PvP QB/PBEM Questions

[xIGuNDoCIx]

As long as I have been playing the CM series of games I never really ventured out into the wild that is PvP (Player vs Player) games.  In total I can count how many PvP games I have under my belt on one hand.     I would like to change that but I do have some questions regarding what everyone, at least those who do play versus other players, use as a guideline to setup their games.

 

1.  What is the "normal" point cap for games? Small, Medium, Large?  What is the preferred game size?

 

2.  Are the points static or can the players choose their own point cap for that game?

 

3.  What is the preferred mission type that most players use?  ME, Atk/Def, etc?

 

4.  "Cheese" tactics/exploits.  Given that CMBS players are not like most other game communities I would expect the level of "cheese" to be quite low, but I am sure their is at least one guy/tactic that just seems OP.  Has anyone ran across anything or is the game balanced in PvP?

 

 

[Imperial Grunt]

Player vs player is the highest form of CM. The game truly becomes a test of tactics and overcoming the friction of facing a thinking opposition.

As far as your questions go, it's really up to how you want to play. I prefer company or less sized games for instance. I also prefer meeting engagements.

PBEM is the most reliable way to play multi-player however it does take awhile. I hope that one day BFC makes playing via TCP/LAN so easy a grunt can do it because I think that style of head to head play would really take off.

[xIGuNDoCIx]

Yeah I think that Company sized would be the way to go as anything bigger could drag on.  

[womble]

More troops on the field just means more explosions and death per minute! Size of game is entirely down to personal preference and mutual agreement, as is the type of battle. Some people like MEs because they're "balanced"; others don't like them because they're very artificial. It is worth noting that the attacker's points advantage in an Assault is, while not at the "historical 3:1 for a successful attack" level, still pretty large. There has been some general murmuring that Probe level battles give a more balanced/challenging outcome.

A PBEM QB is set up with exactly the same parameters as a human v AI QB: The points brackets are the same; the ratios between attacker and defender are the same for a given battle type.

One tactic generally frowned upon is the defender having preplanned, turn 1 missions on the attacker's setup zone. Many attacking setup zones are small enough that a turn 1 bombardment will eviscerate the attacker's force. People seem to tend to restrict preplanned bombardments and TRPs in Meeting Engagements. There are also some drastically underpriced assets in the WW2 titles (US rockets has been an example) that it's worth checking with your opponent whether there's a problem. Looking at Black Sea, it seems it's essential to play with rarity on, or M1 Abrams with APS will just pitchfork whatever's in front of 'em.

[Bud Backer]

Yeah I think that Company sized would be the way to go as anything bigger could drag on.

Some people really like larger battles. You can talk to IanL here about a monster battle he did with I think over 20000 pts. I like smaller battles, a company in size max, as it keeps giving orders a lot less tedious. And I find it overwhelming when I have a large force, it's just so many details to take care of.

I'm sure if you post in the opponents wanted forum here and explain your experience, and what sort of set up you'd like (Small forces, QB, what ever the case may be) you will find people interested in playing you. Good luck!

[Apocal]

As long as I have been playing the CM series of games I never really ventured out into the wild that is PvP (Player vs Player) games.  In total I can count how many PvP games I have under my belt on one hand.     I would like to change that but I do have some questions regarding what everyone, at least those who do play versus other players, use as a guideline to setup their games.

 

1.  What is the "normal" point cap for games? Small, Medium, Large?  What is the preferred game size?

 

2.  Are the points static or can the players choose their own point cap for that game?

 

3.  What is the preferred mission type that most players use?  ME, Atk/Def, etc?

 

4.  "Cheese" tactics/exploits.  Given that CMBS players are not like most other game communities I would expect the level of "cheese" to be quite low, but I am sure their is at least one guy/tactic that just seems OP.  Has anyone ran across anything or is the game balanced in PvP?

 

 

1. For a tiny scale attack QB, attacker gets4201 points and the defender gets 2560. For medium scale attack, the attacker gets 10600 and the defender 6400. With a huge attack, the attacker has 26980* points with the defender getting 16228 points. The preferred game size is tiny or small. Beyond that you start edging closer to having unplayable monster scenarios.

 

*Just for sake of context: this is enough (with a little finagling) for an American attacker to buy two tank-heavy mixed companies, with all-APS Abrams, full MANPADS and Engineer Platoons, a battery of 155mm artillery, UAV for spotting and some TRPs. There isn't a QB map that comes stock capable of reasonably support all those forces.

 

2. Points are static, although a dynamic point adjustment would be nice.

 

3. Meeting engagement for PBEM.

 

4. The game isn't balanced. There is nothing stopping your defending opponent from buying large amounts of heaviest caliber artillery he can find and calling down a massive turn 1 barrage on your starting area. People don't do it because it kind of makes you a complete tool, but I'm sure there is at least one dickbag in the crowd.

[xIGuNDoCIx]

1. For a tiny scale attack QB, attacker gets4201 points and the defender gets 2560. For medium scale attack, the attacker gets 10600 and the defender 6400. With a huge attack, the attacker has 26980* points with the defender getting 16228 points. The preferred game size is tiny or small. Beyond that you start edging closer to having unplayable monster scenarios.

 

*Just for sake of context: this is enough (with a little finagling) for an American attacker to buy two tank-heavy mixed companies, with all-APS Abrams, full MANPADS and Engineer Platoons, a battery of 155mm artillery, UAV for spotting and some TRPs. There isn't a QB map that comes stock capable of reasonably support all those forces.

 

2. Points are static, although a dynamic point adjustment would be nice.

 

3. Meeting engagement for PBEM.

 

4. The game isn't balanced. There is nothing stopping your defending opponent from buying large amounts of heaviest caliber artillery he can find and calling down a massive turn 1 barrage on your starting area. People don't do it because it kind of makes you a complete tool, but I'm sure there is at least one dickbag in the crowd.

I assume that in a ME both sides have the same initial point total, right?

[Apocal]

I assume that in a ME both sides have the same initial point total, right?

 

Yes.

[A Canadian Cat]

Some people really like larger battles. You can talk to IanL here about a monster battle he did with I think over 20000 pts. I like smaller battles, a company in size max, as it keeps giving orders a lot less tedious. And I find it overwhelming when I have a large force, it's just so many details to take care of.

I'm sure if you post in the opponents wanted forum here and explain your experience, and what sort of set up you'd like (Small forces, QB, what ever the case may be) you will find people interested in playing you. Good luck!

Yep, I like a variety of force sizes.

You can check out these sites where you can find players:

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/

http://www.theblitz.org/index.php

http://www.webandofbrothers.de/

[xIGuNDoCIx]

Yep, I like a variety of force sizes.

You can check out these sites where you can find players:

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/

http://www.theblitz.org/index.php

http://www.webandofbrothers.de/

Awesome I will check them out!  Although I have a strange feeling that I am going to get trounced until I get acclimated player against a live player versus the AI.

[Bud Backer]

Awesome I will check them out!  Although I have a strange feeling that I am going to get trounced until I get acclimated player against a live player versus the AI.

That's how I feel. I bought CMBS last night and played against the AI...and won. But that was only because the AI was not a Human.

[xIGuNDoCIx]

That's how I feel. I bought CMBS last night and played against the AI...and won. But that was only because the AI was not a Human.

So what you are saying is that you and I should play each other! 

[Bud Backer]

So what you are saying is that you and I should play each other! 

You're on!

PM sent!

[womble]

The preferred game size is tiny or small. Beyond that you start edging closer to having unplayable monster scenarios.

You mean your preferred game size is tiny or small. There are, indeed, some monster scenarios out there and monster QBs, and they're far from unplayable. Sure there are some that won't run on some rigs, too. But "The" implies everyone prefers tiny or small, and that simply isn't the case.

[Apocal]

You mean your preferred game size is tiny or small. There are, indeed, some monster scenarios out there and monster QBs, and they're far from unplayable.

 

Maybe if you don't have a job or a life.

[womble]

Maybe if you don't have a job or a life.

It's PBEM. Even if a battalion-plus game takes an hour for some turns, that's hardly a life-eating commitment at a turn every day or two.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I won't even play a QB smaller than Large.