yeknod

Subvet Been meaning to ask. How'd yer get information to play games on CAL ladder (daily information from front)? Played it once, great idea. Yeknod [ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

Cybeq Yeh issue of gaminess irritates me too, this is why I've suggested a setup method to suit all players. I agree, if players decide to do their own thing with whatever units they want, that's fine. Doesn't bother me what units or tactics are used under these conditons, and it shouldn't bother other players too. At the moment, though, there isn't a lot of accommodation for players who want to play a simulation based on historical OOB. Out-of-game rulesets and negotiated parameters (no flak trucks, short-75 etc) seem a bit artificial and probably throw the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to create even game play. This seems to go against the spirit of CMBO and takes away surprises in the game. I'm not making a judgement about which way to go (play a game or play a simulation) but I am asking for greater opportunity to choose what type of game to play. I'm not so naive to suggest that tactics exploiting game engine (eg. advancing down a flank) will suddenly disappear or if they did CMBO would be a better experience; I doubt that it would. What I'd like to see is the same tactics used in a context or a partially determined OOB (tweaked to suit all tastes and styles) that, for the most part, relegates discussion about gaminess to a footnote. As I said in my original post, there ain't much option other than turning on / off AI choosing units. What about refining this method to offer more choice so that we have the best of both worlds? Yeknod [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

.... and what about this? Real beauty of CMBO is they way it allows mods. How about people providing OOB list mods and then downloading grahpic mods to reflect their particular regiments etc? Yeknod

LOL, Manchildstein! Seeing how players want to try new things. I believe tactics used are often sound, its just the purchasing system encourages extreme tactics. I discovered Axis SMG groups so guess what? I thought it would be cool to buy loads for PBEM game. Opponents infantry run over hill, I advance squad and wipe him out. Since the start of PBEM I've seen posts that SMGs may give unfair advantage and that only proportion of infantry should be SMG. Okay, fine, lets build that into AI purchase system (based on historical OOBs if necessary). 100% choice of units can be still be made if players wish; the jeep / SMG / tank crew rush can still happen. My SMGs shouldn't be excluded (and weren't when I played with AI units). For those wanting a jeep rush, could there be a system giving out recce units? So player doesn't chose 6x jeeps but the AI gives 2x jeeps, 3x Greyhounds or whatever? One game I played I saw a Greyhound advance down my flank with 2x squads of infantry (not in command) both uncovering my positions. Not only "gamey" because it gave opponent an advantage, but I guess, sound, historical tactics! The jeep rush is perhaps just an extension of this but using cheaper, expendable units. However, if the AI gave units that were not so expendable tactic could still be used but player may decide to be more careful with resources. Idea could be extended to allowing AI to purchase units from particular regiment or division. The purchase system as it is in CMBO is fairly crude and could be refined to suit different needs and offer new gaming experiences. Yeknod PS How about only giving VLs if occupying units has visible support or clear supply lines back to front? [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

Wilhammer Gamey, no! That's clever, competative and lucky play. Use of indirect blast of shell to cause casualites seems okay. My point is not to do away with tactics (most tactics are allowed in war to win) but to make the choice of tactics dependent on partly predetermined available resources. I guess there's always going to be the tension between playing CM as a simulation or playing CM as a game which will never be completely resolved (its a strength because it offers so much to different players). Limiting free choice of units can begin to resolve this tension and allow tweaking one way or the other depending on what people want. Guess pre-game negotiations can give the same effect but it will be nice to do away with "can't have this, can't have that" rules and bargains that I feel probably encourages rather than discourages buying to suit preferred tactics. Yeknod [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

hmmm, thanks for replies. I agree, limiting choice of points wouldn't deal with tactics that exploit game engine to give advantage. What it might do is place constraints on tactics. For instance if AI gave jeep, tactic can be used in a limited way, rather than use tactic with freely chosen 6x jeeps? If AI only gave 2x AT team, would it be likely that player would use it to seek out hidden guns? Player will have to consider whether tactic is useful in battle given the resources they have rather than purchase resources to employ a certain tactic. Yes, "gaminess" is in the eye of the beholder and I wouldn't want to stop the enjoyment of playing in a particular style. For instance, played AI with computer giving units. AI gave me 1x Flak gun which I used to button advancing armour. No chance of kill but it helped to protect my armour get side shots, so good tactic! But I only had 1x flak so when it was gone, had to use other tactics. Much better than saying "no flak guns in this game". Besides, playing with 100% of chosen units can be agreed! By agreeing to limit players' choice of units less emphasis can be given to certain styles and could even introduce a handicapping system for newbies (e.g. 90% choice of units v 10% choice). PS points system could force player to buy gun and its vehicle in all battles (except defending side). yeknod [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: yeknod ]

Seems a lot of energy is taken debating whether choice of units and thier use is "gamey". Is this a consequence of being able to choose 100% of forces before battle? Why not let the AI provide a greater % of the OOB? At the moment its either on or off. Game can start with players agreeing level of choice (eg 10% through to 100%). The advantage of this is that it will allow players to be as choosey as they want and do away with rulesets. Favourites may still be chosen, though the choice may be limited. If the AI gives a less than good force, well, hey, that's what commanders received in war. Will make tournements that much more interesting and set tougher challenges for vets. This may get shot down, but is it worth considering for CM2? Yeknod

Gophers? Deadly enemies 'cause they gohered this and gophered that.... oh, dear that was terrible, hee, hee

Did someone mention lap-dogs? That suggests a Finnish connection, me thinks? er, any ducks trained? Caribou, mouse?

....then there is the issue of the Finnish armie's conversions of school transport for assaults, invoiced, oddly, by a rogue duck... yes, where is the duck-billedplatedbus in the game?

.... not only undermodelled, nay, completely missing. One duck smaked a Chinese emmisary on the forehead while encoding diplomatic letters in Helsinki. Can't imagine whether the Chinese picked up on this new technology, though if it crossed the Manchurian wastelands (the idea, that is, not the duck - bit difficult with a grenade up its posterior) I'd expect it to be represented in CMBB by the Russians.... Anyway, units were used by the Finns at batallion level and often attached to elite, medic units.... quack squads

....yes, yes, you see I'd heard the Finns stuffed grenades in the orifices of overfed ducks, propelled them into the air via mortars causing them to explode and spread foi gras among the enemies' officer class... needless to say this caused some confusion.... also, it was important to shove the right end of the duck into the mortar tube, butt first. Beak first caused some cafuffle with the beast as it foresore or "peeked" at its impending doom (known by the Finns as Peeking Duck blow back). This caused a field modification involving pancakes, plum sauce, cucumber to ensure smooth delivery against targets... Have to say this is undermodelled in CBBO.

hmmmm, yes, I was wondering, how did the Finns use artillery? Newbie question, I know. Yeknod

Reading this thread with mild interest... as a newbie being flattened with artillery (any calibre, any mode) sort of captures my attention... anyway, learnt to listen to experts 'cause they're experts.... but if innocence is not rewarded its probably best to pass by and accept offers from fellow gamers; seems more are willing than not to to do this. There's no sense in having a fight (can resolve this in a game)! BTW, are we using VT or HE insults?