QB ME maps aren't cutting it

[eltorrente]

Here is the previous map I played against the same opponent. Most of my save games have been deleted, but I found this in my recycle bin.

This is in-line with many of the maps I've fought on with PBEM's. One side ends up with an advantage that could have been easily avoided by adjusting VL points and/or simply deleting the most unfair one.

Neither one of us opened it in the editor before the battle, so we didn't know what the VL points were until the battle ended. He surrendered before the points mattered, but it's clear which side gets the advantage right off the bat.

The opponent starts in the opposite corner at the bottom of the hill and has to fight uphill the whole time. It may not be evident from this pic, but the hill is quite steep. Starting from this side, all you gotta do is take a stroll to the big VL, and contest the one(s) in the middle and it's an easy win. The map was a fun map, and we didn't know what the points were (at least I didn't) - but if it had gone all the way to the end, I would have gotten a big victory just based on holding that hill with one split squad that was nice and safe.

[Baneman]

I've located the map I found a bit "iffy".

It's "Meet Large Town 009"

You can see that although the Axis deployment doesn't connect which you'd expect in a defend or delay scenario, in all other respects, it looks like a defend/delay since the Axis can reach the Single VL in 2 turns and then simply defend it ( made even easier since it's inside the town, so there's artillery cover and other defensive cover. )

Actually I think it looks like an excellent map for an Attack, just not so much for an ME.

[sdp]

Adding it to the list! Thanks!

/sdp

[sfhand]

I've located the map I found a bit "iffy".

It's "Meet Large Town 009"...

I'm currently playing it as US, it is a bit lopsided, but not horribly so, IMHO. The one thing I'd change is I'd get rid of the 3rd axis deployment zone (the one on its own side of the map), my opponent not only took the town early but he got in some flanking fire on my advance... this map also has 2 (all I've spotted so far, mainly because I'm not in town yet) multi-story buildings with the "missing" upper floor. But, as I said earlier, I'm pretty laid back about this type of thing, when I look at the maps I'm going to be looking for the ones with the VL's in the deployment zones.

Oh, and one thing I did to compensate for the VL being so close to the axis deployment is I extended the time of the battle. If a person is all about winning and not tactical gameplay then large bore artillery would be an easy solution to this map's asymmetry - yes, I preview the maps before I play them.

[Darknight (DC)]

I've located the map I found a bit "iffy".

It's "Meet Large Town 009"

You can see that although the Axis deployment doesn't connect which you'd expect in a defend or delay scenario, in all other respects, it looks like a defend/delay since the Axis can reach the Single VL in 2 turns and then simply defend it ( made even easier since it's inside the town, so there's artillery cover and other defensive cover. )

Actually I think it looks like an excellent map for an Attack, just not so much for an ME.

LOL

This is the exact map that I was speaking about above.

I had the Allied side in what we had intended to be an ME but this is truly an Attack or Assault map....I could post the AAR later tonight if you really want to see how it went.

It was a beautiful map and I'd recommend it for an attack or assault but it was just ridiculous as an ME.

[Darknight (DC)]

I'm currently playing it as US, it is a bit lopsided, but not horribly so, IMHO.

I'd say from experience that's a bit of an understatement, as this is supposed to be an ME.

Several factors are important here:

1) the Axis setup zones are concealed

2) the Allied setup zones are at least half-viewable by the Axis (and easily covered)

3) there is only 1 viable approach to the OBJ for the Allied side

4) the VL is easily within the grip of the Axis

For an ME, it fails miserably, as there is no actual Meeting Engagement.

The Axis moves into the town and has 5-10 turns to set up a defence there while the Allied take significant attritional fire just trying to get close enough to attack the VL (town).

Then, the depleted/demoralized Allies must dig the Axis out of the VL.

[sfhand]

I'd say from experience that's a bit of an understatement, as this is supposed to be an ME.

Several factors are important here:

1) the Axis setup zones are concealed

2) the Allied setup zones are at least half-viewable by the Axis (and easily covered)

3) there is only 1 viable approach to the OBJ for the Allied side

4) the VL is easily within the grip of the Axis

For an ME, it fails miserably, as there is no actual Meeting Engagement.

The Axis moves into the town and has 5-10 turns to set up a defence there while the Allied take significant attritional fire just trying to get close enough to attack the VL (town).

Then, the depleted/demoralized Allies must dig the Axis out of the VL.

That's funny because that wasn't/isn't my experience of it at all. As I wrote earlier, the only fire I took advancing was flanking fire and the only change I would consider is eliminating the axis deployment zone that is on the far left of the posted screenshot to solve that problem. BTW, My guys were in position to move into the town after 3 turns had I chosen to put up a smoke screen. However, there are other ways into town that I am taking advantage of now and I have established a toe-hold with over an hour to go. And... none of my troops were fired on while in the setup zone.

Have you played the scenario? If so, as allied? If so, what was your approach?

One last thing, when I preview a map I don't do it in the editor, so I had no idea where the axis deployment zones were and I was very surprised to find one on an adjacent map edge. Since, I only lost 4-5 guys to the flanking fire I don't consider it a big deal. The grille firing on my MG support positions was a far bigger problem than getting my guys into position.

[eltorrente]

I think that one of the difficulties with all of this, is in choosing random maps, and the way the setup process works. It can take a day or two just to see the map that the computer chose.

So, what happens is that the guy who sets up the battle simply saves the file and sends it off to the opponent. At this point the person who set it up has no idea what the map is, and can't look at it beforehand, and his fingers are crossed when he sends the file. Next he/she waits for his opponent to look at it and pick his forces, and his opponent is usually in a different time zone - often a different continent altogether. It takes a day or two just to get the file back and realize that the map is wacky.

In my last few PBEM's, my opponents have been in Australia, the Netherlands, Spain, Missouri, etc - all over the map. Juste86 is somewhere in a time zone 6 hours from me. I often wait a couple days to see what map we ended up with based on schedules.

I guess the best thing to do right now is to manually pick a map and let the opponent know before the setup is done, and let him look it over and approve it. Choosing random is normally the best and most fun way to play QB's IMO, but with these maps it's a crap-shoot. Another big reason for choosing random is to show your opponent that you aren't choosing your favorite map, or the map that you've figured out all the sneaky LOS areas and what-not.

[GreenAsJade]

Yes.

IE its broken and the workarounds are painful.

(And this isn't just about the map - also the second guy, who receives the first turn,

doesn't even know what the conditions are that he's purchasing for! Day? Night? Oppo force makeup?)

GaJ

[eltorrente]

Yes.

IE its broken and the workarounds are painful.

(And this isn't just about the map - also the second guy, who receives the first turn,

doesn't even know what the conditions are that he's purchasing for! Day? Night? Oppo force makeup?)

GaJ

No, the opponent knows because he can preview the map before he chooses his forces - as long as Map Preview is set to ON.

[Darknight (DC)]

That's funny because that wasn't/isn't my experience of it at all. As I wrote earlier, the only fire I took advancing was flanking fire and the only change I would consider is eliminating the axis deployment zone that is on the far left of the posted screenshot to solve that problem. BTW, My guys were in position to move into the town after 3 turns had I chosen to put up a smoke screen. However, there are other ways into town that I am taking advantage of now and I have established a toe-hold with over an hour to go. And... none of my troops were fired on while in the setup zone.

Have you played the scenario? If so, as allied? If so, what was your approach?

One last thing, when I preview a map I don't do it in the editor, so I had no idea where the axis deployment zones were and I was very surprised to find one on an adjacent map edge. Since, I only lost 4-5 guys to the flanking fire I don't consider it a big deal. The grille firing on my MG support positions was a far bigger problem than getting my guys into position.

Scenario? I think you mean 'played an ME on the map', right?

Maybe it depends on the size of the forces you're playing with...we had about 4250 pts each to work with. I see no possible way that you could have got your troops to a position to cross into the town easily from Turn 4 onwards...I would assume you raced from the right-hand setup zone to the Farmhouses and would put a smoke screen on the Gully...if that's the case, then your opponent did not cover that open ground very well, because there's no excuse to not see you coming.

The way my game played out (from the Allied side), I tried to use the vineyard compound in the lefthand setup area as an observation area, as the sight-lines from there were pretty good. I sent two Coys of Inf from the back of that same setup zone to the tree grove on the centre hill, hoping to push through the gully and into the town. I also had some supporting weapons start from the righthand setup zone, but the is little cover on the right flank approach and none between the two compounds and the town.

My Axis opponent was able to set up almost all of his units without me seeing them until later turns and began shooting at my forces on turn 1. He was even able to hide a Tiger in the Axis zone to my far left.

I admit that I had made an assumption about where my opponent's setup zones would likely be (this supposedly being an ME map) and I was quite surprised therefore that his units were already at the farmhouses in the left-middle of the map by Turn 1. I had to focus on trying to neuter the Axis threat on my left flank, as well as moving other elements towards the town, then I started taking major casualties in the tree grove from enemy fire as my opponent moved into defensive positions around the town.

For you, as the Allied side to basically not take casualties in advancing across that map means that your Axis opponent was doing something very wrong.

[Baneman]

while the Allied take significant attritional fire just trying to get close enough to attack the VL (town).

I'm in the middle of an ME on this map at the moment and have to say that I've indeed taken significant attrition approaching the town.

Added to this, I lost a Sherman on my right to an enemy Stug opposite - I moved perhaps 50m forward, but I don't think the Stug had to move at all, so, yes, the Axis deployment zone has pretty good LoS.

And he's got a Tiger over on my left, which has caused mayhem. I've tried to blind it with smoke, but he's not left it sitting still, so that's a short term solution and is running out of legs.

So far I've seen roughly 3 enemy infantrymen, so can only conclude he's marched into town using the town itself as cover. So I have no idea how many are in there.

Sfhand, I can only conclude your opponent failed to make best use of his opportunities to put the hurt on you, because my opponent has done so in spades

[MikeyD]

'Lopsided' is the fortunes of war. One can only go so far forcing a 'balanced' battle. Earlier in CM:BN I played a QB seemingly stacked in my opponent's favor... except I had a single King Tiger and the allies had to round a distant bald crest to get to me. Checkmate. But I was lucky, throughout the game I could hear the sounds of circling thunderbolt fighter bombers. If one of them had spotted my Tiger on open ground my advantage would have vanished. C'est la guerre.

[GreenAsJade]

No, the opponent knows because he can preview the map before he chooses his forces - as long as Map Preview is set to ON.

No, the map preview doesn't tell you anything about the conditions of the game. It doesn't tell you your oppo force makeup constraints (can they bring combined arms or only armour?). It doesn't tell you the weather. It doesn't tell you the time of day.

The second player doesn't find these things out till _after_ force selection!

GaJ

[eltorrente]

No, the map preview doesn't tell you anything about the conditions of the game. It doesn't tell you your oppo force makeup constraints (can they bring combined arms or only armour?). It doesn't tell you the weather. It doesn't tell you the time of day.

The second player doesn't find these things out till _after_ force selection!

GaJ

You must be confusing CMFI with a CMx1 game or something..

You can see the weather during the map preview. If it's raining, it'll be raining in the preview. If it's dark, it'll be dark. You can also press the "conditions" button and verify: Weather, Temperature, Ground Condition, and Wind - all during the preview before you select your forces. Also, when you first select the saved game, it shows the time of day, battle size, and battle type.

The only thing you don't know, until after force selection, is what force type the opponent has selected - as in Mix, Mech Infantry, or whatever. That's not a big deal though, since that should be decided on beforehand anyway. Most people have it set on Mix unless someone specifically requests a certain force makeup.

[Darknight (DC)]

You also don't know the number/size/layout/location of the setup zones at that point.

[Darknight (DC)]

I'm in the middle of an ME on this map at the moment and have to say that I've indeed taken significant attrition approaching the town.

Added to this, I lost a Sherman on my right to an enemy Stug opposite - I moved perhaps 50m forward, but I don't think the Stug had to move at all, so, yes, the Axis deployment zone has pretty good LoS.

And he's got a Tiger over on my left, which has caused mayhem. I've tried to blind it with smoke, but he's not left it sitting still, so that's a short term solution and is running out of legs.

So far I've seen roughly 3 enemy infantrymen, so can only conclude he's marched into town using the town itself as cover. So I have no idea how many are in there.

Sfhand, I can only conclude your opponent failed to make best use of his opportunities to put the hurt on you, because my opponent has done so in spades

This is amazingly close to my exact experience with the game I played on this map....Sherman lost to a StuG on turn 1 on the right flank; Tiger (and PzIV) show up on my extreme left flank a few turns in; one semi-concealed approach to town where a few mortar and tank rounds into the trees is really bad news; enemy MGs (and 2 StuGs) to cause havoc when trying to move towards the gully...I should post the AAR I did....it covers everything in detail and with some pictures.

[Darknight (DC)]

'Lopsided' is the fortunes of war. One can only go so far forcing a 'balanced' battle. Earlier in CM:BN I played a QB seemingly stacked in my opponent's favor... except I had a single King Tiger and the allies had to round a distant bald crest to get to me. Checkmate. But I was lucky, throughout the game I could hear the sounds of circling thunderbolt fighter bombers. If one of them had spotted my Tiger on open ground my advantage would have vanished. C'est la guerre.

Agreed to a point....the unit selections are always going to vary and have their own impact on balance, but the Map type itself should not be the factor causing the 'lopsided' situation.

There are certain expectations with an ME in order to make a fair game of it.

If the expectations for an ME have changed, then it should be something players are aware of up front. We already apparently have categories for assault/attack/defense maps, (and I have no problem playing any of these types)...I'd just like to know, in general, what I'm getting when I invest the time into a game.

[Erwin]

I was sorry to read that people are unhappy with QB maps. The problem is that players who could whip up a great-looking map and scenario fairly easily in CM1, are clearly not doing em for CM2. I know that I am totally intimidated by what appear to be the huge time commitment it now requires. Same for modders I guess...

[Baneman]

Erwin, I'm not unhappy with the QB maps per se, simply with the classification of a few - ie. the map I moaned about is NOT a bad map, it would be great as an Attack/Defend map, but classed as an ME map, it doesn't work so well.

With an ME, there's at least some expectation that both sides have to push forward and contest something near the middle of the map or both sides have to push for the enemy's side. This creates the tactical problems we associate with ME's in general.

The standard of maps in FI, so far I have found to be very high, so I don't want to be thought to be complaining about the maps themselves.

A little bit of jiggering with VL's and/or setup zones on those few maps which have been found to be a little out-of-synch with their classification and we're golden

[Darknight (DC)]

Erwin, I'm not unhappy with the QB maps per se, simply with the classification of a few - ie. the map I moaned about is NOT a bad map, it would be great as an Attack/Defend map, but classed as an ME map, it doesn't work so well.

I agree completely....I love the map, just not its classification as an ME.

It would make a very cool assault map.

[sfhand]

Well, based on the apparently huge gap between what I think is a reasonable ME map and some others here I see little reason for me to follow through with my plans to look at the setup zones and VL's on the QB maps.

[Darknight (DC)]

That seems a little passive aggressive.

None of us are stopping you from doing whatever you'd like with the QB ME maps.

I believe reclassifying some of the QB ME maps as Attack or Assault maps would solve the issue.

We simply have differing perspectives (for various reasons) on how the maps should be fixed.

[sfhand]

You see... we can't even agree on what passive aggressive is. For you it's when someone retracts their plan to assess a situation once they realize their efforts would not solve the "issue" at hand for many. For me it's when you say you had different and better results than someone else and they say it's because your opponent sucks (funny, he had no problems tearing me up in Carbide, Carbide).

The map that started this thread off, with a VL in a deployment zone, is clearly broken as a ME map. The other one we've been discussing is in no-where-near the same condition. I would urge the removal of one axis setup zone while you would remove it from the list of ME maps. I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying there is no way you will be happy with the results of me looking at every map and sending a list to sdp for his consideration. I also qualified myself as rather laid back in my approach to this situation (trim the nail rather than cut off the finger) and urged those who would be more "rigid" in their approach to step up.

[Mord]

That map also sports some buildings with missing upper floors. And yeah, DC is correct, I was his opponent and I was in the town within two turns.

Mord.