Nuku Posted November 4, 2000 Share Posted November 4, 2000 I was playing a defense-type mission hot-seat with my brother. On the LAST turn, I had all the victory locations, and a 75% victory rating. My brother charged ALL his units into all the victory locations (even though most of them, like crew and buttoned halftracks, weren't even combat capable), and reverted all the victory locations to neutral merely because of their proximity, and I ended up with a 33% victory rating and *he* got a minor victory!! Aaaugh that is SOOOO !@#!$ cheap!! If the scenario lasted one more turn, there'd be burning halftracks and piles of dead tank-drivers all around my troops! What pisses me off even more is that I just found out the AI does it too!!! On the last turn, it CHARGES with everything it's got, (except crew). HQs, chewed up 1-2 man squads, halftracks; just to render the victory locations neutral. Bleeaargh. This is gamey dammit! I hear the TCP/IP patch is coming... can the BigTime boys toss in something to stop this last-second "capture the flag" crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 4, 2000 Share Posted November 4, 2000 Stop relying on this sort of support from game rules to determine victory; find a new circle of friends who share your view of the matter. Better still, play to learn, not to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted November 4, 2000 Share Posted November 4, 2000 ...ah that's a bummer man. I hate it when that happens. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted November 4, 2000 Share Posted November 4, 2000 So set up defensive positions in front of the objectives so you can stop this from happening. Better yet, aggressively attack and wipe out his shattered force. The rush only works because you let it. The whole point of the way CM does victory locations is to make you actually have to control the area around the VL, and not just sit a couple guys on top of it. So I'm perfectly happy with how CM handles this right now. -John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted November 4, 2000 Share Posted November 4, 2000 If, with all the victory conditions being neutral, he had a 67% victory and you had 33% victory, it looks like he outfought you. IMO, it's no gamey-er for his last minute rush to neutralize the VLs than it was for your lightly-held VLs to offset the fact that he (so it appears from the score) inflicted greater casualties on your units. I suppose that there is an inherent gameyness in VLs, but if there are VLs in CM, I think they should work the way they do. The fact that CM models VLs in the dynamic way they do is a really nice feature of the game, BTW -- it is much less gamey than, say, SL/ASL, where VL's were often decided based on control of a single building hex (typically by an unbroken unit). *That* was gamey, as players poured all possible units into one hex on the last turn. . (Although, for excitement, there is nothing like a big Close Combat in the VL on the last turn). But in SL/ASL, I didn't consider that bad at all; on the contrary, it was the sign of a well-designed scenario. Well-designed because, after 10 turns of fighting for this hex, the game turned on a big brawl in the hex we'd been fighting over, on the last turn of the game. Perhaps with both sides' units outside the hex firing indiscriminately into the hex as in Indiana Jones. Compared to that, VLs in CM are handled in a much more realistic way. And, as I said earlier, battles that are resolved in last minute fights at the VLs are just great fun IMO. They are *even* more fun when you win, I admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 4, 2000 Share Posted November 4, 2000 I don't know guys, but I tend to play to destroy the enemy forces. They can't occupy VLs if they ain't got nobody left. Right now, I'm in the middle of a Meeting Engagement PBEM with my buddy and I've destroyed at least 80% of his initial force and it isn't even turn 10 yet. I've knocked out all of his armor support to zero losses of my own. I've only taken about, maybe, 15 infantry casualties. I'm playing the Americans BTW, don't under-estimate the toughness of those Sherman Jumbos. It's taken at least three front-end ricochets one by a Panther G-late and at least one by a StuG. Play to destroy--we don't need no stinkin' prisoners!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted November 5, 2000 Share Posted November 5, 2000 What you see as a victory rating in game (your 75%) may not (and most times, is not), reality... chances are you were already much closer to the 33% that you ended up with than you think. Bil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Dan Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Yeah, this does happen and it can be really annoying. The AI also uses the tactic very effectively to gain ground at the end of battles in operations. However, there have been several discussions on the forum of whether the real "problem" is VL's or rather, a fixed number of turns? Maybe the latter creates the opening for gamey action. Dan CM is real! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012358.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012345.html Check out these two posts for the latest in gameyness debate in general, with specific VL location gameness discussion. Let's try and keep related discussions in as few threads as possible. After all, if we have 10 gameyness threads, then how will we ever compete with those silly Peng threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikeydz: Let's try and keep related discussions in as few threads as possible. After all, if we have 10 gameyness threads, then how will we ever compete with those silly Peng threads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The board smells kind of "gamey" today. Wouldn't you agree? I count one Peng thread. Let me check.... Yup, one Peng thread for the masses. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Peng thread? I've apologized for less. -Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 I'd suggest getting your brother and giving him a wedgie. Or taunting him for being a gamey bastard. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Agree with Dan here. The problem is not he way how the VLs are handled, proximity + size of force etc. The problem, the gamey and annoying thing here that makes possible the unfortunate experience you had, is the fixed number of turns. Battles don't stop after a set time. They peter out. ------------------ "Hope that clears up all questions and concernas about the optional Rarity optional options at the players option to optionally use, optionally, in a game." (Steve/BTS) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts