Fellonmyhead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: Well lets start with the best WW2 game ever! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would be more inclined to say the best WW2 game of its type; other turn-based games cannot even hope to come close but you cannot really make a comparison with other WW2 games (such as simulations, strategy and/or real-time games). To make such comparisons would be unfair (one way or another) to the games concerned, and to their players. A player's taste in games is as individual as many of the different games are themselves. What I will say is this; the production of CMBO has filled a gap (and about time) in the wargames market for a turn-based wargame that produces simultaneous action. The computer is the ideal medium for such a game, and BTS seem to be the first to have realized this potential. People have been trying to simulate simultaneous action in wargaming for many years, but it just cannot be done this well over the table, as human judgement (or misjudgement) will always get in the way. However, as I said, it would be an unfair comparison to take something like CMBO and compare it with, say, the (dare I mention ) Close Combat series. Both would have their merits and their faults, but I don't believe a direct comparison could be made fairly as they are so different. So on that note, I refuse to make any sweeping statement such as "This is the best ever"; and besides, if I am going to purchase CM2 I would like to think it is going to improve on the 'best'. In summary, choosing which game is 'the best' is rather like deciding whether I prefer sex or drink: they both send me to sleep, they can both cost a lot,they can both have terrible consequences and they are both bloody good fun; but I don't think I want to choose between them when I can have both

Cheers, I will have to check that one out. Fellonmyhead. Not on the soft spot.

Two years TA, then ten years Regular, doing nothing spectacular. 'Nuff said.

Oh, forgot to say that as regards the miniatures gaming issue: 1. There have been other attempts to duplicate miniatures gaming, but none can hold a candle to this one. 2. Miniatures gaming is generally not restricted in the same way this software is, which can of course be both advantageous and disadvantageous. 3. For those of you who feel miniatures gaming is too time-consuming, try a set of rules such as the free Red Poppy White Feather skirmish rules (for WW2) at the following link; http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Alley/2541/index.html 4. Thanks for reminding me; must sort out painting those WW2 20mm upstairs which have been gathering dust all Summer! Each to their own; I find PC gaming gives me a sore behind from sitting all the time! I enjoy both types of game, but have not indulged in the miniatures side of things for just over a year. But I will, soon. Fellonmyhead Good thing I wore a helmet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeO: Forgot to mention another reason why mini games still hold their appeal. If you are into WW2 NW Europe/Russian Front, modern wars or the ACW then chances are you will find a few excellent historical computer wargames. How many (decent) computer wargames deal with the Spanish and Russian Civil Wars or 12th Century Samurai (my favourite periods)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps this is where things will move on to. Perhaps BTS should consider utilising the same engine used for this (undisputably) excellent simulation and apply it to other wargaming genres? Or perhaps there just isn't enough profit in it? Any thoughts?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE: This is why I do not like gamey tactics; they teach players the wrong way to try to win battles. But this has all been discussed before... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And what about the 'gamey' tactics you employ at the outset of battle, or are you telling me the aim is to AVOID VL's? I mean to say, the VL's are there to be captured or else prevented from capture. As I have stated repeatedly, a VL is a primary or secondary objective to be held at game end to win the points required. If the scenario designer (or QB system) does not take this into account during the design/creation of the battlefield and scenario, then the so-called 'gamey' tactics are going to work (regardless of whether or not you take them as acceptable). VL's are just part of a scoring system; how well used that is in design will ascertain how achievable it is to score winning points. You shouldn't be surprised if a 'gamey' QB scenario results in a 'gamey' victory. But I am going over old ground again; this has been said umpteen times, including cited examples of real world parallels. Good evening Fellonmyhead. Nothing broken, I think.

Good answer, Doc. The whole 'gamey' whinge is a pointless exercise. Keep VL's by defending in depth; if a fast tank gets through there is something wrong with your defences. Capture VL's by whatever means necessary. If the scenario hasn't been set up so that the defending force has the required elements at his disposal, then the Axis player should receive a bonus/penalty accordingly to reflect this. And finally, don't play QB's if you think this randomness produces the opportunity to take advantage of the so-called 'gamey' flaws in it's setup. VL's aren't just there to give you points, they are supposed to represent key areas of the battlefield which must be taken/held for the success of the overall campaign/war. To allow the enemy to even get close to one when the timing is critical is careless; to allow them to take it at whatever stage deserves the battle to be lost. Fellonmyhead. It's still sore.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy Mauldin: I don't know, I played a scenario once where I held NO objective flags,(there were three of them) but caused a lot of casualties to the enemy with artillary and tanks. I got a Minor Victory out of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Precisely my point! Scenarios exist or can exist where the VL is not 100% crucial to victory. Your example validates all points made in support of things not being 'gamey' from what I can see (don't know if you agree). I don't know if your battle was a QB, but by totally eliminating enemy opposition you would automatically control the VL's given time to move on them. But was it a minor victory because the few stragglers the enemy had remained in control of one or more VL's?

Excellently put, Andrew; couldn't have put it better myself! Fellonmyhead. Hopefully the helmet protected me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Ummm I play ALL quick battles 1500-2000 point, mostly ME's. The VL's are set, nothing you can do about it. Village maps seem to have 1x small VL worth 10% and 1x major VL worth 75%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, pal; not here to get in an argument, just saying that a scenario can be set up to counter this problem. I agree there is a problem if players are allowed to 'cheat' their way to victory, but I also believe that objectives should not be randomized, nor should whole maps. If you do play QB's all the time, then this is something I feel you should live with it, or else try and persuade the BTS team to either up the points for kills, or lower the points for objectives, or allow players to set up their own objectives in a QB. Perhaps another patch??? Fellonmyhead. But I've almost recovered. BTW, how's the weather down under? It's appalling here!

Okay, Scout; I just assumed... something one should never do about anything Yes you are correct as per the 'bounding' system; it is termed 'pepperpotting' on this side of the pond (or it was last time I checked ). A similar method to the so-called 'advancing screen' is often employed during the advance to contact, particularly where terrain dictates (a key point you made about terain earlier, BTW). But admittedly, this is not a 'screen' as such, due to the fluidity of modern warfare (and the same could be said of Blitzkreig). Yes, if a Para (or indeed any squaddie) heard me say he was employed as cannon-fodder in the fashion in which Mr. ( I assume it's Mr.) Pillar dictates, I would likely get a punch in the mouth! After all, it's their bread-and-butter. There have been successes with other 'doctrines', but not many where it can be too significantly attributed to unorthadox scouting or recon strategies. But success has been the result. Though looking at my last posting, perhaps you are right in that the Goose Green example probably exemplifies the pepperpotting much more than the alleged 'Eastern Doctrine'. Thanks, Scout, it is good to benefit from an experienced discussion. Fellonmyhead. Tripped on the top step!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: I disagree, it seems you need very little to affect its status.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then in that case use fewer objectives, so that scoring is affected less by them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Cite me some examples of where the "Pillar" brand of deliberate recon on a broad front DURING a battle has occurred and proven successful and we'll have a debate.!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assume this was directed at me, please stop me if I'm wrong. Such examples occurred during the Falklands War in 1982. But 'recon' was not the word I used; I referred to scouting, or rather the act of probing the enemy during the course of a battle. If you want a specific battle, will Goose Green do? Little formal Int of enemy, yet with probing attacks a success for British forces. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Inevitably, your attack would have unfolded pretty close to one of our solutions (flank sweep right or pincer with assault from the left flank). Only you would have wasted precious minutes (turns) confirming what the intel brief and a good terrain analysis gave me from the very beginning. Not to mention the substantial loss in combat power when you detail a platoon to break down in to fire teams and conduct a recon by range walk. You only get a company to start with remember? I'm sure no amount of example and explanation will get you to change your mind, since the fact that I'm preaching from an infantry bible (FM 7-8) that has evolved for over 100 years of modern warfare isn't enough to convince you straight out. Give me some examples from outside the CM playing field and I'll bite!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My apologies; I did not post my prior message to rile you I am quite sure your manual is adequate; so was mine. The inherent point I was making was not meant to upset or offend, but the truth of the matter is all tactics are not cut-and-dry and the individual commander/soldier, at whatever level and/or role must adapt a solution to a myriad of possible situations. I do not (and did not) doubt that your method has been tried and tested by the (US?) military for years; and as I stated your method would be the preferred one given the situation the game simulates (though I would be flexible with it). So your example and explanation has not been wasted As for the question of 'doctrine', (something 'Pillar' rants on about) I believe there is no solid East or West 'doctrine'. The changing face of the modern world has seen to that. BTW I haven't read your tutorial, ScoutPL, so please don't take any of this as a critique of something which I can't possibly critiue ATT.

I don't feel it is a matter of conscience. I feel it is more a matter of adjusting your tactics to the situation. Perhaps the only solution to the alleged 'gamey' tactics is to produce as scenarios situations where 'gamey' tactics just will not work (perhaps more flags further apart and/or the use of dynamic ones will offset the tactic of rushing them all, for example). A scenario with a single low-points flag will work just as well, I suppose; as unit losses incurred would outweigh any objective points scored. The other solution is to just accept it. If as others (such as Chupacabra) have stated the objectives are not defended well enough, then the weakened attacker deserves to win. And there are many historical examples to support this: D-Day: Despite heavy losses on the beaches, Allied forces consolidated their landings because German reserves were not pushed to the tide line to meet them. Falklands War: A numerically inferior British Parachute Regiment force fought Argentinian forces to a surrender at Goose Green through consolidating their objectives. Vietnam: Despite successful operations, territory was frequently lost to the irregular enemy because strategic gains could not be tactically consolidated. So if this is still considered 'gamey' perhaps scenario times should be extended to allow the opposing player to snatch them back? But then shouldn't we extend it further to allow the player who loses them second time round to get them back again? Fellonmyhead. But not recently.

Well I must say that regardless of what 'doctrine' you typically follow tactically (or strategically), all have their good points and bad points. As so many have stated, there must be some sort of fluidity in the advance, and the good commander will be flexible in his approach. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and both 'doctrines' have resulted historically in successes and failures. What I am trying to say is there is no sure way of approaching this. Either could produce a success in probing the enemy prior to the attack. But personally, I would probably take an adapted version of ScoutPL's approach; solely because there is generally little time to play with. Oh by the way, I do advocate the use of so-called 'gamey' tactics in so far as this is a game and will have its shortcomings as a simulation of real warfare. As in real life, therefore, the commander must expect the enemy to 'know' his whereabouts if one 'scout' susses him out. Fellonmyhead Mother dropped me first.