Col Deadmarsh

Yes Fuzz, this is what was proposed. The attacker knows beforehand that he only needs to "clear the area" on the hill to obtain the vl and then he can move on. Headquarters says this position doesn't need to be garrisoned. But...if the defender sneaks back to claim the vl, the vl points go back to the defender. This would make the attacker think twice about leaving the vl, even though he's been given the freedom to do just that. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

You're right, that IS gamey! So much so, if I was in that position, I would've walked out of the game. Hard to dispute that sort of play. Tom said: Exactly. You have to be a better general while playing with the Allies. Meaning you can't just pick the largest hill in your rear area and stick a big tank there. You're gonna have to do some manuevering around the battlefield to obtain your best chance for success against that German Ubertank. By the way, I'm in agreement on a bidding system if that's what it takes to even things out even though I haven't observed a problem with the game yet. 3 of my 4 losses have been with using the Germans so I don't see what you people see. Now since Germanboy thinks I talk out of my ass, I'm gonna bring up some points here that he or others can address on how to deal with Ubertanks inparticular. The SMG platoon gaminess and others can be debated in another thread. I would like comments on the following: If your opponent uses an Ubertank that you can not match up against with another tank, you have the following choices: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>You use heavy arty to take out his Ubertank.<LI>You use smoke to advance infantry and AT teams towards the Ubertank to obtain a side or rear shot on it.<LI>If you're on a medium or large map, and you are the Allies (which you probably are if you're up against this problem) you flank the beast with faster vehicles to 1)get the Ubertank to turn around to expose it's side and rear to your tanks that have stayed back and 2)to obtain a side or rear shot with your advancing armor if the Ubertank does not turn around.<LI>You simply go where the Ubertank cannot target you. In detail, you attack his forces that the Ubertank cannot protect, making him fight you without his "Queen Piece" or making him move the Ubertank to engage you, thereby causing him to forfeit his desired position for that tank. Okay Grogs, go at it. I haven't even brought up the fact that using dense terrain would eliminate the effectiveness of the Ubertank. I just want to hear your comments on the above tactics and why you think they will or won't work in this situation. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. [This message has been edited by Colonel_Deadmarsh (edited 03-23-2001).]

This coming from someone who's every post is worded as if it's written in stone and handed down by the Lord himself.... I think we need a "stick it up your ass" smiley in this forum so I can put it to good use on people like yourself. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

I'd bet the only people screaming gamey here are the grogs who play the technicians and find out the techs have bought their favorite heavy tanks. Only the grogs do not come prepared for this, not because they didn't expect it, but because they could not bring themselves to pick such ahistorical units. The smart thing for the grog to do would've been to bring some heavy arty or some fast tanks with powerful guns that could've flanked the Ubertanks. But of course that goes against their religion and so they don't do it, and then they lose and cry gamey. If you are worried about having to go up against this sort of force and must abide by these historical rules, then simply order up a QB with a lot of trees and houses to hide behind. Problem solved. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Name that tune! Sorry, couldn't resist. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Maybe what's needed here is a new handicap field where you can type in whatever value of a bonus you think a certain side should get. You want Allies to have 5% more points on a meeting map, no problem--simply type it in. As it is right now, you can only grant more points to an attacker and the values given are very broad. Why can't you simply type in your own value for ANY battle be it attack or meeting? If a player was granted more points as Allies, I'm sure more people would be willing to take them instead. We did this playing Close Combat 2. The Allied infantry didn't carry the AT weapons like the Germans did which was extremely important in that game because you only had so many slots to work with. Therefore, taking another AT team to make up for this as the Allies meant one less slot for a tank. Therefore, Allies were always given more points in battles so people would be willing to use them instead of the Germs. I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the use of dense terrain to prevent the so- called "Ubertank Problem." ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Interesting. After reading this and what Jason had to say, I'm flabbergasted. I had no idea there was so much disparity in units or how a "gaminess" exists in troop selection. Still though, the topic I started was how to combat the Ubertanks by using terrain that eliminates the strength of those tanks which is "distance." All I've heard so far was how the Germans have better units per dollar spent and how some players have "stock purchases" because they have figured out what works the best, even within different nationalities. You might be right about this stuff. Maybe there's nothing that can be done about players using SMG squads instead of rifle troops and disparities in unit pricing but that isn't what the topic is about. We've spun some sub-topics off the main one and people have basically lost focus of my main point. I'll assume that what you guys say is true if we can move on and talk about one issue--"How to deal with the Ubertank." I still say that by using a scenario with the right parameters (read my first post), this Ubertank problem will go away. After all, who would take a bunch of heavy tanks on a map with heavy trees? ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Croda said: If your opponent has 2 KT's in a town, he will have very limited firing lanes. So, you simply go where he cannot fire. This could mean attacking the outside of the town with assault guns and moving in your infantry till you get within range of the beasts with your AT teams...or flanking the town to make your opponent split up his troops to deal with the situation whereby he'd also have to move his big tanks. After all, there'd be no reason to keep those positions if you're not gonna come that way. Sure, your opponent might be able to grab a desirable spot where he is hull down with some nice firing lanes but the counter to this is simple: you go where he isn't. Make him move the tank by going somewhere else, even if it's not your first choice of a route to take into town. Of course this is assuming you are playing with the parameters I described above which is at the very least: modest trees, modest hills, and a village setting. Having heavy trees or a town setting only makes it harder for big tanks because you take away their strength, which is distance between them and you. Let's also not forget about heavy arty and smoke as weapons against Ubertanks. Let's take the worst-case scenario here: Your opponent has heavy tanks on a hill overlooking most of the map. What do you do? Well, if you were smart, you would either A)Get rid of the tank or B)Block the tank's lines of sight. If you have heavy arty, this is the time to use it. If you don't, you use a mortar team or some light arty to place a wall of smoke in front of it to block it's view as you move towards better cover where you can either flank it or get close enough with some armor that has a big gun so you can get a shot at close range. I played one battle against a guy recently where we had these huge hills overlooking a valley in the center. He was Allies and conducting a probe. I took a Panther and put it on the biggest hill I had. I could literally fire almost anywhere onto the valley below which was the only route he had to get to the flags. It seemed like a hopeless situation for him. So, what did he do? Well, he didn't take any heavy arty but he did take a couple of 80mm off-board arty teams and by using them together, he created smoke screens in front of that Panther every time he needed it to move his men forward to the vls. I was powerless to stop him and after a few turns, he had AT teams below the ridge that my tank was on and so I had no choice but to move it so it wouldn't get killed. He had taken what was a seemingly hopeless situation and turned it around. I had spent all these points on a big tank, had the best spot on the map to put my toy, and yet he rendered it useless. The great thing about your opponent having superior LOS like that is that for every point on the map that his Ubertank has sight on, your arty teams have the same spots to him. At least one of those spots is sure to have some woods or a building around it where you can sneak an arty team in to order down some smoke to block the tank's view of the field. After that, it's up to you to hit the tank from it's sides/rear or avoid it completely which makes your opponent have to move it from it's favorable position to have a chance at hitting you. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Abbott, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I just went over to T-House to check my records and it says I have 3 wins and 4 losses. This is also what it says when you do a player search on me. Next to your name is my loss to you. So, maybe you could tell me what the hell you're talking about? Also, I am not an "officer" there. I used to help out with CC2 conducting interviews with players and such so when you say things like this and how I influence my rankings, it pisses me off. By the way, this is the 2nd or 3rd thread today where you've insulted me. I'm starting to think you're the one with the vendetta... ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Abbott, I'm not sure how you misinterpreted my post but I was not being sarcastic or anything like that. Maybe I gotta start using those smileys more. I was simply trying to take a problem you mentioned that other people have also mentioned before, and start a new subject about it. I'd like to know what other people do to combat this supposed problem with Ubertanks on the map. I've noticed that I never have this problem when playing and it's probably due to the fact that I don't play the flat land maps. So, I just thought I'd throw this out for discussion. That's all. By the way, I was wrong before when I alluded to your cheating. It was my first game and I was confused about something which led me to believe the worst. So no, I don't hold a grudge against you. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

This subject was started in another thread but I figured it should have it's own thread so I'm taking Abbott's original comments with my response and making it more public. What I suggest below seems like an obvious cure for what seems to be a constant complaint by players of the game. I'm interested in hearing what parameters the CM players use the most and what they do to combat the use of heavy tanks by the opposition. I'd also like to know if anybody out there has standards they use when starting a new battle so as to eliminate the aforementioned problem and give each opponent the most options when choosing their unit selection. Originally posted by Abbott: ...I think it's funny when someone like yourself brings up these "gamey" issues as if there is a problem with this. The way I see it, you get what you pay for. The units are very well priced in this game. There doesn't seem to be any glaring disparity between a unit's assets and it's price. Therefore, each unit will have it's strength and weakness and it's up to the opposition to exploit those weaknesses. Supposed "gamey" tactics should easily be stopped by simply choosing to play on a map that will allow for the most amount of options for each player. Now, I can understand if you are playing on a flat map, that would limit each side's choices. That's why I never play on farmland or rural unless I'm looking for an all-out tank battle (which I hardly ever am.) By playing the standard village, modest trees, modest hills QB you have pretty much eliminated all of the potential problems you listed above concerning Ubertank dominance. Even with only a few small hills and some decent cover using trees or houses, a player's options are wide open for what strategy they wish to use. Taking Pershings, Jumbo's, KT's, and JT's is not necessarily a good idea--in fact, it might just be a bad idea once surveying the land after purchase. Now, maybe you feel limited by using this way of setting up a map. I myself, don't. I have come over from CC2 where we made great scenarios using the same damn map every time with only having the power to change the deploy. By simply changing where each player sets up, we made each battle a unique one. Upon coming here, us CC players looked at this element of the game and thought we were in heaven. To have the creative freedom to make a map from scratch is almost unbelievable. So when I play a QB, and each map is different every time, I for one don't feel restrained by using the standard "Village-Modest" settings every time I play. Back to my point though...what this provides to the recreational player is a full range of possibilities while practically eliminating the supposed problem of Ubertanks taking over a battle. Forget about the historical accuracy of what the recreational players's unit selection would be and give me your analysis on whether or not this doesn't rid us of the "Ubertank Dominance" problem that so many people here seem to complain about. I realize this isn't an innovative solution. It seems to be a given to me so I'm wondering why it's not used more often. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

See Abbott, those of us who don't have a PHD in WWII history with an emphasis in the ground war look at what you wrote and say, "Uh...so?" I'm not putting down the grogs. In fact, I'd love to learn more about what units were used at what times and in what groups and how often these units were available. I think it would be fun to play something like this one time. I'd also like to try out Fionn's Short 75 Rule too. Still, I think it's funny when someone like yourself brings up these "gamey" issues as if there is a problem with this. The way I see it, you get what you pay for. The units are very well priced in this game. There doesn't seem to be any glaring disparity between a unit's assets and it's price. Therefore, each unit will have it's strength and weakness and it's up to the opposition to exploit those weaknesses. Supposed "gamey" tactics should easily be stopped by simply choosing to play on a map that will allow for the most amount of options for each player. Now, I can understand if you are playing on a flat map, that would limit each side's choices. That's why I never play on farmland or rural unless I'm looking for an all-out tank battle (which I hardly ever am.) By playing the standard village, modest trees, modest hills QB you have pretty much eliminated all of the potential problems you listed above concerning Ubertank dominance. Even with only a few small hills and some decent cover using trees or houses, a player's options are wide open for what strategy they wish to use. Taking Pershings, Jumbo's, KT's, and JT's is not necessarily a good idea--in fact, it might just be a bad idea once surveying the land after purchase. Now, maybe you feel limited by using this way of setting up a map. I myself, don't. I have come over from CC2 where we made great scenarios using the same damn map every time with only having the power to change the deploy. By simply changing where each player sets up, we made each battle a unique one. Upon coming here, us CC players looked at this element of the game and thought we were in heaven. To have the creative freedom to make a map from scratch is almost unbelievable. So when I play a QB, and each map is different every time, I for one don't feel restrained by using the standard "Village-Modest" settings every time I play. Back to my point though...what this provides to the recreational player is a full range of possibilities while practically eliminating the supposed problem of Ubertanks taking over a battle. Forget about the historical accuracy of what the recreational players's unit selection would be and give me your analysis on whether or not this doesn't rid us of the "Ubertank Dominance" problem that so many people here seem to complain about. I realize this isn't an innovative solution. It seems to be a given to me so I'm wondering why it's not used more often. In addition to your comments on this, could you explain to me the problems you find with the Glider squads being used, the "bum-rush" German SMG platoons, and the massive Flak guns used in games with your opponents. I've only played a handful of games so far and all my opponents have used what seemed to me to be non-gamey tactics including their unit selection. Please explain these above terms you used and why they are used by gamey opponents. P.S.--I'm moving the Ubertank subject to it's own thread. I'd like to hear from others on their opinion on what I've said. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. [This message has been edited by Colonel_Deadmarsh (edited 03-21-2001).]

"T-House" http://www.tournamenthouse.com has a great CM ladder and the most members. Easy to find a PBEM opponent there because every member is listed including whether or not they are presently looking for a game. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Didn't you read the manual? Playing this game reverses the aging process. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

I'd like this spreadsheet. Winecape, can you email this to me? ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Frankly I didn't know Stu's were able to take out KT's at any range. But considering it's possible, how can you come on here Blenheim and bitch about this? From what you've told us, I gather that those 3 KT's were your only armor. Now, how flexible is that plan? You gotta protect those things on the outside because if they get beat there, it's all over. Try using a more flexible selection of units next time and if you're gonna have 3 KT's, have some small guns or schrecks protecting their sides and rear against possible attacks like what just happened to you. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Skorpian, It seems as though we are on the same wavelength here. As far as assuming the vls to be terrain to secure or installations that need to be destroyed, I think if you're only gonna have one type of flag, you have to assume that everything on the map needs to be secured and make it a necessity for the attacker to garrison it. Now, as far as implementing this in CM2, if BTS wanted to have a couple of different types of flags, one that needs to be taken and garrisoned and another that only needs to be taken, that would work fine too. I hope though that if this new flag rule is changed in the next installment, that it be backward compatible with CM1. It would royally suck if the rules in CM2 were different than this game. This is a pretty big change and one that would have to be installed into both versions. Otherwise, you almost have two different games. I'd just like to say that I really, really hope that BTS makes EVERYTHING backward-compatible so us guys who love the Western Front can upgrade to the new technology of CM2. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

The others are correct when they say you need 30 posts to become a member. What they aren't telling you though is that making 30 posts is only half of the initiation. Unfortunately, to become a full-fledged member you must also be dragged through the murky depths of the cesspool by the hair on your head as you scream and wail for mercy. Once done, you are tarred and feathered and thrown back to the general population on the outside who take pity on you and adopt you as one of their own. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

I'd like to hear what some other people have to say on this subject... ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Homba said: When I said the squad at the bridge, I meant the squad in town defending the bridge. I'm not gonna refute your argument as long as we are talking about a defense. I am somewhat in agreement with you on that and I wouldn't mind a change of that rule, giving the defender all flags in his zone until taken by the enemy. Instead of you doing the calculating, why doesn't BTS introduce a new feature into the game which would allow you to see if you are within range of the vl to be considered defending it. The way it would work would be similar to how we find out if our squads are in command range of headquarters. You simply click on a squad, mg team, etc. and you are shown a line drawn to each of the vls on the map. One color indicates "out of defense range" the other "in range". That way you wouldn't have to get out your LOS tool and measure. So Homba, in regards to your argument about flag changing, I'm sitting on the fence now about the attack/defense thing. I don't really have a problem with the way things are now but you presented some good arguments too that might make the game better. The one problem I have has to do with the attacker. I don't believe that they should gain control of a vl in the defender's zone if they take it and then leave it. It seems to me that this logic runs contradictary to your basic belief in why this should be changed. If the flag starts out in the defender's zone, it should only be given to the attacker if they take it and hold it. After all, they are in enemy territory. No, I am in favor of the attacker having to garrison a vl, whether they are taking a neutral vl or a vl owned by the opponent on defense. If anything, this would probably equal out the points a little as it seems to me that the attacker enjoys a slight advantage with all the points they are granted compared to the defender. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Ahem...I think I already started this thread awhile ago. THIEF! ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

I think Tiger just needs to get laid. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Yeah, I don't care what these people say, it DOES make an improvement. Why not buy a stick or two while it's so cheap? Better do it now before there's another earthquake in Tawaian. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

No, this is not the abstraction I'm talking about. I'm speaking in terms of holding an important victory location. To hold a location, I beleive you have to be within a certain distance of it, otherwise it is not held by you. You are asking to be awarded control of a victory location even though you may be 300m out. Correct? Well, what if you were 600m out and had mg's trained on a valley below which the enemy had to cross to get to the flag? Should you still be awarded that vl? Now, if that vl is behind you, that's one thing. I agree that it should still be in your control and this can be considered a location in your back lines. But what if the vl is off to your side and on the front line? In other words, it is in front of the attacker and to the side of you, the defender. You are covering it with your mg team but it's not in your rear area. Should you still be awarded it now? This plan you bring forth has many grey areas like this. You have somewhat convinced me that anything behind you should be yours if on defense until someone takes it. This point is up for debate, I agree. But when the vl is on the front line and your mg is guarding the vl from 300m to the East, I am skeptical about whether or not you should be given that flag or not. I think of the flags as important locations that are to be guarded. Staying with your SPR example, when our heroes joined the other squad at the bridge, why do you think that squad was at the bridge? They were defending it of course. Did they just walk through and claim it to be theirs? No, of course not. They had to stay there to make sure the enemy didn't take it. If they had walked through and left, and marched 20 miles to join up with another company, should that bridge be considered theirs now? Ridiculous! The vl's in CM are important locations. If you have a vl on the front line, it needs to be guarded. You are bringing that CC2 mentality into this game and that doesn't fly. CM was made to mirror real war. You can't take those CC rules and apply them here. (God, I feel like such a traitor now) Listen to what you're saying here and think about whether this makes sense. They are in neutral territory when they come upon this enemy mg nest. They take the position and then leave. If they were to come back, would they stroll in, guns on their backs, thinking the whole time that since they killed a few Germans in the area awhile ago, that it's safe to return? This land now belongs to the USA! Sheesh. They're not guarding the vl. They are nowhere near the vl, so how can it be theirs? Surely you jest. This is the same scenario as the mg nest example. The attacker is not there to defend the land, so what makes it theirs? Because they last passed through it? How can a piece of land be owned if you are not there to guard it? You can't just plant your country's flag and expect it to be yours. Like I said in the beginning, I will back you up on having flags in your rear area belong to the defender until taken by the attacker, but the other changes you propose are not realistic in my opinion. Don't worry, this CC mentality will not last forever. I think you will come to realize why things in this game were done the way they were. It just makes for a more realistic game. Sorry for the sarcasm but I just got back from a bar and I'm a little bit buzzed. Kwazydog, aren't you glad I didn't choose women as the subject for tonight... ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.

Bruno, I agree with all your comments. I didn't start this thread, I'm only throwing out suggestions. Abbott, I think having 2 ladders on one site is ridiculous. It's bad enough we have different ladder sites for this game, but to divide the players up into two different sections doesn't make sense. If you don't want to play against the "gamey bastard" or the "notorious, jeep-rusher" then you simply find someone who shares your views on how to best play CM. Hence, my idea for sticking an icon next to that person's name on the player list which would denote that player to be a fan of using "The Short-75 Rule" or what have you. And yes, I see problems with doing this too but it might give people like you, Abbott, a start on where to look for opponents. As far as your suggestion of dividing up the ladder into two sections...it won't work. Read Bruno's post to see why. He might have been addressing my idea but it can be applied just as well to yours. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young.