QB points preference

[Vinci]

Have tried various things. Depends also on how much time you want to invest.

If you want some quick joy - a 500 pointer against the AI at 25-30 turns on a small-medium map is fun for a game of a couple of hours.

I have tried a 5000 pointer 60 turns huge map. Basicall breaks down into many sperate battles and I do not like the omniscience bit, where all untis know everything about the whole front.

My preferred type at the moment is a 1500 pointer against opponent on a medium map with 60 turns and a gentlemans rule to activate ceasefire option when morale drops below 65%. This gives you a reinforced company force on a map size that conceivable would allow units to be sufficiently close to eachother to be coordinated very closely (as you are able to in cmbo). The 60 turns (=1 hour of game time) just says you can take the time you want - rush if you need to, prepare slowly if you want to - depends on your strategy.

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

65% Ceasefire. Now that IS a good idea. Thinking out of the box. Begs 2 questions:

1) Why as high as 65%? My pref would be 40 or 50, so I'm just interested in the consequences of 65. How does it change the way you play?

2) It would be a nice feature in CM3, along with being able to tweak other things just for fun, so you could make sharpshooters supereffective, or change flag values to like 600 points, or make one unit count as the game so it has to be protected, whatever.

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

forgot to contribute, so:

I like either 1250-1500 pt QB's large map, 75 rules, 40 turns. 40 means you can take your time to recon a bit, as you need to on a large map. ammo is quite an issue. Modest hills and moderate trees allow a lot of sneaking about out of sight. Troops would not be rushed around blindly in real life, and 40 turns lets you be careful with them. Also, it allows the battle to have distinct stages. The 1500 pointer gives you 3 tanks each, which is the minimum I'd want otherwise each one has to be husbanded just too carefully. ME's only now, as I reckon the attacker's bonus is too high.

The other way I'll play is on a double-blind scenario, so there's trust that the opponent won't look at your OOB and reinforcement schedule. The maps are just way better than QB's. Try looking at reviews where more than just one or two people have rated it as even.

"Vossenack- a second job", is the closest-matched I have seen. get it at Der Kessel.

South of sword, off the CD, is almost right. I screwed it up playing as the Germans, and felt slightly underchanged, but it was a blast, about 4000 points each I reckon. At the end I think I'll count the points to see if I was just rubbish!

Anyone got any recommendations? I need to start a new one soon, and I do fancy a scenario, preferably not an attack/defend one.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Peaveyyyyyyyy:

forgot to contribute, so:

I like either 1250-1500 pt QB's large map, 75 rules, 40 turns. 40 means you can take your time to recon a bit, as you need to on a large map. ammo is quite an issue. Modest hills and moderate trees allow a lot of sneaking about out of sight. Troops would not be rushed around blindly in real life, and 40 turns lets you be careful with them. Also, it allows the battle to have distinct stages. The 1500 pointer gives you 3 tanks each, which is the minimum I'd want otherwise each one has to be husbanded just too carefully. ME's only now, as I reckon the attacker's bonus is too high.

The other way I'll play is on a double-blind scenario, so there's trust that the opponent won't look at your OOB and reinforcement schedule. The maps are just way better than QB's. Try looking at reviews where more than just one or two people have rated it as even.

"Vossenack- a second job", is the closest-matched I have seen. get it at Der Kessel.

South of sword, off the CD, is almost right. I screwed it up playing as the Germans, and felt slightly underchanged, but it was a blast, about 4000 points each I reckon. At the end I think I'll count the points to see if I was just rubbish!

Anyone got any recommendations? I need to start a new one soon, and I do fancy a scenario, preferably not an attack/defend one.<hr></blockquote>

I think anything over 3000 pts is too much. I tried a 5000 point battle on a large map myself and it was just as someone else said, a lot of little battles strung together. There was no sense in that winning one of the battles was going to make a difference in the others as the battles took place so far away from each other. By the time you win one on one side of the map, it's too late to get those units over to the other side of the map to reinforce your other forces. Add to that the responsibility to guard the flag you won in that battle with some of those troops so it's not re-taken. If you're gonna do a 5000 pt battle, do it on a small map which is still very large. This might allow more synergy between all the little battles.

[Vinci]

the 65% ceasefire idea came in discussion with a friend of mine - we were both concerned at the fact that untis just kept on fighting till they disintegrated.

We felt that after losses of 1/3rd most commanders would call it a day (there are exceptions of course and if you want to picture particularly fanatic troops you might indeed want to lower the limit to 50% or less).

What it does, it makes people very aware of losses and attrition. So approaches are planned more carefully (reckless recon & running out in the open is seldom seen). Pull backs to safer places/cover are considered more quickly. Artillery preparation (if available) is highly sought after.

It also shortens the game - the mopping up end game does not occur (which is not my favourite part anyway, and avoids the hidden crew popping up to claim the flag syndrome).

I have tried it a few times now and find it appealing.

[phil stanbridge]

Vanir, sorry, we're at cross purposes. Of course, you are right in saying it's a 5000 point battle, but what I meant was how many physical points you get if you select attacker advantage. Maximum is 22500.

Colonel_Deadmarsh, I think it depends a lot on your tactics and battle type as to whether or not it is too much. For example, although the map would be huge, you could always concentrate your forces in one area? Would this not be an option? I do find that on huge maps, it is physically very difficult to 'manage' your forces because of the map size. I'm wondering if CMBB may approach this differently, taking into account some of the maps may be a lot bigger.