Jump to content
Baneman

CM Final Blitzkrieg - AXIS (Attack) BETA Battle Report

Recommended Posts

The ceasefire in my opinion just means that the losing side runs away and the winning side takes their positions and supplies.  It's more about saving the victor the misery of conducting a mop-up operation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree, yes I even protest against this attitude. Just play a huge battle against an attacker with lots of artillery and men. Make it to survive very well. Stop the attack with your artillery and when you are about to start the counter attack and have best chances to wipe him off the map, he offers a ceasefire! Good sportsmanship to accept? BS!

This attitude to offer ceasefires and if they are not accepted to surrender and stop the game should be outlawed. There is lots to learn in all phases of the game. And one has not the right to go away, if things look bad. A game has a finite duration and it should be played until it ends.

If you are talking about sportsmanship: IMO a ceasefire should only be offered by the winning side, never by the losing one.

Carl, looks like you and I are destined never to meet in a PBEM game then, and that's too bad because I respect some of the things you have done for the game.  But I refuse to play people who demand to play to the last whether they are winning or losing (and I've seen both)... there comes a point where the end result is obvious and continuing the game has nothing to offer other than stroking the winning side's ego.  This is why I prefer to play ex- or serving military, they have the same attitude, almost to a man as I do.

I suggested the cease fire for sure as I saw that there was no way I could win this one and continuing would not add much to the story.  I did everything I could to ensure that Baneman got a victory, I moved off of all the objective locations to make sure I received no points and made sure my units could not fire on his (to the best of my ability).  If this doesn't satisfy your blood lust, well...   

Edited by Bil Hardenberger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ceasefire in my opinion just means that the losing side runs away and the winning side takes their positions and supplies.  It's more about saving the victor the misery of conducting a mop-up operation.  

Is more or less where I stand.

Also, in real life, we might want to let the Americans pull out unmolested - we're happy to take our objectives, no one wants to die chasing a Jackson that's leaving anyway. This isn't Blitzkrieg... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bil and Baneman for this really exciting AAR. As most here I first thought Baneman will never win this, but it was like often in real life, the unexpected happend.

 

But what do we do now until this game is released?

Popel_zpskm47gvuz.png

Edited by hank24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Baneman!
Big Kitty was hit only once, wasn't it? So even without it, you would have fared well.

And last but not least a praise to the programmers. No crash although it's beta only.
I must say, that I am extremely impressed how solid CM is. So far I had not a single crash. No matter how big the maps are or how many units, or how much action or how the camera is moved or how big PBEM-fiules are. This thing is incredibly solid. In a time where more and more products are released unfinsished and buggy I think this deserves a big praise.

very true.  I know there are folks who have issues regarding FPS etc and not to take away from that discussion, but yeah I never get a crash either.  So much so that I just take it for granted and don't notice till I am on some other game and it freezes up etc.

Regarding ceasefires etc.  I think I see your point.  If I were in a battle that I had struggled really hard and survived an attack, was about ready to try a counterattack and my opponent suddenly said.. well that didn't work, I'm done.  Yeah I think I'd be a little frustrated.  I tend however to follow ken's attitude.  I'll continue a scenario long after I think it has tipped past the decision point if my opponent wants to.  I had one recently that went several weeks after it had hit that point.  My opponent apparently wanted to see if he could still cause some damage and it was potentially possible.  I offered the ceasefire and it was just a matter of him deciding when things had run it's course to accept. However I have limited time to actually play so spending more of it in a battle that is still undecided is more appealing than the period afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played a couple of scenarios to the last man, but it was because my opponent was very new to CM games and he had no idea one could cease fire or surrender. 

I agree with both Bil and Ken. I'll respect a request for ceasefire right away, because to me that is a "this isn't fun any more" indicator from my opponent, but where we both wish to gauge success that was achieved thus far. I have also surrendered where it was clear I was utterly smashed and we didn't want to assess the score by playing for days to mop up and get his men on my objectives. 

Now and then, I, and some of my opponents, have agreed to continue long after a battle is decided because we wished to explore some unit or tactic, but the purpose of the play then was education, so I think that is an exception to the things Bil for instance, mentioned.

do understand the frustration of spending hours to buy, deploy and play, only to have ones opponent quit abruptly. 

What I've learned is this: that happens pretty rarely. The people I keep coming back to play again and again don't waste my time quitting without a satisfying challenge and a substantial investment of time of their own. They don't treat my effort lightly, and I don't theirs lightly either. Which makes the use of ceasefire (and more rarely surrender) appropriate and realistic, in my view. 

Edited by Bud_B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baneman,

  Thanks so much for posting this exceptional battle.  It was fun from the very beginning seeing all the screen shots and the map. 

  Your gamble at choosing Big Kitty paid off, although, as you yourself said, it could have bogged on turn one and then who knows what might have happened.

  It was an extraordinary showcase for a product that I am wishing I had my hands on right now.  Seeing the action unfold just made me realize how anxious I was to play it myself.

  Thanks for all your hard work and dedication putting this together for our enjoyment.  It's all good!!!

Heinrich505

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is more or less where I stand.

Also, in real life, we might want to let the Americans pull out unmolested - we're happy to take our objectives, no one wants to die chasing a Jackson that's leaving anyway. This isn't Blitzkrieg... :unsure:

Same here. It seems realistic that Bil's remaining units would fall back beyond the current map and link up with other units to form a new line, etc.

Simply hanging around to be slaughtered is not realistic -- especially for western Allied units. If you could get away and fight another day, you would. If you couldn't, you would surrender.

Of course, there were situations where US/CW troops were expected to fight until they could no longer do so (usually when ammo ran out), but those were pretty rare and this scenario wasn't meant to be one of them.

Edited by Macisle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This battle was so much fun because Bil took a risk. If he had chosen to defend Baneman perhaps would have lost his Panthers and probably his Jagdtiger in a pretty early stage of the battle and it wouldn't have been nearly as enjoyable as it has been now.  I must admit I'm a lot more enthusiastic about the coming release because of this AAR. And that is exactly the goal of it. Mission accomplished for both gentlemen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do actually really enjoy playing to the end even when I'm losing.  It's just that most people aren't game for it, and to me that is fine.  Gaming is collaborative.  I've come to accept that after being a bit of a dick for some years.  Not everyone enjoys getting dragged along the floor as much as I do.  I quit when I can no longer offer up functional resistance, but I think a lot of people quit before that point.  There was a great game I was playing recently w/ CM:RT where as soon as I crossed that river and blew up one Stug on that first mission my opponent basically threw up the white flag.  That sucked to me after all the planning to cross the river, but I get that time is a resource. 

Either way this is have been a fun diversion between now and XCOM 2 

Edited by simon21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carl, looks like you and I are destined never to meet in a PBEM game then, and that's too bad because I respect some of the things you have done for the game.  But I refuse to play people who demand to play to the last whether they are winning or losing (and I've seen both)... there comes a point where the end result is obvious and continuing the game has nothing to offer other than stroking the winning side's ego.  This is why I prefer to play ex- or serving military, they have the same attitude, almost to a man as I do.

I suggested the cease fire for sure as I saw that there was no way I could win this one and continuing would not add much to the story.  I did everything I could to ensure that Baneman got a victory, I moved off of all the objective locations to make sure I received no points and made sure my units could not fire on his (to the best of my ability).  If this doesn't satisfy your blood lust, well...   

I totally agree. My pal and I are both vets, and we cease fire if it becomes completely obvious... I realistically call this a "Tactical Retreat from the battlefield" of sorts.  We have fun.. no harm done, and we start up a new game whenever possible.

 

Semper Fi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding ceasefires etc.  I think I see your point.  If I were in a battle that I had struggled really hard and survived an attack, was about ready to try a counterattack and my opponent suddenly said.. well that didn't work, I'm done.  Yeah I think I'd be a little frustrated.  I tend however to follow ken's attitude.  I'll continue a scenario long after I think it has tipped past the decision point if my opponent wants to.  I had one recently that went several weeks after it had hit that point.  My opponent apparently wanted to see if he could still cause some damage and it was potentially possible.  I offered the ceasefire and it was just a matter of him deciding when things had run it's course to accept. However I have limited time to actually play so spending more of it in a battle that is still undecided is more appealing than the period afterwards.

Well nuanced. I think CarlWAW wanted to have this splendid AAR (both sides) continue much longer :-D

As for this battle; while discussing from the armchair in the spoiler thread I suspected Bill would 'concede defeat' when the Jumbo's were doomed. With just the 2 M36's left the actual battle was, for all intents and purposes, over. Plus it's not that Baneman had to suffer through a boring experience or was withheld victory.

Any chances for a quick rematch? Bill still has a white whale to hunt ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is more or less where I stand.

Also, in real life, we might want to let the Americans pull out unmolested - we're happy to take our objectives, no one wants to die chasing a Jackson that's leaving anyway. This isn't Blitzkrieg... :unsure:

IT'S THE FINAL BLITZKRIEG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clausewitz said the fruit of victory is in the pursuit.

I think it's fun to let the victor play on for a while after the balance has swung in their favour. It isn't fun as a player, but it can be the most spectacular part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, don't worry, after that last post, I have realised there is no such person as "SLIM".

That account is just a sockpuppet for c3k :P  :lol:

Sock puppet, me? No.

I will admit c3k's excessive enthusiasm has rubbed off on me somewhat, but I still think I had a fair point.

When fighting a scenario outside of a campaign, casualties are essentially meaningless so long as one secures a victory.

It would be interesting to read an AAR from a battle that has a Force Preservation objective, and see if that has an effect on a player's tactics.

For example, if Bil had a 'Preserve 50% of your force' objective this battle would have been extremely different.

Congratulations on your victory. Many people had written you off for dead before the fight even started, but I had hope, and my faith was rewarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could not agree more about pursuit in principle. Once you have conducted a mop up a few times its becomes "been there - done that" and it's probably best to move on to another tactical situation where gaming time is spent in a more competitive manner. Would be nice to transfer those endgames over to play vs the AI however. But that's a another ball of wax.

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with Bil on this one.  If the exact outcome had an impact on a follow-on battle than I think it should be played out to the last man retreats,  But since this is a single battle game continuing beyond the obvious outcome is nothing more than a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

It would be interesting to read an AAR from a battle that has a Force Preservation objective, and see if that has an effect on a player's tactics.

For example, if Bil had a 'Preserve 50% of your force' objective this battle would have been extremely different.

Congratulations on your victory. Many people had written you off for dead before the fight even started, but I had hope, and my faith was rewarded.

Tthanks, I think I had myself written off for dead too, after Bil's first armoured push :o

Luckily, the troops pulled their commander's nuts out of the fire. Go Veteran Panther !

 

A force-preservation-objective battle would be interesting, I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×