NightGaunt

JasonC I see where you are trying to get with this. I don't think it works with a VP based game. Because VP based games are made to be "even" ie the points are structed so that the attacker/defender is realitively even, you end up with absurd amounts of casualties. the reason: the points are set to EVEN OUT the attacker/defender. If you want more "reasistic" levels of casualties in a game, I would recommend the following as a solution that works for me. 1. NO VP flags. 2. No force selection 3. 3rd party created scenario with the idea being meeting objectives. 4. 3rd party AAR to help decide the final "winner" of a battle. Basically, a 3rd party creates a battle, the forces don't have to be even or even close to even (one i played had 14,000 pt attack vs 1,300 pt defender), I played as defender and "won" how? well in that particualr battle, the attacker, playing germans, was tasked with breaking thru a town as quickly as possible while minimizing damage to his armored forces. He had a BN of mechanized inf, a BN of Recce units, and a BN of Armor, total of over 100 armored vehicles and a whole lot of infantry. I, as defender, had some AT guns, 1 coy of inf, and a green sherman. I was tasked with slowing him down as much as possible BUT I needed to preserve the AT guns and get them offmap. He had 1 main route out of heavy woods, along a road, and a minor route thru light woods off of that same road. Then it opened into some fields and finally the city. So he had limited approaches for his vehicles. The map was 2kmx2km. I was able to get almost my entire force off map, slowed him (he took 30 out of 40 turns) and did some decent damage, i got 2 tanks, a couple of ACs, and 6+ HTs, maybe a platoon of inf. After the 3rd party took into account the setup and awarded me a victory. Now, if he had taken maybe 30 turns, he probably would have got the victory because he accomplished clearing the map, he just took to long. hmm,this post ended up being long, sorry wasn't trying to preach, just give another idea.

please don't bring cmmc into this argument. This has been discussed to death in cmmc terms and doesn't need to be re addressed in yet another forum. There are plenty of people who agree with what you have stated. I on the other hand believe that although force preservation is a problem; the reasons you have listed are in the VAST minority. Especially reason #1. I have stated many times that the reason people exceed "realistic" (whatever that may be, it changes/battle) is they don't have the EXPIRIENCE and KNOWLEDGE when to withdraw. thats it, thats the main reason. I've witnessed probably 25-30 cmmc battles, and any time this question has come up it has been one side not RECOGNIZING their situation and REALIZING it is time to call it quits. also, i would put forth that the players that do have the exp/knowledge are the players that are having the most "success" in cmmc terms. Their units are still capable of effective combat operations where most players that don't have shambles left of their units. [ June 06, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

for the love of god don't bring cmmc into this argument. This has been discussed to death in cmmc terms and doesn't need to be re addressed in yet another forum. There are plenty of people who agree with what you have stated. I on the other hand believe that although force preservation is a problem; the reasons you have listed are in the VAST minority. Especially reason #1.

qb]

qb]

that is an impressive list. to: michael and larson BUG OFF!!! no one forced you to click on this thread, if you aren't intersted, skip it if it has FIONN in the title.

the most important thing posted on this thread was that it depends on the map. Explainations won't work without a visual reference. From seeing it, I know exactly how priest would tackle the situation suggested, and I know his tactics would probably work (nothing always works). But to try to explain it without seeing it is really a futile topic. Unfortunatly even a view 8 map would not suffice or I would paste one to work from, you really need to see the lay of the land to get the whole concept.

I have actually found that doing "dunkirk" is VERY powerful for the brits. against a human opponnet, the BEF moved to the NW corner city of france (brest?) I was able to hold onto the space for several turns for these reasons: 1. only 1 land unit can attack that spot 2. A brit navy can attack the spot where the german attacker HAS to attack from 3. I had 3 fighters, 2 brit 1 french that were able to provide air cover for the spot, thereby negating the german air attack. Although this has only been attempted once in my games, i don't see a solution for the german side, I would like to see what others have to say. btw, after destroying/heavily damaging 4 different german units, i withdrew the BEF, strength 4, to the british coast.

I am only stepping in to comment that Priest is very good at using tanks without much (any) infantry support. If you are interested in learning, he is someone who I would pay attention to. We have had several very good battles with tanks (his favorite) vs infantry (my favorite).

total fan boy, every day CM this, CM that. let me take you thru a day: 8:30am Priest calls "cm bla bla" 10:00am Prist calls "cmmc bla bla" 12:45pm Priest calls "cmbb bla bla" 3:00pm Priest calls "whats up" 8:00pm Priest calls "cmmc battle bla bla" 11:45pm Priest calls "denny's? oh yeah cmmc bla bla" 1:00am (at denny's) "cm bla bla forum bla bla"

I would like to suggest donating some maps from CMMC. There are some truly spectacular maps modelled on real terrain that may be worthy of such a competition.

So, you basically tell me that for subs to be effective you destroy the British fleet with them? That is not even close to realistic or believable. I don't believe subs are useless, I do believe they are poorly modeled. They are way to powerful vs surface ships, with a full strength sub you can do 6 points of damage easily against a surface fleet. If the surface fleet is 5-7 capital ships and another 15-20 smaller ships, you have just sunk 12 out of 20-25 vessels, a bit high i think. Especially considering it was usually a solo combat vessel sunk, not a fleet of combat vessels attacked by submarines. that enables them to be used as you suggest, which is as surface combat vessels, you are challenging your opponent to destroy them, not using them as strategic weapons. Big difference. subs were strategic weapons, not head on combat vessels, and as they are modelled now, cannot be used that way. [ May 31, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

FIONN: [edit] I will get my email address to you shortly. Happy to hear you have a backlog, I will have time to shake the rust off JASONC: This thread really shows what sort of debater, and I use that term loosely, you are. Frankly I am very thankful that people of your calibur are few and far between on this forum. It is obvious you don't subscribe to the theory, probably because you don't have the awareness to recognize and understand what is being stated. That is fine, it is good to DEBATE a subject you do not subscribe to. However if I was interested in reading rants and personal attacks, I would go to a less intelligent forum. And with that, i depart this thread. I'm sure you will come up with some smart reply. Rest assured I will read it, but will not respond. [ May 31, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

the key to all the people supporting the current sub state is they are playing the AI. Against a human opponent, subs get smashed pretty quickly. There are a couple of problems with subs: 1. Too strong against surface fleets, just too much damage. When people can put out a list of capital ships subs sank and it is only 8-10 names long, it tells me subs were NOT effective against capital ships. 2. unable to move thru enemy units. This prevents subs from basing in Norway/Germany, where they actually based in the war. 3. to easy to destroy because they are easily located, then surrounded and destroyed. I have no problem with the mmp damage they do, in fact I think it is perfect, the problem is a human opponent will easily hunt down and destroy subs. I want to use them as a strategic weapon they were intended to be, that can not be done effectively right now.