Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510
I have an interesting recipe from a farmer that deals with soaking said game in condensed milk overnight, then frying.... he claims the "gamey" taste is completely gone...need to try it this fall.

Friend of mine, next door, gave me a bag of 16 pheasant breasts after one of his hunts. Finally defrosted them and marinated them in a decent Port (Fonseca, Bin 27), garlic, onion, bay leaves and cardomom. Will slow grill half, and serve with wild rice, greens and an Italian salad. Other half, I'll slow smoke to 80% done and give to folks hereabouts.

Had pheasant back in Cali that were marinated in Port and they were good. Also like pheasant straight up. Like dove straight up. Like wild duck straight up. Like damn near anything ya shoot, straight up, except for big mammals; deer and goats, and such ought to hang for two days, moose and bears ought to hang for four days. After that, marinade makes it tender and pulls the gaminess out. There's a reason the Germans invented sauerbraten; and why God invented wine/vinegar and onions and piquant spices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

jmalter... you apparently don't understand the reason for some of the house rules.

Level bombers have proven to be far more accurate against shipping in the game than they were in real life, if flown at optimum bombing altitude (7-8K). Thus many of us prefer to limit the big boys to 10k or higher in order to have the hit percentage reflect the actual situation better.

If a player were to paradrop just a couple of squads of troops onto his opponent's retreat route, he can force the surrender of an army of any size that is forced to retreat into the hex with those few squads of paratroops. Does it seem realistic to you that, say, twenty men could prevent the retreat and force the surrender of an army of, say, 250,000 men?

These are two of your examples that I wanted to show you why many folks have written house rules to cover. You might not feel that there is anything wrong with using those tactics. Fine... just be sure that you let any prospective PBEM opponent know how you feel before starting up a game. This way you will be able to find a compatible opponent and are less likely to having a falling out with him...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Steve... you might note that my post never once used the term "gamey". Instead I pointed out reasons for a couple of the house rules to which the previous poster had objected.

I noticed the first issue early on in UV and started limiting the altitudes at which my level bombers could perform naval attacks in order not to slaughter the AI's shipping too early. I do temper my own rules: B24s must stay above 10k on naval attack, PB4Ys don't have to being that they were navy crews and their doctrine was for lower level attacks. If this starts to prove too accurate, then PB4Ys will start flying higher...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

seems to me that 'gamey' is a pejorative that's thrown out against any unusual tactic that's unexpectedly successful, & that the folks who throw the 'gamey' card usually reinforce their argument by stating that the tactic is 'ahistorical'. I just can't buy that.

Let's remember that we're playing a game, & while the context of the game is delimited by the historical situation (including initial production capabilities & automatic reinforcements), the game-play that evolves between players is limited only by the use each player makes of his available options (as defined by the game-engine).

Presumably, every player is playing 'to win', he'll want to maximize his available options in order to inflict damage on his foe, while avoiding damage to his own forces. Every player must do his best to achieve that result *within the context of the game simulation*, using the tools that the game-system allows him to use. Similarly, each player must defend against imaginative or unusual enemy tactics to his best ability, *within the context of the game simulation*.

If I was playing some kinda Madden EA game & learned that i could score by throwing to Tyrell Owens on every play, that's what i'd do. If i was defending against TO & needed to double-team him on every play to prevent an automatic touchdown, well i'm gonna go w/ that. Is either tactic 'gamey', or is it the best choice i can make to maximize my chances to win?

I've read about a lot of options that are posited as req'ments for AE PBEM play, house-rules such as 'no 4E NavAttack below 10K', no 'para-frags', no 2ndary PH attacks, LRCAP only at high altitude, whatever. It all seems to me that folks aren't wanting to step up & play the game 'as written', that they want to save themselves some trouble & only play the game on terms that they feel are advantageous to their own style of play, rather than risk their game to an opponent who's got full freedom of action.

IIRC, WWII in the PTO became a 'total war' situation, each side was committed to inflicting maximum hurt on the enemy. Given the option, they would've paid no attention to 'historical' constraints on splitting/resizing airgroups - so why should we as virtual re-enactors?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

If a player were to paradrop just a couple of squads of troops onto his opponent's retreat route, he can force the surrender of an army of any size that is forced to retreat into the hex with those few squads of paratroops. Does it seem realistic to you that, say, twenty men could prevent the retreat and force the surrender of an army of, say, 250,000 men?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Terms like "parafrags" are exactly the sort of sloppy terminology displaying sloppy logic which I'm speaking to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The only solution to me is to play the game as coded. If that code includes changes made in the editor, fine, so long as this is known and agreed to. But picking and choosing one's history is, as you say, ultimately about one side wanting an advantage the devs didn't give them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

seems to me that 'gamey' is a pejorative that's thrown out against any unusual tactic that's unexpectedly successful, & that the folks who throw the 'gamey' card usually reinforce their argument by stating that the tactic is 'ahistorical'. I just can't buy that.

Presumably, every player is playing 'to win', he'll want to maximize his available options in order to inflict damage on his foe, while avoiding damage to his own forces. Every player must do his best to achieve that result *within the context of the game simulation*, using the tools that the game-system allows him to use. Similarly, each player must defend against imaginative or unusual enemy tactics to his best ability, *within the context of the game simulation*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Terms like "parafrags" are exactly the sort of sloppy terminology displaying sloppy logic which I'm speaking to.

[sigh]...No, Bullwinkle, most PBEM gamers understand what this term means-splitting a parachute regiment into large multiples of small penny packet attackers in order to capture multiple untended objectives in short order. Usually single digits (sometimes only AV=1 or 2) will suffice for this technique.

You may not like the term as being imprecise, but use of common parlance does not suggest 'sloppy logic', mate. Then again, this may not be common parlance for you, as this practice does not seem to be used by the computer AI much.

Paratroops useage in some circumstances are a potential problem with the game engine. Dumping a few squads of paratroops onto a hex that your ground LCUs are also attacking that turn give additional die benefits. Perhaps this has been corrected in the latest official patch, dunno. Rationalizing how this is *not* a problem in realistic gameplay is sloppy logic.

Thakfully, mercifully, limiting the problems attendant with 'parafrags' does not presuppose that I be a lawyer. It does presuppose open communication re: expectations with human partners. Again, this may not be an issue for an AI player, but it is and has been for those of us preferring PBEMs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Terms like "parafrags" are exactly the sort of sloppy terminology displaying sloppy logic which I'm speaking to.

[sigh]...No, Bullwinkle, most PBEM gamers understand what this term means-splitting a parachute regiment into large multiples of small penny packet attackers in order to capture multiple untended objectives in short order. Usually single digits (sometimes only AV=1 or 2) will suffice for this technique.

You may not like the term as being imprecise, but use of common parlance does not suggest 'sloppy logic', mate. Then again, this may not be common parlance for you, as this practice does not seem to be used by the computer AI much.

Paratroops useage in some circumstances are a potential problem with the game engine. Dumping a few squads of paratroops onto a hex that your ground LCUs are also attacking that turn give additional die benefits. Perhaps this has been corrected in the latest official patch, dunno. Rationalizing how this is *not* a problem in realistic gameplay is sloppy logic.

Thakfully, mercifully, limiting the problems attendant with 'parafrags' does not presuppose that I be a lawyer. It does presuppose open communication re: expectations with human partners. Again, this may not be an issue for an AI player, but it is and has been for those of us preferring PBEMs.

Ah, so another backhanded slap at AI players? Par. You got polling results from the PBEM community?

quote:


Look, instead of dodging the quesiton, confront it. "Most PBEM players" is yet MORE sloppy terminology, and you're hiding behind it.

quote:


Go this way. Drop "frag" anything; it's imprecise. (So is "quirks" as used elsewhere in this thread.) I'll give you the whole damn regiment. Is THAT enough to stop 250,000 retreating troops, you know, "historically"? Where did this happen?

Or, forget paras. If I sneak/march a regiment-sized anything in behind you is that "fair"? Is it "historical"? Or is cutting supply lines 40-miles away just not cricket, old man?

Is a whole division enough to stop those quarter-million crazed runners? How big a division? What if it's a division which is only at 70% of TOE? The questions, once you leave the code, never end. Maybe "most" PBEM players give up arguing, or maybe they don't care, or maybe they're afraid if they express their true "What the frick!?" their true-blue PBEM guy will stomp off. I don't know. I don't have polling.

quote:


Any defense of HRs which rests on "Well, everybody who's anybody just KNOWS" reeks of nose-in-the-air eliteism. Everybody DOESN'T "just know" or there wouldn't be hundreds, yes hundreds, of threads in this forum asking "Is this gamey?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

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.  

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.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Again, you fail to grapple with the basic issue.

I'm done here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle 58

Again, you fail to grapple with the basic issue.

I'm done here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

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.  

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.

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

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

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!