Pbem

[fatehunter]

Ready to try FI with PBEM.

Suggested scenario is the first one with the italian and american patrols

[womble]

Ready to try FI with PBEM.

Suggested scenario is the first one with the italian and american patrols

IMO, Beyond the Belice should be played vs the AI with the human as the US. There is a severe mismatch in force capability.

[fatehunter]

ok,

Played both sides and could always win. Thought it might be fun as human.

Any suggestions for good starting point for first FI human vs human?

[womble]

ok,

Played both sides and could always win.

Sure, against an AI. The armour mismatch can be dealt with, but that's not so easy against a human.

Any suggestions for good starting point for first FI human vs human?

I think Lemon Hill might be quite good. Least experienced player should get the Amis, I feel. Jumping into H2H with Italians assaulting might be a bit of a trial

[Kuderian]

Hi fatehunter,

Glad to hear you're ready for pbem, far more enjoyable imho.

One suggestion is to play a scenario with an opponent which neither of you have played. This is called 'playing blind'. It means neither of you know what to expect so far more surprises etc. and more realistic to boot!

Obviously you have to trust your opponent but in my experience most of my opponents are pretty honest (a Russian 'gentlemen' I played (and still play) being a major exception though now I use non-stock scenarios so he cannot look up my forces and deployment times )

[Sublime]

a Russian 'gentlemen' I played (and still play) being a major exception though now I use non-stock scenarios so he cannot look up my forces and deployment times

Verrry enjoyable killing his troops huh?

[Kuderian]

Verrry enjoyable killing his troops huh?

He is an excellent strategist and I have learn't a lot from playing him.

Sent from my incontinence pad.

[fatehunter]

thanks all. I have two games one the go now. Lots of learning!

[Childress]

Obviously you have to trust your opponent but in my experience most of my opponents are pretty honest (a Russian 'gentlemen' I played (and still play) being a major exception though now I use non-stock scenarios so he cannot look up my forces and deployment times )

Why dishonest? It's a public scenario available to all. Unless were speaking of prior agreement NOT to peek.

[Sublime]

eh seems a bit ungentlemanly to specifically go find a scenario and start it up just to see what your opponent has. Agreement or not that'd be a gamey move.

[ASL Veteran]

It all depends on how you like to play. If you prefer to play 'blind' then looking before the battle starts would be ungentlemanly. However, I don't really mind if someone looks. In fact, I encourage it because it helps my opponent and I to select good scenarios. If you are playing blind you are selecting scenarios blind (unless you have someone else recommending them to you). The way I would do it is whoever selects the scenario doesn't select which side they want to play as. This forces someone to select a scenario where they think they can win as either side since they don't know what side their opponent is going to pick. It also makes it a good idea to look at both sides before making a scenario selection if you are the one choosing the scenario and it makes it a good idea to look at each side before choosing the side you want to play. It's more of a 'chess' mentality I suppose.

Just because someone doesn't play blind doesn't mean the scenario is any less tense. You may have some familiarity with what you are up against, but you don't know how your opponent will use what they've got. There are so many different playing styles and skill levels that having glanced at both sides in a scenario prior to playing it is probably one of the smallest factors in determining victory or defeat in my opinion. That's just me though. If you play the same scenario against five different people, you will most certainly get five different battle experiences.

[Sublime]

Thats why it's best to discuss these things before playing generally..

[Kuderian]

What I like to do is play the scenario 'blind' first.

Then reverse sides and replay.

This way you get surprise first, then 'lessons learned' second and this also compensates for unbalanced scenarios.

Sent from my menstrualPad

[Shorker]

Just a tip: For finding human opponents I would like to recommend you join a PBEM gaming club, e.g. "THE FEW GOOD MEN".

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/home/?tag=combat-mission-2

[womble]

Just because someone doesn't play blind doesn't mean the scenario is any less tense.

It certainly changes the nature of that tension. If you know they only have four Shermans, you'll have to perform some mild mental gymnastics to play the game as if there might be another tank lurking, once you've neutralised those first 4 tanks. Personally, I'd rather preserve those unknowns for as long as possible, and could care only very slightly less whether a scenario is "unbalanced", so long as it provides some challenge (and not knowing it's unbalanced means you at least have to play as if it is challenging at the outset, even if it's actually a cakewalk).

[ASL Veteran]

It certainly changes the nature of that tension. If you know they only have four Shermans, you'll have to perform some mild mental gymnastics to play the game as if there might be another tank lurking, once you've neutralised those first 4 tanks. Personally, I'd rather preserve those unknowns for as long as possible, and could care only very slightly less whether a scenario is "unbalanced", so long as it provides some challenge (and not knowing it's unbalanced means you at least have to play as if it is challenging at the outset, even if it's actually a cakewalk).

I don't disagree with that. However, the flip side of that is also true. Let's say you know that your opponent has a King Tiger. The way you play the scenario is going to be in a manner in which you are accounting for it at all times and your plan of action is going to be influenced by that. Your opponent could keep their King Tiger hidden in the back somewhere out of your line of sight for quite a while with the intent of subjecting you to a devastating ambush when the time is right. In the mean time you are advancing cautiously just waiting for the big fist to hit you in the nose, but you don't know when it's going to hit or where.

Granted, if you didn't know he had a King Tiger in the first place there would be an 'oh crap' moment when it arrives, but at the same time just by pure accident you may have positioned yourself in such a way as to neutralize it without much trouble since you didn't even know it was there in the first place.

Like I said though - it just depends on how you like to play. I've played both ways and I prefer to know I'll be in a good battle than to play blind and find out it's a cake walk (or a thrashing). PBEM battles take so much time to play that I would rather invest my time in something knowing I have a chance for victory. That, and having played ASL for many years where there is no fog of war at all I'm comfortable with it peeking. Besides, most people aren't going to remember every single detail just from one quick glance. I normally just get a sense of what the force is all about, I don't write it all down on a spreadsheet. Usually there is going to be more than one weapon system that will contribute to victory or defeat.

[womble]

I don't disagree with that. However, the flip side of that is also true. Let's say you know that your opponent has a King Tiger. The way you play the scenario is going to be in a manner in which you are accounting for it at all times and your plan of action is going to be influenced by that. Your opponent could keep their King Tiger hidden in the back somewhere out of your line of sight for quite a while with the intent of subjecting you to a devastating ambush when the time is right. In the mean time you are advancing cautiously just waiting for the big fist to hit you in the nose, but you don't know when it's going to hit or where.

Granted, if you didn't know he had a King Tiger in the first place there would be an 'oh crap' moment when it arrives, but at the same time just by pure accident you may have positioned yourself in such a way as to neutralize it without much trouble since you didn't even know it was there in the first place.

I tend to play as if a KT might pop out anyway if I don't know there isn't one... That's what recon is for.

...I would rather invest my time in something knowing I have a chance for victory...

I guess that's the big difference: for me, victory is thoroughly a secondary objective to playing the game. Differences between "goal-oriented" and "process-oriented" gamers or some such. Accounts, to some extent, I'd hazzard, for why some people can't be doing with big scenarios, since they need to see a result screen on a regular basis, whereas others are happy to spend ages on a turn addressing all the units of a reinforced battalion or two and for there to be months between results screens. Even if I'm handed a hopeless situation where there's no real chance of controlling any VLs and every chance I'll get steamrollered, the process of doing as much damage as possible, and causing my opponent as much confusion as possible, as simply finding out "what happens next" is where I get my gaming jollies.

That, and having played ASL for many years where there is no fog of war at all I'm comfortable with it peeking.

Whereas I (who've also played countless hours of no-FoW tabletop miniature and counter games) take the view that FoW is a precious gift from BFC and should not be squandered or lightly set aside

As you say, dif'r'nt strokes...

[A Canadian Cat]

Whereas I (who've also played countless hours of no-FoW tabletop miniature and counter games) take the view that FoW is a precious gift from BFC and should not be squandered or lightly set aside

As you say, dif'r'nt strokes...

+1 to that. I love the FoW effects and really enjoy playing scenarios "double blind" as I like to day. Playing them again is cool too but the first time is special.

[cjslax6]

Anyone else interested in a game?

[Kuderian]

There is a most excellent small Shia vs Sunni CM:SF scenario called 'Neighborhood Blood Feud' by MikeyD.

****SPOILER ALERT*****

Both sides know that a relief column of American armed Iraqi troops are arriving at some point but neither side knows which faction they will join.

A few minutes after they arrive and join side A, side B receives a completely unexpected VBIED which again re tilts the balance.

****SPOILER END******

When I played this 'blind' the suspense and surprises were brilliant because not only did you not know whose side reinforcements would join, you did not know your own reinforcements!

My point being, none of the above would have being possible if my opponent and I had been familiar with the scenario before playing it.

Sent from my v2rocketPAD.

[Sublime]

CJ wanna pick up where we left off? Got my comp fix and drop box back in order! PM me or email me at the jeffreypclark86@yahoo.com

Also Kuderian and ASL and Womble - Good points all. I understand what you mean ASL about the PBeMs taking a long time to complete, but I have to say I fall firmly onto womble's view of wargaming. For example even in single player, Road to Mountebourg for example. Theres a few battles that aren't a big deal for the Allies, like Le Grande Hameau. However the first time around YOU DONT know exactly what the Axis is packing, and so you advance, slowly, cautiously, etc. After I figured out they were way outnumbered, I always rush in and wipe em out. I actually take more casualties from over confidence however. I PBEM'd it against someone before knowing what they had from playing single player and they actually won as Axis. I mean I still wiped them out but they had a casualty objective that they achieved easily, and placed some landmines brilliantly. If they had better managed their ATG they could really have caused me problems...