'Gamey' tactics Im told

[roadiemullet]

Hey all,

(This is quite a long one so make a cup of tea before you start reading.)

Just recently I was involved in a QB with a much played opponent...

The way we play our games is as such.. we have an ME, and the winner of that ME goes on to PROBE the loser, and if he wins it goes on to an ATTACK and then on to ASSAULT. If he then wins this he gets a point. If the other player wins then you go back a battle type, swinging back n forth. As we play each new battle we advance a month, so by the end of the 'war' we see who has the most points if you get me.

OK, so it was a 3000pt allied attack with me as Gerry - July, 1942 set at dusk in open hilly terrain, and the equipment choice set to 'unrestricted'. Now I know that most QBs are bound to let people choose (as far as point expenditure allows) their ideal set up from the available resources... resulting in what some would consider unrealistic and gamey choices. This is fair enough as for the historical element we have countless scenarios to choose from for a bit of accuracy. Up until this point we had been one playing match per month from the beginning of Barborossa, making this our 13th or 14th game. And up until this point my opponent had been using what IMO were gamey choices, such as using well trained infantry backed up by KV1s and t34s in force, which is historically inaccurate for the early stages of the war. My opponent also refused to use 'random' forces set by the computer as he said it was unfair that he would be given 'historically accurate' quality troops, ie dire quality.

Now my opponents fave tactic is to sit his tanks in a nice line about 10-15 metres apart and advance them together. I always thought that in real life tanks never due this due to risk from air attack taking out the lot in one go, but hey ho.

Also I argued the point that using so many heavy tanks moving as one unit was impossible to beat, as any AT guns that engage will usually only get one shot off before the rest acquire him in their sights and blast him away. I cant have too many AT guns sat in close proximity to concentrate their fire due to risk from arty fire ruining them in return. Nor could I really get enough decent AT guns to cover a map area. Sure I can buy an 88mm or an italian 75mm AA but they cost too much to be deployed effectively, especially when outnumbered by my opponents armour. 50mm guns are ok but they're simply too weak to take on 6 KV1s by themselves, and the 37mm is like a bad joke.

So as the matches went on I lost again and again. Now in the last two ATTACK games my opponent has launched against me Ive been using a different tactic. Using German armour seems pointless as they are always outnumbered (my opponent always being on the attack and having more to spend) not to mention out-armoured. So my attention turned to how I could take out his infantry and therefore cripple the backbone of his force.

I did this using TRPs placed in areas I guessed he would attack from, and when I spotted his forces over one of them I used Rockets to devastating effect. I knew this would work well as my opponent also likes to move his infantry very close to his armour so as soon as I saw that inevitable line of KV1s and T34s sat on one of my TRPs I let lose a volley of rockets. The first time I used this tactic i managed to repulse his Inf with incendiaries.

Next we had a match ( a PROBE as I won the last battle) and my opponent attacked me with his favourite - SMG squads - perfectly suited for the heavy wooded terrain my Finnish troops were defending. An impressive arty attack took out some HTs i had (it was a Mech battle) leaving the rest of my company to face his SMG battalion (-) strength attack. As you can imagine I got slaughtered (even despite the efforts of a fanatical Flamethrower who went off on his own attacking my opponents men).

So then we got to our latest match - an ATTACK. I guessed again my opponents tactics of bunching his Inf and Armour together but this time used conscript Hungarian 280mm Rockets spotters (only 480 a pop with rarity on). I watched for 3 turns as my opponents line of tanks drove onto a TRP and called in the fireworks. Onto a TRP the call time was 1 minute.

After one volley my opponent surrendered and accused me of being 'gamey'. This erupted into a bit of a debate as to whether rockets were ever used in this manner (my point was why wouldnt they?). When my opponent said that it was historically inaccurate - especially to use Hungarian FOs with a Finnish Force - I said I didnt see what was wrong with using Rockets on TRPs. My opponent quit and hasnt spoken to me since (!) not even to say goodbye after the match or discuss our next game.

I'm under the impression that using Rockets on a pre defined target area for quick firing would be something that was done in WW2. Can any of the very knowledgeable people on this Forum shed any light on who is right or wrong on this?

Thanks for reading my question,

Will

[Cargol]

Dont bother playing the guy again,if he has the attitude u ve just described.
And yes every kind of artillery ,including rocket launchers,can be used on a predefined target.

[mTk]

What does your (former) opponent think TRP's are for? Perfectly acceptable to use them for any indirect fire weapon. :nod:

[Jonny]

Ok, i really CBA to read all that, but i was that opponent.

Of the dozens of opponents and hundreds of games i've ever played i've never come away from a game feeling jilted, this time i did.

And when you sat around for an hour waiting for your opponent to do their setup, bored out of my skull, to just see 1/3 of your force get wiped out in 20 seconds just kinda stings.

[Vartuoosi]

Well played. Your opponent is the dick here by using ridicilous amounts smg troops and tanks you can't counter with conventional weapons.
I have only few tactics/troop sets which I consider gamey;
As defender fire a pre-planned arty strike to the attackers tiny setup zone
Buy almost nothing but heavy artillery and then at the start of the battle use pre-planned strike to turn the opponents side of the map to resemble the Moon(I only think using pre-planned heavy arty as gamey when it exceeds good taste, so when it's gamey and when not varies a little bit depending on the map etc)
Buy alot heavy tanks your opponent can't hurt expect maybe with some rare and expensive weapon(1-2 is still okay but more than that is is not)
Use almost nothing but SMG-troops on maps consisting mostly of thick woods and urban areas, also gamey when low visibility is guaranteed ie. thick fog and night when visibility is usually under 100m.

[mTk]

Jonny, well I can appreciate that!
However, if your frequent use of large amounts of SMG squads and hvy armor OOB's is accurate, you can see his problem.
Actually, just sounds a bit like a lack of communication between the two of you.

[Jonny]

well, i can perhaps grant him the heavy armour but not the SMG troops. In a recent game, in one of my rare goes at the axis i thoroughly annihilated him in the woods

[Cargol]

I m with mTK on this one, and as far as i remember, u and roadiemullet are good mates so no need to be bitter.
I say settle ur differences with a 5000 ME mirrored game :)

[Earl of Grey]

Well, you both were actually playing 'gamey' - 'gamesy' being usually defined as 'what works best within the limits of the game'. That it doesn't work very well to always use the same tactics is evident. At some point an opponent that does know you well will be able to predict how you're gonna attack and what your force composition will be. And I'd fire the biggest bang I can get into your setup zone, too - knew I it would work well against you. And the bottom line is: there is only one way that does work well - the 'gamey' way.
Playing historically accurate does also mean to restrict yourself on fire support, total number of tanks, realistic force composition etc. and will ALWAYS give both players advantages AND disadvantages. And it measn having proper references at hand telling you about OOBs/ToEs AND taking unit rarity (as shown in the editor) into account. All at the same time.

Bottom line: You have to decide how you want to play the game and talk about it with your opponent BEFORE you start a game (especially one as the described). And ask before you throw around accusations even if you're tired, irritated and have the feeling your opponent played 'unfair' or didn't behave properly. That's what distinguishes a mature player form an immature one.

[roadiemullet]

Thanks for the response guys - Jonny can eat my rockets.

PS. Don't worry it would take more than this to make us fall out. Especially considering I work with Jonny's Mum and Aunty so it is in his interest to keep me sweet - lest one or two certain pics on my phone accidently get shown to them during staff meeting.

[AirborneBob]

It seems to me that if an opponent is predicatable in his tactics..anything you use against that tactic is fair game.

[PoorOldSpike]

..Bottom line: You have to decide how you want to play the game and talk about it with your opponent BEFORE you start a game..

Right, I NEVER begin a game until me and my opponent have discussed the exact parameters beforehand, so that we can negotiate and change anything we don't like.
If he won't negotiate, I won't play, it's as simple as that.
The parameters are the absolutely critically-important DNA of a game, and if they're flawed or unbalanced in some way they produce a boring mutated Frankenstein-monster game, so they MUST be carefully studied beforehand.
The instant we begin a game it's like signing a 'contract of acceptance' which means we agree with the parameters and therefore haven't a legal leg to stand on if we decide we don't like them later, it's our own fault for not thoroughly checking out the params before the start.
We've all made that mistake of course; i've been lumbered with some right stinkers in the past because I couldn't be bothered to check the params first, duh..

A good idea is for noobs and less-experienced players to ask the advice of experienced players if they're not sure about the params somebody has sent them.
Alternatively play a pair of mirror games to the exact same params so that both players get the chance to play as the stronger/weaker side.

Regarding scenarios, I NEVER play a scenario until I've opened it up in the editor first and had a good look at it to see if I'd like it; and I tell my oppo to do the same so that we both start on a level playing field.
If I don't like the look of it, I won't play it.

As regards 'gamey' force purchases in QB's, most players just buy whatever they like because life's so much simpler that way, in which case we have no right at all to complain about an oppos force pick later.
If we or our oppo want to restrict what can or can't be bought, discuss it BEFORE the game, and if we can't agree, DON'T PLAY!

As regards tactics, we've all been accused of playing in an unrealistic 'gamey' fashion at some time or other, for example I used to be accused of 'gaminess' because I operate my tanks in tight hunting packs so close together that they're almost scraping the paint off each other, but now everybody plays that way and I don't mind at all.

To sum up- The instant we begin a game with somebody, it means we ACCEPT and AGREE with it, and we therefore have no right to complain later if we find we don't like it. It's our OWN FAULT for not checking the params or the scenario first, or for not discussing what can or can't be bought..:)

[Earl of Grey]

PS. Don't worry it would take more than this to make us fall out. Especially considering I work with Jonny's Mum and Aunty so it is in his interest to keep me sweet - lest one or two certain pics on my phone accidently get shown to them during staff meeting.

And you are sure that remark will put oil on troubled waters? If you said that to me, I'd tell you what you could do with such a remark - and it'd NOT be very nice.

[roadiemullet]

Troubled waters? Its just a joke - Im absolutely 100% totally and completely committed to the opinion Jonny wont take offence at such a remark. Its our sense of humour - the tone its in gets lost in internet text I guess.

[Bootie]

Im with RM on this too.... if Jonny was consistently buying heavy armour and marching over him and he countered it with rockets then thats fine. Jonny was probably hacked of at having to wait an hour for you to set up. You both have a point :)

When playing online it is possible to do the setups away from the table... hours even days before then launch the TCP/IP game with all your forces in place rather than have to wait through a set up phase.

[Earl of Grey]

Troubled waters? Its just a joke - Im absolutely 100% totally and completely committed to the opinion Jonny wont take offence at such a remark. Its our sense of humour - the tone its in gets lost in internet text I guess.

Point taken. I would like to believe everyone likes everyone here and that we're something 'better' than the world out there... :)

[Ratzki]

Another example of why QB's are not the way to play this game. Without some kind of gentlemen's agreement, the battles will often be lop-sided. You gotta use something like Redwolf's Armor Rules in order to have a chance at getting an evenly matched game. Either that or play like I do, that is when playing an out of balance battle not in my favour, I do not worry about winning or losing, I set out what would be a victory to me and try to achieve that. I've been playing this too long to worry about if I am in the top or bottom 10 in the Ladder Rankings. The idea is to have a good time playing a game.

[mTk]

Actually, if you anticipate a problem, "mirror" matches are clearly the easy way to handle any mismatch issues.
For me the trouble is I really don't like having to play two games when one should do, particularly if the second game is the same one over again.

[PoorOldSpike]

Another idea for single QB games is to let the other guy choose the parameters and everything, then after he's told you what they are, YOU decide what side you want to be..:)

Scenarios are trickier to deal with, for example the first thing you should both decide is whether to play it 'blind' or 'open'.
Blind means none of you have played it before and that neither of you are going to be allowed to open it in the editor beforehand to study it, (trust required) although you can of course both read the general briefing that comes with it.
You simply both decide who's going to be which side then away you go, keeping your fingers crossed that it's going to be reasonably balanced and that you aren't lumbered with the weaker side.
The hook of blind games is that the excitement factor is high because you don't know where the enemy will be or what units he's got, or whether he's got any reinfs, or where they'll enter the map, so if you like surprises 'blind' is the way to go.
(Incidentally scenarios can't be mirrored if you're playing blind because you'll get full knowledge of each others units as you keep switching sides and it won't therefore be 'blind' anymore)

The alternative way to play a scenario is 'Open' which means you both agreed to open it in the editor beforehand to study BOTH sides units, deployment zones, reinf schedules and entry points and so on, which means it'll be more predictable and unrealistic than 'blind' games because you'll know exactly where the enemy is, and what his OOB is, but at least he'll know where and what you are too, so in that respect it balances out.
Open games are for those who don't want to run the risk of nasty surprises like you get in blinds.
And of course, 'open' scens can be easily mirrored if both agree.

PS- one more important thing I should mention are tweaked 'Mickey Mouse' scenarios which mean the designer has done 'illegal' things outside the normal rules like putting tanks and guns in rubble, or pillboxes in houses, or bridges across impossible terrain, or having aircraft flying at night or in bad weather to give both players surprises.
I don't like the practice myself, especially as messing the game coding about like that can throw up bugs as both me and another playtester discovered long ago.
Hopefully scen designers will at least say in their briefings if the scen has been created within the rules or not so players can decide whether they want to play it.
I once quit a scen in disgust halfway through because planes suddenly appeared and made a bomb attack at night in rain. Until then I'd assumed it was a standard scen, but as soon as I discovered it was a Mickey Mouse job, I walked. What a complete waste of my time!
So be warned there are crackhead designers out there who do it..:)

[Earl of Grey]

And you should check scenarios are actually balanced - I got a BB one in my hands very recently that was effectively impossible for the Soviet player to win because the German troops had better quality, loads of TIger IIs and walked over every defense line I had built as if they hadn't been there at all. I don't know what the intention with that one was - and I usually don't care for even scenarios (meaning: both sides get more or less the same troops and victory chance) - but each side should have a fair chance at winning if one's tactics are sound (or better than your opponent's), even if one side is outnumbered/outgunned. And check if a scneario is actually meant to be played H2H (which some or not).

[OberstBrandt]

While impressed with the level of debate and knoweldge on this site, as a new member, the question of gamey tactics soon rears its head. Of course, TRP's can be used for any artillery strike, but using a hungarian 280 mm rckt spotter with finnish troops is just nuts. what could be more gamey than that?

A) did the Finns ever use 280mm rckts (not that i know of but im not an expert on that theatre), whether Finnish, Hungarian or German ? I doubt it.

B) There will under QB, always be a tendancy to over use preferred units, that is just human nature. Why have T-26, when you can have T-34? If you want realism, use the computer generated units., or agree in advance what is off limits.

I gnerally play the Germans, and always like to have at least 1 80mm spotter (hardly unusual), and a couple of panthers if available?

My thought is i have just rebought the Vista version of CMBB, being a veteran of the cd in 2003, ad on chat sites then, the rumour was that the german programmers over egged the potency of german AFV's

reading on some of the tests, 36 fireflys vs 6 panthers or something, i would be inclined to think this was true. the actaul trade of was about 5-8 shermans for each panther, and between 10-16 T-34's in kill ratios from books i have read.

anyone fancy a game (but no hungarian rckts please1)

[Sempai]

I just finished one. So if we could get an agreement of the parameters - why not? Send me a mail! But please let it be a human made map and not that silly AI made!

GReetings

[Bootie]

While impressed with the level of debate and knoweldge on this site, as a new member, the question of gamey tactics soon rears its head. Of course, TRP's can be used for any artillery strike, but using a hungarian 280 mm rckt spotter with finnish troops is just nuts. what could be more gamey than that?

A) did the Finns ever use 280mm rckts (not that i know of but im not an expert on that theatre), whether Finnish, Hungarian or German ? I doubt it.

B) There will under QB, always be a tendancy to over use preferred units, that is just human nature. Why have T-26, when you can have T-34? If you want realism, use the computer generated units., or agree in advance what is off limits.

I gnerally play the Germans, and always like to have at least 1 80mm spotter (hardly unusual), and a couple of panthers if available?

My thought is i have just rebought the Vista version of CMBB, being a veteran of the cd in 2003, ad on chat sites then, the rumour was that the german programmers over egged the potency of german AFV's

reading on some of the tests, 36 fireflys vs 6 panthers or something, i would be inclined to think this was true. the actaul trade of was about 5-8 shermans for each panther, and between 10-16 T-34's in kill ratios from books i have read.

anyone fancy a game (but no Hungarian rockets please1)

Excellent first post... welcome to the club.

[PoorOldSpike]

If you want realism, use the computer generated units., or agree in advance what is off limits.

Letting the computer select our units is good, providing we set the 'Force Mix' parameter to 'Armour' to ensure both players get a reasonable mix of good tanks, as other parameters may give a wildly unbalanced mix where one guy gets good armour, but his opponent only gets a wishy-washy force of halftracks and baby tanks.
The recent "Ardennes Firefight" Tourney used computer-selected units (Force Mix=Armour) and it went quite well as on the whole each player got decent tanks-

ARD FIREFIGHT- http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?3906-Ardennes-Firefight-Tourney-Archive-for-tactical-study