CMBO-From out of the Dust

[slysniper]

Not to be troublesome, but how close are we to completing the tournament? Are we still "on track" to be completed by the end of the month?

I am starting to see different players final scores coming in, hopefully everyone is on track to finish round one this week. It will take me about a week to post round one results, set up round two matches and create all the personalized email files to try and prevent cheating (maybe I will get it right this time).

So the bad news is you have about two weeks before round Two.

The Good news is I think this second set of Scenario's might be better than the first.

And this round will give you a chance to clash against others doing about as well as you.

[slysniper]

I have almost half of the results in,things are still going pretty smooth.

You all better watch out, K A Miles has posted three strong scores, I am pretty sure he will be one of our leaders to Gun for in round two.

I also know he will just love reading this Post.

[K.A. Miles]

Oh, great, now I'm gonna be jinxed for the next round. Thanks a lot, Slysniper :mad: :mad:

[slysniper]

Take it out on me on the computer Battlefield some day.

[Bert Hamoen]

As one of the players on the receiving end of mr. Miles' expertise, I must say that he didn't give me any chance, but I don't think the defender has much of a fighting chance in "What were we thinking". The strength of the forces are perhaps to unbalanced.

Strangely though, I had a great time playing this scenario. Got the impression until late in the game that I could lose "well". Not the major defeat it turned in to.

I'm very curious to learn what the other defenders did in this game.

On the other hand, maybe Keith is that good a player, that I got that impression (don't want to take anything away from his performance).

[slysniper]

As the designer, I believe the defenders have the advantage in "what were we thinking" So for him to win so strongly means one of two things, for your sake Bert I hope it was his skills that did it.

[slysniper]

Of course, I made the statement that the British have the advantage in the Bloody stream, so far you all are wanting to prove me wrong on that on, in the play test the Germans never won. So that is why this scoring will make it fun, the majority rules but the minority get the bonuses.

[K.A. Miles]

I was biting my nails on all three games. :eek:

Bert, you were a good opponent! If those cowardly yankees hadn't betrayed you, I'm sure you would have repulsed my attack.

[slysniper]

Ah, that is what I want to hear, make you sweat thru the scenario, my favorite kind. I hate ones that you know who is going to win, mission accomplished.

[Neil aka Major Tum]

Probably discussed before but just want to know everyones opinion:

Is it gamey or just damn wrong to use a 'crew' in a offensive role?

I dont see the problem but have been informed its not the done thing. Comments pls?

[Kingfish]

Besides being universally frowned upon, you stand to lose more than gained by using crews in an offensive role. Consider that each crewman is armed with only a pistol, so the extra FP added to an attack is miniscule, yet they are worth so much point-wise that losing them will negate just about any gain.

[Bert Hamoen]

Slysniper wrote:

I hate ones that you know who is going to win, mission accomplished.

You can rest assured then. All three games are close up until the end. The last two are almost over, but I still can't tell who will win. Thought that too of the snowgame and look what that brought me .

To Neil AKA Major Tum: read too that it is considered to be gamey to use a crew as scouts or whatever. Doesn't seem very realistic to use them in that role. But then again, if your desperate (that goes for real life too), you use whatever you've got.

In general: I hoped my remarks about "what were we thinking" would start a discussion among you about this scenario. The only one who reacted so far, is the creator of it. Maybe to many people are still playing that one ?

[slysniper]

Almost everyone is in, should be able to discuss soon, I hate to say it but it appears that the germans have been winning "What were we thinking".

I wouldnt want my play testers to find out about that, they felt the germans were too weak, I adjusted slightly but I will have to admit I am disapointed in american results coming in.

I prefer the Americans and will play them vs anyone any time. That stresses the point of what I think the American unit can do in that Scenario.

[Neil aka Major Tum]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Besides being universally frowned upon, you stand to lose more than gained by using crews in an offensive role. Consider that each crewman is armed with only a pistol, so the extra FP added to an attack is miniscule, yet they are worth so much point-wise that losing them will negate just about any gain.

Thanks - didn't realise their was a whole CMBO etiquette!

[slysniper]

Thanks - didn't realise their was a whole CMBO etiquette!

I would not worry about it, As was mentioned, your risking easy points for whoever you were playing against. The grogs get caught up into things thats just would not be true in real life, then try to prevent them by calling it "gamey".

The thing is sometimes them Gamey tactics work, which is a insult to injury so they like to try to tag "gamey player" on you to prevent such tactics.

I had one player try a Gamey tactic against me just recently except I had a ambush waiting for just such a move, cost him dearly. Thats the best way to solve the issue. Then I had another that used his trucks as a way to slow me down going through a wooded road, basically it takes time to shoot and move through the road with his dead trucks, would that happen in real life, no. But its a gamey tactic that can buy time at the cost of the trucks. It can work to win a scenario. I cannot get mad at him for using it, its his risk not mine. Historical, not likely.

Some of these things have been used since I have been playing board games since the 80's. So as I said at first, dont worry about it. Just learn from it that there will be plenty of comments when you use such things.

[Walker]

Originally posted by slysniper:

Almost everyone is in, should be able to discuss soon, I hate to say it but it appears that the germans have been winning "What were we thinking".

I wouldnt want my play testers to find out about that, they felt the germans were too weak, I adjusted slightly but I will have to admit I am disapointed in american results coming in.

I prefer the Americans and will play them vs anyone any time. That stresses the point of what I think the American unit can do in that Scenario.

I assume the playtesters didn't have the OOB for the other side and that could be the big difference. For example, had I known what I was up against as the Germans in Thinking (I was lucky to get the 'right' briefings and didn't read the 'wrong' ones) I'd probably have played it differently. So I think there'll be a logical discrepancy between the balance you expected to get and the actual results.

Having said all that, though, and continuing with the Thinking example, the Germans nevertheless got a clear win, against an opponent who obviously knew what he was doing and who, IIRC, didn't read the wrong briefing either.

And a final point: the large skills gap between the players in this first tourney phase will probably render any judgement iro scenario play balance quite difficult if not impossible.

[slysniper]

Walker, I agree with all your points. Results in play test and play is just part of weighing the playability of a scenario. So in one sence, even though the Results are surprising me some, I am Glad to see the side I consider weak winning so many matches. I am just pointing it out to see what some of you will say as to how you see the Scenario's as for the Units given and if you felt you had forces that could possible had adchieved their tasks. So the Germans have done well in both of my Scenario's, my interest is in the Allied player side as to if they think they could win if given the chance to play it again, For "Bloody Stream" and "What were we thinking" or

maybe a German player seeing where he was lucky because of missed oppotunities by who they were playing.

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Would've liked to have played that scenario......

How much will my 'bye' cost me?

[Walker]

Originally posted by WARHAMMER:

Would've liked to have played that scenario......

Yes that was a most excellent scenario...the atmosphere, the nerve-jangling feeling that doom is just behind the next ridgeline, the clear-terrain avenues that promise a stealthy approach but are overlooked by an unlikely but nevertheless reasonably good ambush option...

[imported_WARHAMMER]

No biggie....snow battles seem to overload my system anyway.

Just so we're up front and honest in this tourny, I'm the one using crews as scouts. As my great uncle has mentioned to me, who was there by the way, a recon unit is still responsible for it's assignment eventhough they may have lost their ride or wasn't issued one. The allies were pushing so hard that recon was done on foot just as much as by a AFV. I live in the camp that says using a crew for recon is not gamey.

OK, let the responses fly everyone!

da Hammer

[K.A. Miles]

I don't care whether my opponent uses crews as scouts, recon, or suicidal sacrifical lambs--- However, I do like seeing a bunch of enemy "eliminated" figures, even if they only represent a two-man crew! Kill them ALL!!!! :mad: :mad:

[melb_will]

Ok, I consider it gamey but I think that as long as the rules are determined before hand then using crews can be ok. However, people are talking about using any means to win. It must be remembered that CM represents a small engagement in a large war.

Winnning small engagements by losing crack tank crews is going to lose you the war eventually.

Aside from that I want to comment on a couple of the scenarios. I figure that it is the start of October and I will speak generally just in case.

In the two scenarios that Slysniper designed there were a number of independent units on the map. for example the guns in what were we thinking. However, there was little in the way of command for these units. Units in CM are heavily penalised for not being in command, would it be more realistic for there to be a commanding officer present to command the guns. and so on for the bloody river (to a much lesser but still important extent)

cheers

Will

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Who said anything about losing them? I hardly ever lose a crew. They mostly oversee a open area of land or a section of road. Never leading a platoon, etc.

Update on Major Tum and I in "Last road Out"

21/30 played, making daily emails, and should be done by Tues. if many turns are played over the weekend.

Later

[slysniper]

In the two scenarios that Slysniper designed there were a number of independent units on the map. for example the guns in what were we thinking. However, there was little in the way of command for these units. Units in CM are heavily penalised for not being in command, would it be more realistic for there to be a commanding officer present to command the guns. and so on for the bloody river

Part of the benefits of being the designer. When elements are attached to a unit, there command structure normally is not with them. Now if Battalion had sent a full unit of guns, then I would expect their leaders to be around, but when one unit is sent to support a smaller formation. They normally are under the direction of the company or platoon Leader they are attached to. That is how I look at it and design to. But thanks for the reminder, I do forget to load the battlefield with all them leaders that some of you think should be out there.

[melb_will]

Slysniper

Could you let me know when everyone has finished what were we thinking so we can discuss the OOB

cheers

Will