Am I being a sore loser?

[Theron]

I think that it is hard to design this problem out of a battle. Many battles you could give them the maximum amount of turns and let them end when one player is pretty much killed off. There are battles though where speed should be an important issue i.e. you must take position X by 1400 hours. Therefore the battle would need a limited number of turns.

It is in these battles that the last few turns may bring a dash for the flag. I think that there is nothing wrong with a player who holds back forces in reserve that aren't commited until the end of the battle. The problem is when these forces attack a location for the sole purpose of contesting the flag, which they would not be able to keep just before the battle ends. There are a lot of shades of gray here between a legitimate attack on a VL and a "gamey" attack to deny points.

A possible solution is to have the game extend for a few turns if a VL was recently taken. I have seen this proposed by others before and I have played games with this type of game end. There could be some abuse of this system, which I can't think of right now. I don't know if BTS has considered this or not. I don't think it is something that can be patched into CMBO. Maybe it will be in CM2.

Theron

[Bobbaro]

Thirty minute, even two hour battles are not long enough to exhaust a realistic time frame for completing a mission. The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes longer. Well, two hours is really a short time on a battle field as far as obtaining substantial objectives set for a taskforce. Yes it is correct that a scenario designer may want to push the player, but I consider that gamey design. There were anal minded folks in higher command sitting in the safety of their rear echalon HQs that did push front line actions in that manner from time to time. But even then, if they grumbled about the lack of success for an hour or two, they would shut up if the goal was obtained eventually that day. Often real progress was enough, so that one day delays in which a key to success was obtained was acceptable to higher echelons of command. Rarely is a commander going to quibble over an hour or two as long as the goal was obtained and progress was demonstrated. Afterall, there are other objectives beyond the first and only survivors can get there. Operation scenarios will make this real clear.

Now if the forces are already in close contact and the objective is the building across the road and well defended, one may expect a faster course of events; but even there setting time limits for the effort to succeed or fail in exactly 20 minutes is as gamey as the last minute rush at the flags.

We have established here that the test of gameyness in this instance is whether one would perform the rush if the scenario be scheduled to end some number of moves later, 20 for example. For our short battle times, even doubling the expected alloted time over that which testing indicates approppriate seems not out of order to me. Regiment can go to hell. Batallion is going to exercise the care necessary to attack successfully, meaning haveing enough strength to hold the position after taking it. Otherwise you have thrown away the efforts and the lives getting there.

If a designer wants the scenario to include speedy execution as an element, then let that be imposed inherently within the scenario using map size, force balance (or imbalance), starting position, terrain, and reinforcement schedule to obtain the push for timely action rather than the artificiality of the turn clock.

So prevent gamey play in this case by avoiding gamey design.

===========================

Col. Deadmarsh,

You are correct in your observation that variation in play can always result in some player ending up with the VL just within grasp in the last turn or two. So just designing in enough turns will not totally eliminate the problem. As you noted that is inherent in the present engine.

Now here comes my big but. But, this will only take place in extraordinary circumstances and be a much more rare occurance than it is now if turn limit design anticipates a wider frame of time for battle than that testing shows to be just adequate. Adequate allowance will usually require an unholy case of the slows and excessive caution in a player for the scenario end rush to occur. As such play is so boring it should be quite rare. Enough time should be provided to allow for a good healthy amount of careful approach. Until such time as a different engine exists, this seems to me to be the best, scenario inherent preventive.

The present engine DOES take a lot into account in determining whether scenario play has reached a decision and is rather more sophisticated, it appears to me, than most at that. Last minute rushes at a VL may not be as rewarding as many fear. Often at best it will only neutralize the VL value. Ok, so ladder folks choke over fractions of points. Is it not better to design in less of this possibility if only for their sake?

If we cast out all remedys that retain a failure potential, then the remedy that CM is for so many older wargame problems will be set aside because of - - - look at any number of threads discussing percieved problems with CM in the case of which the glass is as full as it has ever been. Yeah, the remedy can fail, but it adds a lot more water to the glass, and the fact that more room remains in the glass does not preclude the value of the effort.

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

I'd reply that there were plenty of times in which everyone from Ike down to GI Joe realized that we have to do this and we have to do it now. And yeah, as people have mentioned, there were plenty of commanders who said "take that hill by 0930 or by God I'll find someone who will."

Well, Market-Garden is one big example, for one. If the paratroops had been a little bit quicker to reach the railroad bridge and the Germans had been a little bit slower to blow it up, what would have happened? If XXX Corps had gotten up the Nijmegen-Arnhem road a little bit faster? If they'd been able to get across the Wilhelmina Canal a little bit sooner?

Or look at Crete. What would have happened if Student had committed his reserves an hour later?

I don't find the time constraints of a scenario to be gamey at all. I think it does give me a sense of urgency and purpose. I know damn sure that I'm going to take a lot more risks if I have half an hour to take a town as opposed to an hour.

That said, I do think that you have to make sure that the time frame suits the scale of the game you're playing. I find that 30 minutes for a 1500 pt battle is about right. 2000 pts and I usually go with 45 minutes.

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

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

[Bobbaro]

Chup, you are immaculately correct about these deadlines, but are they applicable in the turn frame of a CM scenario? To me it is ridiculous for this rush situation to take place when 5 minutes more to say nothing of 20 would yield up the decision without the gamey ending. Twenty more turns (minutes)would not have been begrudged by the Corps commander or even Regiment.

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bobbaro:

Twenty more turns (minutes)would not have been begrudged by the Corps commander or even Regiment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest a bit of reading on large-scale operations. A good start would be 'Steel Inferno'. There is a lot of intricate planning involved, startlines need to be captured, bad communications, chaos, one armoured division moving through another one etc.pp. The Canadian Black Watch got annihilated because somebody else failed to take their startline in time, secure it, clear the area and did not tell them about that failure. These operations worked on immaculate timing. Goodwood was cocked up in part by the stupidity of the planners, who did not realise that they could not feed two armoured divisions over one bridge. To say that 20mins don't matter is a bit nonchalant. And those are the battles we play out in CM.

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

Andreas

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

I would tend to say that rushing at turn 23 out of 25 is very gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! It's much better to hold the rush until turn 25, doing it as early as in turn 23 may catch the defender off balance, and that's something to avoid, right?

Cheers

Olle

[Chupacabra]

On a further note, the number of the turn doesn't really determine whether or not I attack an enemy-held VL. If I feel that I can take a VL, and it's in my best interests to do so, I'll take it, whether it's the first turn or the last.

If there's a problem where someone is clearly being silly, ie charging crews and AT teams at a VL to contest it at the 50th second of the last turn, then don't play them again. IMO it's pretty easy to tell when someone is making a real, good faith attempt to play the game, and when someone is just making a last-minute VL grab.

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

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

[Splinty]

It's my belief that the last minute rush is "gamey" in the sense that a good commander would recognize the need to preserve his forces for the NEXT battle,now this is relative to the importance of the objective of course,but a company or battlion commander isn't going to get 50% of his unit rendered combat ineffective in one action if he can help it. Also,realisticly once you take an OBJ wouldn't you want enough men left to hold it?

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Splinty]

Sorry,double post!

[This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Guest ciks]

C'mon guys, its just a game. None can expect a full real-life combat in his computer screen. I think BTS has done a great job making CM so realistic as it is. Improvements, ofcourse, can and needs to be implemented. But this "gamey" stuff starts to get me...

[Bombardier]

I feel that the variable total turn idea that some people have suggested to be the best compromise to end this tactic.

However, there are circumstances where rushes have been ordered with the idea that sheer weight of numbers will over come a defended area even with an anticipated high fatality rate.

All one needs to do is look at trench warfare of WWI to see this tactic in action. Where wave after wave of men were ordered to their death. Based on that example, the argument “ men will not charge into certain death” does not hold water.

I have a (silly) question. Why does there have to be a turn limit at all? The game is already governed by morale and ammunition factors. Wouldn’t a time of day element be ‘more realistic’ ?

[This message has been edited by Bombardier (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Col Deadmarsh]

There's still one option that hasn't been brought up yet: lowering the point value for the flags.

A player will only rush if it's worth it. As it now stands, the small flags are worth 100 and the big ones 300. Rushing to take a big flag would almost always seem worth it as this is a lot of points that will go to your opponent if the flag is not neutralized by a last minute rush.

But what about the small flags? Would someone really rush 2-3 squads of men to try to gain a tie on a flag only worth 100 points? In some situations, it might not be worth it if it's thought the enemy has the vl well defended.

Now, since I haven't played enough games to really comment on whether or not the flags are set right or too high or whatever, I'm just throwing this out for the others. But maybe it's possible that too many points are awarded for these victory locations. Common sense says that if the prize isn't worth going for, the player will hold back his forces and give up the flag rather than possibly lose more points for making that last minute rush only to discover the vl was still awarded to his opponent.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Chupacabra]

VLs don't mean much if you're getting demolished. I played a QB against the AI the other day. I took Allies, random troop quality, computer picked forces. I wound up getting a company of crack paratroops and assorted support units. Computer got an armor-heavy conscript Waffen SS force, including 3 conscript Panthers and a conscript KT. By the end of the game, the computer held two VLs that I hadn't bothered to contest, and I only held one VL, but I had so mauled and discombobulated his forces that the final score was something like 85-15.

Basically, I've found that the final score takes into account a lot more than just the VLs, and if one side is clearly winning, the other side can take a few VLs without greatly affecting the outcome.

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

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

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Now, since I haven't played enough games to really comment on whether or not the flags are set right or too high or whatever, I'm just throwing this out for the others. But maybe it's possible that too many points are awarded for these victory locations. Common sense says that if the prize isn't worth going for, the player will hold back his forces and give up the flag rather than possibly lose more points for making that last minute rush only to discover the vl was still awarded to his opponent.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Real Life - I doubt that it was/is up to a Coy CO to determine objectives and how important they are. Common sense on the part of the Coy CO has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a war, common sense dictates not to participate in it in the first place.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-23-2000).]

[dfgardner]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bobbaro:

In reality it was a rare attack order that limited the attacking commander only 30 or 60 or some other arbitrary, relatively short time span for completing his mission, after which he faces relief or courtmarshal. It is in the game itself that the gameousness lies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bobbaro: I disagree with you above statement. Military history is replete with examples of commanders, at all levels, who were relieved for failing to get their forces going or accomplishing their mission.

In fact, IMHO, junior level officers (Bn Cdr and below, which is really the command focus of this game) were probably replaced or relieved for failing to accomplish objectives faster than senior commanders.

If your mission states you're to attack and sieze objective "Y" at xxxxhours you'd better do it, or you're most likely gone.

[Bullethead]

One thing I'm surprised hasn't been brought up is that the AI is one of the worst offenders in the last-minute-VL-rushing category. Especially if you've thwarted its first attack and it doesn't think it has enough force left to hold the position for a long time. Of course, this tactic is perfectly logical to a computer, so this is not surprising.

But regardless of whether you're fighting a human or the AI, having this tactic happen to you indicates a failure on your part to use good, realworld defensive tactics. If it happens to you, you haven't done your job right.

A last-minute rush can only be launched if you allow the enemy uncontested possession of jump-off positions very close to the VL. These are the same positions an assault would come from at any other time in the game. As long as you don't control them, the VL (or any other thing you want to defend) is not secure, regardless of when in the game the attack comes.

So, don't just sit there right around the VL. Push your perimeter forward to occupy the enemy's jump-off positions, such as patches of woods or buildings 100m or so out from the VL. With these in hand, you force the enemy either to mount a full-scale, earlier attack to take the jump-off positions, or make a longer run across open ground, which you should be able to cover from your forward positions. In either case, if he waits to the end of the game, he will not succeed. Besides, being right on the VL is a good way to get shelled.

If you don't feel strong enough for this tactic, at least put an OP in the jump-off positions so you can see any enemy moves to them, and be ready to shell them.

Of course, you can pretty much tell if the enemy is considering a last-minute rush anyway. You've blunted his initial thrust and things have quieted down. Guess what? Now you have the initiative. Seize it. Go forth and counterattack vigorously. Hunt down enemy survivors while they are still demoralized and scattered after their initial repulse. Spare none that you find. Keep the pressure on. The harder you hit now, the more likely the enemy will surrender early.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[LuckyShot]

I think Theron and probably a few others touched on a very good idea: a conditional extension of the turn limit - "overtime" if you will.

If a *major* Victory Location is "contested" (insert your own definition here) when time runs out, the game extends the turn limit *once* by a random number of turns which are not known to the players, say 5-10, allowing some sort of resolution. If the VL is still contested after that, too bad, game ends, but it at least would eliminate the smoke-obscured rushes mentioned earlier.

[Schugger]

The idea of variable scenario duration struck me a while ago and there was a thread about it in the CM Scenario board.

As I do not like to say the magic search word and I'm also to lazy to post the URL, I present the optional rule of my scenario here again.Optional Rule; Variable Scenario End

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

This scenario is set for a duration of 27 turns

To make this a bit more unpredictable we have created a house rule during play testing for PBEM games that a battle may end sooner or later

than listed.

Simply roll a percent die ( two ten side dice, one shows the "tenths" the other the "units") starting in the order phase of turn 24.

If the roll matches the result from the table below, the game ends and both sides have to prepare for a cease fire. It is important that the player

who plots first in the order phase of a given turn rolls the dice and applies the result ( i.e., cease fire or not) and informs his opponent of the result

so he can act accordingly.

Table

Turn 24 10%

Turn 25 15%

Turn 26 20%

Turn 27 25%

Turn 28 35%

Turn 29 40%

Turn 30 50%

If you want to play with this rule the player who makes the setup has to change the scenario parameters from 27 to 30 turns.

Any comments are greatly appreciated. Mails please to Schuggerbaby@t-online.de

Good hunting

Schugger

Credits for the testers

Doc "Arty" Freyland for his extensive AAR

"Dirty" Harry for PBEMing it with me

"AA" Anthony Cooper for his final tips

[This message has been edited by Schugger (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

In general, CM victory conditions are rather disappointing. I was hoping for a lot more variability than the standard "garb this, exit that" fare you get in CM.

However, why do scenario designers insist that their scenarios conform to those victory conditions? If you do not like the way the game decides who wins, make up your own rules. There is no reason a designer cannot include in the notes his own victory conditions, as long as they are relatively clear.

Something along the lines of an ASLish "German sides wins immediately upon possession by a non-broken/non-routed/non-panicked of the Bakery" would be a refreshing change from the standard fare.

Then the players would know when the game ended. You could make this anything the scenario designer wanted, as long as it was clear how the condition could be fulfilled and opposed.

As far as "gamey" VL flag rushes, I think it is the responsibility of the guy who has the VL to defend it from the guy who wants the VL. The defender should not be able to rely on the desire of the attacker to avoid "gamey" tactics to save the defender when he does not defend the objectives sufficiently.

There is a very simple solution to end game flag rushes. Park someone there to defend them. If you do not have sufficient force to hold them off, you didn't deserve the points to begin with.

Jeff Heidman

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi:

Why not give a player points for controling the victory flag each turn? You can even go further than that. You can give more points for certain turns. Thus you can focus where and *when* a player puts thier effort. If you want to allow leeway, spread out points over many turns to allow manouver.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I kinda like this idea. It would definately eliminate the end-game VL rush tactic --- it would also lend the sense of urgency to attacks that a time limit is supposed to do. It would make taking and holding a VL much more important early in the game.