Power Gaming

[Tiger505]

I have been thinking about what I play every week and what affects the choices I make. I have seen an interesting pattern show up among the lists I play and how power gamy I get accused of being. The more I build to a lists strength the cheesier I get called. The more the list suits my style of play the more cheese Meister chants I hear. I have to say at times it bugs me and at others it doesn't. I will admit the Goliath stuff I toyed around with was bad and abusive using a broken rule set but I don't feel I really use Cheese type lists. I like to think I am a very good list builder and have a decent grasp of tactics in the game but I honestly try to avoid a list I feel is to broken. There are a few reasons I try to avoid them. First, I feel that most lists that are true Cheese are off balance and with the good comes a flaw I always see. Second, I rarely like the units that can produce such cheese lists as honestly I feel 75% of the abusive rules are allied =p. Third, I will not use an army that I call cheese not if I really mean it unless I am actually in a tourney or you ASK FOR IT! The biggest handicap I have making army lists is that I have yet to make one I couldn't see the weakness in as I did it. What that means is I expect to lose because I EXPECT you to see the same weakness. I know I have heard it said that we need to use normal German units stop using the elites or the Tigers but that causes a problem. As a German I have to accept I will lose the arty duel, I will lose the air war, I most likely am outnumbered in all types of models, and that most units I have that actually work were also rare in the real war. History will give any allied player all the justification they need to run just about every toy they had aside form a few soviet units. History also shows us that the regular German units got them self blown to hell all the time vs those self same regular Allied units because of the Air, Arty, and numbers. Its not normal for me to complain but it has been eating at me a bit. I know of two people now who literally will not play me and that bothers me because I don't like seeing my friends get upset because of how I play a game. The war was an arms race, this game is also an arms race if we do tournaments. I have no issue playing normal Germans or even swapping to the allied side to play some days. But if I am going to run normal Germans I would love to know I wont be seeing the very allied units that my elites keep in check with the justification of how common they where in real life.

[scoutsout]

Wow...how do you respond to a thread like this? This is the 800lb gorilla in the room of FOW. As I see it there are two things going on here. One is the list and the other is the style of play.

Addressing the first. This game is points based and thus rewards the min-maxer (power gamer if you will). There is no disincentive to not take the best units. Armies are always equal in points so if you take a less powerful unit you do so for flavor because by doing so you give advantage to your opponent. This is NOT historical. This game is NOT historical. We could call your Tiger tanks Bolo Mark XXXIV's and my Shermans Grav tanks and it wouldn't change a thing in terms of play.

The TO&E's, ratings, and game mechanics are all designed to vaguely give the flavor of WWII, but in reality don't do a very good job of it, often distorting how it was. If we want to be truthful, Warren, the game sucks as a history device once you get past the painting.

The fact that every game is played to the same points total on random terrain means that it's never going to be true to history. Since when does an attacker attack at even odds? When does a commander get to CHOOSE his troops? When does Army, Corps, or Division give you Carte Blanche access to their assets?

Even scenario play doesn't work very well, as evidenced by the Market-Garden Campaign we started running. The rules are open to abuse, the forces misrated, the scenarios unsuitable. What I thought would be a fun change of pace rapidly became a beating that players had to endure.

Can we fix this? I doubt it..I've been complaining for two years now and we can't ever seem to find what fixes it. Each successive book release has simply made it worse. Don't sweat this part. It is what it is.

On the second point, play style. What makes you such a good player also makes you tough to swallow sometimes. Warren, you know I love you like a brother so don't be hurt by any of what I'm about to write. As a matter of fact you've heard me say it before.

You don't play a game for fun. You defeat an opponent for fun. There's a difference. The most fun you have in a game is when the opponent is helpless and you are dissecting his army (while humming that atrocious song). For you there's no beauty in the game play, in the execution of a move, in how a game table maneuver mirrors reality. Those things don't mean much to you. Taking your Tigers and stuffing them down the other guys throat till he chokes and him having limited options to deal with you? That's what makes you feel good at the game table. It's why you enjoy tournaments so much.

You are hard on your opponents for this very reason. You have a superb grasp of the rules, an almost intuitive feel for how units should be used and for how army lists hang together. You make destroying your opponents seem ridiculously easy. And here's where that causes the problem.

People who play games have an ego. They want to win. And to feel powerless week after week tears at one's ego. That, I believe, is what is happening. Sure the list gets blamed but see #1 above for that commentary. When that doesn't salve the hurt, the busted ego calls you a rules lawyer. When that doesn't work they blame the game. The reality is that they just have trouble getting ground into the dirt week after week.

Playing you can be painful Warren. Because you're so d**ned good. Even when I win against you I feel like I've lost. There are no clean wins against you. Even when you're losing you act like you're winning. That's who you are..and what makes you a superior player. That also rubs some folks the wrong way.

Everyone responds differently to that kind of pressure. My head gets red and I kick chairs. I complain about everything because you MAKE ME WORK FOR A WIN. And I hate it. I would rather have an easy pushover victory by minimizing what my opponent can do and dissecting him. Sound familiar? Yeah...and I hate that about me. I feel like I'm a sore loser. But I come back every week and play. Because you make me a better player. Plus you'll put up with me and my quirks. Someone else might deal with it by wanting you to tell them they're a good player or that their hairbrained idea is a good one, even when they lose to you over and over. Others may want you to play a substandard list until they have a grasp of the game, showing them the fallacy of their lists with a lesser force and forcing them to admit that some things just don't work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this. Yes you have some folks that have decided not to play you based on How you Play and the Lists you Bring. Fine. Don't play them. But don't let it bother you either. They are the ones missing out on learning from how to beat you. Their issues are their issues, not yours. If you want to play with those people, you'll need to consider what it takes for their ego to continue to function, not just yours. If you don't care, then don't worry about it and move on. There's no need for this thread in that case.

Major Mac- Proud owner of a pile of burning Shermans and a rather lengthy list of letters to write home.

[firsttofight]

Tiger 505,
Dude, dont let this stuff get to you. i dont think your list are 'cheese', you just copy them out of the books. every one else can do the same. the bad part is, a game that has a festung co w/ bunkers vs a sturmgrenadier w/ trenches cant be much fun at all.
gamers need to bring either a company built to always attack, always defend, or with balance to do both.
i feel the bigest problem with the game is 'rolling dice' decides everything. roll for senario, roll for terrain in senario, roll for attacker/defender, roll to see who goes first, 6's to range in, 6's to hit, bad rolls for saves or firing, etc... rolling to resolve battle, not a problem, rolling open feilds for terrain with infantry, BAD. same for dense woods and villages for tanks. even with two companies that are the same, if you play a game other than FFA or ENC, one will have to defend. this can put you at a disadvantage. sometimes a gamble with a company fails.
i think that the designers designed companies from the same handbook to play each other. if the average player came in with a FOW army box, he would be DESTROYED. historians play army; gamers destroy armies! ha ha I build my companies with a particular plan in mind also. my three biggest problems are as follows from most importance to least 1) must know the rules by heart, 2) play lots of games (against anyone) to gain experience, & 3) i build my companies with balance.
i admit, I LOVE TO WATCH TIGER505 PLAY!! and its a little fun watching the oponents sqwirm. i have only played you once last year. i dont think you had fun playing a rookie. no challenge at all. you could beat me with a FOW army box! ha ha
like i said, dont worry and have fun! maybe we could see you play buthrakaur this sunday. ive never seen him play. --Alan

[cephian]

So I recreate my account and this is the first thread I read!

Tiger I know we haven't known each other long but if I may? Do not take what I'm about to say to heart. I mean I'm still one of the new guys so I know I'm still learning. Your game knowledge is great and I've learned a lot from both you and everyone else. While your knowledge of rules is solid, no one can expect to remember everything. I feel that you learn things well by repetition and from that you've grasped a solid concept of the game, partly because you've been playing games like this for a while (i.e. WH40K). When your knowledge of the rules is corrected you start said reptition to make sure you keep the corrected rule in your head and not how you originally may have translated it or as in my case, learned it from someone else.

So that said, I know I like to taunt you on Sunday about your lists, specially since I've been the "vicitm" of a solid list you've put together. While "I" might feel the list is broken or cheese, remember it's just one fool's (me in this case) opinion. I say 'cheese' you blush, so I say "cheese" even more to see how it affects you. However in person you take what I say very well. So if I say something to you in public that rubs you in a way you're not comfy with, pull me aside and let me know. Then you can tell me I have to play you again and beat me into submission like you're capabile of doing. Unless it's your brits of course ;-)

[Tiger505]

There is a big difference in calling someone cheesy as a joke and when it gets serious. I don't mind being teased because heck I dish it out all the time. I just don't want this gorilla to grow and mess up what I consider the best gaming group I have had the privilege to play in.

[cephian]

wouldn't be the first time I had a monkey on my back.. :-p

[60buick]

I have to say Warren. I enjoy playing you for a few reasons.

The first is I learn more every game. Like never give up critical ground. True you talked me out of the right move with your body language and cackle but I learned.

The second is I gain experience and a better understanding of the rules with every game. I do think the list you bring are cheesy but that is what you will see at a tourney. If you bring a plain list every game and I win 50% of the time I will go up against some nasty stuff at the next tourney and get my A handed to me in a sac. I am playing the best player with some nasty German list and when I go to the tourney I have a pleasant surprise, nasty list and average players. My first tourney I expected to lose all three. I did very well against the German list not losing a single platoon, and I destroyed my most feared list a Russian tank hoard. I only lost to you. You are the only opponent I do not want to play at any tourney, its certain death.

I think the cheesiness I see is from BEING AN ALLIED PLAYER. I get one platoon of easy to kill 76mm Sherman's and the Germans get an unkillable ghost Panther (and you use it), I get an unarmed observer plane and you get more cheap bunkers and LOTS of trenches, and the list just keeps going. The Germans had some really good stuff during the war compared to the Allies vanilla equipment. The game is broken because the allies had so much vanilla equipment they could out flank and outnumber the Germans, the allied points cost is to high to replicate it. The veteran troops are way over priced as are the tanks. The big arty is to expensive and fragile. the Superior air power the US had is not replicated because the planes in the game are useless if there is so much as 1 dedicated anti air platoon.




Typical game against your Tigers. I'm not kidding.


Turn one
Me: Artillery barrage- kill nothing
You: Tigers kill all arty.Your 10 point anti air half tracks shoot down all p-47s You cackle.


Turn Two
Me: Sherman's advance to try to flank Tigers
You: Tigers long range kill one platoon of Sherman's and cripple a second. Your 10 point anti air half tracks shoot down all p-47s You cackle.


Turn three
Me: remaining Sherman's hide in cover Infantry start to pray
You: Tigers split up killing last of the Sherman's and you now start to run over infantry or as you put it "grind them under your tracks". You make tank noises while doing this. The engineers Bazookas and tank assault 3 have no effect, they all die. Your 10 point anti air half tracks shoot down all p-47s You cackle like a girlscout.

Turn Four
Me: I call it a night, you do not. I make a last ditch move.
You: could take the open objective but feel breaking the army is more fun so your Tigers kill all other units including the Stuarts that were minding there own business. Your 10 point anti air half tracks shoot down all p-47s You cackle....a lot

[threadhead]

Wow....a little harsh. If memory serves me correctly, I played Warren when he had his Festung company and it was a fun game. And, quite frankly, I don't consider a Tiger list to be either power gaming or cheesy.

And if he is killing your artillery on turn one and the Shermans cannot get on the flank, then there may not be enough terrain on the Board or you need to use more cover and concealment during placement and movement.

And don't short sell US forces - especially Vet infantry. There is a huge difference between vet and confident. You can always hit trained infantry on a six unless you also have a 1 shot weapon and move. You can never hit a Vet infantry over 16 if it is concealed and GTG unless you have recon within 16.

I have played against lists with Tigers, Panthers, Brumbars, Stugs, and Mark IVs and the list had stood up well. This may sound strange, but I believe that a Tiger company against a Vet US infantry company that is defending may actually be at a disadvantage.

This is my German year, but if I was playing US infantry - they would be Vets. Just my humble opinion.....

Larry