Gustav Line Beta AAR Round Two PEANUT GALLERY

[JonS]

[Chops]

^ Very funny, and I agree with the above mentioned sentiment.

I do wonder if there is a technical way around this issue. Maybe a modification could be made to the existing communication modeling that would allow a borg scout or unit to store sighting contact information in "RAM" until that unit is back online with its normal communication links. At that point the sighting information (contacts) would be available to the other units in the chain of command and player (god's view).

[Vanir Ausf B]

There has been a TON of discussion about this and similar issues in that past. I don't know if the particular idea of storing spotting information to only be shone to the player when/if C2 is re-established is technically feasible or not, but I do know that BFC have consistently shot down suggestions for similar limits.

No, no, and no

Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not. I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink"

This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic.

For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out...

Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see?

The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with.

Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Not precisely related to the above discussion on whether spotting intel by out-of-C2 units should be allowable or not, but kind of distantly related, I have been thinking about Probes as a game type lately. I'm not sure how they have been handled in scenarios as I rarely play those, but in QBs they are actually sort of weak attacks against a shallower defense. But that's not what is meant by a probe as I understand it. So to better represent the tactic of probing, I wonder if the following can be added to the game.

The primary purpose of a probe attack is to get the enemy to reveal the disposition of his defenses while risking fewer losses than an all-out committed attack would likely entail and expending fewer resources. So I'm wondering if there is some way that the game, after some code changes/expansions, could keep track of how many defensive units have been spotted by attacking units and assigning points accordingly. This would be in addition to points acquired in the usual way, by inflicting casualties of men and material and avoiding losses on one's own side, and by capturing and holding objectives. Conversely, the defender receives points for retaining the objective, inflicting and avoiding casualties, and bonus points for any units that have not been spotted during the course of the game. Any defensive works such as minefields, entrenchments, wire, etc. should be counted as units and points assigned accordingly.

As usual, I have no idea how much coding effort would be involved or whether the general feeling would be that the end justified the effort. It's just one of those things I'd like to see.

Michael

[womble]

Not precisely related to the above discussion on whether spotting intel by out-of-C2 units should be allowable or not, but kind of distantly related, I have been thinking about Probes as a game type lately. I'm not sure how they have been handled in scenarios as I rarely play those, but in QBs they are actually sort of weak attacks against a shallower defense. But that's not what is meant by a probe as I understand it. So to better represent the tactic of probing, I wonder if the following can be added to the game.

The primary purpose of a probe attack is to get the enemy to reveal the disposition of his defenses while risking fewer losses than an all-out committed attack would likely entail and expending fewer resources. So I'm wondering if there is some way that the game, after some code changes/expansions, could keep track of how many defensive units have been spotted by attacking units and assigning points accordingly. This would be in addition to points acquired in the usual way, by inflicting casualties of men and material and avoiding losses on one's own side, and by capturing and holding objectives. Conversely, the defender receives points for retaining the objective, inflicting and avoiding casualties, and bonus points for any units that have not been spotted during the course of the game. Any defensive works such as minefields, entrenchments, wire, etc. should be counted as units and points assigned accordingly.

As usual, I have no idea how much coding effort would be involved or whether the general feeling would be that the end justified the effort. It's just one of those things I'd like to see.

Michael

I believe there's a VC type for spotting enemy. It's used in an early scenario in one of the campaigns. Getting that VC type incorporated into QBs in a meaningful and consistent manner might be a bit of a task, though.

[Rocky Balboa]

It would appear that all the wailing and gnashing of teeth earlier when GAJ's AT gun was easily spotted and destroyed has quieted. Now we have a second gun which fires off at least 4 rounds and yet remains hidden.

Seems that as in RL spotting is not a simple formula but a very complex equation with many variables coming into play ...

*** Golf Clap *** for seeing this demonstrated in the AAR ...

[MikeyD]

Considering his formidable armor I'm very surprised that Bill hasn't quickly advanced his tanks as a bloc, absorbed a few blows to the front then picked off the enemy as they made their presence known. He's utilizing his Elephant as though it was a StuG. Creeping forward then retreating at danger. Normally I'd be behind this sort of tactic but dude, 200mm bow armor and an 88! Mike Tyson doesn't run away from a scuffle!

[Andrew H.]

Considering his formidable armor I'm very surprised that Bill hasn't quickly advanced his tanks as a bloc, absorbed a few blows to the front then picked off the enemy as they made their presence known. He's utilizing his Elephant as though it was a StuG. Creeping forward then retreating at danger. Normally I'd be behind this sort of tactic but dude, 200mm bow armor and an 88! Mike Tyson doesn't run away from a scuffle!

Good idea! Wedge formation: the Elefant at the center; one Brummbar on each side and slightly further back, and then the Pz IVs farther back on the flanks. And then *boom* - the Wedgie of Death goes right between the tits!

[Michael Emrys]

...the Wedgie of Death goes right between the tits!

Either you are mixing metaphors like crazy or are confused about women's underwear.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Chops -I have played several hundreds of CMx1 and seen lots of people with frankly crackpot views on why their tweak of the game was an improvement - don't waste your time. ! : )

As for in-house rules I am fundamentally against them as they are difficult to enforce and can have unintended consequences. My position has always been that if the game has a problem area then scenario designers should design to negate it or its effects.

For instance assault boats created horrendous problems in CMx1.

House to house fighting I think is a problem for both versions in play and in design.

I used to belong to WeBoB where there are around 100+ gamers .... and you get bounced out for being naughty.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109460

CM2 World War 2 is also played. I took leave of absences last year for a variety of reasons but one of them was the original CMBN was not good at all. I thought it better for the club if I did not broadcast my feelings there. CMBN V2 is actually hugely better. I may go back to find reliable partners. GAJ being one.

[Hister]

I may go back to find reliable partners. GAJ being one.

Oh, I didn't know GaJ is gay!

[Vanir Ausf B]

As for in-house rules I am fundamentally against them as they are difficult to enforce and can have unintended consequences. My position has always been that if the game has a problem area then scenario designers should design to negate it or its effects.

I find them to be indispensable, particularly for QBs, in which the players themselves are effectively the scenario designers. And I would say that nearly all of the common house rules are not difficult to enforce. First turn artillery on the attacker's setup zone is hard to miss

[dieseltaylor]

Oh, I didn't know GaJ is gay!

Yep Australian! : )

[dieseltaylor]

I find them to be indispensable, particularly for QBs, in which the players themselves are effectively the scenario designers. And I would say that nearly all of the common house rules are not difficult to enforce. First turn artillery on the attacker's setup zone is hard to miss

Well that is one thing about playing in a club. You do that stunt and you may find it hard ever to find a gamer willing to play. In the wild your feelings about that sort of behaviour in your game is not going to prevent him finding other players on the Web.

We do have explanatory pieces on what playing blind means, early bombardment etc. as we do get noobies to the genre and to the club. A preliminary game to see that they can at least exchange turns regularly and understand about keeping opponents aware of possible enforced breaks like honeymoons etc. weeds out the unreliables.

Another plus is that the exchange between scenario designers and players is good. One of the big benefits is for designers they can have the game played without wrestling with AI scripting , and get lots of feedback if it is tournament game.

This is particularly useful in allowing "unbalanced" by design scenarios to be played. One side should win[!] all the battles but having multiple players provides meaningful results as the players on each side can have a pecking order. In the wild unbalanced scenarios really do not exist though in truth most warfare is about unbalanced battles.

BTW The h2h program of GAJ's was started in WeBoB.

[slysniper]

Considering his formidable armor I'm very surprised that Bill hasn't quickly advanced his tanks as a bloc, absorbed a few blows to the front then picked off the enemy as they made their presence known. He's utilizing his Elephant as though it was a StuG. Creeping forward then retreating at danger. Normally I'd be behind this sort of tactic but dude, 200mm bow armor and an 88! Mike Tyson doesn't run away from a scuffle!

Did you see the hits on the mantle, I would retreat also. I have found 5-6 hits like that is about the adv. for the enemy to knock out the gun on one of your uber tanks

[dieseltaylor]

Just to say:

A mantlet was a large shield or portable shelter used for stopping arrows or bullets, in medieval warfare. A mantlet could be mounted on a wheeled carriage, and protected one or several soldiers.

In the First World War a mantlet type of device was used by the French to attack barbed wire entanglements.[1]

In military use from pre-WW2 onward, a mantlet is the thick, protective steel frontal shield, usually able to elevate and depress, which houses the main gun on an armoured tank, examples being Tiger Tank, Sherman Tank and Churchill Tank .

Wikipedia

[womble]

We do have explanatory pieces on what playing blind means, early bombardment etc. as we do get noobies to the genre and to the club.

It's good that WeBoB's house rules are documented. Cos that's what they are, effectively: house rules. Those things you're so anti.

[dieseltaylor]

Tsk womble. You fail to notice the subtle distinction between explanations of terms used in the club, suggested behaviours, and "rules". The behavioural hints are not rules they are things to be considered as the norm and for people to be aware that may need to discuss if they wish to go outside them. They are not banned outright.

However if you wish to call them rules feel free and perhaps I should have made clearer I was talking of CMx1 or CMx2 specific house rules.

Now Fionn's Rules were rules that were very specific and in my opinion misguided. They were rules in the sense that you sought players who used his Rules. Effective if you do not have regular partners and wish to use a shorthand method for agreeing parameters. Gaming the parameters can be an art-form and you should be very wary of opponents who wish to decide on your force components.

And then you get opponents who have things like so many uber-tanks, no mines!, no airplanes, symmetrical maps etc etc. who want to start a process of tit for tat what is allowed that you want and what they want.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Tsk womble. You fail to notice the subtle distinction between explanations of terms used in the club, suggested behaviours, and "rules". The behavioural hints are not rules they are things to be considered as the norm and for people to be aware that may need to discuss if they wish to go outside them. They are not banned outright.

So you approve of informal rules but not formal rules? Eh, ok...

[womble]

Tsk womble. You fail to notice the subtle distinction between explanations of terms used in the club, suggested behaviours, and "rules".

And you fail to realise that social conventions of the strength which you describe are, in fact rules. If someone (without negotiating an exception to the rule) opens fire on the setup area, they apparently won't be able to play in the club. That makes "no turn one missions on setup zones a directive with consequences. A rule.

The behavioural hints are not rules they are things to be considered as the norm and for people to be aware that may need to discuss if they wish to go outside them. They are not banned outright.

Banned? No. But you have to negotiate an exception. House rules. Whatever way you cut it.

...perhaps I should have made clearer I was talking of CMx1 or CMx2 specific house rules...Fionn's Rules...

That's quite a lot clearer. Yes, you should have been more specific since we were discussing rather more generic principles than that.

They were rules in the sense that you sought players who used his Rules.

That's not a definition that makes something a rule. No wonder you're confused.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Now Fionn's Rules were rules that were very specific and in my opinion misguided. They were rules in the sense that you sought players who used his Rules. Effective if you do not have regular partners and wish to use a shorthand method for agreeing parameters. Gaming the parameters can be an art-form and you should be very wary of opponents who wish to decide on your force components.

If they were effective then in what way were they misguided? Would it have been preferable for them to be ineffective? Most house rules are actually attempts to limit gaming of the parameters, not increase it.

[sburke]

Somewhere there is a DAR going on we were here to discuss...oh wait some numbnuts authorized Bil's vacation.

[dieseltaylor]

Somewhere there is a DAR going on we were here to discuss...oh wait some numbnuts authorized Bil's vacation.

Yes it is tragic bad timing. Should we get a replacement in?

And apologies for setting off a fairly useless discussion on what is meant by House rules where the definition is more interesting than the content ...oh well. : )

In this break can I ask how many full games the forumites have played of CMFI. For me none as I don't have the game. So I cannot even test bunker and Elephant vulnerabilities

[A Canadian Cat]

In this break can I ask how many full games the forumites have played of CMFI. For me none as I don't have the game.

I have completed five full games via PBEM and I have three on the go now. Lots of fun I still have more going on in CMBN.

So I cannot even test bunker and Elephant vulnerabilities

Only one scenario had a bunker but it was an infantry only game so no large caliber gun interaction.

No one with the shipping game can play with Elephants yet and those that can can only discuss it in a restricted way:D

[ForwardObserver]

Hoolaman has made a comment regarding the map which I think it's not very accurate. If anything, I'm really impressed by the amount of work that Bil has done to capture this quite well known (to those into tactical wargaming) spot in central Italy.

Compare this screenshot from Bil's AAR

where he got his two HT's nailed in one single shot.