jdmorse Posted November 1, 2000 Share Posted November 1, 2000 There has been a bit of chat from time to time on the nature of Meeting Engagements, dash to flags, not realism, disguised attack/defense etc. I have been playing a pbem that by the nature of the set up seems to have created a more true chance encounter rather than the standard CM style. In a bit of fancy the board is set at around 2-3000 pts, and we chose a large map. What this did was make a LARGE map. The net result is that as we moved our forces, a series of firefights, flanking movements and general uncertainity have prevailed, esp as it unfolds. As the game progresses forces then start to coalesce and become more coherent in having an objective. The fun of this is that due to the size you cannot just grab the flag. Due to the size you have to keep your forces relatively whole, yet spread out enough to avoid flanking actions. It has been a most enjoyable battle of movement and scattered contact. Just a thought if you want to give it a try and see if it works for you JD ------------------ Official 3000th poster to the original Peng thread and present at it's demise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted November 1, 2000 Share Posted November 1, 2000 JD, I just posted this in -Havermeyer-'s thread, but it is applicable, so I'm reposting it. Curious to hear your comments. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that while your suggestion can make for more of a tactical game, it also has the potential for games where one side rallies 'round it's flag and plays defense (not much different than charging the center and playing defense). If both sides were to adopt this strategy, that particular engagement would remove the combat from Combat Mission. My personal opinion for Meeting Engagements is that they would be much more entertaining without the flags at all. Currently, all activity centers around the location of the VLs. While this does simulate specific tactical objectives, is this the goal of a "Meeting Engagement?" It seems to me that holding the field (regardless of where on the field you are) should be of prime importance in an ME, and not so much holding a predefined tactical objective. I know that I've seen it discussed that an ME the way that it is modelled would never occur in 'Real Life.' If indeed 2 forces would be approaching each other in the woods, there is most likely very little value to securing Clump of Trees A as opposed to Clump of Trees B. In games with a town/Village, the capturing and holding of the town (and thus a VL) makes more sense, but in a large number of MEs, the VLs strike me as pointless objectives, and often serve as such. I think it would improve the strategic level of MEs if terrain and force composition alone were to decide the tactics taken in an ME, as opposed to the current setup where holding flagged areas is the prime directive. Units would use more of the maps, and look for the best places to place defenses and mask assaults, instead of throwing their men in the houses and treelines closest to a flag. Any comments on this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted November 1, 2000 Share Posted November 1, 2000 How about we lock this one up and keep this discussion in one place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmorse Posted November 1, 2000 Author Share Posted November 1, 2000 Good suggestion Pillar.......Havermeyer's it is ------------------ Official 3000th poster to the original Peng thread and present at it's demise [This message has been edited by jdmorse (edited 11-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted November 1, 2000 Share Posted November 1, 2000 Yes, but doesn't that bring the stratefic necessity of High Ground, back into play? As well as the absolute certain need for recon, and not committing your forces until you know where the enemy is. Makes Jeeps and trucks more necessary too. Assuming that the 'Head East Until Contact' order is already in place, you take control of your forces in the field looking to find an enemy that you know is close by, but you're not certain where. Find him, then dispatch him. Personally, I like the challenge of it, and considering the great LOS offered on many maps, I don't think it would take terribly long to find each other. Is this too American Civil War? ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Bosco Posted November 1, 2000 Share Posted November 1, 2000 Before it gets locked I'd like to say that in addition to making the board bigger changing the weather also helps a lot. I find that fog or rain are really fun to play in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts