PacifistButLikeWarGames Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 and immediacy to them that big engagements don't... You get to love that halftrack or cherish that Sherman or Panzer... Any one else agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Yep! And they're great if you only have an hour to play. You really learn unit preservation when you only have one tank at your disposal (especially if the computer chooses your units and gives you some piece of crap to attack with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest barrold713 Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I have heard it mentioned as well that the AI tends to handle smaller battles in a more cohesive way. The attributes given to the experience of a small battle are true and Wild Bill's "Saving Private Ryan" scenario bring the excitement level to new heights for just these reasons. This is one of the few games that one can genuinely develop a true personal concern for a group of animated bmp files. Having a zook rise from rubble to put a round through the rear armor of a Tiger that has killed several of his buddies cannot but give rise to a triumphant yell. God help me I love this game. OTOH big battles with several different types of combat going on at the same time so that you are replaying the movie several times to make sure you are catching all of the action is also a very cool experience. This also lends itself to the personalization of each unit in the particular area that is being focused on which magnifies the feelings from the smaller battles. Either way you have a truly unique gaming experience that people can enjoy on many different levels. ------------------ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" - Ben Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Definately, without much time with school and all the small battles are much better for various reasons. The big are fine, but they can be cumbersome with a battalion of infantry and 15 Shermans under your command. The littles give a quikc little spoof of fun, they are great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager 7 Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I agree, big battles are hectic and take a long time to plan moves and execute. Smaller battles are much more "personal", and managable. Another aspect of this is to try an "infantry only battle". I am playing one of those right now PBEM and it is great. I have nothing against larger battles but I am recently tending toward battles under 1500 points. Out here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 usually i stick to 500-700 pts because I dont have that much time to play, I did a 1200 pt attack the other day on a large map and the computer gave me 1 whole tank (a hetzer! doh!) , It turned out to be quite fun, the infantry did well and I had 4 HT's which did great shuttling around troops to the decisive points in the battle. And the AI was wonderful in counterattacking, I think because there was so many flags placed around the map. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I'm with you all the way on this one, PBLWG. One of my rules of thumb regarding wargames is that the difficulty of play is proportional to the square of the number of units, all else being equal. I'm finding two companies of infantry supported by a platoon of armor and a few odds and ends is about right for my taste, but smaller can be good too. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havermeyer Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Big fan of the small quick ones. Fave so far was a vickers and a kangaroo against a track and a panzer (I believe). I lost. But with Fionn's AARs recently I've embarked on a 3000pt/large map PBEM. Juardis and I are going to run it out over a month or so... no big hurry, with numerous smallers and scenarios in between. The idea of managing a lot of territory, recon, and reserves looks pretty cool. This game has so much depth, I'm happily surprised every time I play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_in_texas Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Jager, Yeah, but with larger battles, you get to play with a lot more Jeeps. However, I suppose I have to agree that smaller battles tend to be more "personal" and uncertain up to the very end. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeadams Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I also find them more satisfying in many ways. Plus I believe the best way to learn good tactics is to start with small infantry actions and slowly move to more complex engagements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 I like the big and the small battles, but I much prefer the small. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Mmmm, sometimes small battles are reducced in a single duel between two tanks. The player who lost his single tank often lost the battle... ------------------ Venez visiter Appui-Feu,le site en français consacré à Combat Mission !!! http://appui-feu.panzershark.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Heh heh heh...I remember when I was a kid, 1000 points was the biggest battle you could play...Heh. These young kids nowadays got no notion of points anymore... it's nothin for them to make 3 or 4000 point battles... well .... let 'em have their fun, I guess.... heh .................. (snore) DeanCo-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 What's all this talk about tanks? Give me a platoon of good infantry in some cover against a tin can any day. That's when the small battles really shine. I love taking all infantry against armor. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Fauster Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: What's all this talk about tanks? Give me a platoon of good infantry in some cover against a tin can any day. That's when the small battles really shine. I love taking all infantry against armor. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I salute you or fear you. Not sure which. von Fauster formerly 11 Bravo Bco 2/8 Inf, 4th Inf Div. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 I also have to give a nod to small battles. (For all the reasons already stated) 500 points makes for a really good time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 A variety of scenarios and operations should be offered to please all tastes. I must agree with Pacifist and the rest of you, however. Smaller battles, tense, quick and decisive appeal to me. And today's lifestyle demand that such smaller battles be available. Over 1/2 of the scenarios I have done for CM are of this type. Wiltz, Son, SPR, Bruneval, Tiger, and some others are scenarios you can handle in one sitting and still get some sleep. And then there are the real quickies, Periers and the upcoming Road to Manhay are real quick Ultimately one must remember that the purpose of CM (at least as I understand it) was to portray small unit actions, firefights, quick hard battles. Fortunately, it can handle the bigger, mastadon type battles too. But not a lot of folks in today's "I'm late already" world have the time for them. And I HATE quitting and coming back to a battle the next day. I seem to lose my thread of thought and usually pay for it. Kinda like foreplay and then going home frustrated with a promise of better things next time. There is a place for all of them, but I lean toward the smaller quicker playing ones. Wild Bill ------------------ Wild Bill Lead Tester Scenario Design Team Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord billw@matrixgames.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcelt Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 Wild Bill, Re your preference indicated at the end of your contribution above , are you referring to battles or to women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rollstoy Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 This thread makes me wonder if the Combat Mission world should become smaller, but more detailed ... I am not into huge battles myself, either! Regrads, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 Smaller but more detailed would be FINE with me. But as Wild Bill stated, CM now caters to varying tastes in battle size, which has it's merits. After just finishing my FIRST quick battle, (in which I used a 500 point force), I can definately say I personally like the small battles much more. I actually noticed what I believe was a guy hopping off a Greyhound and breaking a leg in the process... something I don't think I would have caught in a large battle. Oh, and Wild Bill... just wanted to say I'm a big fan of your scenarios! The Private Ryan one was a gaming experience I shall long remember (let's just say something REALLY cool happened near the end). Thanks and keep 'em coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts