Don Maddox on "Should Players be Limited to Historical Tac..

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

WarfareHQ's Don Maddox wrote an interesting starting point for a
discussion in the following article :

http://www.warfarehq.com/page_left_column.php?content=article_disp&p=176&page=1&cat=1

.... but he didn't stop there - he asked (and got) the opinion of a
veritable who's who of current wargaming.

Contributions from : David Heath, Tim Brooks, Major H., John Tiller,
Don Greenwood, Charlie Kibler, Eric Weider, Richard Berg, Ron Dockal,
Scott Hamilton, Pat Proctor and Jim Werbaneth (sure hope I didn't miss
anyone here with my copy&paste)

Great reading material.

And as usual, I've got an opinion too :)

I'm not sure I agree with his 2 extremes of gamer-types. On one hand
the gamer who places the emphasis on playability and doesn't mind
a-historical stuff on the other hand the minutiae player who likes his
wargames super-detailed and historically accurate.

Maybe I'm asking too much, but I want great, simple playability in
combination with historical accuracy. I don't want to be burdened with
micro-management, I want the computer to take care of that while
maintaining historical correctness but not rigidity. Historically
possible What-if's are an integral part of the gaming experience as
there's no point in gaming a battle and only wanting it to unfold as it
did IRL - I'd rather read a battle account then.

Oh, and I want trucks placed in the path of Pzkw's IV getting vaporized
instantly - the game should take care of that.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> And in that small, one-hex detour, we find our old pal, The Gamey
> Tactic.

Just hours after having started the thread - and taking the moral high
ground by claiming to eschew gamey tactics - I posted about a gamey
tactic I just discovered in the COTA engine ... seems like my predator
subconscious is more likely to go for the "do whatever it takes to win
route" - in the age old battle beteen brain and gut, gut often wins :)

> My take on this, though, is that it's the responsibility of the game
> designer to preclude this sort of thing with any of a half-dozen
simple
> expedients.

Problem is - as with most programs or designs in general - users will
find ever more devious ways to circumvent your design intentions. John
Tiller formulated it beautifully as "design the perfect pencil, and the
user will stick it up his nose and declare it an imperfect design as it
will allow him to kill himself" - or words to that effect.

> What really amazes me is how many game designers let
> players get away with this bullshit.

Sometimes you have to weigh the design issue : the positive addition
for all gamers if a certain feature is included vs. the possible gamey
usuage by some. It's a question that is not limited to games. It's the
same tightrope Microsoft has to walk : Design a secure system, but make
it accessible - design a complicated system, but make it simple to use.
<sigh> it's the same issue we face here at work too ... and it ain't
easy and as always : hindsight is perfect, but at the moment something
was decided it usually isn't so clear-cut

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Although an old topic, it's one that I don't think will ever lie down.

I usually consider myself well and truly on the "realism/no gamey tactics"
side of the fence but I can remember one particularly tight Steel Panthers
game where things weren't so clear cut.

I had to know if a particular enemy tank had "used up" all its op fire so I
bought up an truck-towed anti-tank gun (that I was planning to move anyway)
and deployed it out of line-of-sight of the enemy tank in question. Then,
instead of leaving the towing vehicle in the drop-off hex (where it was
safe), or moving it to the rear by the shortest route (which was also safe),
I made a small, one-hex detour into the line-of-sight of the enemy tank to
see if any op-fire occured.

I remember justifying it to myself at the time by something like "Well, the
driver could have misjudged the safe route back" or "Moving onto the road
meant he could get back quicker so maybe the driver decided to risk it".
Strictly speaking, the situation was not "unrealistic" in that it recreated
something that could reasonably have happened on any battlefield. I _was_
using the truck in its historical role, not as some sort of suicidal decoy.
Still, I think most will agree that I violated the spirit, if not the
letter, of the "no using trucks as recce or to draw op-fire" agreement I had
with my opponent.

But, in this particular case, I suspect I'd do it again if I had to.

Cheers,

Andy
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <cugill$vcr$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, andybrown@somewhere.in.nz
says...

> Although an old topic, it's one that I don't think will ever lie down.
>
> I usually consider myself well and truly on the "realism/no gamey tactics"
> side of the fence but I can remember one particularly tight Steel Panthers
> game where things weren't so clear cut.
>
> I had to know if a particular enemy tank had "used up" all its op fire so I
> bought up an truck-towed anti-tank gun (that I was planning to move anyway)
> and deployed it out of line-of-sight of the enemy tank in question. Then,
> instead of leaving the towing vehicle in the drop-off hex (where it was
> safe), or moving it to the rear by the shortest route (which was also safe),
> I made a small, one-hex detour into the line-of-sight of the enemy tank to
> see if any op-fire occured.

And in that small, one-hex detour, we find our old pal, The Gamey
Tactic.

My take on this, though, is that it's the responsibility of the game
designer to preclude this sort of thing with any of a half-dozen simple
expedients.

In my experience 90% of the Gamey Tactics out there involve a fairly
obvious problem; putting hordes of dispensable "cannon-fodder" vehicles
at the disposal of the player, to be used as impromptu recon elements,
or to soak up enemy shells, or to serve as a handy chair to be twitched
behind a retreating player to momentarily vex his pursuers. What really
amazes me is how many game designers let players get away with this
bullshit.

What should have happened to Mr. Brown's truck in the above scenario?

If I were designing a game, I would implement a rule that any unarmed /
unloaded carrier vehicle that came within the LOS (or X distance) of an
enemy unit would immediately explode, *without* revealing the presence
of any enemy units and *without* causing any enemy unit to expend
ammunition or time. Coupled with the fact that I would set quite high
VP values for trucks (they are important assets, and the Colonel is
going to bust you down to PFC if you *use his precious trucks as target
drones*...), the practice of moving these behind-the-lines vehicles up
into combat would cease immediately. So in Mr. Brown's case, his truck
would have mysteriously gone up in flames, without benefiting him in any
way, and he would have new respect for the idea that such assets need to
be carefully protected, not sent off into the front lines.



--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1108139198.903180.242320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > My take on this, though, is that it's the responsibility of the game
> > designer to preclude this sort of thing with any of a half-dozen
> simple
> > expedients.
>
> Problem is - as with most programs or designs in general - users will
> find ever more devious ways to circumvent your design intentions. John
> Tiller formulated it beautifully as "design the perfect pencil, and the
> user will stick it up his nose and declare it an imperfect design as it
> will allow him to kill himself" - or words to that effect.

I dunno. How many designers even *try*? My experience has been that
for every designer who makes an attempt to recognize the fact that
transport can't be used as recon, or mobile roadblocks, or handy shot-
sinks, there are ten designers who just shovel the trucks out there as
if trucks are exactly like scout cars or infantry or tanks - able to
spot, proper targets for the enemy, costing time and ammunition to shoot
at - except that they're plentiful and disposable!

> > What really amazes me is how many game designers let
> > players get away with this bullshit.
>
> Sometimes you have to weigh the design issue : the positive addition
> for all gamers if a certain feature is included vs. the possible gamey
> usuage by some.

The trouble is that we can all - off the top of our heads - think up a
dozen strategies to deal with something like the "trucks" issue, none of
which would affect the *proper* use of transport vehicles at all, and
most of which would preclude their use as BIC Disposable Scout Cars:

(1) Have the trucks "disappear" once they unload, a la the boardgame
PANZER COMMANDER.

(2) Have the trucks "disappear" if they come within range of an enemy
unit - without costing "shots" or revealing the enemy.

(3) Remove the ability of trucks to spot completely.

(4) Just ignore trucks except when they're transporting passengers.

(5) Abstract the trucks entirely, and don't represent them as separate
units.

(6) Make trucks properly expensive from a VP perspective, so losing
them means losing the scenario (entirely accurate, since it's the
Colonel who "owns" these trucks who's going to pass out the VPs in the
real world anyhow).

(7) <your ideas here>

(8) All / some of the above.



--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Maybe I'm asking too much, but I want great, simple playability in
> combination with historical accuracy. I don't want to be burdened with
> micro-management, I want the computer to take care of that while
> maintaining historical correctness but not rigidity. Historically
> possible What-if's are an integral part of the gaming experience as
> there's no point in gaming a battle and only wanting it to unfold as it
> did IRL - I'd rather read a battle account then.
>
> Oh, and I want trucks placed in the path of Pzkw's IV getting vaporized
> instantly - the game should take care of that.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>

That's me, yes SIR ! :) I like freedom in movement and strategy...I don't like to follow
someone else screw ups ...it's been done already.

Peter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c76d0b3b7d38e7f98a18b@news-east.giganews.com:

> In article <1108139198.903180.242320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > My take on this, though, is that it's the responsibility of the
game
>> > designer to preclude this sort of thing with any of a half-dozen
>> simple
>> > expedients.
>>
>> Problem is - as with most programs or designs in general - users will
>> find ever more devious ways to circumvent your design intentions.
John
>> Tiller formulated it beautifully as "design the perfect pencil, and
the
>> user will stick it up his nose and declare it an imperfect design as
it
>> will allow him to kill himself" - or words to that effect.
>
> I dunno. How many designers even *try*?

As wargame design is mostly a labour of love - I'd guess most of them.
I'm not saying they're all entirely successfull :)

I'm talking computer wargames here - the boardgame world did suffer from
cookie cutter designs made by "teams" with little passion for it - but
apart from the Battleground engine I'm not seeing that in the current pc
wargame world. If a patch is released usually over half the items on the
"fixed" list are game-feature enhancements. Communication technology has
enabled game designers to be in closer proximity to their customers
allowing them to fix things. Compare this to reader-feedback cards we
had with the boardgames in the seventies.

>> > What really amazes me is how many game designers let
>> > players get away with this bullshit.
>>
>> Sometimes you have to weigh the design issue : the positive addition
>> for all gamers if a certain feature is included vs. the possible
gamey
>> usuage by some.
>
> The trouble is that we can all - off the top of our heads - think up a
> dozen strategies to deal with something like the "trucks" issue

Correct, but I was talking about designs in general - and computer
designs in particular - and if a "truck" issue crops up in a computer
game these days you're very likely to get a patch to fix it. I know what
you're going to say : that such trivial issues should have been correct
on release 1.0 and from a customer pov you're right - I expect that too
- that's why the developers who get this right can expect my support
(and my money too). My point was that good design intention sometimes
have dire consequences that weren't or couldn't have been thought of at
the time.

To continue the "truck" example : it might have been the intention to
punish the loss of trucks by deducting mucho VP's - only to find out in
testing that the enemy player would only target trucks with arty and air
as they were easier targets cost/benefit wise then Pzkw's - so to
enhance realism the VP's for trucks destroyed were lessened resulting in
.... you get the point. Snowballing side-effects - happens all the time,
been there, done that :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Xns95FADC9B9CEB2eddysterckxhotmailco@67.98.68.42>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> To continue the "truck" example : it might have been the intention to
> punish the loss of trucks by deducting mucho VP's - only to find out in
> testing that the enemy player would only target trucks with arty and air
> as they were easier targets cost/benefit wise then Pzkw's

But ... this is exactly what's wanted! An enemy - if given the
opportunity - *should* target trucks with arty and air, precisely
because they *are* easier and better targets than tanks. That's my
point, exactly; assigning trucks a realistic VP allowance (coupled with
making them appropriately shitty spotters and cannon fodder) means that
the player is realistically channeled into effective, real-world tactics
.... like making sure that the enemy doesn't ever get an opportunity to
target his unprotected and essential trucks.

And the magic of computer games allows us to undertake more complex VP
calculations. For example, perhaps we set rules which, in effect, say
that a truck killed while in enemy LOS/LOF (IE, which was
inappropriately sent in harm's way) is worth 100 VP, but a truck killed
out of enemy LOS/LOF is worth only 20 VP.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> (2) Have the trucks "disappear" if they come within range of an enemy
> unit - without costing "shots" or revealing the enemy.

I like this one: it solves the "recon truck" problem, but at the same time
allows to the player to know that a certain area is "dangerous", since you
sent vehicles there and they disappeared. Nature and strenght of the menace
remain still unknown. And, if you send around trucks alone, sometimes they
could disappear anyway, simulating mechanical breackdown, desertion, attacks
by civilians or other unknows.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:01:14 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>If I were designing a game, I would implement a rule that any unarmed /
>unloaded carrier vehicle that came within the LOS (or X distance) of an
>enemy unit would immediately explode, *without* revealing the presence
>of any enemy units and *without* causing any enemy unit to expend
>ammunition or time. Coupled with the fact that I would set quite high
>VP values for trucks (they are important assets, and the Colonel is
>going to bust you down to PFC if you *use his precious trucks as target
>drones*...), the practice of moving these behind-the-lines vehicles up
>into combat would cease immediately. So in Mr. Brown's case, his truck
>would have mysteriously gone up in flames, without benefiting him in any
>way, and he would have new respect for the idea that such assets need to
>be carefully protected, not sent off into the front lines.

Rude but effective. But then you'd have players complaining "why
my trucks went up in flames for no reason?" all over Usenet and your
support boards.

What I'd do:

- Give fairly high VP value to trucks
- Put empty truck recon ability to practically zero (making them
effectively blind) (which is realistic after all)
- Make Opportunity fire for defender selectable: OpFire vs Hard
targets (tanks) yes/no; OpFire vs Soft targets (infantry) yes/no;
OpFire vs. empty transports (trucks) yes/no. With selectable range at
which OpFire should be opened for any target type.
- How would defender AI "know" if the observed transport is
empty or full of infantry? Well, I'd make game cheat on this, so that
defending AI always "knows" if the truck is full or not.

Truck full => legit soft target => open fire => kill truck and
transporting infantry and score VPs for both
Truck empty => lame attempt at being gamey => trucks recon is
zero => hold fire; unless defending player chose setting that enables
opening fire on empty trucks; in that case => open fire => kill trucks
=> give VPs to defending player

This would eliminate described gamey tactics once for all.

O.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <oonq01568g316a35d1dgfnj4n0cj3e52hg@4ax.com>, oleg@bug.hr
says...

> >If I were designing a game, I would implement a rule that any unarmed /
> >unloaded carrier vehicle that came within the LOS (or X distance) of an
> >enemy unit would immediately explode, *without* revealing the presence
> >of any enemy units and *without* causing any enemy unit to expend
> >ammunition or time. Coupled with the fact that I would set quite high
> >VP values for trucks (they are important assets, and the Colonel is
> >going to bust you down to PFC if you *use his precious trucks as target
> >drones*...), the practice of moving these behind-the-lines vehicles up
> >into combat would cease immediately. So in Mr. Brown's case, his truck
> >would have mysteriously gone up in flames, without benefiting him in any
> >way, and he would have new respect for the idea that such assets need to
> >be carefully protected, not sent off into the front lines.
>
> Rude but effective. But then you'd have players complaining "why
> my trucks went up in flames for no reason?" all over Usenet and your
> support boards.

To these folks, I would cheerfully respond, "No reason? What an
appallingly stupid remark. Your trucks were destroyed for the most
flagrantly obvious reason imaginable; you ignorantly sent them into a
combat zone. Stop doing this incredibly idiotic thing, and they'll stop
exploding. Moron. See pages 232-254 in your manual. If you can read,
that is."

> What I'd do:
>
> - Give fairly high VP value to trucks
> - Put empty truck recon ability to practically zero (making them
> effectively blind) (which is realistic after all)

Yup. These two ideas practically eliminate the impetus to engage in a
little "truck recon.'

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <gvjPd.41608$2h5.24592@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
reckall@hotmail.com says...

> > (2) Have the trucks "disappear" if they come within range of an enemy
> > unit - without costing "shots" or revealing the enemy.
>
> I like this one: it solves the "recon truck" problem, but at the same time
> allows to the player to know that a certain area is "dangerous", since you
> sent vehicles there and they disappeared. Nature and strenght of the menace
> remain still unknown. And, if you send around trucks alone, sometimes they
> could disappear anyway, simulating mechanical breackdown, desertion, attacks
> by civilians or other unknows.

Including an issue that games almost never address; the fact that there
would be a great many soldiers - of both sides - wandering about some of
these battlefields, unattached to the formations carrying out the
operations the scenario depicts. Security, police, traffic control,
service troops, supply parties, ration parties ...

Games tend to assume that the battlefield is empty, except for the units
participating in the battle being modeled, so it's always safe to send
unescorted trucks rambling throughout the AO so long as they don't cross
into the area (almost always clearly known...) where the enemy is
deployed. In real life, force protection and security is a major
concern - and not just in areas like Iraq where no "conventional" enemy
formations are found.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <gvjPd.41608$2h5.24592@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > (2) Have the trucks "disappear" if they come within range of an enemy
> > unit - without costing "shots" or revealing the enemy.
>
> I like this one: it solves the "recon truck" problem, but at the same time
> allows to the player to know that a certain area is "dangerous", since you
> sent vehicles there and they disappeared. Nature and strenght of the menace
> remain still unknown. And, if you send around trucks alone, sometimes they
> could disappear anyway, simulating mechanical breackdown, desertion, attacks
> by civilians or other unknows.

I fall on the "what seems to be the problem?!" side of this fence.

The concept of "solving the recon truck problem" just doesn't make sense
to me -- what problem?! If I'm a ranking officer and I want to tell
someone "private, take this truck and go scout XYZ location and report
back", and he manages to do so without getting killed, that's good use
of forces/tactics, right?

A game-play problem might be the abstraction that a truck can "report
back" without having to return alive, but that's just "...and report by
radio everything you see."

People don't like to think about it, but sometimes a soldier's orders
are "go into this situation and die, so that the rest of us can live and
we can win the war." In a war game, as in war, the object is to win --
if you occasionally have to sacrifice units in order to win, so be it.

Nobody balks at me sending 10 infantry against your 8 infantry, even
though I have a pretty good idea that a few of my infantry are going to
die. Why do they balk at my sending a guy in a truck to recon?

When I was young, playing with plastic soldiers ("green men"), I "loaded
up a troop truck" with "cases of explosives". As it turned out, I was
at the top of a small rise, so my truck didn't even need a driver -- we
just rolled it down the hill into the enemy units, who opened fire and
blasted the bejebeeze out of said truck. My opponent (ok, "playmate" :)
was very upset, but I STILL think it was a brilliant strategy, as I was
behind, before this move.

Misc "Ok, you guys' job is to storm this beach and die taking out as
many guys as possible so that the people behind you can get to those
pillboxes and take those out."

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Perhaps the truck drivers should refuse to go, which is what would
happen if you ordered them to drive into the open to draw fire.

Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Misc-4A9260.09305112022005@individual.net>, Misc@*your-
shoes*PlayNaked.com says...

> > > (2) Have the trucks "disappear" if they come within range of an enemy
> > > unit - without costing "shots" or revealing the enemy.
> >
> > I like this one: it solves the "recon truck" problem, but at the same time
> > allows to the player to know that a certain area is "dangerous", since you
> > sent vehicles there and they disappeared. Nature and strenght of the menace
> > remain still unknown. And, if you send around trucks alone, sometimes they
> > could disappear anyway, simulating mechanical breackdown, desertion, attacks
> > by civilians or other unknows.
>
> I fall on the "what seems to be the problem?!" side of this fence.
>
> The concept of "solving the recon truck problem" just doesn't make sense
> to me -- what problem?! If I'm a ranking officer and I want to tell
> someone "private, take this truck and go scout XYZ location and report
> back", and he manages to do so without getting killed, that's good use
> of forces/tactics, right?

I agree; a player should be able to explore this tactic, but it should
work *realistically*. Which is to say, not at all.

First off, the truck probably isn't under your command in the first
place; it's an attached transport unit that belongs to a higher command.
So the truck drivers are going to tell you, "Sorry, sir, I'm under
orders from battalion, and The Old Man will have my ass if I don't haul
it back to the rear." So the truck never goes off on your spotting
mission.

Next, the truck driver knows precisely nothing about reconnaissance
work, hasn't got a radio, hasn't got a map, hasn't got <insert any of a
hundred other bits of skill and equipment that would make him even
marginally useful>. So even if he does go out, he finds nothing and has
no way to report his ignorance.

Finally, the least minion of the enemy kills your truck with the least
pugnacious weapon in his arsenal, so you never even find out what
happened to it.

> People don't like to think about it, but sometimes a soldier's orders
> are "go into this situation and die, so that the rest of us can live and
> we can win the war." In a war game, as in war, the object is to win --
> if you occasionally have to sacrifice units in order to win, so be it.

That's fine, but you're talking about a proper reconnaissance unit, not
a truck and driver.

I mean, come now; why would any army expend no small amount of effort
and treasure building and training specialized reconnaissance units if
they could just send out a deuce-and-a-half with a driver?

> Nobody balks at me sending 10 infantry against your 8 infantry, even
> though I have a pretty good idea that a few of my infantry are going to
> die. Why do they balk at my sending a guy in a truck to recon?

Because it won't work, and you'll get busted down to private if you try
it.

But the game should allow you to try it, it should just (a) not work,
and (b) take you a long way towards losing the scenario.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> The trouble is that we can all - off the top of our heads - think up a
> dozen strategies to deal with something like the "trucks" issue, none of
> which would affect the *proper* use of transport vehicles at all, and
> most of which would preclude their use as BIC Disposable Scout Cars:

Each of your solutions would work fine for some types of
scenarios/situations but not for others. Since most email to a developer is
a problem report, the "others" is what we seem to hear about the most. :)

Best regards, Major H.
tacops@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <BE337CDA.7D1EB%tacops@mac.com>, tacops@mac.com says...

> > The trouble is that we can all - off the top of our heads - think up a
> > dozen strategies to deal with something like the "trucks" issue, none of
> > which would affect the *proper* use of transport vehicles at all, and
> > most of which would preclude their use as BIC Disposable Scout Cars:
>
> Each of your solutions would work fine for some types of
> scenarios/situations but not for others.

I'm sure that's true, but when the alternative is players collecting and
dispatching Truck Recon Companies (or similar nonsense...), the cost of
doing nothing becomes prohibitive. And there's no particular reason
that a designer needs to limit himself to one or two of the possible
solutions; the best approach would probably be a blending of (a)
ensuring that trucks aren't "disposable" in a VP sense, (b) recognizing
that trucks are almost worthless spotters, and (c) representing trucks
appearing in a forward area as trivially destroyed at no cost to the
enemy.

The effect should be that the player is under the same constraints as
the real-world commander; his superiors will cashier him if he misuses
and loses their precious transport, the trucks are useless in any role
except hauling stuff, and the enemy will expend no significant resources
wiping them out anytime they have the opportunity.

If the designer does his job well, a player who uses Truck Recon
Companies will find himself with no useful information, a pile of dead
trucks, and his performance in action harshly criticized - precisely
like a real-world commander who tried the same thing.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> In the context of gamey tactics, the only aspect of HTTR that
admitted
> to exploit by the player was the abstraction of supply. But even
there,
> I'm not sure it was possible to systematically take advantage of that
in
> any meaningful way. It was just an unrealistic fudge that cut both
> ways.

Well, it probably takes a *really* twisted brain to come up with a
"gamey" tactic in COTA - so I guess it's no coincidence I came up with
one :)
I'm not going public with it, but I will award the title of "Battle
Bastard" to the first one to mention it here or on the COTA forum when
the game ships.

> HTTR was about the least gamey design I've seen so far. I'm
expecting
> COTA to be even better.

It is - a lot of effort is going into enhancing the engine both in
making it more realistic and in making it easier to manage. And the
scenario's are top - varied and beautifully designed - and devious 🙂.


> [And the list of scenarios posted a while back has me positively
> drooling; not only is my favorite wargame getting a new treatment,
but
> it's taking us to (arguably) the least-overdone theater of the war.]

My only worry here is - will Joe Wargamer follow - or does he *really*
only want yet another Normandy, Market/Garden or Bulge game.

I hope the change of scenery will attract those who want something new,
and the new engine as a whole will attract the old faithfull and get
some new recruits as well.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In message <Misc-4A9260.09305112022005@individual.net>, Miss Elaine Eos
<Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> writes
>In article <gvjPd.41608$2h5.24592@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> "Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > (2) Have the trucks "disappear" if they come within range of an enemy
>> > unit - without costing "shots" or revealing the enemy.
>>
>> I like this one: it solves the "recon truck" problem, but at the same time
>> allows to the player to know that a certain area is "dangerous", since you
>> sent vehicles there and they disappeared. Nature and strenght of the menace
>> remain still unknown. And, if you send around trucks alone, sometimes they
>> could disappear anyway, simulating mechanical breackdown, desertion, attacks
>> by civilians or other unknows.
>
>I fall on the "what seems to be the problem?!" side of this fence.
>
>The concept of "solving the recon truck problem" just doesn't make sense
>to me -- what problem?! If I'm a ranking officer and I want to tell
>someone "private, take this truck and go scout XYZ location and report
>back", and he manages to do so without getting killed, that's good use
>of forces/tactics, right?
>
>A game-play problem might be the abstraction that a truck can "report
>back" without having to return alive, but that's just "...and report by
>radio everything you see."
>
>People don't like to think about it, but sometimes a soldier's orders
>are "go into this situation and die, so that the rest of us can live and
>we can win the war." In a war game, as in war, the object is to win --
>if you occasionally have to sacrifice units in order to win, so be it.
>
But that is not what this debate is about. For a start, truck drivers
were not generally trained to the degree required to face almost certain
death, and certainly not to make accurate observations under fire. Of
course there will be occasions where you have to order troops into
highly dangerous situations, and conceivably this might even apply to a
truck driver ("Listen, we've got to get this A/T gun into position to
cover the road, just drive like hell and pray, son").
But the situation we have been discussing is sacrificing a no-longer
useful unit for a very minor advantage. In real life nobody says "OK,
son, we won't need to move that A/T gun again in this battle, so we
don't need you any more. Why don't you go and drive across that open
field and when you get blown up we might spot one of the German tanks".
I have to say I don't like the idea of the "disappearing truck" solution
- the big problem is that this still allows you to learn useful
information, the fact that this area is under enemy fire, at little
cost.
We need to ask what it is in real life that prevents this sort of thing
happening. Well, for a start, in real life the trucks WILL be needed
again, and in fact without them the unit will be seriously reduced in
effectiveness. And any officer who casually sacrificed a driver for some
trivial benefit would be regarded poorly both by his superiors and by
his subordinates. You can imagine in a campaign that you could reflect
these effects - if you lose your trucks then the A/T unit is unavailable
in the next battle, and useless sacrifice reduces your chances of
promotion and the morale of your troops. But in a single battle I would
say that all these effects are exactly the sort of things that VPs are
meant to reflect. They are an abstraction of how "well" you have done,
and a result which means your unit is unavailable, your men hate you and
your commander regards you with disdain s a poor result. So it seems to
me that the VP route is the one to use, though I don't deny Eddy's point
that we need to watch out for unintended consequences.
--
John Secker
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <algwmiJt$lDCFwaR@secker.demon.co.uk>,
John Secker <john@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >People don't like to think about it, but sometimes a soldier's orders
> >are "go into this situation and die, so that the rest of us can live and
> >we can win the war." In a war game, as in war, the object is to win --
> >if you occasionally have to sacrifice units in order to win, so be it.

> But that is not what this debate is about. For a start, truck drivers
> were not generally trained to the degree required to face almost certain
> death, and certainly not to make accurate observations under fire. Of

Kind of. In a war game where it is game-mechanically possible to do
this, then the designers have decided that truck-drivers have that
ability. You can cry "oversight!", but I think that it's not such
advanced game design that, if the designers wanted different units to
have different recon abilities, they could have specified that -- it
seems an intentional thing on their part.

I'm also struck by the fact that BOTH TEAMS have the ability to do this
-- it's not like it's an unfair advantage to one or the other. *PLUS*,
it's just plain Bad Strategic Planning(tm) on the part of the tank-group
commander to not take into account the fact that his group may be
blockaded by a single token. As an abstraction, an RL-general who
failed to take into account such simple defenses *SHOULD* lose the war!

> But the situation we have been discussing is sacrificing a no-longer
> useful unit for a very minor advantage.

I read the discussion to be "...to such a major advantage that it turns
the tide of the war/game" -- and that's exactly what I'm talking about.

> In real life nobody says "OK,
> son, we won't need to move that A/T gun again in this battle, so we
> don't need you any more. Why don't you go and drive across that open
> field and when you get blown up we might spot one of the German tanks".

No, they'd say "Soldier, get this tank to the other end of that field,
park it and get your ass back here pronto! MOVE IT, SOLDIER!" <G> A
kind & caring officer might add "...and don't get yourself killed --
that's an order! -- unless you want to be facing a court martial!" 😉
The military is not your typical office job, and War Is Not Pretty(tm).

> I have to say I don't like the idea of the "disappearing truck" solution
> - the big problem is that this still allows you to learn useful
> information, the fact that this area is under enemy fire, at little
> cost.

And yet, in a western, you'd think it clever if one guy put his hat on a
stick and waved it around the corner to see if anyone shot at it --
especially if it saved his life.

....Except, in a war-game, we're constantly hearing cries from the other
team "hey, I took great pains to hide in a good spot so I could shoot
that guy when he came around the corner, it's not fair that he gets to
find me out for the cost of a $4 Stetson..."

Remember that I started this with: I recognize that others feel
differently, but I fall on the "what's the big deal" side of this fence.
I'm not saying you and yours are wrong -- just that I don't like the
play that way. Maybe it's because I'm a sneaky & creative bastard at
hard, so I LIKE to use strategies that cost me little and get me an
advantage. <shrug> In fact, I like it so much, I like when my opponent
does a particularly clever play against me that is "sneaky and
underhanded" -- it's *WAR*, after all!

(For completeness: I don't like it that much when my opponent knows the
rules better than I do, and takes advantage of a loophole about which I
didn't know -- but if it's a clear case of "damn, I wish *I* would've
thought of that!" or "nicely played, I should've seen that coming", I
like it :)

> We need to ask what it is in real life that prevents this sort of thing
> happening. Well, for a start, in real life the trucks WILL be needed
> again, and in fact without them the unit will be seriously reduced in
> effectiveness.

If, in the game, the "cost is small", then the cost is small, and that's
that. If the designers wanted to make "...but you have to finish with X
unit-points, or you lose", they would've added that to the victory
conditions. Again, this isn't such a complicated concept that it's just
overlooked by the typical game-designers.

What *WOULD* be kind of fun is to play your typical war-game as a
"campaign". Say you build your starting units with 450 points, then
fight a battle. Next time you & that guy play, you start with your
ending units, plus 50 build-points. This is a house-rule, of course,
but sounds like it might push things in the direction you are getting at.

> And any officer who casually sacrificed a driver for some
> trivial benefit would be regarded poorly both by his superiors and by
> his subordinates.

Agreed. I thought the gripe was when it wins the war, or turns the tide
of the war/game. If the benefit is small, then who cares if the other
player wants to throw away units?!

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c7826ad475d176998a191@news-east.giganews.com>,
Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Nobody balks at me sending 10 infantry against your 8 infantry, even
> > though I have a pretty good idea that a few of my infantry are going to
> > die. Why do they balk at my sending a guy in a truck to recon?

> Because it won't work, and you'll get busted down to private if you try
> it.
>
> But the game should allow you to try it, it should just (a) not work,
> and (b) take you a long way towards losing the scenario.

Interestingly enough, not very many games are designed this way. I'm
going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason is that the
designers, after an awful lot of careful thought, decided that it
wouldn't be as much fun for enough people, and the company would lose
money.

My experience is that the people griping about such tactics are
typically the ones who lose to them. In fact, I can't recall ever
hearing [of] anyone say "you know, I really shouldn't be able to use
this strategy, but it's war, and you've got me over a barrel, and I want
to win, and this will do it for me, so..."

Meaning no offense, from this experience, I gather that the main
objectors to these kinds of strategies are those who would make poor
generals -- those who feel restricted by the "printed rules" and "inside
the box thinking", and who are unable to devise or foresee such
strategies and work them into their plans.

If your objection is "it's unrealistic" -- ok, I can go with that. So
you're playing an unrealistic game with weird abstractions. But that's
the game's fault, not that of your opponent who is creatively (and
sometimes brilliantly) playing within the rules. But then you have to
make the same objection about space-war games, too -- right? I mean,
traveling at warp speed to get to your opponent to then fire your photon
torpedos... give me a BREAK! Talk about "unrealistic"... 😉

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Misc-F5798D.09532913022005@individual.net>, Misc@*your-
shoes*PlayNaked.com says...

> > But that is not what this debate is about. For a start, truck drivers
> > were not generally trained to the degree required to face almost certain
> > death, and certainly not to make accurate observations under fire. Of
>
> Kind of. In a war game where it is game-mechanically possible to do
> this, then the designers have decided that truck-drivers have that
> ability. You can cry "oversight!", but I think that it's not such
> advanced game design that, if the designers wanted different units to
> have different recon abilities, they could have specified that -- it
> seems an intentional thing on their part.

Right. They decided to punt. But that doesn't mean that punting was
the right thing to do.

> I'm also struck by the fact that BOTH TEAMS have the ability to do this
> -- it's not like it's an unfair advantage to one or the other. *PLUS*,
> it's just plain Bad Strategic Planning(tm) on the part of the tank-group
> commander to not take into account the fact that his group may be
> blockaded by a single token.

Ah. So it's the player's fault if the game represents reality as a
single truck-counter holding up a Panzer Battalion for a whole turn -
instead of just being destroyed *en passant*?

> As an abstraction, an RL-general who
> failed to take into account such simple defenses *SHOULD* lose the war!

Real-life general don't have to take such "defenses" into account,
because they're not "defenses" at all - except in poorly-designed
wargames where you can do gamey things.

> > In real life nobody says "OK,
> > son, we won't need to move that A/T gun again in this battle, so we
> > don't need you any more. Why don't you go and drive across that open
> > field and when you get blown up we might spot one of the German tanks".
>
> No, they'd say "Soldier, get this tank to the other end of that field,
> park it and get your ass back here pronto! MOVE IT, SOLDIER!" <G> A
> kind & caring officer might add "...and don't get yourself killed --
> that's an order! -- unless you want to be facing a court martial!" 😉
> The military is not your typical office job, and War Is Not Pretty(tm).

What are you babbling about here?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Misc-3A5F3D.10010713022005@individual.net>, Misc@*your-
shoes*PlayNaked.com says...

> > > Nobody balks at me sending 10 infantry against your 8 infantry, even
> > > though I have a pretty good idea that a few of my infantry are going to
> > > die. Why do they balk at my sending a guy in a truck to recon?
>
> > Because it won't work, and you'll get busted down to private if you try
> > it.
> >
> > But the game should allow you to try it, it should just (a) not work,
> > and (b) take you a long way towards losing the scenario.
>
> Interestingly enough, not very many games are designed this way. I'm
> going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason is that the
> designers, after an awful lot of careful thought, decided that it
> wouldn't be as much fun for enough people, and the company would lose
> money.

My suspicion is that it's simple laziness; paying attention to these
issues means additional complexities and trouble for the programmer, and
they prefer to just ignore the whole issue.

> My experience is that the people griping about such tactics are
> typically the ones who lose to them.

<laughter>

Brilliant observation; the Click & Twitch Tank Rush Crowd *likes* gamey
bullshit.

> Meaning no offense, from this experience, I gather that the main
> objectors to these kinds of strategies are those who would make poor
> generals -- those who feel restricted by the "printed rules" and "inside
> the box thinking", and who are unable to devise or foresee such
> strategies and work them into their plans.

Nonsense. Wargames are supposed to model *reality* as it pertains to
combat operations. If wargames reward with victory fools who use
strategies and tactics that would swiftly result in defeat in the real
world, then they're not modeling reality, they're modeling bullshit.

I think your point here is that players who exploit badly-constructed
loopholes in games to wring a little unfair advantage are to be lauded
for their ignorance of appropriate tactics. In truth, while they might
wrest some minor, transitory advantage in badly-constructed simulations,
they're training themselves in all the wrong tactics, and they'll get
their heads handed to them again and again and again against players who
know what they're doing, in games that don't allow them their measure of
nonsense.


> If your objection is "it's unrealistic" -- ok, I can go with that.

Of course this is our objection; gamey tactics are *always* unrealistic.

> So
> you're playing an unrealistic game with weird abstractions. But that's
> the game's fault,

Exactly.

> not that of your opponent who is creatively (and
> sometimes brilliantly) playing within the rules.

If your only concern is a juvenile desire to "win," then by all means;
consider these gamey exploits "brilliant." But if you're interested in
wargaming as a tool for exploring history, strategy, and tactics, then
it's better to put such things in their proper perspective.

In other words, calling out "B-13" and having your enemy lament, "You
sunk my battleship!" might be personally and emotionally satisfying, but
it doesn't mean you're Raizo Tanaka.

> But then you have to
> make the same objection about space-war games, too -- right? I mean,
> traveling at warp speed to get to your opponent to then fire your photon
> torpedos... give me a BREAK! Talk about "unrealistic"... 😉

See: Kaufman Retrograde, Abolition Of In Tournament Play, STAR FLEET
BATTLES.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Long before a faculty lounge in Islamabad or Riyadh realizes it
can build a bomb alone and secretly, the same thought will have
occurred to individuals in Tel Aviv, New Delhi or Palo Alto.
Any Islamic group that believes it can attack New York deniably
should convince itself that no similar group can nuke Mecca at
the height of the pilgrim season."
- Wretchard, The Belmont Club
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c7968924484b5df98a194@news-east.giganews.com>,
Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > not that of your opponent who is creatively (and
> > sometimes brilliantly) playing within the rules.

> If your only concern is a juvenile desire to "win," then by all means;
> consider these gamey exploits "brilliant." But if you're interested in
> wargaming as a tool for exploring history, strategy, and tactics, then
> it's better to put such things in their proper perspective.

In a war game, the measure of how well one has explored strategy and
tactics (I'll concede history :) is whether or not one wins.

Every game has some flaw. The brilliant tactician/strategist is aware
of both the rules and the flaws/loopholes, and how they might be used by
the enemy, and factors that into his plan. The less-brilliant
tactician/strategist resorts to ad hom attacks ("juvenile desire to
'win'"?! ROFL!) when he is shown up by his superiors.

When playing a *GAME*, to use *GAMEY* tactics just makes sense (when
appropriate -- I mean, sometimes, they're useless.) Games come with set
of rules: you can do X, Y and Z, at cost N, M, and P and you can't A, B
or C. That's your universe. If you and your opponent want to agree
"let's also add these other restrictions", that's fine -- it's your game
and you should play how you find it fun -- but it strikes me as silly to
gripe that another "commander" (in the game), playing by the same rules
you played by, out-thought you by pulling "some cheap gamey trick."
That's just sour grapes and poor sportsmanship!

Is it "gamey tactics" to play loud rock & roll music outside your
intended captive's home until he caves in? I mean, that strategy would
never work on an army of American 20 yr olds -- it's really just taking
advantage of "a loophole in the system."

I call that "brilliant tactics."

You guys can be as purist as you want -- only making moves that were
actually made by some actual commander in some actual battle in history
-- that's cool by me. But I think it's ridiculous to suggest that
that's the only fun way to design a game. History is interesting, but
it's not *THAT* interesting, as to preclude other, more creatively
challenging, war-game types.

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> (b) recognizing
> that trucks are almost worthless spotters, and (c) representing trucks
> appearing in a forward area as trivially destroyed at no cost to the
> enemy.

OK for WWII. Not Ok for contemporary - i.e. Iraq today.

Best regards, Major H.
tacops@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom