Gamey---What is your definition of it.
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
non pobm oppion
I play the ai in long campaign. But even so i set my own rules and standards. I also play all the differant countries. I started in 1939 or as soon as they come into the war. But i limit my self to what i can buy and what i cant. In defend,meeting and advance i allow myself only 2 plattons of off board arty. In assault i use 1 extra platton also 2 more platoons of engineers, to get thru the minefields. When i defend i allow only 75 mines no matter what size the map. I upgrade my core force only as they are killed or damaged badly. This means that say when the tigers come in i may still have pz35s in my core. My east ern force as germany is SS pz grenadeers. My western force is pzg. I have 5 stugs upgraded from armored cars in starting core. Also have 4 secs pzIvs. My right flank is guarded by 1 Sec PZII and 1 Platoon of medium tanks with 1 sec motercycles. I have 2 plattons of engineers in my core. 2 pak 37mm ATG,4 81mm mortors,4 sections 150mm on board arrty,4 sec sp aa, All the countries are about the same except for russia which is a little more heavy on tanks. As they were in real life. My japanese have 3 companys of infantry and very few tanks. The US marines will baseicly have the same as japanese. Dont know if this is right or not. But so far i have not got bored with the game yet. Also i Have lost to the ai some. I consider a draw a loss. A minor victory is ok with me. In other words not all my games end with total anniliation of the enemy.
Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.
Gary Tatro wrote: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.
I think that this discussion sort of parallels the one I started dealing with historical accuracy vs playability. For the most part, the use of pre-aranged rules is used to set a level of historical accuracy. Players wanting a strictly historical game tend to create more detailed rules, while those who are playing just for fun are more relaxed about the structure. In the latter case, any rules they setup are designed more to insure "fun" than accuracy (ie: arty limits, vis settings, etc.)
If you really want to create "The List" perhaps it should be made into a sliding scale of 1-10. 1 being strictly historical and 10 being geared more towards fantasy and "what if?" battles. Another approach would be a "Setup Menu", where players pick and choose ("One from column A and two from column B") game options. It could even lead to situations where players setup a game and agree, "Okay, we each get 3 options from 'The List'. I pick #'s 1,5, and 9. You picked 1, 2, and 4. That translates to 15% arty, no reinforcements at all, no pre-layed mines, infiltrators are allowed and 2/3 of the forces must be leg troops." Interesting idea, no?
What, me worry?
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Never claimed to be Patton Les. (I look terrible in a flattop, and those pistols were much too flashy for my tastes)Les the Sarge 9-1 wrote:I am a reincarnated Patton eh, is that gamey that I am just better than you naturally?
I've also lost my share of games, especially against the likes of JJ, and similar players of his caliber.
My point was that this is a war simulation, so it needs to be treated as a war. When was the last time opposing sides in a conflict negotiated over the use of smoke, infiltrators, battlefield visibility and the like, before commencing hostilities?
What, me worry?
Gary. Your list is already in the sticky cause I put it there. It could use a little tweeking here and there but its a pretty complete list. Its in a notepad format that everyone can open.Gary Tatro wrote: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.
This whole "gamey" idea is misnomer. Sure, everyone has his own idea of what is fair and what is not fair. By some definition, every game I have played could have been called "gamey". You just can't please all of the people all of the time. This THEE best war game out there and it has a great set of rules. Your "Rules of engagement" only supplement them as far better communication is concerned. When I now ask my opponent to agree to "Gary's Rules of Engagement" we discuss a particular aspect or two and carry on (carrion, mmmm yum)with the game. It makes for an enjoyable experience without frustration (except at failing to be a competent commander--- no rules can help with that)
BTW. I love the title as it stands. Please don't change it.
" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"POGO
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
When I was playing Long Campaigns, I would try to make a core force that made sense (in the limited fashion that my own knowledge allows).
I would try for some armour, some infantry, some recon and then with residual points buy stuff like snipers or mg units.
When I fought a battle, I would aim to play it as logical as possible.
Then I would take points and try repair my better units as much as possible.
When I figured an upgrade was now historically possible, I would treat myself to a new version.
I would take as support more often as not, some heavy hitter artillery, and if playing Germans 88 batteries, or generally support armour in other nations.
I found the game was just not worth playing, if I had made no effort at all to mimic the war as it was.
Sadly though, I found the AI often bought enigmatic sums of enigmatic equipment. It just wasn't worth the effort to fuss over a great Core force when the AI was just picking weird stuff at random.
But when it is played against a human, naturally it is wise to have a pre game chat with your opponent.
Everyone wants to play the game a certain way. And with Steel Panthers, there are sooooo many things that can be allowed to get out of hand rather rapidly.
As much as it might seem a good idea to play it as best guy wins, and forget the limitations/restrictions, I found that uncontrolled DYO scenarios for ASL also never worked long.
Greatly unbalanced games simply devolve into one side just plain not enjoying the game.
Proper planning equals better balance equals more fun.
I would try for some armour, some infantry, some recon and then with residual points buy stuff like snipers or mg units.
When I fought a battle, I would aim to play it as logical as possible.
Then I would take points and try repair my better units as much as possible.
When I figured an upgrade was now historically possible, I would treat myself to a new version.
I would take as support more often as not, some heavy hitter artillery, and if playing Germans 88 batteries, or generally support armour in other nations.
I found the game was just not worth playing, if I had made no effort at all to mimic the war as it was.
Sadly though, I found the AI often bought enigmatic sums of enigmatic equipment. It just wasn't worth the effort to fuss over a great Core force when the AI was just picking weird stuff at random.
But when it is played against a human, naturally it is wise to have a pre game chat with your opponent.
Everyone wants to play the game a certain way. And with Steel Panthers, there are sooooo many things that can be allowed to get out of hand rather rapidly.
As much as it might seem a good idea to play it as best guy wins, and forget the limitations/restrictions, I found that uncontrolled DYO scenarios for ASL also never worked long.
Greatly unbalanced games simply devolve into one side just plain not enjoying the game.
Proper planning equals better balance equals more fun.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
1. I buy usually something else tooGary Tatro wrote: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?
2. In 6k battle i tend to buy expensive units more..sometimes regretting it.
3. I never request reinforcements.
4. I use smoke only if i really need it, cause smoke is limited so if using that kinda tactic i would not have any smoke left when really need one.
5. I rarely use arty to make smoke barrage, should be doing that more often.
6. I prefer Germany and Russia, but that doesnt mean i would not play other countries as well.
7. Yes, I play C&C off only.
8. This is what i find disturbing, got one opponent who does this everytime and drives me crazy cause in game its so effective and unrealistic.
a gamey? dunno what word really means...
"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." - Al Capone
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
I have found in Steel Panthers, the first 2 turns decide who wins in most cases.
If you move forward to fast, you might get over extended, but if you move to slow, you might end up fighting a player that is sitting waiting for you.
If I have arty I use it to smoke the middle ground right at the start. I will let you see what I feel like letting you see from the very beginning. If I am worried about hiding during the middle to end game, odds are I am also losing too.
I use arty to pound spots where I figure you would logically need to be, but that is a bit of a risk all the same.
I never use air much, seems to much like cheating, besides air has a deserved bad reputation for either hitting where THEY think you meant, or hitting me instead.
I don't use C&C, but would never object to it being requested.
I have no nation of preference, but I will expect a regular opponent to fight in ALL the years of the war, not just when their favourite nation enjoyed a tech advantage in armour.
A person insisting on playing as a late war German all the time is a pussy afraid of a challenge (and under those conditions, yep I will use air on you just to exploit it's ability to tell me where all your tigers are hiding).
If you move forward to fast, you might get over extended, but if you move to slow, you might end up fighting a player that is sitting waiting for you.
If I have arty I use it to smoke the middle ground right at the start. I will let you see what I feel like letting you see from the very beginning. If I am worried about hiding during the middle to end game, odds are I am also losing too.
I use arty to pound spots where I figure you would logically need to be, but that is a bit of a risk all the same.
I never use air much, seems to much like cheating, besides air has a deserved bad reputation for either hitting where THEY think you meant, or hitting me instead.
I don't use C&C, but would never object to it being requested.
I have no nation of preference, but I will expect a regular opponent to fight in ALL the years of the war, not just when their favourite nation enjoyed a tech advantage in armour.
A person insisting on playing as a late war German all the time is a pussy afraid of a challenge (and under those conditions, yep I will use air on you just to exploit it's ability to tell me where all your tigers are hiding).
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
These two combined was a quandry I had in a PbEM I never ended up playing due to a transfer at work. In short, I was playing China. It doesn't matter which. I had something on the order of a freaking Brigade due to their poor quality and low cost. The moral of this story? Some nations can't help but buy 400 cheapo's in a 6,000 point battle!Gary Tatro wrote:IS IT;
Opponents who buy 400 cheap units and over you in 6,000 point battle?
Opponents who will only play certain countries, time periods?
Les the Sarge 9-1 wrote:I have found in Steel Panthers, the first 2 turns decide who wins in most cases.
Take V2's challenge, he'll probably change your opinion. He's very patient... How was that saying again about giving someone enough rope to hang himself?
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Well that "glove" statement was a bit vague I suppose, I guess he might have been inviting me to a game, I am not categorically certain though
But remember, I said the first 2 turns often decide a game, that doesn't imply I act rash on turn 1 or 2 necessarily.
But remember, I said the first 2 turns often decide a game, that doesn't imply I act rash on turn 1 or 2 necessarily.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Simply studing a little bit of history can solve most of this "Gamey" issue . Why not look up an Actual Division from whatever you nation you happen to be playing ( I often use the 34th Inf Division "Big T" for Texas ). Most nation's TO&E's are on the web , heck there are even TO&E's after a fashion that come with the game . Read a little about what the Division you chose actually did in the war. Most Battle reports will tell you what Bn's were in a battle , what support they had , and it will give you an idea on how the Div Commander usually apportioned support to the main Maneuver Bn's , and what Support was typically available to them.
Doing this will also give you some real clues to some possibly quite novel and effective actual tactics that were used to overcome some situations.
Armies are different , the lot of cheap units thing being gamey is mostly a laugh if you even make a minimum attempt at studying History .. Look at any real TO&E and you will find that a Tank Company is not just 17 Tanks , but also about 20 jeeps a bunch of trucks a couple wreckers and other tow trucks a few apc's some commo trucks and a bunch of trailers. Most Armies scouted and patroled in front of thier lines .. and most scouts , patrols , listening posts , observation posts were sub squad sized. Some armies like the US for example had no end of small cheap units ( 400,000 jeeps for example, 600,000 deuce and a halfs , 300,000 bazookas usually in game terms in two man teams ) . most Infantry Companies in Most Nations really did historically split up squads for recon ( one squad spread out over more than 1 hex ) , so somebody buys tons of recon teams .. no reason why you can't buy enough recon teams to form an infantry company , thats not gamey , that overcoming a limitation in the game engine that prevents actual historical practices .
Anyway , when you buy your " Core Force" decide what you Core Force is going to be .. sort of a core force within you core force . For example my "core force' is Typically an Infantry Bn ( depending on points ) maybe full strength maybe short a company maybe the missing company is represented by a couple of platoons broken down to the scout teams the game provides, to represent squads broken down into fire teams , I typically use the average scout teams for this. For the most part "Recon" is not much different than regular Infantry , maybe a little different , elite rating for actual recon recon units , but please remember "recon" rating is just a C&C game engine fiction and a pretty much artifical distinction created for the game to support the spotting function, experience and binoculars and a good nights rest actually make a bigger difference than having recon in a real world units name.
So anyway , find a real life Division, pick a real life Bn from that division ,agument it with real support units available to the Division in about the proportions real life battle reports indicate it would typically have, save your references to your favorites , also get a copy of the units real TO&E with all the little details of jeeps and tool kits and field kitchens , and if you know enough of it's history , you should be able to send the real world references to your opponent where your outfit actually did that " gamey tactic" in WW2 . Or show where something very close to your units game composition was an actual composition is a real battle ( or as close as the game allows ) when you are accused of having a "gamey" core force.
Most SPWAW players think the game rules are written to support history in some way , or that most of the formations in the game somehow represent real units .. they don't . Units are configured to fit the designers preconceived notions ( tanks with a carry of 8 is strictly to prevent players from " abusing" carrying troops on tanks for example, the limitation itself is gamey , not being able to break down squads to fit in transports or run patrols is "gamey" having mortars create smoke around themselves when they fire that can be seen anywhere on the map by the other player is gamey , the arty casulity , heck any casulity reports from any fire is gamey , tanks opfiring in 4 directions in one turn as 4 different units as they close to close assault 1 at a time is gamey, in real life all four units might well appear at the same time and 3 of them would get a first shot .
But hey some folks only know the game itself , never studied any history or tactics , can't understand that much of the game restrictions are in fact what is gamey , not creative ways to workaround game limitations.
Thats what makes threads like this one so funny .
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?
1 Units are usually made of a single type of tank, if it is a Panther Company then it's gonna be all Panthers more often than not .. Panthers were in SS Divisions , and tanks are going to be supported by Infantry DUH!
Buying 4 Tigers to support a infantry unit is totally ahistorical and having a Platoon of this and a platoon of that is what is "gamey" LOL
2 Most armies have tons of "cheap units" and run bunches of small scout and recon units in front of the main force
3 Reinforcements are usually preplaned and predesignated .. having a player chose his reinforcements Before he sees what he is up against would be the most realistic way of doing it . Buying Tailored "to order" reinforcements after IDing the enemy force is what is gamey.
4 Firing Smoke to cover your position after you reveal you location by moving and or firing seems tactically wise and realistic. Being a stoped target in mid movement from point a to point b because you ran out of movement points and sitting there thru the other players turn while he shoots at you is what is gamey .
5 Firing Arty smoke to block LOS .. DUH thats why they give arty smoke
6 Only playing one Nation ? well most of your Bn Commanders in WW2 only "played" for one nation, and Only "played" certain time periods, The mere ability to play mutiple nations is strictly a "gamey" thing
7 C&C is/ was based on SPIII 200 meters hexes, it never translated well to 50 meter hexes and it certainly does not represent comand and control limitations in WW2 is any adequate way , it is totally artifical and gamey in and of itself , those that forget that point obviousy do not understand the mechanics of real life comand and control , by saying this i am not saying that playing without C&C is any more accurate a representation , but it certanly isn't a less accurate representation , both game methods are equally misrepresenative in different ways depending on what army you happen to be talking about , and Both are just as gamey as the other.
8 covered the many small units issue , the fundamental lack of the ability to break down large units in to smaller units for mission specific reasons and forcing an entire squad into a 50 meter hex is gamey , to ride only on certain sized trucks ect is what is gamey. Recon by fire is a real thing , thats why folks don't like to pull 'Point" thats WHY there are Guys on Point, Lead elements of a convoy, Advance Parties, Op's , LP's, patrols .
Doing this will also give you some real clues to some possibly quite novel and effective actual tactics that were used to overcome some situations.
Armies are different , the lot of cheap units thing being gamey is mostly a laugh if you even make a minimum attempt at studying History .. Look at any real TO&E and you will find that a Tank Company is not just 17 Tanks , but also about 20 jeeps a bunch of trucks a couple wreckers and other tow trucks a few apc's some commo trucks and a bunch of trailers. Most Armies scouted and patroled in front of thier lines .. and most scouts , patrols , listening posts , observation posts were sub squad sized. Some armies like the US for example had no end of small cheap units ( 400,000 jeeps for example, 600,000 deuce and a halfs , 300,000 bazookas usually in game terms in two man teams ) . most Infantry Companies in Most Nations really did historically split up squads for recon ( one squad spread out over more than 1 hex ) , so somebody buys tons of recon teams .. no reason why you can't buy enough recon teams to form an infantry company , thats not gamey , that overcoming a limitation in the game engine that prevents actual historical practices .
Anyway , when you buy your " Core Force" decide what you Core Force is going to be .. sort of a core force within you core force . For example my "core force' is Typically an Infantry Bn ( depending on points ) maybe full strength maybe short a company maybe the missing company is represented by a couple of platoons broken down to the scout teams the game provides, to represent squads broken down into fire teams , I typically use the average scout teams for this. For the most part "Recon" is not much different than regular Infantry , maybe a little different , elite rating for actual recon recon units , but please remember "recon" rating is just a C&C game engine fiction and a pretty much artifical distinction created for the game to support the spotting function, experience and binoculars and a good nights rest actually make a bigger difference than having recon in a real world units name.
So anyway , find a real life Division, pick a real life Bn from that division ,agument it with real support units available to the Division in about the proportions real life battle reports indicate it would typically have, save your references to your favorites , also get a copy of the units real TO&E with all the little details of jeeps and tool kits and field kitchens , and if you know enough of it's history , you should be able to send the real world references to your opponent where your outfit actually did that " gamey tactic" in WW2 . Or show where something very close to your units game composition was an actual composition is a real battle ( or as close as the game allows ) when you are accused of having a "gamey" core force.
Most SPWAW players think the game rules are written to support history in some way , or that most of the formations in the game somehow represent real units .. they don't . Units are configured to fit the designers preconceived notions ( tanks with a carry of 8 is strictly to prevent players from " abusing" carrying troops on tanks for example, the limitation itself is gamey , not being able to break down squads to fit in transports or run patrols is "gamey" having mortars create smoke around themselves when they fire that can be seen anywhere on the map by the other player is gamey , the arty casulity , heck any casulity reports from any fire is gamey , tanks opfiring in 4 directions in one turn as 4 different units as they close to close assault 1 at a time is gamey, in real life all four units might well appear at the same time and 3 of them would get a first shot .
But hey some folks only know the game itself , never studied any history or tactics , can't understand that much of the game restrictions are in fact what is gamey , not creative ways to workaround game limitations.
Thats what makes threads like this one so funny .
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?
1 Units are usually made of a single type of tank, if it is a Panther Company then it's gonna be all Panthers more often than not .. Panthers were in SS Divisions , and tanks are going to be supported by Infantry DUH!
Buying 4 Tigers to support a infantry unit is totally ahistorical and having a Platoon of this and a platoon of that is what is "gamey" LOL
2 Most armies have tons of "cheap units" and run bunches of small scout and recon units in front of the main force
3 Reinforcements are usually preplaned and predesignated .. having a player chose his reinforcements Before he sees what he is up against would be the most realistic way of doing it . Buying Tailored "to order" reinforcements after IDing the enemy force is what is gamey.
4 Firing Smoke to cover your position after you reveal you location by moving and or firing seems tactically wise and realistic. Being a stoped target in mid movement from point a to point b because you ran out of movement points and sitting there thru the other players turn while he shoots at you is what is gamey .
5 Firing Arty smoke to block LOS .. DUH thats why they give arty smoke
6 Only playing one Nation ? well most of your Bn Commanders in WW2 only "played" for one nation, and Only "played" certain time periods, The mere ability to play mutiple nations is strictly a "gamey" thing
7 C&C is/ was based on SPIII 200 meters hexes, it never translated well to 50 meter hexes and it certainly does not represent comand and control limitations in WW2 is any adequate way , it is totally artifical and gamey in and of itself , those that forget that point obviousy do not understand the mechanics of real life comand and control , by saying this i am not saying that playing without C&C is any more accurate a representation , but it certanly isn't a less accurate representation , both game methods are equally misrepresenative in different ways depending on what army you happen to be talking about , and Both are just as gamey as the other.
8 covered the many small units issue , the fundamental lack of the ability to break down large units in to smaller units for mission specific reasons and forcing an entire squad into a 50 meter hex is gamey , to ride only on certain sized trucks ect is what is gamey. Recon by fire is a real thing , thats why folks don't like to pull 'Point" thats WHY there are Guys on Point, Lead elements of a convoy, Advance Parties, Op's , LP's, patrols .
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
I miss seeing your posts Ammo Sgt, how is the new one by the way?
You are so bang on in your post in almost every way 100%.
Sometimes a game is accurate and it is intrusive, and sometimes the game uses a concession to make the game operate, and it is seen as intrusive.
But a lot of people often only seen the data, and don't see the reason for the data.
That, and often people only see something as "gamey" when it rains on their own personal parade.
The one major advantage I see ASL having over Steel Panthers, is often the scenarios are completely and totally designed to be entirely balanced. Thus it matters not which side one plays, it should still be a fun challenge.
That, and the scenarios are often made with very intriguing forces and situations and nations.
I have not played all of the Steel Panthers scenarios (much as I have not played all the ASL scenarios).
Steel Panthers battles are exactly the same as DYO games for ASL. No play testing has been done, and you can make agreements till you are blue in the face, and it still won't result in a deliberately balanced game 99 times out of 100.
You are so bang on in your post in almost every way 100%.
Sometimes a game is accurate and it is intrusive, and sometimes the game uses a concession to make the game operate, and it is seen as intrusive.
But a lot of people often only seen the data, and don't see the reason for the data.
That, and often people only see something as "gamey" when it rains on their own personal parade.
The one major advantage I see ASL having over Steel Panthers, is often the scenarios are completely and totally designed to be entirely balanced. Thus it matters not which side one plays, it should still be a fun challenge.
That, and the scenarios are often made with very intriguing forces and situations and nations.
I have not played all of the Steel Panthers scenarios (much as I have not played all the ASL scenarios).
Steel Panthers battles are exactly the same as DYO games for ASL. No play testing has been done, and you can make agreements till you are blue in the face, and it still won't result in a deliberately balanced game 99 times out of 100.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
AbsntMndedProf
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Boston, Massachusetts
- Contact:
Prof ?? you mean like an Independant Platoon of King Tigers supporting a mixed Bn of PZIV's and Infantry ?
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
I still say I have not yet met a person that can create a force blind, unaware of what I am creating, and end up with a game that is balanced regardless of their intent or mine.
You can't blame the game or the gamer in some cases.
Sometimes we are just asking for something that can't be delivered.
I think the ideal, would be two players setting up a match where they had forces identical to a well made scenario, and a map that was the same map, with a set up area recreated as identical to the scenario map.
Question is this, is this doable with the program?
You can't blame the game or the gamer in some cases.
Sometimes we are just asking for something that can't be delivered.
I think the ideal, would be two players setting up a match where they had forces identical to a well made scenario, and a map that was the same map, with a set up area recreated as identical to the scenario map.
Question is this, is this doable with the program?
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
AbsntMndedProf
- Posts: 1475
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Boston, Massachusetts
- Contact:
LOL Prof yeah I knew what ya meant , LOL . It is just that in real life , real nations have some serious strictures on when the commit thier best units . Germans didn't commit thier Heavy Stuff willy nilly in packet pieces for example .. folks are forever buying the "good stuff" in platoon packets in total contravention of German doctrine and practices. I don't think it is "gamey" to want to use the cool stuff in every battle, but it sure as heck is "Simply put, I would say any strategy/tactic/maneuver or unit composition that is 'allowed' by the game, but runs so counter to actual warfare that it would never have happened in rl. My two cents, anyway." as you put it. The Unit composition that folks use in my experience , especially with the Germans , does not even give a nod to actual German Practices , but I see that as again a limit of the game , How many points would and Independant Bn of Tigers or King Tigers cost, inculding their security forces ? Folks forget the basic doctrines and realities of the various nations and how they fought, thinking that somehow the point system designed to make a even point game reflects something that isn't fundamentally gamey at it core purpose . Then folks complain about other players being gamey when they bring in some semblance of historical reality that somehows conflicts with the accepted way of playing the game.
IMHO it is a game , it does not reflect reality hardly at all , if the computer program allows it , then it is fair in a game sense and not "gamey" in a perjorative sense. That why i say that threads about some tactic or unit or another being gamey are totally silly. You want to start a real list of whats gamey , it starts with battles having equal points or fixed ratios of points, and going for little Vhexes in the middle of the board. Once you accept that fact , whatever a player might do that the computer program allows is chump change in the world of gamey.
IMHO it is a game , it does not reflect reality hardly at all , if the computer program allows it , then it is fair in a game sense and not "gamey" in a perjorative sense. That why i say that threads about some tactic or unit or another being gamey are totally silly. You want to start a real list of whats gamey , it starts with battles having equal points or fixed ratios of points, and going for little Vhexes in the middle of the board. Once you accept that fact , whatever a player might do that the computer program allows is chump change in the world of gamey.
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
Oh yeah..
'If your opponent only buys Panthers and SS'? 
My only spwaw pbem right now is a H2Hfr set in France 1944. I'm Poland my opponent is Germany, the battle is the first engagement of the Polish 1st Armoured Division, my enemy commands parts of the 12 SS Panzer Division HJ thus my opponent has ONLY Panthers and SS, well he's got some other stuff like StuGs etc too...
But really, if one side is using SS I think as much as possible of the force should be SS. Most battles are Bn/Bn+ size anyway, right..
I'm playing another PBEM game (spww2) where I'm the Germans vs the Canadians, this one set in Ortona 1943. My force is 98% Fallschirmjäger (got some transport I stole from the Italians).
My only spwaw pbem right now is a H2Hfr set in France 1944. I'm Poland my opponent is Germany, the battle is the first engagement of the Polish 1st Armoured Division, my enemy commands parts of the 12 SS Panzer Division HJ thus my opponent has ONLY Panthers and SS, well he's got some other stuff like StuGs etc too...
But really, if one side is using SS I think as much as possible of the force should be SS. Most battles are Bn/Bn+ size anyway, right..
I'm playing another PBEM game (spww2) where I'm the Germans vs the Canadians, this one set in Ortona 1943. My force is 98% Fallschirmjäger (got some transport I stole from the Italians).
Semper in Primis