, especially Veterans and higher versions, is outstanding.
I recently played an A/D game where I was on offense. The game was infantry only plus guns, mortars and spotters of course. The infantry of my choice had zooks attached. I also bought BAR's and teamed them up about 25m apart to start the game. They went ahead and were sucessful in determining the boundaries (barbed wire, trenches, foxholes) near the VL's. If seen, the defender kept from firing at them to further expose what assets were available to him. I then chose my attack points. Harrassing fire from a zook to a trench almost always got a response from the defender, which then took fire from my BAR. With each area defended receiving fire it keeps the defense guessing when and where the big strike will occur. Once the attack is underway the BAR's participated in the main push too.
Like Schrek says above, there are unfortunately no 'scouts' available and I use whatever unit best serves the purpose. I've used 1/2 squads too but that is usually 5-6 guys and I would guess that 2 with a zook could stay hidden longer, although I have not tested it.
Wouldn't you call a sharpshooter a sniper?
Comments?
I recently played an A/D game where I was on offense. The game was infantry only plus guns, mortars and spotters of course. The infantry of my choice had zooks attached. I also bought BAR's and teamed them up about 25m apart to start the game. They went ahead and were sucessful in determining the boundaries (barbed wire, trenches, foxholes) near the VL's. If seen, the defender kept from firing at them to further expose what assets were available to him. I then chose my attack points. Harrassing fire from a zook to a trench almost always got a response from the defender, which then took fire from my BAR. With each area defended receiving fire it keeps the defense guessing when and where the big strike will occur. Once the attack is underway the BAR's participated in the main push too.
Wouldn't you call a sharpshooter a sniper?
Comments?Interesting tactics Bertram. Particularly using zooks and piats to area fire suspected positions. It seems the AI targets AT units before normal infantry if given a choice, so if one fires at hidden defenders they might just automaticaly fire back even given a hidden order. Tests would have to be done to determine if a hidden unit with a short CA will automatically reveal itself and fire at AT units that have fired first. If that is the case then it would seem you can almost always flush out hidden defenders even when they want to remain hidden? Very Nasty!
I'm not sure about the sharpshooter / sniper thing; perhaps that's just semantics? I tend to believe there is a difference in that snipers are highly trained and specialized units that act mostly alone while sharp shooters are attached to a unit for a specific role when needed. Someone with more knowledge of military doctrine would have to clarify this for me. I thought that if CM intended them snipers they would have called them that.
In RL, a sharpshooter (US and Russain, here in UK it is "Marksman") is a "Normal" infantryman who is an exceptional shot, whereas a sniper is a superb shot and specially trained, both mentally and physically.
..in CM they seem to have given a sharpshooter a sniper's concealment abilities, but everything else as a normal sharpshooter.
In RL, a sharpshooter (US and Russain, here in UK it is "Marksman") is a "Normal" infantryman who is an exceptional shot, whereas a sniper is a superb shot and specially trained, both mentally and physically.
..in CM they seem to have given a sharpshooter a sniper's concealment abilities, but everything else as a normal sharpshooter.Thanks Waleed. That was my impression but I didn't have the knowledge to back it up.
Blackcloud6
24 Feb 07, 18:45
Most tanks crews were told to return back to their lines as best as possible. It was hard to find/train new crews.
Not flamin' but can you back that statement up with historical references or are you assuming this?
I bring this up because what some people may think is gamey is based on their assumption of what they think history was like. It may not be based on fact or may only be based on anecdote.
I find, if there is what is perceived is a gamey tactic may really have a historical basis or possibility if you think real hard about it.
I'm sure there were always exceptions, but if you think about it the 'value of tank crews' theory is probably correct. A trained crew knows his beast and how it responds to given situations and it's capabilities, aside from being able to fix minor problems. I don't think you'd want to take 5 random grunts and throw them in a tank and tell them to go and kill stuff. :) Like anything else, mastering a machine is going to take training and good coordination amongst the crew.
Not flamin' but can you back that staement up with hisrical references or are you assuming this?
I bring this up because what some people may think is gamey is based on their assumption of what they think history was like. It may not be based on fact or may only be based on anecdote.
I find, if there is what is perceived is a gamey tactic may really have a historical basis or possibility if you think real hard about it.
I am on it Black Cloud. I read it in one of my many books:hmmm: It maybe a little but you are right ...fact should be the factor.eh.
Other then common logic I guess. I would think it is common sense that the average foot soilder would not be able to drive a tank let alone fire etc all that is require to do it right. One other good reason is that a in CM if a Mortar crew that is empty and moved to a flag, the flag will not become that crews....but if that crew is seperated from the mortar and arrives at a flag he gains control of it...of coarse he is the only one there. ....That has happened to me a couple of times. That is a game mechanics issue. The crew has weapons when the mortar is not with them ...it only goes to reason that when it is with them they still carry their weapons. :smoke:
Also if a crew is worth more points then the same # of squad men then why on earth would they run a crew forward.?:nuts:
KGPanzerschrecK
24 Feb 07, 22:46
Not flamin' but can you back that staement up with hisrical references or are you assuming this?
I bring this up because what some people may think is gamey is based on their assumption of what they think history was like. It may not be based on fact or may only be based on anecdote.
I find, if there is what is perceived is a gamey tactic may really have a historical basis or possibility if you think real hard about it.
Agreed BlackCloud. Not everyone thought of their armored forces as Elite units like the Germans did. I know for a fact that Marine Tankers and other vehicle operators that lost their AFV's often got used as infantry just for the simple fact that they needed the extra men and there was nothing else for them to do so it was common policy. Now i know this game is based in Europe, not the Pacific. But look at what alot of USA Tankers were after D-Day. They were Infantrymen pulled out of Reppo-Deppos thrown into a Tank for a couple of days and then labled a "Tank Crew". If they were lucky enough to live through the destruction of their Tank, they could hopefully look forward to be used for Infantry purposes for a while until they got replacement Tanks. Ive read a few accounts of this happening.
I guess what im trying to say is while im not condoning the use of Tank and Gun crews as Infantry and Scouts, you cant exactly write it off as Gamey or Non-Historical either.
Agreed BlackCloud. Not everyone thought of their armored forces as Elite units like the Germans did. I know for a fact that Marine Tankers and other vehicle operators that lost their AFV's often got used as infantry just for the simple fact that they needed the exta men and there was nothing else for them to do so it was common policy. Now i know this game is based in Europe, not the Pacific. But look at what alot of USA Tankers were after D-Day. They were Infantrymen pulled out of Reppo-Deppos thrown into a Tank for a couple of days and then labled a "Tank Crew". If they were lucky enough to live through the destruction of their Tank, they could hopefully look forward to be used for Infantry purposes for a while until they got replacement Tanks. Ive read a few accounts of this happening.
I guess what im trying to say is while im not condoning the use of Tank and Gun crews as Infantry and Scouts, you cant exactly right it off as Gamey or Non-Historical either.Interesting post schreck. I always assumed all nations (with the exception of the Russians perhaps) treated their tank crews as valuable assets. I never would have guessed the US thought so little of them. Thanks for the info. Still, in CM I'll be happy to kill any I find. :)
Schrek, what would you say is the likelihood, percentage wise, that tank crews jumped from their disabled tank and charged into the enemy in search of the VL?
I would think low unless death were certain otherwise. Trapped/surrounded then make it happen but with a way to withdraw in CM.........you should only do so rarely...........if you're looking for accuracy.
And as Lurker says, show me a crew and I'll show you my target!:devious:
KGPanzerschrecK
25 Feb 07, 03:17
John my friend, im in no way advocating the use of them, im just restating what ive been told first hand by my Dad, who fought on Siapan, Tinian & Iwo Jima and what i have read about the awful, almost criminal replacement system the US Army had in the ETO after D-Day.
As far as the Marines were concerned, everyone was a foot slogger. As a matter of fact eveyone was trained as one, from Tank and Gun crews up to Fighter pilots. If they were needed they became foot soldiers and were expected to fight when called apon. That frequently happened on Island battles where replacements for wounded and killed men were hard to come by and replacements for lost tanks were even harder to find.
If you dont know what a "Reppo-Deppo" is, do a search for them on the net and or check them out over at Wikipedia. That was the system used to replace soldiers in Europe. In alot of cases armored units werent getting trained crews from the states when they needed them. They would send their Sgt's into a Deppo to get some replacements. Oftentimes all it took to become a Tankdriver was the abilily to have once driven a truck! I have read many horror stories like this over the years. I saw a story on the Military Channel one night about Sherman Tanks and a guy was talking about 15 new Sherman's being outfitted with Reppo-Deppo crews and they got a total of 4 days training in the Tanks. The gunners got to shoot 3 rounds out of the guns and they were considered trained! They went into combat near the Hurtgen Forest and all of the Tanks were lost in about 15 minutes of their first battle. I belive he said about 10 or 12 of the crew members made it out of the Tanks alive, the rest were killed. Their Commander threw them into the line as infantry for the rest of the battle. A real compassionate man huh?
Reppo-Deppo wouldn't give me anything in Wikipedia and only a few hits in Google, but I get the drift.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps stated quite firmly in the late 1980's that every Marine will be an infantryman..........without exception.
It would be an interesting question to see just how many untrained tankers were running around ETO. In the case of an untrained tanker leaving his disabled tank best to put him back into the infantry rather than give him another tank to wreck.
Maybe another way to look at it is according to their experience. Untrained crews would have to be Conscripts. In that case, push them ahead.
A veteran or crack crew wouldn't fall into this bracket.
Good discussion Schrek, if you have a quick url to a Reppo-Deppo website, please pass it along.
I remember watching that Schrek. I thought it was shocking. I've read tho that the British crews would go back to their lines when their tank was knocked out
(it was mentioned in this book): http://www.amazon.com/PENDULUM-BATTLE-Operation-Goodwood-July/dp/1844152782/sr=8-2/qid=1172393814/ref=sr_1_2/103-3583764-5175826?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Then in CM how would this apply to gun crews, truck drivers, etc..? Also, were tank crews armed with SMGs or is that just Hollywood fluff? In my book anyone that can shoot and kill in an infantryman and if they run our of ammo the act as stop-gaps(or whatever the term is). Now, if the said tank crew is named Wittman, Monty, or Patton then that is a different story.
Question to KGP- How did your dad get through Iwo? Just curious. Also what your dad says about Marine tank crews makes sense. Did he fight against that big banzai charge on Saipan?
It was the british that had the policy to have their tank crews return to their lines. It does not surprise me that the Americans did not have that policy. it also goes to show you the lack of concern that the americans put on their troops.. then and now. Look at the Sherman a poor machine but in numbers it would win at the loss of 5 to 1 against a Panther(that was a running rule of thumb). It is not much different now day ...just take the Hummer armour at the start of the Iraq war. Only thank God for the media ....though not all the time.;) :smoke:
John my friend, im in no way advocating the use of them, im just restating what ive been told first hand by my Dad, who fought on Siapan, Tinian & Iwo Jima and what i have read about the awful, almost criminal replacement system the US Army had in the ETO after D-Day.
As far as the Marines were concerned, everyone was a foot slogger. As a matter of fact eveyone was trained as one, from Tank and Gun crews up to Fighter pilots. If they were needed they became foot soldiers and were expected to fight when called apon. That frequently happened on Island battles where replacements for wounded and killed men were hard to come by and replacements for lost tanks were even harder to find.
If you dont know what a "Reppo-Deppo" is, do a search for them on the net and or check them out over at Wikipedia. That was the system used to replace soldiers in Europe. In alot of cases armored units werent getting trained crews from the states when they needed them. They would send their Sgt's into a Deppo to get some replacements. Oftentimes all it took to become a Tankdriver was the abilily to have once driven a truck! I have read many horror stories like this over the years. I saw a story on the Military Channel one night about Sherman Tanks and a guy was talking about 15 new Sherman's being outfitted with Reppo-Deppo crews and they got a total of 4 days training in the Tanks. The gunners got to shoot 3 rounds out of the guns and they were considered trained! They went into combat near the Hurtgen Forest and all of the Tanks were lost in about 15 minutes of their first battle. I belive he said about 10 or 12 of the crew members made it out of the Tanks alive, the rest were killed. Their Commander threw them into the line as infantry for the rest of the battle. A real compassionate man huh?Good post! It seems this usage is dependent on the nation. I can't see the Germans treating their crews like the marines did but that's only conjecture on my part. Maybe that partially accounts for the lop-sided kill ratio between the Germans and other nations?
From anecdotes I've heard the Russians may not have been any better in this regard, although I've also read that they typically required men of smallish stature to man their tanks because of the relatively cramped conditions in the small-turreted, steeply sloped tanks. This could mean they sent their crews back for more armor. Although any nation that uses nearly unarmed men in human wave assaults can't be too concerned about the lives of their troops. :rolleyes:
It does not surprise me that the Americans did not have that policy. it also goes to show you the lack of concern that the americans put on their troops.. then and now. I'm not so sure about that part. If there was any lack of concern for US lives it probably was more typically political/economical rather than coming directly from the commanding officers, but that's just a guess. As to the use of tank crews it is more likely that many US officers simply didn't have a proper grasp of the requisite skill and training required to master a tank. I wonder if Patton had this same disregard. :)
I'm not so sure about that part. If there was any lack of concern for US lives it probably was more typically political/economical rather than coming directly from the commanding officers, but that's just a guess. As to the use of tank crews it is more likely that many US officers simply didn't have a proper grasp of the requisite skill and training required to master a tank. I wonder if Patton had this same disregard. :)
I really think Numbers is off the mark on his statement. Certainly there were some CO's that put their men in harms way needlessly or carelessly. That is likely the aberration not the rule or policy.
Army Air Corps comes to mind, 25 missions and go home. This gave the boys hope and also allowed their experience to be given to the new crop of airmen being trained.
Marines have been mentioned here too. It's pretty well known that all Marines are trained as infantry. So when all else fails any of them can pick up a rifle and fight effectively. At least that's the idea regardless of its success.
Individuals aside, the US military as a whole has a great concern for it's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines well being.
In regards to CM, we could say that vet, crack, and elite crews who are used offensively is gamey while conscript, green, and regular is okay? And what about gun crews(?) would you say the same thing about them, since I know that on many occasions they acted as infantry when time was needed.
In regards to CM, we could say that vet, crack, and elite crews who are used offensively is gamey while conscript, green, and regular is okay? And what about gun crews(?) would you say the same thing about them, since I know that on many occasions they acted as infantry when time was needed.I think the best idea is to set the rules on an individual game basis. I've had agreements that crews were not to be used for recon or attacking and had to withdraw when it was safe to do so, or stay where they were. In most games we don't bother to discuss the subject and if my oppo uses them to attack then I kill them happily - as mentioned. :D
IMO it's more the responsibility of the person who's bothered by these things to bring up the matter and agree on rules beforehand. If no rules are set then it's a free-for-all, and may the most creative one win. ;)
freightshaker
25 Feb 07, 20:35
Something no one has touched on yet:
As destroyed vehicle crew, would you go after the enemy armed with a pistol, maybe a SMG, and a few hand grenades? I think that is the issue people have with offensive minded vehicle crews; they're not equipped or trained as infantry and would have a short life expectancy in a fire fight.
Something no one has touched on yet:
As destroyed vehicle crew, would you go after the enemy armed with a pistol, maybe a SMG, and a few hand grenades? I think that is the issue people have with offensive minded vehicle crews; they're not equipped or trained as infantry and would have a short life expectancy in a fire fight.That's another good point that seperates game from RL. The gamer doesn't really care, as long as it can shoot. Maybe each nation had different small arms for the crews. I thought the US crews had M1 Carbines, while the Germans had pistols or MP40s?
I'm not so sure about that part. If there was any lack of concern for US lives it probably was more typically political/economical rather than coming directly from the commanding officers, but that's just a guess. As to the use of tank crews it is more likely that many US officers simply didn't have a proper grasp of the requisite skill and training required to master a tank. I wonder if Patton had this same disregard. :)
I really think Numbers is off the mark on his statement. Certainly there were some CO's that put their men in harms way needlessly or carelessly. That is likely the aberration not the rule or policy.
Army Air Corps comes to mind, 25 missions and go home. This gave the boys hope and also allowed their experience to be given to the new crop of airmen being trained.
Marines have been mentioned here too. It's pretty well known that all Marines are trained as infantry. So when all else fails any of them can pick up a rifle and fight effectively. At least that's the idea regardless of its success.
Individuals aside, the US military as a whole has a great concern for it's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines well being.
I do not believe that the generals past or present would put their men out there without the proper equipment...IT"S THE DAMN POLITICANS! I am sure when the dust settles on the Iraq War we will see again how dumb the politics are behind the scenes. The generals etc have to work under them therefore it is not always in the best interest of the foot soldier etc. IMHO:smoke:
KGPanzerschrecK
26 Feb 07, 12:33
Question to KGP- How did your dad get through Iwo? Just curious. Also what your dad says about Marine tank crews makes sense. Did he fight against that big banzai charge on Saipan?
He was a blessed man, thats for sure. His Regiment was behind and to the right of the one on the line that got hit with the big Banzai charge on Siapan. While they didnt get hit with the full force of it, they were brought in to help repell it and retake the lost areas and to replace the unit on the line that got torn up in the attack. As for Iwo Jima, He didnt last long on that Island. His unit was one of the ones that hit the beach on the first wave. They were on the extreme right of the line. Near the end of the 1st day he ran out of his position to pick up a wounded buddy and on his way back to his position with his buddy over his shoulder, a mortar round hit near them, a hunk of shrapnel hit him tearing a large chunk out of my Dads one buttocks. He almost bled to death but the Medics got him to a landing craft and out to a hospital ship. After he healed up he escorted Military Prisoners from Hawiai to the States for year until he was discharged. He ended up recieving the Bronze Star a few months after he got home for saving his friends life.
KGPanzerschrecK
26 Feb 07, 12:48
It was the british that had the policy to have their tank crews return to their lines. It does not surprise me that the Americans did not have that policy. it also goes to show you the lack of concern that the americans put on their troops.. then and now. Look at the Sherman a poor machine but in numbers it would win at the loss of 5 to 1 against a Panther(that was a running rule of thumb). It is not much different now day ...just take the Hummer armour at the start of the Iraq war. Only thank God for the media ....though not all the time.;) :smoke:
I do not believe that the generals past or present would put their men out there without the proper equipment...IT"S THE DAMN POLITICANS! I am sure when the dust settles on the Iraq War we will see again how dumb the politics are behind the scenes. The generals etc have to work under them therefore it is not always in the best interest of the foot soldier etc. IMHO
Since when did the CM forums become a soapbox for one to speak about their angst against the USA's Govt. & Military in the current Iraqi conflict? You are completely entitled to your opinions, i would never say that you arent, but this forum isnt the place for them. You of all people should know that since you are a Moderator here. Thats MHO and i know for a fact its shared by many others here as well.
He was a blessed man, thats for sure. His Regiment was behind and to the right of the one on the line that got hit with the big Banzai charge on Siapan. While they didnt get hit with the full force of it, they were brought in to help repell it and retake the lost areas and to replace the unit on the line that got torn up in the attack. As for Iwo Jima, He didnt last long on that Island. His unit was one of the ones that hit the beach on the first wave. They were on the extreme right of the line. Near the end of the 1st day he ran out of his position to pick up a wounded buddy and on his way back to his position with his buddy over his shoulder, a mortar round hit near them, a hunk of shrapnel hit him tearing a large chunk out of my Dads one buttocks. He almost bled to death but the Medics got him to a landing craft and out to a hospital ship. After he healed up he escorted Military Prisoners from Hawaii to the States for year until he was discharged. He ended up recieving the Bronze Star a few months after he got home for saving his friends life.
Wow... blessed indeed. You know what is interesting about Iwo? Is you always hear about how many guys got the Medal of Honor and how all the vets say there shoulda been one for every guy(or something like that), but you never hear about how many other medals were handed out like the bronze star(at least that I haven't heard of). Im not trying to say that every guy who had a medal is a hero, Im just saying that they always look at the guys at got the MoH and not the lesser medals(Im sure just about everyone got the purple heart, or most of them anyways). I do think that the MoH's that were recieved represent all of the men who fought and died in the battle:salute: :flag: .
was a bit rushed so it doesn't sound quiet the way I would like it to come out.
KGPanzerschrecK
26 Feb 07, 22:12
Check out the PM i sent you kawaiku.
Check out the PM i sent you kawaiku.
Thanks, I got it.
Okay, this thread kinda detered away from my original intentions so I'll start with a newish question(or at least attempt to anyways).
What is a gamey strategy that you have seen used or used somewhat yourself?
An example of what I am asking: Running that King II all over the map wrecking supreme havoc and then when its' gun is destroyed or there is no more ammo, you just casually waltz it off the map so you don't loose points(this is possible right?).
I get the feeling that alot of people focus too much on losing because of points instead of playing and trying to win despite the losses they received or might receive due to the loss of certain units. I mean seriously, it's like running trucks off the map because they are pointless(isn't that gamey?), but better yet, why not use them as "scouts" to pin-point that atg location or any enemy vehicle or unit that is capable of knocking out your heavy hitters! Is that gamey(?) probably, but it certainly is more useful than running them off the map to save points. I may not have the gamine experience that you guys have(still in my first game), but I have read a helluva lot of AAR's and have noticed these tactics off and on or here and there.
Since when did the CM forums become a soapbox for one to speak about their angst against the USA's Govt. & Military in the current Iraqi conflict? You are completely entitled to your opinions, i would never say that you arent, but this forum isnt the place for them. You of all people should know that since you are a Moderator here. Thats MHO and i know for a fact its shared by many others here as well.
I have not done as you said above...at least not intended to. I am always impressd how many people know what a person or in my case a person who is a moderator is and is not to say. You see when I volunteered for this job, no one gave me a rule book of the etiquette or that I have to hold any type of polictial views etc. I guess so much for freedom of speech. All I have stated is facts IMHO and if one doesnot like it........ now I will refrain from anymore being said on the topic of soapbox or Yanky gov't.
Now if you(or anyone else) wishes to discuss this further please PM me or send me a personal e-mail. I am even up to a phone call if one wishes. I have respect for each member of the Combat Missions forum here, I have also been very impressed with your thoughts and opinions both past and present in your posts. I hope that you continue to do so, this is why I will take to heart what you have to say.:smoke:
KGPanzerschrecK
27 Feb 07, 13:31
What is a gamey strategy that you have seen used or used somewhat yourself? An example of what I am asking: Running that King II all over the map wrecking supreme havoc and then when its' gun is destroyed or there is no more ammo, you just casually waltz it off the map so you don't loose points(this is possible right?).
I get the feeling that alot of people focus too much on losing because of points instead of playing and trying to win despite the losses they received or might receive due to the loss of certain units. I mean seriously, it's like running trucks off the map because they are pointless(isn't that gamey?), but better yet, why not use them as "scouts" to pin-point that atg location or any enemy vehicle or unit that is capable of knocking out your heavy hitters! Is that gamey(?) probably, but it certainly is more useful than running them off the map to save points. I may not have the gamine experience that you guys have(still in my first game), but I have read a helluva lot of AAR's and have noticed these tactics off and on or here and there.
Here is what i go by, hopefully it helps you out my friend.
1. This is the most important thing. This, being all incarnations of CM, is only a game and thus we as players will never be able to simulate real combat now matter how hard we try. We can agree to do this or that or not to do this or that but in the end its still just a game. So expect the unrealistic no matter how realistic CM is.
2. If there are no specific "Gentlemans Rules" set forth at the beginning of a game dont be suprised if something "Gamey", at least in your opinion of the term, happens.
Ive played many, many games over the years and i think ive seen just about all the so called Gamey things done to me at one time or another and ive even done a few myself, at least thats what a few of my opponents said anyway. The bottom line is that if it wasnt agreed to before hand, your SOL.
Ill give you one example of a game that might be considered gamey by some, but wasnt by me. It was my own fault for not buying any AAA assets. No aircraft rules were set forth and in a 1943 "Kursk-esque" semi-historical scenario i was playing the Russians and got wiped out by a fleet of HE-129's. Each side had a set number of forces given by the scenario designer and then 3,000 points to buy anything they wanted. My opponent spent almost all of his points on HE-129's. I Went with a hoard of T-34's & assault guns thinking he might take some Tigers and Panthers and well.....you can guess what happened. The point im trying to make is there were no "No Aircraft" rules and i paid the price and got my butt handed to me.
So there you go. thats pretty much how i feel. I may not of liked losing that way, but it was within the game, and we must remember this is a game, but it happened so i geared up for the next fight and looked forward to revenge the next time i played him.
Blackcloud6
27 Feb 07, 15:20
An example of what I am asking: Running that King II all over the map wrecking supreme havoc and then when its' gun is destroyed or there is no more ammo, you just casually waltz it off the map so you don't loose points(this is possible right?).
I get the feeling that alot of people focus too much on losing because of points instead of playing and trying to win despite the losses they received or might receive due to the loss of certain units. I
This is a major problem with point-based victory conditions based on Casualties and objective hloding like in CM and the campaign Series. It is one of the major reason I left these games and went back to ASL where the sceanrio designers have all kinds of lee-way to build great VCs that in turn make for great and varied scenarios.
I believe things are gamey when the parmeters are not discussed ahead of time. like running men down the edge of a board or crews to a forward position.
The crews to a forward position is silly unless you want to give your opponent extra points. Like you will soon learn in our game.;) :smoke:
2. If there are no specific "Gentlemans Rules" set forth at the beginning of a game dont be suprised if something "Gamey", at least in your opinion of the term, happens.
Kinda just had an idea! Concerning that. It's something that I was kind of hoping that could come out of this. I was think that we could make some sort of basic list that abide by that just cover the general outlaying of gamey play that we have discussed in the thread. I think it could save some time by just linking to the thread and saying numbers 1,2,3 are not allowed or whatever.
This is a major problem with point-based victory conditions based on Casualties and objective hloding like in CM and the campaign Series. It is one of the major reason I left these games and went back to ASL where the sceanrio designers have all kinds of lee-way to build great VCs that in turn make for great and varied scenarios.
Im not quite sure I understand what you mean at the end of your post.
I believe things are gamey when the parmeters are not discussed ahead of time. like running men down the edge of a board or crews to a forward position.
The crews to a forward position is silly unless you want to give your opponent extra points. Like you will soon learn in our game.;) :smoke:
Are you mocking my men? I don't take kindly to people mockin my boys, you need to pipe down there or at least one of your squads is gonna get it. :supper:
I'd have to disagree on the gamey list bit. There are way too many opinions of gamey. It's really not a big deal to cover a few things with your opponent ahead of time. For instance, I never play with aircraft so that's one thing I always state right up front. Back when cmbo was the only show in town there were some good unit selection guidelines such as found here: http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=combat_mission/optional_rules.shtml. These made for great balance and helped to prevent one side from always picking unkillable tanks. I think there are similar rule sets for AK and BB if you're interested.
I'd have to disagree on the gamey list bit. There are way too many opinions of gamey. It's really not a big deal to cover a few things with your opponent ahead of time. For instance, I never play with aircraft so that's one thing I always state right up front. Back when cmbo was the only show in town there were some good unit selection guidelines such as found here: http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=combat_mission/optional_rules.shtml. These made for great balance and helped to prevent one side from always picking unkillable tanks. I think there are similar rule sets for AK and BB if you're interested.
It was a thought. Thanks for the reply and I am interested in that last bit.
KGPanzerschrecK
27 Feb 07, 23:47
It was a thought. Thanks for the reply and I am interested in that last bit.
I agree with Lurker Kawaiku. Your idea sounds like a good idea at first, but when you sit everyone down and ask them for a list of what they think is gamey, you'll end up with a list a mile long, and you'll have people getting in flame wars over topics such as "Thats gamey, i dont care what you say..." and so on. The arguments would never end. For example, some have stated they dont like people using the edge of the map to move units on. Well how far in from the edge of the map is considered not the edge? If two or more people feel the same way about map edges one may say 20 meters is fine while another may insist on 30. Ok lets say its 30, oops one of my Tanks moved over the 30 meter line, what do i do now? And BTW, how am i supposed to measure that distance during a movie file? Do you see where im going with this? All these rules would lead to to many complications and frustrations and take away from the fun of playing the game. Lets say for an instant we lived in a perfect world and no one argued about it, you'd still have a list with 25 items on it, at least.
The best thing you can do is to strive to become the best player you can be and be able to rise above someones "Gamey Play" and still beat them playing your style of game. If you start demanding a list of things you want and dont want to see in a game and that list looks like your grocery list, i think you might have a hard time finding someone to play you.
I agree with Lurker Kawaiku. Your idea sounds like a good idea at first, but when you sit everyone down and ask them for a list of what they think is gamey, you'll end up with a list a mile long, and you'll have people getting in flame wars over topics such as "Thats gamey, i dont care what you say..." and so on. The arguments would never end. For example, some have stated they dont like people using the edge of the map to move units on. Well how far in from the edge of the map is considered not the edge? If two or more people feel the same way about map edges one may say 20 meters is fine while another may insist on 30. Ok lets say its 30, oops one of my Tanks moved over the 30 meter line, what do i do now? And BTW, how am i supposed to measure that distance during a movie file? Do you see where im going with this? All these rules would lead to to many complications and frustrations and take away from the fun of playing the game. Lets say for an instant we lived in a perfect world and no one argued about it, you'd still have a list with 25 items on it, at least.
The best thing you can do is to strive to become the best player you can be and be able to rise above someones "Gamey Play" and still beat them playing your style of game. If you start demanding a list of things you want and dont want to see in a game and that list looks like your grocery list, i think you might have a hard time finding someone to play you.
Makes a lot of sense now. Your last statement is almost like receiving advice from Patton:cool:(actually that's the best way to describe how well that statement is Schrek). And I know exactly where you were going with that.
mangus2000
28 Feb 07, 07:47
What about the old "bendy LOS" we have in CM?
I read a thread over at BFC about a player who requests players not fire if they see the LOS bend and that when the LOS tool bends it gives an unfair advantage (i think it was JasonC?).
I can see his point but how on earth would you police that in the game, it would be impossible.
As for moving down the side of maps! well it could be considered gamey but if its that or walking into a ton of ATGs then i do it. To get around it you need to have bigger and more interesting maps or just site your ATGs on the edge of the map when you play me:laugh:
What about the old "bendy LOS" we have in CM?
I read a thread over at BFC about a player who requests players not fire if they see the LOS bend and that when the LOS tool bends it gives an unfair advantage (i think it was JasonC?).
I can see his point but how on earth would you police that in the game, it would be impossible.
What is the bendy LOS? Never hear of it.
As for moving down the side of maps! well it could be considered gamey but if its that or walking into a ton of ATGs then i do it. To get around it you need to have bigger and more interesting maps or just site your ATGs on the edge of the map when you play me:laugh:
Go ahead, I'll just push right off the map and watch them fall all the way down:D
KGPanzerschrecK
28 Feb 07, 13:38
Hey kawaiku, clean out some of your old PM's so i can send you another one OK? :nuts:
Hey kawaiku, clean out some of your old PM's so i can send you another one OK? :nuts:
All cleared send away
mangus2000
28 Feb 07, 14:29
What is the bendy LOS? Never hear of it.
When you are Hull Down your LOS can bend slightly over the edge of the ridge.
This means you can sometimes fire at an oppo but they cannot hit you back, their rounds just go over or under.
How did you notice this? I never have when I have played.
When you are Hull Down your LOS can bend slightly over the edge of the ridge.
This means you can sometimes fire at an oppo but they cannot hit you back, their rounds just go over or under.It could just be that a HD unit if done perfectly is very difficult to hit. A gun in HD status in the open is nearly impossible to KO if it's just barely peeking over the ridge. Direct fire usually can't hit it and there are no trees to aid mortar airbursts so a hit or very near miss is required. Add a morale HQ unit nearby and Bob's your uncle. :)
mangus2000
01 Mar 07, 19:03
You can actually see the LOS tool bend as it goes over a ridge, it kinda kinks.
When you have that it is very hard to get hit, unless your me of course then CM programming goes out the window:angry:
You can actually see the LOS tool bend as it goes over a ridge, it kinda kinks.
When you have that it is very hard to get hit, unless your me of course then CM programming goes out the window:angry:
Ahh now I know what you are talking about. I've seen it a coupla time in some of my sp games. I've had one of those, but the sad part was my tank couldn't hit the broadside of a continent lol. I've also noticed the shells also going under sometimes lol, it's the strangest thing that I have ever seen lol.
KGPanzerschrecK
01 Mar 07, 20:34
Ahh now I know what you are talking about. I've seen it a coupla time in some of my sp games. I've had one of those, but the sad part was my tank couldn't hit the broadside of a continent lol. I've also noticed the shells also going under sometimes lol, it's the strangest thing that I have ever seen lol.
Those situations {bendy LOS lines & shells going under hills ect.} are due more to graphic limitations with the game engine than any screw ups in the programming. Also, Lurker is spot on once again, a unit in a great hull down position is next to impossible to hit with direct fire by another unit that isnt on terrain thats not higher that the hull down unit.
It could just be that a HD unit if done perfectly is very difficult to hit. A gun in HD status in the open is nearly impossible to KO if it's just barely peeking over the ridge. Direct fire usually can't hit it and there are no trees to aid mortar airbursts so a hit or very near miss is required. Add a morale HQ unit nearby and Bob's your uncle. :)
How would an airburst shake up a tank in hull down?
KGPanzerschrecK
01 Mar 07, 22:05
How would an airburst shake up a tank in hull down?
If the commander is poking his beak out of the commanders hatch he can become a casualty, otherwise any large caliber heavy artillery, say 150mm + could possibly immobilize the tank and after a repeated pounding cause it to bail, or shell fragments could penetrate very thin top armor/engine deck on some Tank models.
How would an airburst shake up a tank in hull down?I was referring to my example of using a gun HD in the open; not a tank. :)
Although as Schreck said, an open topped SP gun will sometimes bail out with a tree burst.
Thanks KGP
I was referring to my example of using a gun HD in the open; not a tank. :)
Although as Schreck said, an open topped SP gun will sometimes bail out with a tree burst.
How does a gun work in HD? And for some reason I thought you were talking about high definition and I was like what does he mean by high def???:laugh:
Thanks KGP
How does a gun work in HD? And for some reason I thought you were talking about high definition and I was like what does he mean by high def???:laugh:Sorry. I thought I'd save a few key strokes by using HD rather than hulldown. :)
A gun would work the same as a tank - very tough to hit. Airbursts KO guns and open topped vehicles easily somethimes. If there are no trees nearby then that makes it that much more difficult to knock out. So HD in the open (or rough or brush) for a gun is an interesting tactic. The drawback is it's easy to see. But a cheapo 75mm used that way will make your opponent expend valuable mortar rounds trying to kill it. Meanwhile it makes a pest of itself.
KGPanzerschrecK
01 Mar 07, 23:13
Spend a few more points and put that gun in a hull down position with a Trench coupled up with a Double Hearted Leader and you have a very pesky pest!
Sorry. I thought I'd save a few key strokes by using HD rather than hulldown. :)
A gun would work the same as a tank - very tough to hit. Airbursts KO guns and open topped vehicles easily somethimes. If there are no trees nearby then that makes it that much more difficult to knock out. So HD in the open (or rough or brush) for a gun is an interesting tactic. The drawback is it's easy to see. But a cheapo 75mm used that way will make your opponent expend valuable mortar rounds trying to kill it. Meanwhile it makes a pest of itself.
Spend a few more points and put that gun in a hull down position with a Trench coupled up with a Double Hearted Leader and you have a very pesky pest!
Thanks for the tip guys. I experienced that problem in my game with numbers where I lost 2 guns to a few mortar rounds oops:surprise:. Is it possible to put a unit in a foxhole in a trench with the back up foxhole in the same spot? and would that count as extra extra cover?
KGPanzerschrecK
01 Mar 07, 23:42
Thanks for the tip guys. I experienced that problem in my game with numbers where I lost 2 guns to a few mortar rounds oops:surprise:. Is it possible to put a unit in a foxhole in a trench with the back up foxhole in the same spot? and would that count as extra extra cover?
The Trench is all you need. The Foxhole would be wasted. But if you didnt have the Trench, the Foxhole is better than nothing. :smoke:
Spend a few more points and put that gun in a hull down position with a Trench coupled up with a Double Hearted Leader and you have a very pesky pest!That's even better! :) But even without the trench (attacking, ME) it still can be tough.
The Trench is all you need. The Foxhole would be wasted. But if you didnt have the Trench, the Foxhole is better than nothing. :smoke:
Does this help against airbursts and the like since they are technically out in the open or in woods?
KGPanzerschrecK
02 Mar 07, 15:57
Yes, to a degree. Unless the airburst would be directly over the top of said Trench or foxhole, then it wouldnt help you out much. It all depends on your luck that day or what the Generals liked to call "The fog of war". Alot of soldiers with experience in being shelled heavily would carve indentations into the sides of their trenches to avoid being a casualty from an above mentioned airburst. And if they were involved in prolonged Trench style warfare, their indentations turned into elaborate systems of dugouts and bunkers.
Yes, to a degree. Unless the airburst would be directly over the top of said Trench or foxhole, then it wouldnt help you out much. It all depends on your luck that day or what the Generals liked to call "The fog of war". Alot of soldiers with experience in being shelled heavily would carve indentations into the sides of their trenches to avoid being a casualty from an above mentioned airburst. And if they were involved in prolonged Trench style warfare, their indentations turned into elaborate systems of dugouts and bunkers.
hehe I forgot about that fact. It makes better sense. Thanks again.
TacCovert4
08 Mar 07, 14:40
A lot of people (POS comes to mind) say that Hull Down isn't useful, due to you getting hit in the turret a lot more.
The times hull down is most useful are thus:
1st Shot of an engagement. Typically you will get off a shot before your enemy even realizes that you are there. A big help at evening bad odds.
When fighting tanks/guns with high explosive values. A near miss, especially on some of the lighter mediums, can cause a bail. Hull down ensures that any near misses will either be A) far overhead landing either off map or on some other ridgeline hundreds of meters back; or B) Hitting the ridgeline in front of your tank, causing no damage.
Once your enemy starts shooting back en masse, I recommend the hull down shoot and scoot.
A) Find using LOS all the points that are hull down.
A1) leave a foot trooper (Snipers are great for this) at the top of the ridge, about 50 meters away from your fighting position.
B) Run your tank up to a hull down position.
C) Shoot at any target that presents itself (preferably other tanks as they pose the real threat because they can close the range, and they are bigger targets)
D) Scoot back down that hill asap to a spot between 20-40 meters from the last one.
E) repeat.
The key is to change your position slightly. This causes the ATGs to have to move before firing, giving you more of a chance to get back down. but not moving too much guarantees that you will have a good idea of what weapons you can target, and which ones can target you.
A lot of people (POS comes to mind) say that Hull Down isn't useful, due to you getting hit in the turret a lot more.
The times hull down is most useful are thus:
1st Shot of an engagement. Typically you will get off a shot before your enemy even realizes that you are there. A big help at evening bad odds.
When fighting tanks/guns with high explosive values. A near miss, especially on some of the lighter mediums, can cause a bail. Hull down ensures that any near misses will either be A) far overhead landing either off map or on some other ridgeline hundreds of meters back; or B) Hitting the ridgeline in front of your tank, causing no damage.
Once your enemy starts shooting back en masse, I recommend the hull down shoot and scoot.
A) Find using LOS all the points that are hull down.
A1) leave a foot trooper (Snipers are great for this) at the top of the ridge, about 50 meters away from your fighting position.
B) Run your tank up to a hull down position.
C) Shoot at any target that presents itself (preferably other tanks as they pose the real threat because they can close the range, and they are bigger targets)
D) Scoot back down that hill asap to a spot between 20-40 meters from the last one.
E) repeat.
The key is to change your position slightly. This causes the ATGs to have to move before firing, giving you more of a chance to get back down. but not moving too much guarantees that you will have a good idea of what weapons you can target, and which ones can target you.
Thanks Tac, I assuming this also works for SPG's, SPW's, etc..?
TacCovert4
08 Mar 07, 20:38
Since Shoot and Scoot involves a fast move, you have to do it manually with a run up in fast followed by a 5-6 meter hunt phase in hull down, followed by a reverse phase back down the hill.
Because of this, SPGs without turrets are at a serious disadvantage. While I'd use it for assault halftracks and other light skinned vehicles with main guns, honestly I have to say that with SPGs, finding a protected keyhole spot is a better bet. Since they have such a relatively small cone to target in without twisting (which is slower than any turret) they don't work well for this.
The perk is that doing this tactic will save your tanks, like PZIVGs, and mean that you can afford to purchase more medium tanks with big guns instead of investing in heavies or large numbers of SPGs running across the field.
SPGs are primarily infantry support weapons. Secondarily they're AT guns on tracks. They should not be used as serious blitzkreig tools unless you're lacking the points to purchase tanks suitable for the duty. The ability to fire on the move is what resulted in the tank never giving up supremacy to the cheaper SPG.
finding a protected keyhole spot is a better bet.
What do you mean by this? BTW, why do vehicles in this mode scoot sooo slowly?
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.