Gamey---What is your definition of it.

[Gary Tatro]

IS IT;
Opponents who only buy Panthers and SS?
Opponents who buy 400 cheap units and over you in 6,000 point battle?
Opponents who request reinforcements on turn 1?
Opponents who fire smoke after they have moved and fired all of their shots?
Opponents who direct fire artillary smoke to block all LOS?
Opponents who will only play certain countries, time periods?
Opponents who will only play with C&C off?
Opponents who use lots of small/cheep units and run them around to draw op-fire?
Opponents who put a bunch of stipulations on what to buy, what the visibility is, what the time period is, how much artillary you can use, weather you can use mines, air, infiltrators, you name it?

My definition is very simple, yet probably complicated. If my opponent plays his game in a way that make me, his opponent, feel like I have been beaten not due to his skill, but due to some explotation of the game or a specific unit in the game I come away feeling like I have been gamed. :p

[Belisarius]

Opponents who only buy Panthers and SS?
Opponents who buy 400 cheap units and over you in 6,000 point battle?
Opponents who request reinforcements on turn 1?
Opponents who fire smoke after they have moved and fired all of their shots?
Opponents who direct fire artillary smoke to block all LOS?
Opponents who will only play certain countries, time periods?
Opponents who will only play with C&C off?
Opponents who put a bunch of stipulations on what to buy, what the visibility is, what the time period is, how much artillary you can use, weather you can use mines, air, infiltrators, you name it?

My definition is very simple, yet probably complicated. If my opponent plays his game in a way that make me, his opponent, feel like I have been beaten not due to his skill, but due to some explotation of the game or a specific unit in the game I come away feeling like I have been gamed. :p

Haha, here's my quickies:

1. Not gamey. He's toast anyway (except for 10000+ battles)
2. Gamey. SPWaW favors mass attacks thanks to the IDIOTIC opfire routine.
3. No opinion
4. Not gamey. They have only so much smoke...
5. Not gamey. See above
6. Hmmm... Not gamey
7. Cowards! :p
8. Not gamey per se, but not too much fun either. I usually state such things if the opponent sets up the battle. I have recieved battles with vis 3 and he has the full might of the US artillery behind him... :rolleyes:

[Alby]

opponents who buy 400 batteries of rockets, or other heavy arty!!
nothing more I hate than starting a game only to have my opponent buy so much arty he turns my side of the map into a lunar landscape!! LOL
alot of skill involved there huh? :rolleyes:

Opponents who only buy Panthers and SS?
Opponents who buy 400 cheap units and over you in 6,000 point battle?
Opponents who request reinforcements on turn 1?
Opponents who fire smoke after they have moved and fired all of their shots?
Opponents who direct fire artillary smoke to block all LOS?
Opponents who will only play certain countries, time periods?
Opponents who will only play with C&C off?
Opponents who put a bunch of stipulations on what to buy, what the visibility is, what the time period is, how much artillary you can use, weather you can use mines, air, infiltrators, you name it?

1. depends on what type of game we had in mind
2. ?? Over you?
3.not gamey
4.not gamey
5.not gamey
6.GAMEY! such as always playing germans just after tigers come out!
7.NOT gamey I mostly play c and c off.
8.Debatable, I usually like arty limits due to my above stated reason, but I hate when you cant use all the things the game has to offer like para troops, infiltraitors, etc etc...

[BAR]

US unit opponents who buy all engineer units in Jungle scens against your Japanese Inf - definately gamey.

[rbrunsman]

Like you said Gary, it's more of a feeling than any specific thing that is done.

I just don't like it when someone takes advantage of a known loophole that is not obvious to both players right away (e.g. renaming units as has been more fully explained in the Cheating string yesterday OR the move and shoot you can do with heavy AAA). Most everything else is self evident the moment it is used so I can feel free to reciprocate. It's the ones that are deceptive that are gamey unless intentions are stated before the battle begins.

As for the masses of cheap units, that should be stated before both opponents purchase too, so both players know it is, what I call, a "fantasy" battle they will be playing.

[rbrunsman]

In addition, I'd like to call out one item you mentioned for specific comment:

Calling reinforcements on Turn 1 counts as cheating in my book. (For those that don't know, your reinforcements arrive on Turn 2 for some reason, not 4 turns later like usual.) If you want to have a point advantage from the beginning, just ask me first so I know I'm playing more of a delay battle vs. your advance rather than a meeting engagement between 2 equal opponents. That really pisses me off when I spot an AUX unit on Turn 2. But, there is a special satisfaction in beating someone who pulls that crap.

(It's not like I have a strong opinion of the subject )

[KG Erwin]

All of you post good reasons why some of us do not play H2H or PBEM. For better or worse, I always play the AI opponent in any given game, for the simple reason that I want to retain a sense of historical validity in my gaming. I don't play wargames for the games' own sake, but to understand more fully the conditions and tactical considerations the real-life commanders had to face in the campaign or battle being simulated. Don't get me wrong--I play for fun, too, but I don't want to turn a decent historical simulation into a free-for-all shoot 'em up. That's for kids. It's funny--I'm pretty liberal socially, but when it comes to wargaming, my conservative "this is serious business" mindset takes over.

[K62]

How about opponents who come up with new rules after the game is over and say you broke them?

[VikingNo2]

K62 I know you were making a light hearted comment but what do you feel is gamey. Share you thought's you have learned very fast and have become a very good player, so I would like to know your thoughts


RB so let me get this straight you don't like reinfocements called on Turn 1 :rolleyes:

[Capt Chris]

Ever had antelope, it can be pretty gamey. :p

The only thing I don't like facing is the Panther/SS only force composition. Not a realistic combination if you ask me. Of course it only works on more open maps with good vis. I can handle them in wooded terrain. I think Bel commented that they were toast anyway. Please tell me how so I can fare a little better next time I see it.

[Belisarius]

Ever had antelope, it can be pretty gamey. :p

The only thing I don't like facing is the Panther/SS only force composition. Not a realistic combination if you ask me. Of course it only works on more open maps with good vis. I can handle them in wooded terrain. I think Bel commented that they were toast anyway. Please tell me how so I can fare a little better next time I see it.

My point was that with Panther/SS units only you will get so few you're likely to be overwhelmed by the enemy. And as I stated in my first reply, I hate the opfire routine in SPWaW as you can send in a bazillion cars to draw out the opfire and the close in for the kill.

Realistic? Nah, but neither is US forces comprised of Greyhounds/Hellcats and Rangers only. :p

[K62]

Sorry I was just being a wise guy Now to be serious... I think that different people feel different ways about what is gamey and what not. So it is unfair just to play one game with somebody and then avoid them even though they didn't break the initial agreement. Your opponent just might not be aware of some things or might have a different opinion than you about what is historical.

So I say it is your responsibility to negotiate with your opponent about what is allowed and what not. As long as somebody doesn't break the initial agreement you have no right to blame them. If you feel some things they do are too much for you to continue playing, you should give fair warning. Also, if you know some thing you do drives some people crazy, it is better to raise the issue beforehand.

My personal (negotiable ) opinions about what's gamey:

- Buying lots of kubelwagons when you don't play H2H (they're underpriced)

- Buying lots of MCs when not playing H2H (underpriced and actually rare)

Opponents who only buy Panthers and SS?
Not really, I agree with Bel here, they will get overwhelmed.

Opponents who buy 400 cheap units and over you in 6,000 point battle?
Only if the units are seriously underpriced/ rare. 400 kubelwagons is gamey, 400 conscripts is not.

Opponents who request reinforcements on turn 1?
Not gamey as long as it's not cheating (breaking the initial agreement)

Opponents who fire smoke after they have moved and fired all of their shots?
One round max might be acceptable here...

Opponents who direct fire artillary smoke to block all LOS?
Not gamey in itself, could be if coupled with the point above.

Opponents who will only play certain countries, time periods?
Not gamey, it's your own business to choose who you wanna play. Might be boring though...

Opponents who will only play with C&C off?
C&C is a different game

Opponents who put a bunch of stipulations on what to buy, what the visibility is, what the time period is, how much artillary you can use, weather you can use mines, air, infiltrators, you name it?
No, as long as they're flexible.

[M4Jess]

I dont need to cheat...I drive the might that is the M4!

[K62]

How about you V2 you probably have more experience than most all the people here. What do you think are game exploits?

[tracer]

Opponents who put a bunch of stipulations on what to buy, what the visibility is, what the time period is, how much artillary you can use, weather you can use mines, air, infiltrators, you name it?

If both opponents negotiate these things before a battle, wouldn't it lessen or eliminate the effect of these loopholes? Whenever I spot a new SPWAW 'quirk', I usually post it...if its common knowledge, it can't be somebody's 'secret weapon'. (see showthread.php?t=45459 )

[Gary Tatro]

Realistic? Nah, but neither is US forces comprised of Greyhounds/Hellcats and Rangers only. :p

I bought a lot of M4's this time, and I don't have any Rangers at all. Oh wait you were talking about our last game!

[Gary Tatro]

Don't get me wrong--I play for fun, too, but I don't want to turn a decent historical simulation into a free-for-all shoot 'em up. That's for kids. It's funny--I'm pretty liberal socially, but when it comes to wargaming, my conservative "this is serious business" mindset takes over.

I have to respectfully disagree. I think that the PBEM is the ultimate in SPWAW. Ussually by setting some ground rules that both people can agree on the games are tremendously fun and exciting. Yes some times you play someone that does something that you feel is un-sportsmanlike but ussually by talking to them via e-mail you can come to a mutual agreement and continue to play and enjoy games with them. Sometimes you can't and that is ok too because you just move onto other players how have the same ideas about the game that you do. Also sometimes you run into some new tactic or use for some piece of equipment that suprises you. This happened to me about a year ago and again just recently. What you do is talk about it and then incorporate it into your ground rules.

I think that you are really missing out by just playing the computer. The AI routine in SPWAW is really very, very, very bad. Even with senarios, which granted tend to be better, I have played many of them. But when you are actually fighting an opponent who can bait you, moves his units inteligently, and uses terrain and smoke to menuver your forces is second to none.

[Bernie]

After thinking about the basic question ("What is gamey?) for a long time, I realized, "Hey, it's a GAME! How can it NOT be 'gamey'?"

However, if by "gamey" you mean what constitutes "cheating" then I think I've refined it down to just a few factors, for me at least.

1) Any violation of pre-arranged "rules". (We're playing a game... Rules are needed in games.)
2) Blatant use of documented flaws in either the OOB's or the actual game engine.
3) Unreasonable usage, or purchase, of units that bear no resemblance to reality in this dimension.

Even the latter two of these can be modified by whatever rules you choose to use for your game.

The way I see it, yes, this is a game, but it's a game simulating warfare. In warfare you push for every advantage you can get. You do things in such ways as are possible to catch your enemy off guard and destroy him.

I'm not going to yell and scream because an opponent fired all his rounds, used all his movement, then pops smoke. What the heck is the smoke for if not to protect and conceal the unit? Neither will I scream when a few squads of infiltrators show up. That was what they were for! Now, if you want to buy only infiltrators, then I'll have to call you on #3 up there (certain scenarios and historic recreations excepted). Use your reinforcements on turn two? Go ahead! Heck, buy 'em during deployment and get them on turn one for all I care. I get reinforcements too, and maybe I'll get mine, all nice and fresh, when yours are low on ammo and ready to rout. You know your opponent has reinforcement points to use, so you need to be prepared for them on any turn. Want to bail that crew out so I can't hit your tank you left sitting in the open? Go ahead! I'll just kill the crew instead. You think a real crew never bailed in panic? LOL! You want to buy a lot of cheap units and try to overrun? Be my guest! Cheap units die easier. Got a new, innovative, way to use a particular unit? Go ahead! War is all about innovation and surprise. The true tests of a commander are how he uses such things, and how he counters them. Use low cost units to draw fire and use up my op-fires? Try it. I can always set my ranges down and draw your own units in for easier kills.

The bottom line is, unless something is negotiated beforehand, I'm the fool for not anticipating the possibility and having a "counter" for it.

[Gary Tatro]

After thinking about the basic question ("What is gamey?) for a long time, I realized, "Hey, it's a GAME! How can it NOT be 'gamey'?"

However, if by "gamey" you mean what constitutes "cheating" then I think I've refined it down to just a few factors, for me at least.

1) Any violation of pre-arranged "rules". (We're playing a game... Rules are needed in games.)
2) Blatant use of documented flaws in either the OOB's or the actual game engine.
3) Unreasonable usage, or purchase, of units that bear no resemblance to reality in this dimension.

I myself do not think of "gamey" as cheating. What I believe is cheating would be #1 or any of #2 & 3 if you agreed not to do it in #1. Other things that I believe would be cheating would be re-loading the game and busting someones password and looking at the map. These are things that an honorable opponent just would not do.

But on the other hand I get tired of creating "THE LIST" for #2 and #3 everytime I ask an opponent for a e-mail game. Maybe we could get a comprehensive list that is "STICKYED" in the Opponents Forum that sets up a set of "GROUND RULES" and "DO NOTS" that if not everyone, most PBEM'ers can agree to. That way when I put up a PBEM game I can just say "THE LIST" applies to my game. I am willing to compose a complete list and post it, but I would like suggestions from the community at large.

On a totally different hand I see that a lot of War Gamers find that if there opponent purchases a fantasy army of say tigers and panthers and ss that that is un-historical and "gamey". Yes this is un-historical, but it is FUN. Many people that play SPWAW have no idea what would be a historicaly acurate army (myself included). SO for thoughs historically acurate gamer buffs out there I give you this challenge. Give me the following (possible sticky in the opponents forum) that will tell me what a historically accurate army for the following meeting engagements would be made up of.

Germany vs US June 1944 5,000 points
Germany vs US June 1944 10,000 points
Germany vs US June 1945 10,000 points

Germany vs Russia June 1941 5,000 points
Germany vs Russia June 1942 5,000 points
Germany vs Russia June 1943 5,000 points
Germany vs Russia June 1944 5,000 points
Germany vs Russia June 1944 10,000 points

I think that in might be interesting to play some of these games. Though playing Germany late in the war might not be much fun, it would certainly give me an idea of what it was like. While playing Russia in 41 might not be fun either.

[11Bravo]

I define gamey as any instance in which my strategy fails or my opponent gains the upper hand.