Meeting engagements - gamey tactic?

[KMan]

It seems to me...in my admittedly limited experience, that meeting engagements tend to start out with slightly gamey tactics. That is, both sides know that the other side is starting from their setup zone on the far edge of the map. This seems to lead to some gamey behavior in "rushing" the center of the map or strong defensive positions.

I'm not a historian, but I have doubts that RL WWII commanders often knew exactly where the enemy was at any given time before they were engaged. I could see a RL WWII commander sending (not rushing) a recon unit, but wouldn't that recon unit sometimes get chewed up by an already in place ambush/defense?

I can think of a few programmatic changes (for CM2 and beyond perhaps?) that would reduce this possibly gamey tactic: meeting engagements have more random setup zones (not always opposing edges, or one side gets closer to the middle, etc).

I think this problem is probably reduced the larger the QB is, I haven't played any "large" ones yet.

Note that I don't have any problems if my opponent chooses to rush the middle, since I can't really think of any way to avoid it.

Thoughts? Rebuttals?

-Kyle

[David Aitken]

Consider that, in reality, you might not know the enemy is there at all. Allied forces chasing after retreating Germans, or German forces rushing to the front line, suddenly run into the enemy. So when you start your meeting engagement, just rushing for the middle of the map isn't too unrealistic. It's the way you handle the engagement that matters, not how you get to it.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Guest Pillar]

Let them rush their asses forward. Sit tight, and bomb them from long range. They run into a house? Blow it up. The run into some trees? Artillery.

Let them be predictable, they're doing you a favour

One thing that may add to the interest of Quick battles is to allow the possibility of one side starting on a side rather or corner rather than having both parties start on the opposite edges.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

One thing that may add to the interest of Quick battles is to allow the possibility of one side starting on a side rather or corner rather than having both parties start on the opposite edges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like fun - not for our pixalleted soldiers, but for us watching them die. Now this would be a nice improvement to the game.

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

Andreas

[MarkEzra]

The meeting engagement was the least likely form of combat to take place on the Battlefield. Gamey, well a little, but for me the best PBEM form going. Can't disagree any a-historical sentiments, but for ease of game setup, player balance, and the equal possibility to both attack and defend, it's the way to go.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

One thing that may add to the interest of Quick battles is to allow the possibility of one side starting on a side rather or corner rather than having both parties start on the opposite edges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. Your advancing spearhead gets hit unexpectedly in the flank. I like it.

Michael