Was "gamey" 1v1=2v1? Russian players thought it was not and exploited the rule to death as has been posted on thread after thread before it was findly nerfed.
CV is an abstraction. Go to a nearby army base and ask a division commander what his 'CV' is.
The idea that 2v1 is enough to dislodge someone is just a rule set decision (why not 3v1?) to try and create play balance.
1v1 was instituted because in order to facilitate the Barbarossa blitzkrieg the Soviets were weak as kittens. To try and play balance their ability to mass and strike back, but still permit the blitzkrieg, the 1v1 rule was created. When it was discovered, through play testing, to be an overcompensation it was limited, again to improve play balance.
There's nothing sacred about 2v1 or 1v1 or 1000v1. These are just game rules intended to produce a desired (and plausible) outcome.
Was gamey muling? I came forward with that long before it was finaly nerfed in AAR after AAR. I even play tested it vs Flaviusx long before it was nerfed.
Is "muling" switching units between HQs to chain HQBUs? If HQBUs are limited by rule, and you look for a way to circumvent that rule, that strikes me as a text book example of an exploit. I hold the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. If you're devoting your energy to getting around the spirit of the rules instead of playing within the spirit of the rules, why have rules? To see who is the best lawyer?
Was gamey spam bombing air bases
I don't know enough about its efficacy to comment accurately. Is spam bombing exploiting an aspect of the air war game engine to achieve a specific result. Tell me what you think 'spam bombing' is, what is accomplishes, and why it accomplishes this and I can better answer your question (if you're looking for an answer).
Seminole or is spam bombing a single hex over and over before conducting a ground assault
Perhaps in the same sense that the prelude to Operation Cobra was gamey. But really neither side in the east could mount a similar air campaign. I think the marginal utility of additional air attacks should be lessened. In my view the shock and disruption of the 2nd or 3rd airstrike should be more than the 28th, 29th, etc.
or is using the LW's bombers as transports instead of bombers for 95% of the game "gamey"?
To what extent was this accomplished in the war?
I know in Desert Storm the U.S. airlifted a large fuel depot in behind Iraqi lines to refuel the 'left hook', but did the LW do things like this in the war? Could they? My thought is the air supply was meant to allow for situations like the resupply of the Stalingrad pocket, not to create an aerial Red Ball Express. I grok flying supplies in to surrounded troops (and agree with those who think the game engine is too harsh on the CV of pocketed units), but could Goering's LW actually do what some German players do with the game engine?
Is gamey the Lvov pocket?
I think so. It's really just exploiting the IgoUgo aspect of the game engine. The whole notion of a 'scripted' first turn for the Germans is kind of farcical. They had done a lot of recon, but even they were surprised how many Russians they kept running into. The 20/20 foresight Germans players enter the first turn with amplifies the IgoUgo issue.
Road to Moscow was a game design to try and ameliorate this, but it never hit the shelves.
The 'Rumanian Activation' aspect is part of why Lvov is gamey.
For me at this point the game doesn't really start until after turn 2 when the soviets can finally move whatever is left of the Red Army. The German player is essentially playing the AI before that.
Is gamey running for the hills as russian player?
If Barclay was a gamey Scot, then yes. Otherwise it is a strategy, not new to Russia, that a player operating with the hindsight of history is utilizing. No more or less gamey than redistributing Pz Corps to emphasize AGN or AGS. I think the game was created for people to try different strategies than those historically employed.
Is gamey railing forward some russian factories so they can be captured by germans to save on supplies gamey(Flaviusx)?
Yeah, I think it is. It's really people trying to tweak the production system when the designers explicitly didn't include that feature in the game. I try to move back every factory that I reasonably can, and that's why I don't 'run for the hills'.
Is gamey building wall after wall of forts? I am and others can go on and on with gamey tactics, loopholes ect ect.
I don't think that is gamey. Rules have been tweaked to try and play balance them, but I don't mind players exploring different strategies in this regard. Hitler was always annoyed his generals in the East seemed to constantly be looking over their shoulder at a shorter line just behind them, but his WWI experience also caused him to rely to greatly on fortifications with such lines in the West. You should read Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East, I think you'd enjoy his take on the 'Bunker Fuhrer', and wasted opportunities.
I have come forward with allot of things in the past only to be ignored or scorned by "one side" when this game came out long ago and most of these things have been nerfed now.
Coming forward with something thats in the rules is not a discovery, was the misuse of 1v1=2v1 a discovery? No and No.
If something is printed in black and white its hardly a revelation, its there by design.
The issue isn't whether it is there, it is whether it is being used as envisioned, or being exploited in a manner not initially conceived to confer an advantage not considered. I think a reasonable person can tell the difference.
I think you can tell the difference.
I think that is why it touched a nerve.
I'm interested in making a better game. MichaelT is obviously interested in making a better game.
What are you interested in?
< Message edited by Seminole -- 7/10/2012 4:53:33 PM >