Is this "gamey"?

[FM WarB]

I'm still learning the game. I was playing Americans in 1775 alt scenario against the AI, mainly to get an idea of recruitment patterns, and not doing much with leaders to help it. The Brits held Boston and went on to take New York and Philly in 1776. They were running amok in the south, where I was paying little attention, but didnt take Charlestown. (At least Francis Marion doesnt come on in New England, like he does in For Liberty.)

As I was sort of playing, I decided to swing around to the Portsmouth area incase I had a shot at recapturing Boston. Lo and behold, that shot came in January 1777. I swooped in there, and much to my joy was rewarded with four fresh continental regiments as reinforcements.

Is it gamey to time attacks to take advantage of knowing reinforcement times?

[orca]

Do you mean "is it gamey to take advantage of the fact that you know that levies arrive in January and June"? If so I would think not.

On the other hand I think it is gamey to take advantage of specific reinforcement events (Ticonderoga guns etc.)

[Korrigan]

IMHO, to take control of a city because you'll know you'll get some reinforcement from it is not gamey. Not more than attacking Albany if you are French because you'll know it will trigger the Iroquois alliance. You're just following the historical impetus.


However, once in a PBEM as the British in the Montcalm campaign, I sent a single american militia to take control of the three Point region in order to prevent a event creating Fort Carillon in it. THIS was gamey. Because I knew the historical events better than my oppoent, I knew when this event would launch and why. And I knew this event will not be tested later when my milita would have run back to Fort Henry.