Folbec
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Folbec
-
-
I did it to an unlucky opponent :Originally posted by Cos:I have seen a platoon leader take out a tank without bundle charges or AT weapons. Not sure what he did.
-
"Ops are long battles with supplies and a strange algorithm to decide the frontline."
- Be sure to make main terrain features more or less parallel to the edge, the "border" is drawn parallel to it and it is a pain to have units considered as cut off simply because they are behind the average position.
- beware of the value of the no mans land, noone understand how it works. Too big and you may be pushed back even if you won an engagement, too small and the border algorithm seems to go berserk.
- give enough time per battle (30+ turns) to do something else than a mad rush. Unless the map is real small.
- keep the number of battles relativelly low (less than 5), it is much harder to playtest when it increases, and much easier to make a mistake in reinforcements.
-
I generally agree.Originally posted by JasonC:so realism is banned if you play gamey competitive ladder types who never let go of their uberStuG security blanket, and yeah that means you have to use gamey counters like the Val IX. But it stinks as a solution.
Other option if gamey opponent and rarity is off is to buy german captured armor...
-
Front page of the depot
: Save The Depot!
September 16, 2004
This couldn't come at a worse possible time. My ISP's fee is up for renewal and my job is moving to India without me on September 30, 2004, making this expense difficult to justify. Therefore, I am making an appeal to the Combat Mission community to make a financial contribution to ensure the continuation of The Scenario Depot.
You can be confident that all contributions will be exclusively reserved and used only on direct expenses for the development, support, and maintenance of The Scenario Depot.
Use the Paypal button at the bottom of the menu on the left and show your support for The Scenario Depot.
-
1) This spoils the double blind.Originally posted by Hans:Use editor and just change the time to what ever you want!
2) you notice this when you are already playing the game, I'm not asking for removing time limits, I'm asking for a way to correct them "on the fly", if a consensus can be reached by the players.
I've had scenario where I knew from the 15th - 20th turn that my opponent had not a chance to win, and never had.
Practically now I do not even give a glance to anything shorter than 40 turns, but this is not enough. I'm playing a 52 turn scenario now, it is turn 20, and I'm beginning to fear that my opponent may have the choice between charging my guns head on, bogging down and loosing (quite a choice). The map is that big, and the soil is damp. And this is something you cannot know beforehand, simply by looking at the description and the turn length.
Much too many scenario are built on the assumption that players won't play them blind.
-
... is a way for the players to extend the time limit of a scenarion, while playing it, if they can agree on the idea.
Many scenarios are ballanced as a race against time, with the underlying idea that both players had a look at the map, the setup, and the OOB. This is a byproduct of the design test process : you play the same scenario many times, and end up knowing it by heart, knowing where to attack, where to scout.
When played blind, this translate to unrealistics tactics : select a likely place (counting on luck) and charge ahead without scouting, since you do not have time to do anything else at a normal speed (I'm currently playing one where my infantry came as reinforcement at turn 10, and took 17 turns crossing at walk speed (not even taking many precautions) to the middle of the map, and it is (obviously) a 30 turn fixed scenario.
When i saw that I would not be able to play my infantry, I was forced to charge ahead with my tanks and the few men that I could load on them, and predictably met disaster.
This kind of design is all too common, and a major reason why I play more QB than scenario.
I would be great to be able to extend the duration, when both players agree, during the course of the game (On the defender side, there is nothing more boring than looking at infantry slogging through snow for 30 turns, and not even having a fight at the end :mad: ).
Many players are fair play enough to accept this kind of agreement (and ammo loads usually do not last long enough for it to be a real problem).
-
depends on parameters of QB :
ME : equal points
Attack +50% attacker (but flags in ennemy zone)
Assault +72% attacker, flags deeper in ennemy zone
AND also :
randoms losses option : you purchase more units, and the computers kills enough point to get back to the ME / Attack / Asault level.
-
To answer your question, this one was posted on the board some time ago :Originally posted by Poppy:What proportion of the Axis forces did the Amercian/British coalition fight. poppy
Sorts of puts things in perspective (be sure to read the footnotes).
D-Day "merely" saved Western Europe from communism (And this was by the way in the long term interest of the Anglo-Americans - see Churchill insistence to open the second front in the Balkans).
The IIIrd Reich was dead since late 42, some even will argue that all was lost since December 41.
-
There are also MANY PBEM wargaming clubs on the internet. Personally, I play on The Blitzkrieg wargaming club.Originally posted by Sergei:...did you notice the opponent finder forum?
http://community.battlefront.com/uploads/emoticons/default_wink.png' alt=';)'>
Look on this page :
http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmak/cmak_websites.html
Or search on google with "wargaming club pbem CMAK". Some clubs are very competitive others are more friendly (TheBlitz is rather friendly).
-
But too many are of the "race against time" 20 to 30 turn variety, that only gives the option to rush at top speed. Or are not designed to be playable blind.Originally posted by Sergei:Of course, the ultimate answer is to abandon Quick Battles for good and stick to user-made scenarios. There's hundreds of them for CMBB.
-
Yes never let your opponent chose the best terrain for his tank fleet. I always play with :Originally posted by YankeeDog:In a straight-up, armor vs. armor fight in good weather, fairly open terrain, and dry ground, German armor has a huge advantage. Interestingly, in my experience, this is exactly the kind of conditions that many CM players like to use, which probably explains why there are so many complaints about the inferiority of Soviet armor.
YD
- random rarity on (no big deal if off)
- random terrain
- random type of battle (some players who are good at ME suck at attacking / defending)
- random weather ( I reroll for heavy snow, if the map is too big)
- random pre game casualties (make unballanced purchases unwise, may kill this 500pts KT, specially in lower points battles)
this gives a lot more variety, and push your opponent to buy "ballanced forces".
-
I only play regular russians with low rarity in PBEM, and my current win % is about 70%. So it is doable.
Just stop relying on frontal armor :eek: . Flank, move, use infantry, AT guns. German tanks are expensive, you will be able to outnumber them
.Or only play very early war when german armor is crap when faced with T34
. -
And you have yet to play a human opponent...
-
yes, he had 2 only grenades the turn before (and orders to hide), decided to use one, immobilized the Tiger.
Next turn decides again to unhide despite orders (I was bringing back my last squad of engineer with demo charges to finish off the tiger - no need to waste a HQ), throws the second grenade, blast the Tiger.
It was not a good day for my opponent. 3 dead tigers. One to 90mm AA, one to a hidden engineer squad, and one to a lone hero.
-
A fairly rare screen shot, that occured during a (yet unfinished) QB :
(The 2 last pics - tigers are the problem... )
-
Try using random pre game casualties + variable rarity, tends to make purchasing expensive armor risky, specially for smaller sized battles.
-
I your estimate of his forces is right, this is a lot like my standard russian pick up.
My basic counsel is : go for regular germans. Full veterant / crack forces are a waste. The most dangerous german players I meet are those that play regular troops, with vanilla tanks.
Learn to play with regular or worse, with maybe up to a company of better quality troops for special tasks.
Elite die just as well as green under HE fire.
-
I have strong doubts on post Korea cold war :
- extended engagement ranges may make it impractical ; imagine the map size needed to use modern day copters against tanks, imagine the number of squads to manage on such a map. I fear it would feel more like work than a game (and I usually play 2000pts + battles).
- many weapon system were never really used in WWIII conditions, so relative capabilities would be endlessly discussed, without any way to know who is right.
-
Not entirelly true :Originally posted by MikeyD:And your infantry will be almost totally defenseless against tanks (CMBB Germans pre-Panzershrek/Russians ALL years/CMAK British pre-Piat).
I had green engineers blast 3 PzIV in a QB. But apart from Engineers and (sometimes) flamethrowers, infantry is dead without AT support, even in fairly wooded country.
Also :
- infantry hide a lot better, expect to loose up to a company in one or two minutes to ambushes if you are not carefull.
- !!! cover arcs !!! critical to armor / AT guns (allows armor to move in a direction while covering another).
- sometimes, depending on the month / year, your opponent armor will be unkillable.
Did someone mention that you will loose a lot of infantry to MG / HMG ?
-
One other possible factor : this is occuring on a hill, and this may change the armor angle. For good or for bad.
-
Quoting from someone I forgot, about the fine art of scenario design :
To this I add :QB maps have several consistent characteristics for a given battle type regardless of the size of the battle, or even the size of the map chosen. These characteristics were surely intentional. I think they should be duplicated in custom maps intended for QBs. To help make this happen I set about analyzing computer generated QB maps today. Here is what I learned.Assault Battles
1) Flag points on the map range from 100% to 120% of the defender's purchase points. The flag points you put on your map dictate the appropriate size (defender points) for battles fought on your map!!
2) Average flag placement is always very near the defender's map edge.
3) The defender's setup zone is always 40% of the total E/W dimension of the map.
4) The attacker's zone is always 20% of the total E/W dimension.
NOTE: The E/W size of a map does not change much from small to huge maps. The map size option mainly affects the N/S frontage of a map. Battle type does not affect map size.
Attack Battles
1) Flag points range from 70% to 90% of defender's points.
2) Flags are fairly centralized in defender's zone.
3) Like assaults, the defender's setup zone is 40% of the E/W dimension. The attacker gets 20% of the total.
Probe Battles
1) Flag points range from 50% to 70% of defender's points.
2) Flags are placed in the forward portion of the defender's zone.
3) The defender's setup zone is 35% of the E/W dimension. The attacker gets 25%.
Meeting Engagements are obvious.
You should determine the dimensions you will use for your map by firing up a QB. Select the battle size (defender points) you wish to design your map for. Check out the different map sizes generated for the point level chosen. As mentioned earlier, the E/W dimension will not change much, but N/S frontage varies greatly with the map size chosen.
To summarize:
1) The number of flag points is important. In QBs, flag points are determined by defender points and battle type.
2) Setup zone depths need to be correct for the battle type, and is a percentage of total E/W dimension.
3) Flag placement within the defender's zone needs to be correct for the battle type.
I have made template maps for 1,000 pt. probes, attacks, and assaults for both sides. These are blank maps with setup zones established and flags placed. To make a map I need only load up the proper template and do the terrain and elevation work.
I can make time consuming beautiful maps or quickies. In either case, they will have the proper setup zone depths, flag points, and flag placement for a 1,000 pt QB of the battle type I choose.
If you would like these templates for your own custom QB maps just email me (profile). They won't save you a LOT of time; but they will save you from having to mess with setup zones, map dimensions and flags. Also, they will guarantee your map meets the official BFC standard for QB maps.
I did take one liberty with the setup zones. My maps have a large frontage (N/S) with the setup zones centralized at 50% of total N/S dimension. This makes the zones slightly larger than a small map would make them. I think this discourages edge-hugging a bit, and also leaves room to maneuver on the flanks. The important thing is the E/W relationship of setup zones and flags.
QB values for CMBB :
for 1000pts QB with x% randoms casualties defender/attacker (note that defender and attacker rarely have the same casualties % in a real QB if set to random) :
0%/0% 10%/10% 20%/20% 30%/30% 40%/40% 50%/50%
Assault 1000/1720 1111/1911 1250/2150 1428/2457 1666/2866 2000/3440 +72%
Attack 1000/1500 1111/1666 1250/1875 1428/2142 1666/2500 2000/3000 +50%
Probe 1000/1400 1111/1556 1250/1750 1428/2000 1666/2333 2000/2800 +40%
ME 1000/1000 1111/1111 1250/1250 1428/1428 1666/1666 2000/2000 +00%
Note that in the current engine (1.03) some types of fortifications (trenches, TRP, wire, ?) seem to count as losses against the defender at the final tally.
Defender in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~40% of map depth, probe 35%, ME 15% ; attacker in attack or assault gets a setup area of ~20%, probe 25%, ME 15%
-
:confused: Never happened to me, or I never noticed it (I usually play with "random" type of battle so I may have mistaken a probe for an attack).Originally posted by karlis:I've played some PBEM Quick Battle probes where the defender is able to purchase wire, pillboxes, mines etc., but some where he isn't. Not sure why; maybe the terrain has something to do with it?
-
In my experience :Originally posted by willbell:When you say fewer foxholes, do you mean you can't do those back up kind? Does the flag positioning and lack of foxholes make that much difference? I'm surprised.[/QB]
Assault = foxeholes + fallback + more pillboxees, etc. Attacker ~172% of defender.
Attack = foxeholes + wire, pillboxes, etc. Attacker ~150% of defender.
Probe = no foxholes, no wire, pillboxes, etc. Attacker ~140% of defender.
Flags tend to be deeper inside the defender region for assault than for probes, but this is not a given.
-
If they are under fire the situation changes : "hiding" often prevents them from "sneaking" if there is any decent cover.Originally posted by Ted:Nah.
Somewhere in the book on CMBB tactics it says that troops that are hidden will rest up faster than troops that aren’t.
So the tip is nt so bad.
: 
.
I Can't Believe it..
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Try PBEM on one of the gaming club sites.
got to "ressources" :
Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin Weblinks
- Band of Brothers
- Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club (http://www.theblitz.org/)
You will get a few severe defeats during your first play against human games, but it is worth it.
I play on Blitzkrieg, the spirit is not too competitive.