When is the map the map?

[John Kettler]

In a recent controversy over on CMBS, one of the major bones of contention had to do with some requirement I never heard of before, and I've been playing CM in various forms since January 2000, playing hundreds of QBs, regarding notifying your opposite number in a QB that you have LOS to said foe's setup area. To my knowledge, the only time I've ever sounded off about the map in the context of the game was in a tournament in which we were supposed to be playing on a fully mirrored map, but we weren't, and this conferred a real military advantage on my foe. Other than that, my basic attitude is and has long been the map is the map. Dominating terrain is called that for a reason, and the colloquial expression of an "uphill fight" reflects this reality. And the side which has the high ground consequently enjoys the LOS and LOF advantages associated therewith. The ground is the ground.

 

Nor is this for me some abstract intellectual exercise, for I have been on the receiving end myself, and quite recently. Not long ago, BadgerDog was my QB gaming partner. In a fit of what was forthrightly characterized by him as wargaming insanity (You're nuts"), I opted to attack with the Ukrainians in a computer picks Armored engagement. In order, I thought, to hamper Russian thermals, I attacked at dawn in driving rain. My force consisted of two OPLOTs, 2 or 3 BTR-4E, a bunch of BTR-70s and 4 BRDM-2s. The map was of the same size range and of broadly similar layout as the item of contention, but it had no village or housing development as did the one featured in the recent brouhaha. Much of my force was behind a couple of tree lines. I started to deploy my recon screen, but things started blowing up at and near the start line. Though I never got an actual spot on it, BD had a tank on a tall hill to my extreme deep front left, and it was going to town on my guys. I was also catching it from a later determined to be BMP-3 to my pretty deep center. Nothing happened to the OPLOTs, because the tree line completely screened them, nor to one of the BTR-4Es next to the OPLOTs, all situated to my far left. But my blind, therefore militarily useless, BTR-70s to my right and center were getting marked down: a BTR-4E went up, as did a BRDM-2. It certainly didn't help, either, that I was severely ignorant of what my BTR-4E's had in terms of armament and thermals, but the reality was this: full of myself and seeking to prove something, I'd brought a knife to a gunfight. And I paid accordingly. While I did get a couple of BRDM-2s forward some, they couldn't see anything, for their sensors were effectively nil. Doubtless I was to some degree paralyzed by the deadly fire which tore apart my force, but not once did I ever think BD was cheating in any way, shape or form. Never crossed my mind, in fact. I offered a ceasefire, but it wasn't accepted, and as yet more of my force became part of a flaming datum and acting, I believe, as a good CO would, I surrendered. BadgerDog won a crushing victory. In another encounter, it went the other way, but that came later. This QB's aftermath?

 

I felt no animus toward and took no umbrage regarding BadgerDog and his tromping of me. Other than a mutual discussion of my numerous errors, the only communication immediately thereafter was a decision to fight a daylight QB--Red on Red to make it interesting. Nor was anything said by me on the Forums in the least impugning him or his reputation. Why not? To me, A CM fight represents the stage in which the CO may well have argued for a change of mission, a delay, an attack someplace else, perhaps by another unit, but has now been told. "You have your orders, now do your job!"

 

Part of those orders specify, at least to some degree, where you will attack. That's where the map is, and it comes with no assurances of adequate concealment, still less cover; no guarantees of favorable geometry, parity in sensors and weapons, etc. Such is War. Military history is replete with stories of units sent to accomplish missions which will result in terrible casualties. The online book about the Hallamshires I've cited a bunch of times talks about the terrible drubbing the unit took attacking over open ground in Normandy because, in the face of determined German resistance, key terrain had to be captured and timely as the FUP for a much larger offensive. That is one of myriad examples which I could present, but to me, it all boils down to this: In a QB, or in this instance, a CMBS QB, subject to whatever rules are mutually agreed, you play the cards as dealt, win, lose or draw. If afterwards you believe there's something wrong with the map, you know how to find the man who made all the CMBS QB maps, MarkEzra, who, after hearing you out, may elect to make the changes you request. If, for whatever reason or reasons, you didn't enjoy playing against that foe, no one is forcing you to do so again. 

 

I think, though, that maybe we players really need is some overarching and mutually accepted canon when it comes to QBs; some baseline which will inform the way we all play them. It is painfully evident from the recent excitement that we are not all on the same page and that discord and rancor are the results. Equally, it is apparent that there are others here who absolutely don't share my philosophy when it comes to QBs, which is why I asked the question which forms the title of this post: When is the map the map?

 

Considering that each player has always had the ability to fly across the map and look at things from the opponent's POV during setup, what responsibility does that player bear for objecting then and there? What should happen if no objection is raised, though the opportunity was clearly there to speak up, but military disaster subsequently ensues for the player with exposed forces? What then? Is there, in fact, as some evidently believe and have so stated, an affirmative duty on the part of the player with a LOS/LOF advantage allowing partial or full view of the foe's setup zone to notify at all, given the above?  Who, exactly, is responsible to whom and for what? I believe these issues need to be thoroughly discussed and clarified, so that we have no further avoidable QB controversies. Thoughts?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 30, 2015 by John Kettler

[BLSTK]

Dear John:

 

A propos of nothing:

 

We have books-on-tape for a reason. I wonder if we could get Kettler-on-Tape. Life is short.

[General Jack Ripper]

The map is the map.

If you're not happy with the map, change it.

 

That is all.

[John Kettler]

BLSTK,

 

While I'm not quite sure what to make of your remark, I have been interviewed, tens of times, on a bunch of topics, going back to the mid 1990s or so. Long before I ever heard of CM or BTS. A search under "my name, audio is fun," for who knew I was the Man when it came to the Grateful Dead archive or was a bishop (at first glance, anyway, in the latter case)? Verily, it must suck to be named Smith and use the same search process! Somewhat more disturbing were several links to John Kettler obituaries. On a more serious note, this John Kettler does have an audio presence on Google, but Google's coverage seems to be spotty. For example, I know I did an interview on Trusts, but I don't see it. Nor do I see any sign of all the Y2K interviews I did, something like 14. Kettler-on-Tape? Believe the tech's advanced a bit!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

 

P.S.

 

What are your views on the burning map question--as opposed to the Burning Man? You may wish to remain mum on the second!

Edited August 30, 2015 by John Kettler

[sburke]

You were the MAN for the Grateful Dead archive- sorry man, that I do have to object to.  Been a Dead head long before there was an internet to even search for stuff on and I know there are a few more here.  I am pretty certain they'd all object.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

 

Wasn't me. It was another John Kettler. Speaking of Kettler, it's too bad I don't have a piece of the German outfit that makes pedal cars, ping pong tables, bicycle racks, weightlifting benches and all sorts of other good goodies. Were that the case, I'd be set!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler