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.

"I lose sometimes too. What is important is that you always BELIEVE you'll win. That belief is, mathematically, unsupportable BUT the belief is important since it sets the tone for your decision-making cycle." "You will be more daring, more aggressive and more attuned to searching for enemy weaknesses. " This is turning into a broken record, but once again I understand exactly what you are stating. BELIEVING you will win, all the time no matter what the situation is critical. Unconciously, if you have a doubt about your ability to win a battle at any time, you seriously comprimise your chance to win. You make dumb mistakes, miss important details, etc etc etc. It your own personal "morale". Think of it like sports, when a boxer has an opponent a little staggered, he goes in for the kill because there is a good chance to put him away. Same thing with the game, when you are staggered (ie your personal morale is low), you give your opponent an edge. That is what I believe FIONN is stating, and I agree with it. Boardgames are great examles of it, diplomacy,EA, and A&A come to mind. When you can see in your opponents eyes he is demoralized, you go for the kill. And the same time, if he sees you supremely confident, it can shake his confidence and affect his decisions, I've seen it many times. Its a bit harder in CM to affect your opponent, or at least see the affects, unless your opponent is a big typer during games. so you have to concetrate on yourself and make sure you are always confident. On a side note, it is the confidence that kept Priest pestering me to challenge you, FIONN. He recognized the same trait and wanted to see me get kicked by someone whose confidence style (for lack of a better term) was similar. I, of course, insist I would win...although I haven't actually played a game in close to 7 months [ May 31, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

Your name could mean your a bad combat general, we can't really tell . your your a combative general, like patton. I could go on, but as I write this, i realize it is not as funny as when I thought it up in my head

I never play QBs. the battles I involve with are usually 40-60 turns with a 2kmx2km map of some sort with important locations pointed out, and objective laid out. But you point out the significant point that I don't take the clock into account when I play. However, if the battle is properly made, you should have some amount of time to probe defenses, or, lacking that, the designer should tell you some information to guide your general attack plan. during a shorter term battle, you simply have to keep a larger reserve to immediatly take advantage of any perceived weakness. A shorter timed game definitly favors the defender. However, I have not had trouble with 40 turns on a 2kmx2km where I had to really travel the whole map to reach the objectives. With all that said, the counter attacking defense is STILL better in a short length battle. Any disruption to the attacker in a short term battle is critical, if you screw up his advance in a 20 turn battle by even 5 turns, you have seriously affected his chances of winning.

never played him, but I agree with his tactics whole heartedly. His AARs are priceless bits of information that really explain how the basic philosophy works. and 2-1 odds can be successfully counter-attacked, indeed i find it to be more effective that simply trying to soak up the attack. Local counter attacks can lead to breaks in the enemy advance which can then be exploited to rollup the attackers flank, instead of waiting for the attacker to break thru your line and then roll up your flanks. Once you have attacked the attackers exposed flank, he then has to react to you, thereby giving you the initiative to continually locally attack as new flanks open when the attacker shifts troops to try and close the original breach.

there is no static defense i have played against that can not be defeated. It is just too easy to probe until a weak spot is found or pile up and attack 1 main spot. With flxible units and more specifically the ability to locally counter attack, a defense is bound to fall against even a smaller attacking force that can hit each defensive area peacemeal and slowly nibble it to death.

the difference is you are playing the computer. I have played 10 games against human opponents so far. Subs have been crushed extremely quickly after any attempt to do mmp damage. It is just to easy to find them, and once found, they are toast. sure the sub is going to do some damage, once i had a sube destroy an entire fleet (which is unbelievably lame, but i can live with that), but getting away and then getting back to do mmp damage is not effective. Hence I don't see anyone building subs in a 2 player game. Not worth the effort. [ May 28, 2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

considering you only have to take one space, i also would also like to see england fight on after they main island falls. British power was huge around the world at that time, canada/new zealand/australia/india/north africa would most certainly fight on. The "country" of england should be represented by canada if main land britain falls.

my answer to all your posts about the need for realistic force usage, realistic commanders, force preservations, etc etc etc. simple answer: PLAY PEOPLE THAT PLAY THAT WAY. Personally, I play that way, I don't use gamey tactics, and I don't throw troops away. Maps don't have VPs, and most games I play don't go to the end, my opponent and I agree when the end should come dependant on the situation. I have found PLENTY of opponents who play this way. There are no arguments about flamethrower walls. No rush of crews. No waste of trucks as scouts, etc etc etc. My answer to you is, the problems you listed can only be fixed by YOU. Get some like minded players and setup a campaign yourself. Its not that hard, there are plenty of rules sets around that can be modded to your liking. The game isn't going to be changed to fit your 1 view. WHY? well there are a whole lot of people who like playing it THEIR way, which is different. And battlefront last time I checked wants to make a successful game. As far as your "battlefront doesn't listen", well, I'll just write that up to you being bitter, because if you have EVER tried to get feedback from pretty much ANY OTHER GAME, you would understand how responsive battlefront is.

bts please delete this threadd, meant to post in the other thread, hate being messy.

my answer to all your posts about the need for realistic force usage, realistic commanders, force preservations, etc etc etc. simple answer: PLAY PEOPLE THAT PLAY THAT WAY. Personally, I play that way, I don't use gamey tactics, and I don't throw troops away. Maps don't have VPs, and most games I play don't go to the end, my opponent and I agree when the end should come dependant on the situation. I have found PLENTY of opponents who play this way. There are no arguments about flamethrower walls. No rush of crews. No waste of trucks as scouts, etc etc etc. My answer to you is, the problems you listed can only be fixed by YOU. Get some like minded players and setup a campaign yourself. Its not that hard, there are plenty of rules sets around that can be modded to your liking. The game isn't going to be changed to fit your 1 view. WHY? well there are a whole lot of people who like playing it THEIR way, which is different. And battlefront last time I checked wants to make a successful game. As far as your "battlefront doesn't listen", well, I'll just write that up to you being bitter, because if you have EVER tried to get feedback from pretty much ANY OTHER GAME, you would understand how responsive battlefront is.