Bud Backer Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) On 6/8/2019 at 9:38 PM, Mord said: I don't like losing but I enjoy the stories that can come from a good defeat just as much as from a killer win. When I play as a weaker side, like Syrian Combatants or Italians, I adjust my goals to causing as much hurt as I can. If I knock out a few good tanks and rack up a couple dozen bodies, I consider it a "win" even when I get my ass handed to me. Interesting to see that I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Especially when playing against a stronger player, or one who has the stronger side, as we sometimes see in CMSF2 or CMBS, I decided some time ago to play more to deny the enemy an outright win than to try to win myself. And in some truly tough battles, eking out a draw can feel like a huge victory from my standpoint. If I exceed my expectations, so much the better, but not winning is not an automatic disappointment. Edited June 10, 2019 by Bud Backer 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 As I said before, IMHO, such battles should be scored asymmetrically, so that the Red player can win by doing just that. Expecting Uncon forces to meet the same sort of 'Victory Conditions' as regular forces is ridiculous frankly, that's not how they operate at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 Which is more than possible with careful scenario design, of course. It's hard though - you can throw down a WW2 German and US infantry company with an objective in the centre and have a reasonably balanced, and even an interesting battle. You really can't do that with Red vs Blue in CMSF, and you especially can't do that with Uncons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 I find setting up the VPs to be the most challenging aspect of scenario design, but I do design some odd scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: As I said before, IMHO, such battles should be scored asymmetrically, so that the Red player can win by doing just that. Expecting Uncon forces to meet the same sort of 'Victory Conditions' as regular forces is ridiculous frankly, that's not how they operate at all. You have that right. And No it is not hard to create a scoring system that works. All it takes is playing the scenario enough times by different folks to take a logical guess as to what a average outcome would be in the game. A draw result is set to that point and then everything else is from that. There will never be a perfect answer to the situation, but there is plenty of scenarios scored not by anything close to this method. played some terrible battles and still get rewarded way to easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 hour ago, slysniper said: All it takes is playing the scenario enough times by different folks to take a logical guess as to what a average outcome would be in the game. A draw result is set to that point and then everything else is from that. It becomes more tricky when scoring against the AI.....Even with all the new improvements and tools, it's painfully thick compared to a human opponent of any kind. TBH I suspect my Lurchers could give it a decent run for it's money if they could use the keyboard & mouse with their paws! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Scoring vs the AI should only be done in battles vs the AI only in my opinion. So that would be campaigns. In Scenarios, I have felt that there should be two versions for each. One for AI play and one for h2h But likely will never see that day 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 (edited) I'd probably agree with you there TBH, my own scenarios are either single player, or two player, never both. Edited June 11, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 On 6/8/2019 at 8:47 PM, The Steppenwulf said: All said and done, for me CM is not a game where winning or losing is particularly important. I think most of the community approach it that way too? It's a shame that there are some players (a minority) who treat it like a high stakes poker game! That's one reason I almost always give my opponent the choice on what and how we play. Aside from something like, 'no hedgrows' or 'some nasty weather if you don't mind'. I care about the quality of the game, far more than the outcome. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilM Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 On 6/10/2019 at 3:44 PM, Bud Backer said: Interesting to see that I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Especially when playing against a stronger player, or one who has the stronger side, as we sometimes see in CMSF2 or CMBS, I decided some time ago to play more to deny the enemy an outright win than to try to win myself. And in some truly tough battles, eking out a draw can feel like a huge victory from my standpoint. If I exceed my expectations, so much the better, but not winning is not an automatic disappointment. I'll remind you of this when we finish our current CMSF2 battle ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 12 minutes ago, PhilM said: I'll remind you of this when we finish our current CMSF2 battle ... Best get back to trying to kill me then! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Steppenwulf Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 Ha reminds me of... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lsailer Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Keeping in mind I am a total noob here. How do people feel about "experiments" to test ideas in a throwaway game before you try them in a PBEM game? Like, "I wonder if my mortars can destroy that footbridge if the enemy tries to cross it?" So, create a separate game and try to blow up the bridge? Once you know, you can use the result in the PBEM game. You could use that for finding tricky keyhole/hulldown positions too, maybe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 If an opponent had the time to do that then fill your boots, count it as combat experience. You are just learning what the engine can do imo so no harm in that.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, lsailer said: Keeping in mind I am a total noob here. How do people feel about "experiments" to test ideas in a throwaway game before you try them in a PBEM game? Like, "I wonder if my mortars can destroy that footbridge if the enemy tries to cross it?" So, create a separate game and try to blow up the bridge? Once you know, you can use the result in the PBEM game. You could use that for finding tricky keyhole/hulldown positions too, maybe. That's like saying that an experienced player is cheating. You'll learn all of the above by playing long enuff. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weapon2010 Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Ive been cheated out of a September release 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 No you haven't September 2020 is still possible... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weapon2010 Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 good point 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 6 hours ago, lsailer said: Keeping in mind I am a total noob here. How do people feel about "experiments" to test ideas in a throwaway game before you try them in a PBEM game? Like, "I wonder if my mortars can destroy that footbridge if the enemy tries to cross it?" So, create a separate game and try to blow up the bridge? Once you know, you can use the result in the PBEM game. You could use that for finding tricky keyhole/hulldown positions too, maybe. as a noob I would suggest you just play the battle yourself, both sides which you can do very quickly and that will let you understand many things that are possible or not possible in the game, then use that knowledge to play a real opponent. In h2h matches which I have a few going at all times. If I have a match up or situation that I am not sure as to what the results likely will be, I just set up a test map with the similar condition and run it and see what the result are when running it enough times to get a sort of a average outcome, that helps me decide for my real battle. I have done that so much over the years I don't ever use charts or stats, I just know in my head what most situations will likely do because of seeing them play out so many times 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornGinger Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 (edited) On 10/1/2019 at 8:42 PM, lsailer said: How do people feel about "experiments" to test ideas in a throwaway game before you try them in a PBEM game? Like, "I wonder if...?" Once you know, you can use the result in the PBEM game. I think that is ok. Mostly because I've used that myself to check the line of sight in a certain situation. Edited October 22, 2019 by BornGinger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 On 10/1/2019 at 9:42 PM, lsailer said: Keeping in mind I am a total noob here. How do people feel about "experiments" to test ideas in a throwaway game before you try them in a PBEM game? Like, "I wonder if my mortars can destroy that footbridge if the enemy tries to cross it?" So, create a separate game and try to blow up the bridge? Once you know, you can use the result in the PBEM game. You could use that for finding tricky keyhole/hulldown positions too, maybe. I don't mind, especially if I'm playing against an opponent with less experience. Somce of us have been playing these games for many years, and we develop an intuition about how the game engine works - what can destroy what, how likely are you to spot something at a certain distance at night, etc. I think many of these things would be obvious to soldiers on the ground, but as game players, we see the situation through a layer of computer game abstraction, so it's both a game of tactics and figuring what will likely happen with what combination of clicks. A typical example is "Eyeballing this, I know I could place an MG in that position in real life, and it would have LOS to that building, but will the game allow the same?" I think it's perfectly OK to test that out before actually starting the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 On 10/1/2019 at 3:42 PM, lsailer said: Keeping in mind I am a total noob here. How do people feel about "experiments" to test ideas in a throwaway game before you try them in a PBEM game? Like, "I wonder if my mortars can destroy that footbridge if the enemy tries to cross it?" So, create a separate game and try to blow up the bridge? Once you know, you can use the result in the PBEM game. You could use that for finding tricky keyhole/hulldown positions too, maybe. 1. General Knowledge: I'm all for it. Set up a quick editor "bespoke" test and find out if mortars can destroy a bridge. Or, how many rounds of 75mm it takes to rubble a brick building, etc. I'm all for that. That would be representative of hard-earned combat knowledge, or would allow you to understand how the in-game effects work. That's all good. 2. Specific Knowledge: Testing THAT battle's map for keyholes? Nah, that's not my cuppa. Or, testing that map for timing how your infantry will stack up crossing the street or anything else? I'd be opposed to that. Gain general knowledge through testing or playing. Apply that knowledge to the game at hand. Don't use the game at hand to test strategems, tactics, or effects. That's my thoughts on it. In all my pbems, I always exchange passwords with my oppo at the end of the game. I consider that a courtesy. It ensures that he sees the play from my side and can understand what I did and why. FWIW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.