What setup for Quickbattles give the best Chess like matchup?

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

So tell me guys who are playing lots of PBEM games. Which do you like better Scenarios or GBs where you can purchase your weps? Which setup gives both sides a nice parity so both sides have an equal chance? Chess is a great game cuz white does not have more pieces then black and is not packing heavy armor with fast turrets.

[Tiny]

It is not what you are packing that matters, but how u use it.

Well thats what us guys like to think.

If you ever want a PBEM game feel free to mail me.

Regards

Tiny

[Dirtweasle]

Not sure I qualify for "lots", but heck it's a slow day here at the Salt Mine...

I am currently doing 6 PBEM games now and have completed, 3 - 4 others. My advice is for a truly "even" match, search out and experiment with several of the well designed scenarios.

The quick battles with random maps are fun but there can be problems with a balanced map, and force selection. Personally I like the quick battles because of and not in spite of that. Also, you don't get a scenario where your opponent has studied/gamed the map and so forth for weeks, and weeks from every angle.

The thing is chess may be a tad problematic to replicate with any WWII game, as the differences in unit type are part and parcel to the experience, reality and otherwise.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I think it is a mistake to try to compare CM to chess in the first place. Except for the fact that in chess white always gets the first move, every effort has been made to assure a very equal game.

No matter how hard you try to assure an equal game with CM, it is bound to give one side an advantage over another. This is further complicated by the fact that which side has the advantage in a particular battle may well depend on the style of play of the respective players. That is, a given map/OOB may favor one side if that side is played conservatively but not if played more boldly. And vice versa.

That is added on top of the fact that the weapons and units of the two factions have different strengths and weaknesses.

The challenge in CM is to take what you have and make the most of it. This requires a very high degree of improvisation. Chess, on the other hand, allows of complete (though admittedly enormous) analysis. Some things can be predicted as certainly possible or certainly not possible. CM has much narrower regimes of certainty (No, your Tiger cannot fly. Is that helpful?).

I hope that I have answered your question, or failing that confused you thoroughly.

Michael

[mikeadams]

I agree that quick games are a great way to go. By alternating attack and defense in matching scenarios you learn how to handle all possible combinations. The key point is that you are always playing the game for the first time, so you can't use past experience (other than of a general variety). My favorite is small all-infantry actions: IMHO that is where you learn the most about tactics (duck for flames!)

[Jarmo]

A small (500-1000 pts) meeting. On a small map.

With a setting like that, you have few troops and little space

to move 'em. And you can't afford to make mistakes.

More chesslike setting (in another way) would be an all armour

meeting on a large map.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

I was not trying to suggest that CM should be like chess just giving both players a fair chance. I am quite aware that even though both sides have same pieces in chess, it is not very fair for any mere mortal to play Grand Master and even have a chance. But a least in theory, both sides have the same amount of combat material. And that is what I was asking? you know like do you like battle in March 1945 cuz the brits get a certain Tank that gives A fighting chance head on? Do you guys like combined arms or motorized, or giant tank slug fests? what Points vaules do you like, and should you give the axis a bonus of 10% more troops cuz the allies have SO much material?

I enjoyed my first flame, thanks guys?

THANK YOU SIR, May I have another?!

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

I enjoyed my first flame, thanks guys?

THANK YOU SIR, May I have another?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flame? That's not a flame. That's not even a spark.

Anyway - BTS did a good job of balancing the forces so that neither the Allies nor the Germans are clearly superior. No, clearly superior are the mighty Volesgrenadiers. But I digress. Um, there's no real perscription for playing a balanced scenario. The one thing I might point out is to talk to your opponent beforehand if you're going for realistic OOBs or not. Nothing's more discouraging than to go into a fight with a couple of Mark IVs, some halftracks, and a company of regular rifle infantry, only to find out that your opponent thought it'd be fun to buy a platoon of Pershings, some elite Airborne troops, and a smidge of 8-in spotters. Make sure you both agree that you're either playing a realistic battle or a "what if."

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[deanco]

I had an idea for a map like that...as fair as possible for the 2 sides as far as terrain goes, and balanced forces for the 2 sides. I got the map done, but I have no idea what balanced forces would be, so... Anyway, too bad you can't do a quick battle with a homemade map. Someone mentioned this before here as a patch addon, and I think that's a good idea for these sort of chess-like battles.

DeanCo--

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

I like the idea of both sides buying equpiment for use on already made maps very much. Close combat2 had a setup just like that. Very nice.

[killmore]

Changed my mind

[This message has been edited by killmore (edited 08-15-2000).]