Guest tom w Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 When playing this or any computer wargame simulation must we has "responsible " commanders be concerend about sending cyber warriors to their deaths? I say Hell NO! I write this because I would not wanted to be accused of being too ruthless an opponent or a heartless commander against a PBEM combatant who I might not even know. I say this because I have played all the demo scenarios many times mostly against the AI and it, clearly, will send men straight to their death to "chince" out during the last moves of a scenario to turn a captured objective flag into a ? (disputed) flag. I have seen this many times in CE, (it is my favourite scenario). When playing either side the AI will send a wave of suicide soldiers during the last or second last move just to make an objective flag a question mark (disputed), with blatant disrecard or life or limb. Often times sending good healthy troops right into a murderous MG cross fire or straight into a healthy SMG squad. (mows 'em right down to nothing!) So, let us be clear, when trying to win this game, acceptable losses of either men and machines are ANY losses that are required to achieve an objective. That may seem perfectly clear and obvious to most veteran wargamers but to those perhaps new to this kind of thing, I would like to know when I play PBEM there is no doubt that short of cheating (which I figure has been made impossible, thanks to BTS ! I think this is one of the MOST attractive features of this kind of play) you should expect me or any opponent to risk or kill what ever cyber lives are necessary to achieve the objective of winning, (or lossing as close to a win as possible). Is that so obvious that it does not need to be stated here? Meaning that I may send tank crews out as bait to draw fire away from units I am trying to advance. This could be required when your victory percentage is around 50% and you need to assault a dug in position to make one more objective disputed to gain the edge or insure a stalemate. Will the game allow for stalemates? I have never played a demo scenario to a draw? Has any one played a scenario to a draw? any comments? tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 YEs I have played a game which resulted in a DRAW ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-15-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxhole Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 so have I greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 I have played lots of draws because I suck. And when the full game comes out, I would like to play an operation against you, because I could be sure to win ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 Maybe a way to avoid players 'rushing' an objective at the last turn is to make games end at variable turn times. EX: Game lasts for 30-35 turns. This way a rushers risk is even greater. ------------------ "Don't tickle with the fingers, hit with the fist" -Heinz Guderian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I have played lots of draws because I suck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahhh, you don't suck...you blow! hahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted April 15, 2000 Share Posted April 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: Ahhh, you don't suck...you blow! hahah <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That coming from Mr. I-managed-to-waste-my-infantry-and-lose-two-Shermans-to-Shrecks is actually quite funny How many victory locations did you control, exactly? ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott C Posted April 16, 2000 Share Posted April 16, 2000 IIRC, it has been mentioned (I think by Moon, but I can't find the thread) that this attitude is an artifact of the size of the battles we have to look at. That is, they are so small that control of VLs is pretty much all that matters. As we get bigger scenarios, and especially operations, conserving the lives of our troops will become much more important. ------------------ Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts