azillathehun

The "technician" post was fairly accurate in describing the germans. I'm currently number 3 on the ladder at tournamenthouse but don't consider myself the caliber of player as gravesregistration who is 4. There are a few problems with your post. If your a new or inexperienced player (20 games or less) sides don't matter. Your going to lose. If i'm playing an experienced player then the german side has a slight advantage. You can win with the allies but you have to do it right. If your the germans nothing makes me happier than seeing a king tiger out on the field. Their slow and worthless and easily destroyed. The pz 70 is a good german tank hunter but has no turret and is easily flanked. I read one post about someone fast moving trucks back and forth. I've never seen that happen in any game I have played and consider that tactic a joke. Any heavy 50 or heavy mg 42 will stop that very quickly. (oh you didn't buy one of those? that's your mistake) The game basically comes down to whoever uses their infantry best. If you run them out in the open early and let them get shot up your going to lose. I have seen so many players advance their infantry without proper suppressing fire. Combat Mission is not a perfect simulation but it's the best i've seen. In closing i'll just tell everyone that gamey tactics, no matter what they are (including setting a town on fire with wasps)....will lose everytime to superior infantry tactics. Learn how to use your infantry better (germans or americans) you will win.

Kind of off the subject but I think fionn's 76 rules are the biggest collection of gamey rules ever invented. I don't think anyone has ever tried to defend them as being realistic. It's really only substituting one set of gamey rules "the game mechanics" for another. "fionns"

Interesting thought about creating a ladder for historical gamers. I think a lot of the posts here have questions of how would you do it? Your idea of a historical battle may different than my idea and the next person's idea. It would be difficult to gain a consensus. I think a ladder by it's very nature is a way to rank who are the better players at combat mission. I define this as those players that know what is the better equipment to buy for a situation and how to use that equipment. Does a high ladder ranking make you smarter historically about world war 2? Of course not. Combat mission is just a game with different units. It's the same as Diablo 2 or Quake (gasp). As much as I would love to play a historical simulation of Custard's last stand I don't want to be the U.S. Cavalry for too many ladder games. My suggestion is that historical players and those who detest gamey tactics don't bother with a ladder to begin with. Have a forum where you can have campaign ribbons, medals or decorations for battles you have fought in. That way you would see who is the best role player if you wish to judge yourself against other historical gamers. If your fighting in the meta campaign you could get a ribbon for that. For those who are good with scenario design their should be a medal for that. Or maybe you could get a purple heart after you achieve a certain number of total losses against tournamenthouse ladder players. That way you can sit around on your historical butts drinking your british tea and detesting those gamey powergamers over at tournamenthouse. In conclusion, non gamey combat mission is a lot of fun but I would think it would be difficult to find out who is the least gamey player out there and put him on top of a ladder. Historical, non gamey tactics and ladders don't mix because you can't define every gamey tactic and have more than three people agree on it. (generalization of course)