Treeburst155

I've been giving out applications on and off all day even though it's past the deadline, so if CapDogInChina wants an application I'll send him one.

One aspect of MEs with guns, especially pre-hidden ones with good LOS, is that it discourages the use of vehicles. It is arguable that the best course of action for MEs would be to buy a preponderance of guns rather than vehicles to go along with your infantry, essentially turning MEs into infantry only engagements. This is not a bad thing, but I like tanks and ACs in my meeting engagements.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: I kinda like Boxer's argument, which I haven't heard anyone counter yet. If you know the enemy is in front of you, then you are advancing expecting to meet them. You don't know if they're 100m ahead or 1000m, just that they're up there somewhere. So, in the absence of firm intelligence, it would seem to me that you would advance in bounding overwatch. You cover your initial advance with guns & tanks, then move said guns & tanks up to cover the next advance and so on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because of the length:width ratio of QB ME maps and the layout of the setup zones this description of an ME is more appropriate. The only problem I see is that guns advanced as described above are ALWAYS hidden until they fire the first shot. Wouldn't they, at least occasionally, be seen moving into position during these bounding overwatch advances?

David defines an ME like I do. Boxer defines an ME like Stalin does. That's the issue. What's an ME? I think the ideal ME would be a long map with a road from setup zone to setup zone. Both players would start on their respective ends of the road, embarked, except for infantry screening the flanks of the road. That would simulate a surprise meeting of the forces, my definition of meeting engagement. If you really wanted to push it you could say nobody disembarks until contact is made.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders: I know I am getting into this late, but it has been mentioned that the different engagement types are not well defined in the manual. I never even thought of the ME the way most of you seem to. (A suprise meeting of forces on the move) I assumed that the an ME was a meeting of forces to take some unoccupied ground. In that case setting up guns and FO's prior to the attack would be SOP. (just my two cents worth)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the crux of the issue right here. Is a meeting engagement a totally unexpected clash with the enemy while moving OR is it simply a situation where two forces were coincidentally ordered to occupy the same "empty" terrain.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: But what if you substitute 'Guns' for 'Tanks'? Would David had objected if, during setup, Chad had deployed Tanks in the same location as the guns? Is it because the guns were already disenmbarked and deployed? Assume the guns were embarked only 5 meters away from their firing positions during setup, then unloaded, pushed 5 meters and then deployed. Is it still gamey?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is another pair of very good questions to go along with Stalin's arty spotter comment. This whole disagreement is due mainly to our different perceptions of what a meeting engagement is supposed to be. Define "meeting engagement" and you've solved the guns dispute.

That's a very good point Stalin's Organ! From now on my arty spotters will start embarked when I'm playing MEs. Geez, I've been being gamey all this time and didn't even know it!

To begin a battle with guns enjoying good LOS to likely routes of enemy advance is a characteristic of a prepared defense. That would not be a meeting engagement.

Scenarios will be small to medium, no more than 30 turns I believe. All players will play one game against everyone else so you would probably end up playing people all over the world from Australia to Germany.

I agree with David. If you want guns in an ME they should start hitched to transportation.

Moon, VLs and meeting engagements present an interesting situation. If there is insufficient value assigned to no-mans land through the placement of VLs then the incentive to attack is greatly reduced. Your opponent (or yourself) can be held to a minor victory rather easily IMO utilizing the passive tactics described in my long post above. You are playing on one such map now; that being Map M. In order to induce a MEETING of the forces, no-mans land must have enough value that it cannot be ignored. A violent clash of men and machines will result, and in fact be necessary to avoid a tactical loss. The undesireable side effect of the valuable no-mans land is the increased likelihood of a last minute flag dive. This has always been a problem, especially with meeting engagements; but it is preferable IMO to the passive tactics that can result from a relatively worthless no-mans land. I find it all quite interesting. If one wants to be SURE that BOTH commanders will go all out to annihilate the forces of the enemy one must give them something of value to fight over. This is a result of the fact that the community now knows how victory points are calculated.

You have three hours and 15 minutes to request an application to this tournament. Send request to Mikeman@cablelynx.com.

Congratulations, The_Capt, on your victory!! Here's how we stand now: KelsieD..........279...6...46.50 Kiwi Joe.........232...3...77.33 Stalin's Organ...189...4...47.25 aka_tom_w........178...4...44.50 Sajer............176...5...35.20 The_Capt.........129...3...43.00 GClement.........124...2...62.00 Sock Monkey.......28...1...28.00 Sorted by average: Kiwi Joe.........232...3...77.33 GClement.........124...2...62.00 Stalin's Organ...189...4...47.25 KelsieD..........279...6...46.50 aka_tom_w........178...4...44.50 The_Capt.........129...3...43.00 Sajer............176...5...35.20 Sock Monkey.......28...1...28.00 I'm expecting GClement to take down KiwiJoe a notch. Are you out there GClement? I haven't heard from you for awhile.

I've sent out all the applications that were requested so far. If you didn't get one then you need to email me again at Mikeman@cablelynx.com. I will continue accepting requests for applications for about 21 hours and 15 minutes. That would be midnight Sunday night (GMT-6). BTW, it's great to see some lurkers applying for the tournament.

Mr Spkr, I do believe there are people conspiring against you to deny you internet access. The conspirators are to be commended.

I've had several concerns expressed regarding some of my maps. After considering them I have come to the conclusion that they are valid concerns. Map E is VERY draw prone. Since there are only two games passed out so far that use map E this is a minor problem. Map E has been fixed. The Fionn/Shandorf and Berlichtingen/Moon games can be restarted if there is mutual agreement to do so. The other map problem concerns draws also. In my zeal to minimize the importance of VLs and the resultant flag rushes I have, on many maps, limited total VL points to 300. This is low for a 1,500 point battle. Unfortunately, doing this has made possession of the VLs not necessary if one is willing to settle for 40 points against an opponent one feels is likely much more skilled than one's self. Here's how it works. The player shooting for the 40 pts. simply sets up a defense well back from the VLs. Even though his opponent occupies all the VLs the score will be 61-39 as long as both sides suffer 1/3 casualties (500 pts.). The more casualties, the better the score for the passive player as long as a 1:1 ratio is maintained. Getting the 500 in casualties at 1:1 is not all that difficult to do. Heavy arty exchanges can take care of much of that. Allowing a couple platoons to mix it up with the VL holder early on can take care of the rest. The more troops that are exchanged at 1:1 the lower the winner's score becomes. If the player with the VLs actually moves forward and attacks the defenders line the defender will kill many troops and probably do better than a 1:1 kill ratio too. IOW, for the VL owner to do anything aggressive (except arty)would not be wise as he would be attacking a somewhat prepared defense at one to one odds. The MEETING ENGAGEMENT has now become a 1:1 attack/defend scenario with the passive player's score increasing with every casualty since he can easily expect a 1:1 casualty ratio while on the defense. What this does IMO is defeat the whole spirit of a meeting engagement. What you really have is an attack/defend scenario at 1:1 odds without foxholes. The passive player is going on defense from the outset, without making significant contact; and will probably score AT LEAST 35 points for doing so as long as he buys a decent amount of arty and sends a couple platoons to scrap with the enemy until death. The passive player has no incentive to attack (he just wants 40 pts.), nor does the VL holder since it would be an attack against a hasty defense at 1:1. The passive player has no incentive to call for or accept a ceasefire since he wants the VL holder to attack. What you have is a very boring game where one player will most likely get a 60-40 minor victory IF he sits on the VLs without attacking the enemy for 15-20 turns (arty excepted). This is not a meeting engagement IMO. In order to prevent the passive tactics described above, thereby increasing the enjoyment and excitement of the tourney games, I have increased the value of VLs on many maps by doubling up the flags. Unfortunately, there are probably a dozen games going on these maps right now. If you feel your opponent is using these passive tactics intentionally I would like to know about it. Send me the latest game file that will open with your password. If I feel these passive tactics are indeed being employed (it is fairly obvious IMO) I will declare the game null and void and it must begin again using the repaired map. If you are playing on a map with 300-400 VL points make sure you are trying to win, rather than squeak out 40 points. That's all I ask. You will see no more maps with less than 600 VL points in central locations. Now you can deal with flag rushes, which are preferable IMO. These can be countered by using the Badco Endgame Randomizer (BER) which I highly recommend. I've had some really tense QBs as a result of the BER. This situation is my fault for not thinking in gamey enough terms while making the maps. To those of you who would NOT take advantage of my lack of foresight, and are playing on the problem maps, I apologize. As long as both players on these maps make an honest effort to WIN the game there will be no problem and the game will be exciting and enjoyable, as it should be.

I highly recommend this little utility for those of you who haven't tried it yet. It's a must for QBs IMO. Try it, you'll like it!

The post above was meant for the new Wild Bill tourney in case you're wondering. You guys should feel free to ask for an application to that tourney if you want. This one SHOULD be over before the new one starts.

Wild Bill posted the following to the wrong tournament thread. The poor guy is working so hard on this tournament he didn't even notice. Here's what he said: "The battles will be mixed, a combination of forces which is realistic and historical. There will be some infantry heavy battles. CM is, after all, primarily a tactical infantry game. Your skills will be needed as a commander, much more than weapon size. You will be pushed hard to make the right choices that will lead to victory. And victory will not come easily! Wild Bill "

John, I have given this issue some thought and have decided that the 17 people playing in WineCape I and WineCape II would not be discriminated against if they apply since those tourneys should be over by the time Wild Bill's begins. The exception to this would be those who don't at least come close to making the deadline for their tournaments. This would tell me that they really don't have the time to participate in tourneys. The Invitational was designed to be a very long and leisurely event to make it attractive to invitees who might enjoy some competition with nice prizes but can't deal with deadlines due to frequent work related travel and/or real life responsibilities in general. Since the Invitational will be going for a long time I will definitely take into consideration the CM workload of any member of that tourney who applies for the Wild Bill tourney. If they are making good progress in their Invitational games I will not hold participation in that tourney against them. If they are struggling to finish their Invitational games I would assume their plate is full.

I have been unable to access my AOL email account for the last several days. Since some of you have been sending results to that address I may not know about it. Please send results to Mikeman@cablelynx.com from now on. Thanks!!

I have been unable to access my AOL email account for the last several days. Since some of you have been sending results to that address I may not know about it. Please send results to Mikeman@cablelynx.com from now on. Thanks!!

Actually folks, it was SuperTed who got my brain going on this tourney. Without his encouragement it probably would not have happened. Thanks, SuperTed! I would also like the community to know that Rune has a standing offer to create the scenarios for a "Rune's Tournament of Evil" should he find the time, and wish to do so. At this time I have 48 requests for applications. I will wait until Sunday night to send out the applications so I can catch the weekend forum browsers in the "mass mailing". Even after this "mass mailing I will continue to accept application requests for another week. I want everyone to have a chance to apply who is interested. I've decided I WILL hold three simultaneous Wild Bill tournaments. That's all I can manage unfortunately. This means there will be 27 fortunate people. The three winners will have a playoff mini-tourney utilizing the same round robin format. Scenarios for this playoff are yet to be determined.

I've discovered a flaw in my carefully thought out plan!! AARs by participants should NOT be posted to the tournament thread. I forgot all about the SPOILER aspect of doing this. It works with QBs but not designed scenarios. All AARs should be sent directly to WineCape and myself. They will then be distributed by me to each participant who has completed that scenario. Once you complete a scenario you will receive all the AARs I have for that scenario, plus any more that come in later. My original post to this thread has been edited to reflect this change in procedure. [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I'm sure Wild Bill will make these scenarios available to the community when the tournament is over sometime in January. Remember, these scenarios are being designed specifically for this tournament. To release them to the general public too soon would ruin the "new, never before seen" aspect of the tourney. AARs might start popping up and blow the surprises designed into the scenarios. The community would have all eight scenarios played in a matter of days between them. By the time the tourney participants got to their last 4 games the scenarios would be widely known and reported on. This would not be a good thing. [ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]