What is the defination of "Gamey"?

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Not to mention that it's not the paratroops which are the problem, it's allowing your 250,000 men to be so beaten that they need to retreat."

Gee... are you trying to say that there is no way an army of 250k men can be forced to retreat? When you attack someone's post, please try to do it in a reasonable manner...

No, I'm saying saying do what generals since Sargon the Great have done--secure your line of retreat. Don't put every stinkin' LCU in one mega-stack. Put out flankers. Use your mobile units as mobile units. When you go into Indian Country know how you're going to get out. And, when your 250,000 extravaganza starts to crack, don't stick around until retreat is your only option.

But mostly, if you let 25 paratroops beat you, understand you screwed up, not the code.

Since I've never experienced this, I can't say what the cause may or may not have been. I'm just not so quick to judge someone else's play as others around here are. I also don't have to play with these ground rules because I play against a quite reasonable opponent who I trust. But if other people find the need for house rules, I'm not going to tell them that they just aren't playing the game right. It's their game, after all... just as it is your game to play it the way you want.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

No, I'm saying saying do what generals since Sargon the Great have done--secure your line of retreat. Don't put every stinkin' LCU in one mega-stack. Put out flankers. Use your mobile units as mobile units. When you go into Indian Country know how you're going to get out. And, when your 250,000 extravaganza starts to crack, don't stick around until retreat is your only option.

But mostly, if you let 25 paratroops beat you, understand you screwed up, not the code.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle 58

Again, you fail to grapple with the basic issue.

I'm done here.

Issue is that the 1 AV parafrag doesn't contribute at all in actually beating the 250,000 troops that will get retreated by 1 million Chinnicks, while at the same time there is no way to fragment actual INF units. The smallest AV one can use to "secure" anything, for example the retreating route, is about 40, and every each of those units small units are usually needed to fill garrison requirements. Of course you could always use Base Forces/ENG units (AV of ~10) or whatever to secure those hexes in the middle of the woods, but you should get the idea... [:(]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Not to mention that it's not the paratroops which are the problem, it's allowing your 250,000 men to be so beaten that they need to retreat."

Gee... are you trying to say that there is no way an army of 250k men can be forced to retreat? When you attack someone's post, please try to do it in a reasonable manner...

No, I'm saying saying do what generals since Sargon the Great have done--secure your line of retreat. Don't put every stinkin' LCU in one mega-stack. Put out flankers. Use your mobile units as mobile units. When you go into Indian Country know how you're going to get out. And, when your 250,000 extravaganza starts to crack, don't stick around until retreat is your only option.

But mostly, if you let 25 paratroops beat you, understand you screwed up, not the code.

Since I've never experienced this, I can't say what the cause may or may not have been. I'm just not so quick to judge someone else's play as others around here are. I also don't have to play with these ground rules because I play against a quite reasonable opponent who I trust. But if other people find the need for house rules, I'm not going to tell them that they just aren't playing the game right. It's their game, after all... just as it is your game to play it the way you want.

I do try to use whole units, and will keep dropping my paratroops until they all arrive. However there is a point to be said about not leaving your line of retreat completely unsecured. If you get an army totally surrounded because you made no attempt to garrison your lines of communication, it is your own fault.

And as far as people complaining about getting surrounded....well...

by that way of thinking the Falaise Pocket was unfair...attempting to cut off a retreating army, shame on the Allies.
Operation Market Garden was unfair, shame on the Allies for trying to cut off the Ruhr Valley and its production facilities.
Bypassing Rabaul was unfair, how dare the Allies not fight a heavily reinforced base straight and just starve it out!

The only thing gamey about it is the fact it can be done with tiny fragments, house rules I play with dictate it must be a unit of X size and not divided. But even then, in real wars, commanders have been known to use small units or air attacks to destroy key bridges to slow or stop an enemy withdrawal or advance. You sure can't destroy a bridge to cut a line of communication in this game...maybe that is gamey too?

Just bringing up some points for debate, because cutting off an enemy is certainly not an invalid tactic. However, there is a reason I play with the full unit house rule, because 2 squads won't stop 3 divisions etc.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




No, I'm saying saying do what generals since Sargon the Great have done--secure your line of retreat. Don't put every stinkin' LCU in one mega-stack. Put out flankers. Use your mobile units as mobile units. When you go into Indian Country know how you're going to get out. And, when your 250,000 extravaganza starts to crack, don't stick around until retreat is your only option.

But mostly, if you let 25 paratroops beat you, understand you screwed up, not the code.

Since I've never experienced this, I can't say what the cause may or may not have been. I'm just not so quick to judge someone else's play as others around here are. I also don't have to play with these ground rules because I play against a quite reasonable opponent who I trust. But if other people find the need for house rules, I'm not going to tell them that they just aren't playing the game right. It's their game, after all... just as it is your game to play it the way you want.

I do try to use whole units, and will keep dropping my paratroops until they all arrive. However there is a point to be said about not leaving your line of retreat completely unsecured. If you get an army totally surrounded because you made no attempt to garrison your lines of communication, it is your own fault.

And as far as people complaining about getting surrounded....well...

by that way of thinking the Falaise Pocket was unfair...attempting to cut off a retreating army, shame on the Allies.
Operation Market Garden was unfair, shame on the Allies for trying to cut off the Ruhr Valley and its production facilities.
Bypassing Rabaul was unfair, how dare the Allies not fight a heavily reinforced base straight and just starve it out!

The only thing gamey about it is the fact it can be done with tiny fragments, house rules I play with dictate it must be a unit of X size and not divided. But even then, in real wars, commanders have been known to use small units or air attacks to destroy key bridges to slow or stop an enemy withdrawal or advance. You sure can't destroy a bridge to cut a line of communication in this game...maybe that is gamey too?

Just bringing up some points for debate, because cutting off an enemy is certainly not an invalid tactic. However, there is a reason I play with the full unit house rule, because 2 squads won't stop 3 divisions etc.

This has been the point of the house rule ever since the inception of the game. I do not see why people keep getting caught up in trying to tell others that they are making bad decisions... my opinion is that if you are going to try to establish a blocking force, please use the whole unit and not just a few squads from that unit.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay





Since I've never experienced this, I can't say what the cause may or may not have been. I'm just not so quick to judge someone else's play as others around here are. I also don't have to play with these ground rules because I play against a quite reasonable opponent who I trust. But if other people find the need for house rules, I'm not going to tell them that they just aren't playing the game right. It's their game, after all... just as it is your game to play it the way you want.

I do try to use whole units, and will keep dropping my paratroops until they all arrive. However there is a point to be said about not leaving your line of retreat completely unsecured. If you get an army totally surrounded because you made no attempt to garrison your lines of communication, it is your own fault.

And as far as people complaining about getting surrounded....well...

by that way of thinking the Falaise Pocket was unfair...attempting to cut off a retreating army, shame on the Allies.
Operation Market Garden was unfair, shame on the Allies for trying to cut off the Ruhr Valley and its production facilities.
Bypassing Rabaul was unfair, how dare the Allies not fight a heavily reinforced base straight and just starve it out!

The only thing gamey about it is the fact it can be done with tiny fragments, house rules I play with dictate it must be a unit of X size and not divided. But even then, in real wars, commanders have been known to use small units or air attacks to destroy key bridges to slow or stop an enemy withdrawal or advance. You sure can't destroy a bridge to cut a line of communication in this game...maybe that is gamey too?

Just bringing up some points for debate, because cutting off an enemy is certainly not an invalid tactic. However, there is a reason I play with the full unit house rule, because 2 squads won't stop 3 divisions etc.

This has been the point of the house rule ever since the inception of the game. I do not see why people keep getting caught up in trying to tell others that they are making bad decisions... my opinion is that if you are going to try to establish a blocking force, please use the whole unit and not just a few squads from that unit.

We definately agree. I just wanted to point out that during WWII, commanders were constantly trying to cut off enemy forces. You can't win the war without removing the enemy army through either attrition or surrounding them. So if you can cut me off with a regiment, then I deserved it cause I screwed up.

Honestly, I get the feeling more and more that people just look for something to piss and moan about, and it seems to be happening more frequently. [:(]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

ORIGINAL: Shark7




I do try to use whole units, and will keep dropping my paratroops until they all arrive. However there is a point to be said about not leaving your line of retreat completely unsecured. If you get an army totally surrounded because you made no attempt to garrison your lines of communication, it is your own fault.

And as far as people complaining about getting surrounded....well...

by that way of thinking the Falaise Pocket was unfair...attempting to cut off a retreating army, shame on the Allies.
Operation Market Garden was unfair, shame on the Allies for trying to cut off the Ruhr Valley and its production facilities.
Bypassing Rabaul was unfair, how dare the Allies not fight a heavily reinforced base straight and just starve it out!

The only thing gamey about it is the fact it can be done with tiny fragments, house rules I play with dictate it must be a unit of X size and not divided. But even then, in real wars, commanders have been known to use small units or air attacks to destroy key bridges to slow or stop an enemy withdrawal or advance. You sure can't destroy a bridge to cut a line of communication in this game...maybe that is gamey too?

Just bringing up some points for debate, because cutting off an enemy is certainly not an invalid tactic. However, there is a reason I play with the full unit house rule, because 2 squads won't stop 3 divisions etc.

This has been the point of the house rule ever since the inception of the game. I do not see why people keep getting caught up in trying to tell others that they are making bad decisions... my opinion is that if you are going to try to establish a blocking force, please use the whole unit and not just a few squads from that unit.

We definately agree. I just wanted to point out that during WWII, commanders were constantly trying to cut off enemy forces. You can't win the war without removing the enemy army through either attrition or surrounding them. So if you can cut me off with a regiment, then I deserved it cause I screwed up.

Honestly, I get the feeling more and more that people just look for something to piss and moan about, and it seems to be happening more frequently. [:(]

Naw. Don't worry about it Shark7. I think what you and Brad are saying (that I agree with completely) is commonsensical. It's probably the way most of the silent majority choose to play. [8D]

As for the pissing and moaning: That's been going on since the early days on the UV boards, mate. Nothing new here. Chin up and all that...[8D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: USS America

Steve-O, I'm afraid you might be tilting at windmills again.  You're not going to be able to define what moves/tactics/sneaky tricks are or are not gamey to anyone's satisfaction, except your own.  I know you well enough to know you would usually prefer as close to "no holes barred" as you can get an opponent to accept.  I think that's the answer you are looking for, and the only one that matters for you, except that of any opponents you engage.  [:)]

You'll sooner solve the Federal budget problems than get everyone here to agree that any single issue is or is not gamey.  [:D]

Not necessarilly true Mike. My only real requirement for house rules acceptance is "show me where one person that I trust makes the case that it's necessary". That means any one from Matrix, only any of the non-employess that helped build the game, or any one VERY knowledgable about the game. That includes automatically any of the "GrandMasters". I don't oppose houserules. I simply want to have it proven to me that we need them. I do not belive in exchanging one monster for another. And quite often , in my humble view, a house rule simply shifts the advantage from one party to another . In other words I view house rules as often gamey themselves.

As far as the Federal budget goes, I can easily solve that! But until my plan for global world domination comes to fruition , the budget will have to remain the problem of the people we are PAYING to solve it. [:D]

Steve, my good friend, has it been long enough now to quote you quoting my quote again? [:D]

Another valiant effort with the best of intentions, buddy, but I think I told 'ya so. Gamey, HR's, and any combination of them are a personal thing that needs to be worked out between individuals. There will never be 100% agreement on any single issue (including the definition of gamey) among the forum members.

We love you, St. Stephen!

Edit: BTW, they did at least make progress on the federal budget, even if it's not "fixed", before any consensus was reached here. [:'(]

Ah Mike, you are the glass is half empty guy today. Even if we don't acheive a defination, we have gotten people to think about and talk about the problem. If you can't even talk about a problem you sure as heck can't solve it. What we have here is people giving their views,suggestions and thoughts, and receiving the same back. It's a start , and it's a beautiful thing. OK, so we DON'T solve the "gameyness" problem today. Maybe the next try. Or the one after that. Or the 907th after that. The fact that we have a reasonable discourse going , with little or no name calling going on, is a good thing. We really can talk like adults about this without Joe or Erik having to shut us down. 3 Pages, and no real insults or animosity. THAT has to be some kind of record! [:D]


Now here is a proposal. Let's talk about one of the "flaws" that require,, or not require a house rule. Let's put our thinking hats on and figure out how to test this problem. A couple of us play with it, report back , and try and craft a recommendation to deal with it?


Any takers? [&:][:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


As has been said already, it's all about the opponents coming to a mutual agreement on how they want to play. There's no "right" way to play the game, except in the sense that it should be fun for both sides. Bullwinkle and jmalter have a legitimate way they prefer to play, as do bradfordkay and others along the more 'historically constrained' line of thought.

AE can certainly accomodate both and it does. Most issues of 'gaminess' I see and have seen arise during AARs is when one player is blind sided by something he was not aware of. At that point it becomes a matter of discussion between the opponents who can hopefully come to a reasoned and mutual agreement.

I would always recommend to anyone starting a game with a new opponent to play a scenario first. This allows both sides to feel each other out and get a sense of each other's playing style.

Brother Brush hat, as always , speaks words of wisdom. And this time he did it without being so damned infuriating![&o][&o][&o][&o]

[AW1Steve]

Stupid question (like THERE'S a surprise coming from me!) is it possible (and I ask this out of PURE ignorance) that the concept of a small unit cutting the supply line is a way of modeling things like sabotage? Blown bridges,blocked roads,mountain passes blocked by blown roaks creating avalanges, or even mined roads? I could concieve a small Commando type or Para unit doing this. Again, I'm not trying to start something, just asking ? [&:]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Mynok


As has been said already, it's all about the opponents coming to a mutual agreement on how they want to play. There's no "right" way to play the game, except in the sense that it should be fun for both sides. Bullwinkle and jmalter have a legitimate way they prefer to play, as do bradfordkay and others along the more 'historically constrained' line of thought.

AE can certainly accomodate both and it does. Most issues of 'gaminess' I see and have seen arise during AARs is when one player is blind sided by something he was not aware of. At that point it becomes a matter of discussion between the opponents who can hopefully come to a reasoned and mutual agreement.

I would always recommend to anyone starting a game with a new opponent to play a scenario first. This allows both sides to feel each other out and get a sense of each other's playing style.

Brother Brush hat, as always , speaks words of wisdom. And this time he did it without being so damned infuriating![&o][&o][&o][&o]

I try....and mostly fail apparently. And my wife wonders why I don't talk much....... [8|][:'(]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Mynok


As has been said already, it's all about the opponents coming to a mutual agreement on how they want to play. There's no "right" way to play the game, except in the sense that it should be fun for both sides. Bullwinkle and jmalter have a legitimate way they prefer to play, as do bradfordkay and others along the more 'historically constrained' line of thought.

AE can certainly accomodate both and it does. Most issues of 'gaminess' I see and have seen arise during AARs is when one player is blind sided by something he was not aware of. At that point it becomes a matter of discussion between the opponents who can hopefully come to a reasoned and mutual agreement.

I would always recommend to anyone starting a game with a new opponent to play a scenario first. This allows both sides to feel each other out and get a sense of each other's playing style.

Brother Brush hat, as always , speaks words of wisdom. And this time he did it without being so damned infuriating![&o][&o][&o][&o]

I try....and mostly fail apparently. And my wife wonders why I don't talk much....... [8|][:'(]

And I always thought it was because you were standing around with your fingers in your ears waiting for the earth shattering KABOOM! [:D]

[DHRedge]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

I'd like to hear from a few people about what they consider "Gamey" is. No, I don't mean how Logboy smells after a day IN the Seattle rain (Just kidding Nik![:D]) or how the deer (venison) that uncle what's his-name shot and insists on subjecting the family to taste. I mean as the term is used in these forums. Personally , I feel that the term has been misused, and grown to encompass far more then it's creator (whom ever that might be) intended.

And since I've been uninvited (dis-invited? well, at any event, asked to leave) by another forumite on his thread (obviously ignoring the reality that none of us "own" these threads....Matrix does), I feel that maybe the time has come for us to define , capture and get this monster under control.

So what do you think , gentlemen and lady ? [&:]


BTW , I'm not a cranky old man (but I do play one in the Geezer thread. The same thread which a professional Swedish Army officer plays a flowerchild. Obviously some people have difficulty tell theatre from reality). I might be considerd a Angry middle aged man. The major difference is a cranky old man just complains, the other tries to do something about it. And I would like to hear everyones view. Not just the ones that conform with my own. Thanks. [:)]

I am due beer and travel money, and that has not arrived, that is the only significant issue you have to consider.