Removing units from the map

[Crossroads]

IMO, I'll take my lumps and a defeat when an opponent employs superior tactics... and essentially "out plays" me. But I'll be darned if I'm going to take a defeat because he "games" the system by using "transport spotters / blockers," or halftrack fodder. :smoke:

In all the games I have played the ones I remember negatively are those that exemplify the above.
Nothing sucks the fun out of the game than that. :chin:



HSL

I see it entirely feasible, in a real battle field, that some one would order a guy with a radio to jump in a truck, and tell him to drive to a distant junction or whatever, with instructions to call in arty if he spots any movement in certain possibly pre-plotted locations.

Indirect by map, they did it even those days you know ;) Let alone pre-plot... "I see movement at charlie-II, call in a barrage!"

But I fully realise I have gone a step too far by stating the above :bow:

Edit: no, I do not use trucks for spotting. But if they would spot a "?" from their safe hiding place, artillery it is :)

Edit2: Chuck10mtn, I'm with you !!!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I see it entirely feasible, in a real battle field, that some one would order a guy with a radio to jump in a truck, and tell him to drive to a distant junction or whatever, with instructions to call in arty if he spots any movement in certain possibly pre-plotted locations.

Remind me to discuss "use of trucks" ROE's if I am ever privileged to play you? :chin:

Indirect by map, they did it even those days you know ;) Let alone pre-plot... "I see movement at charlie-II, call in a barrage!"

Most truck drivers do this? Hardly. You'll have to show me where it is recorded to prove they did.

But I fully realise I have gone a step too far by stating the above

You said it ... even so? :conf:

Edit: no, I do not use trucks for spotting. But if they would spot a "?" from their safe hiding place, artillery it is

Yup. Unless you drove behind enemy lines to get into that spotting position. It would then be gamey, indeed. :(

To each his own?



HSL

[Glint]

Methinks we are getting away from the debate and the original question here guys?
The posts are now turning to a discussion of peoples' tactics, gamey or not. The original discussion was about ROEs re the blitz. We all know now who prefers to set out ROEs and who plays without, regardless of tactics and who are in the middle path. I think we are entering into a debate now of ' my interpretation is right, yours is wrong' ? - none of which is gonna be productive and we know where these discussions can lead eh? lol!

[Kool Kat]

Gents: :smoke:

I've had my "say" on ROE.

It has been an interesting debate!

Peace out!

[Chuck10mtn]

I think it comes down to a matter of playing for fun !!! who cares what happens, win or lose having fun is the most important thing. And those who play to win, win at all costs and if it wasn't spesficly spelled out its not a rule. I play to have fun look at my record, and to me it really doesn't matter what tatic you use, as long as you have fun. Block hexes use trucks to spot if winning is that important to you then do all that. To me its just not that important, have fun and enjoy the game for what it is A GAME and no more,people are reading a lot more into this than need be. Have fun people, just have fun !!!

Chuck

Chuck:

Hopefully, most players do play CS for "fun" and relaxation? :chin:

But at the same time... and I only speak for myself... I like to win! :eek1:

Therefore, when I'm playing against an opponent, I want the match to be as "fair" and "balanced" as possible... both in the scenario design (e.g. between equally skilled players, either side may win)... AND that both players are leveraging the same tactic "kit bag"... and in the same manner.

So... using your example of trucks / transport being utilized as spotters by one player... but your opponent thinks it is "gamey" and refuses to do the same... the player using "transport spotters" now has an advantage in the match.

Just because a specific "tactic" is possible in CS does not make it right, fair, or desirable... even in the name of "fun."

IMO, I'll take my lumps and a defeat when an opponent employs superior tactics... and essentially "out plays" me. But I'll be darned if I'm going to take a defeat because he "games" the system by using "transport spotters / blockers," or halftrack fodder. :smoke:

Kool Kat,
Then you play that way, do you think that every commander lost because he was defeated by a superior commander !!! Luck my friend, it played a huge roll in WWII. You cannot have every possable scenario covered by the game. People did outragous thing in the name of victory. A lot of things were crazy but worked the game rules don't cover all the possabilities because you can't concieve every option that might have been used. Do I use trucks for spotting, no do I use trucks for blocking a hex, no. Do I think that if it came to a differance between winning and losing the war would either or any side have done it for real Hell yes !!! Its not used here because maps are not forever, there is a time limit un-like in the real WWII.
Using your example of him using trucks to spot, I finish the game let him report it and don't play him again. When it gets down to I have to have a lawyer read the ROE's before I play a person, thanks anyway I'll pass. Smile and have fun Kool Kat lifes way to short to worry about what your winning percentage is.

Chuck

[Crossroads]

Remind me to discuss "use of trucks" ROE's if I am ever privileged to play you? :chin:

Exactly. When first reading this thread I realised the ROE issue has been playing at the back of my head, just as the Save Counter had. "Am I allowed to exit empty transports?" "What if he gets upset?"

Erik had a good summary at the Poll thread, I was looking for a written confirmation like his to get this issue sorted out in my head.

I would be priviledged to play you. What I've seen I believe our views of how to enjoy this game are not that far apart :)

You said it ... even so? :conf:

Yes. There was already a consensus on the thread about each person having different interpretetations about fair play. My comment was aimed at showing how, with this abstraction level, almost everything can be explained for the good or for the worse. But you already had implied you feel strongly about the issue so I really should not have written about it. Sorry.

Yup. Unless you drove behind enemy lines to get into that spotting position. It would then be gamey, indeed. :(

To each his own?



HSL

I do not :) This has been a good discussion, I will now try to follow Erik's advice and use the time to play a scenario instead

Thanks everyone for great comments and discussion. Do live long and prosper!

[Crossroads]

To wrap up on my behalf, I would like to depart with the words of the Great Hawk:

1: If there are no ROE's stated then none are in play. Everything goes.

2: Other than cheating the Blitz has no ROE's regarding game play.

3: If you are better than your oppoent you will beat him the majority of the time no matter what tactics he uses.

4: For every "gamey" tactic there is an answer. Go find it.

5: If you play me please spot with your trucks and lead with your halftracks. You will lose.

6: Enough hand wringing. Go play.

Hawk's Law § 1 was what I was after with my yes/no question.

Next, I will follow Hawk's Law § 6 and try to spend a bit less time on this forum and more on the battles I have going on!

Edit: Perhaps someone should do a sticky of his reply. The Hawk's Law As We Know It.

[Scud]

I feel a little like the guy who arrives late to the party and all the beer is gone.

~sigh

Dave

[Kool Kat]

I feel a little like the guy who arrives late to the party and all the beer is gone.

~sigh

Dave

Hi Dave:

Yep... it was a good one! :smoke:

(Hands Dave a broom)

Want to help clean up the mess? :whis: