Disillusioned with PBEM partner

[-tink-]

Being a squeaky clean newbie I was crestfallen when I realized that my opponent had set up an assault scenario to totally favor the germans, at least in my opinion. Wet, so tanks bog, rainy so visibility is reduced. And a german assault fer crying out loud, with its requisite 2 to 1 odds! How many times did the Germans get to assault? It was a whole lot of fun sitting there in foxholes while I got hammered with artillery. It was on the tourney house ladder and I honorably surrendered when I realized I had been snookered. BUT, It will be a cold day in hell before I play the butt end of an assault scenario or play Kking again! I would like some pearls of wisdom on this post from you vets as to whether you think this kind of game setup is kosher, I mean sure it is definately within the game parameters, but do you who play alot think that assault scenarios are fun when you are the one getting assaulted? As I said I am a rank newbie and thus ignorance is a partial excuse, but to me the essence of a good game is nice weather, even points and go from there. I am not whining, I just want some comments on game ethics. Believe you me, I have learned a whole lot from this disgusting experience!<-tink->

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

"Reality is created by the participation of the participants."- John Wheeler

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wet, so tanks bog, rainy so visibility is reduced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not saying that I don't believe you, but surely those conditions would favour the defender??

I mean, imagine a German Tiger in those conditions for starters.

Wet ground would also make it more difficult for him to manouevre out of your killing zones.

[Chupacabra]

It's certainly possible to win assaults as the defender. The way you've described the setup, it sounds like the conditions would actually work in your favor, as he would have more to lose from his tanks bogging down at their start lines. There's not much you can do about artillery bombardments, except to be where they ain't. Sitting on VLs and in obviously buildings is usually a good way to get plastered, perhaps organize your defense around a terrain feature which isn't so likely to get pasted with arty?

Finally, if you're playing against someone you're not sure of on a ladder, only play mirrored games. If the setup is blatantly unfair towards one team, you'll be able to hammer the guy in the second game.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[-tink-]

You all may be correct, all I am saying is I don't think that an assault scenario is the way to go for an enjoyable game. I am also absolutely inexperienced and thus not familiar with certain drawbacks of the setup.

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

"Reality is created by the participation of the participants."- John Wheeler

[Stoffel]

Another thing you can do is implement Fionn's rules.

But you can make your own rules.

For instance you can agree with a certain amount of points spend on a certain unit.

And what is more important try to think what your opponent would buy and try to create a balanced force that can coop with multiple threats.

The most simple solution is ,get a new opponent.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -tink-:

to me the essence of a good game is nice weather, even points and go from there

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just some further ideas - some of the most fun games I've had have been in absolutely godawful conditions, where half the battle was getting your guys into position where they could actually do something without half of them collapsing from exhaustion or becoming immobilized.

I've also had a lot of fun as both the attacker and defender on probes, attacks, and assaults. The points difference isn't a disincentive to me, and in fact I feel that if the points were equal, these types of games would be completely boring to play, as the defender would win every time.

What's fun for you is what's important, and you should play your games based on that, but no, I don't think there's anything unfair about the game you played.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[PeterNZer]

I don't much like tournaments myself, people can be too dweeby. Certainly was the case in CC2.

Try joining in on the peng thread =) By abusing people.. hehe.. taunting.. you'll get lots of fun games, and win or loose it's awesome fun!

PeterNZ

[Pvt. Ryan]

You should discuss a battle's parameters with your opponent so that you both know what you are in for. If you receive a setup you don't like you can reject it. You will find people at the T-House site that prefer to defend. This is a game and is meant to be fun. Don't play a game if think it won't be fun. I am in a game right now where I am playing the Germans with heavy fog, chosen by random weather. The fog has completely eliminated the long range fire advantage I might have had. My opponent acknowledged that I had my work cut out for me, but we decided to play it anyway to see what happened (I am about to surrender). There were many days on the western front with less than ideal fighting conditions.

[jKMkIII]

I think that assaulta, probes and other scenario types are good and more interesting than meeting engagements.

But that is just me who likes new situations and loves being kicked in the head It is fun to try to find way to survive overwhelming odds when defending.. haven't done that yet in PBEM, but against AI it was fun

But playing mirrored games is good way to play unbalanced scenarios in PBEM without having to feel bad loosing all the time

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

jK.MkIII

[deanco]

I'll tell ya how I'm learning CM. I just played meeting engagements against the comp for a long time. Then, meeting engagements against people. Now I'm on probes, attacking. It's a whole 'nother game, probes. Then I'll play probes against people. Then attacks and assaults. I been playing this game for 5 months, haven't played an assault yet. Too much information out there to take in all at once. At this rate I figure I'll be "OK" at CM around late 2003.

DeanCo--

[Bruno Weiss]

Did he pick the weather or did he choose random and the dice were set? Did ya ask?

That's why it's best to discuss all this stuff before you start. Reduces any surprises.

I dunno, I ask for random time and weather, most like that also. Then, neither one of you knows the conditions. I had one come about in the middle of a thunderstorm, lightening, driving rain. Shermans's got bogged, but at least in this case stopping them, and backing them directly out worked.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Grognerd_Fogman]

One problem with random stuff is you don't know really what your opponent chose. Mirrored games are best if you don't know your opponent. Of course if you get beat in both of them it sure is demoralizing...lol

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[CaSCa]

I love defending against long odds, I am currently defending against an Allied attack where my buddy took a +25% bonus on my suggestion. I'm not being masochistic but it's amazing what a well placed yet cheap AT gun can do for you. Not to mention a well placed defense.

[-tink-]

KKing appologized for any misunderstanding we may have had and now I feel very bad as I rebuked him severely for the setup. I will live and learn from this. I assumed it was a deliberate attempt at chicanery and he has assured me that it wasn't. In the past I have had bad experiences playing games over the internet, and jumped to conclusions on this one. Inexperience and real life stress (just got laid off going into winter) contributed greatly to my misunderstanding. Once again I absolve Kking from any culpability in this situation. Once again I have stepped in it with both feet! <-tink->

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

"Reality is created by the participation of the participants."- John Wheeler

[Guest kking199]

Thanks -tink- for clearing this up on the forum. I also felt that -tink- had an advantage with this game but I had no idea what I was doing when setting up, as I am also a Newbie, I was just trying for a different environment. I had no idea that the attacker in assault has more points, where does it state this in the book?!?! It just says on page 109 that battle type determines the force balance. LOL, I was curious what the difference was between an attack and assault game, I think I understand now.

It would be nice if there was a place that had SOPs for the PBEM game, ettiquette(sp?) rules, etc.

Anyway, no hard feelings here -tink- , there are alot of cheating/lying SOBs online. I'm one of the good guys... well I try to be.

**I'm a Member now!!, when do I get my plaque and cheap gift?!?!**

[This message has been edited by kking199 (edited 11-05-2000).]

[Moriarty]

Before setting up a quick build, it's good to talk over certain aspects of the game: troop quality, type of engagement; weather, etc.

Then you can either agree, disagree and walk away or if one side says "doesn't matter" then you're home free.

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

"Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" — Oddball

"Crap." — Moriarty

[PeterNZer]

Feel the love!

PeterNZ

[vonSchaaf]

As a long-time ASL player (new to CM), most of my experience is in attacks/assualts - NOT meeting engagements, which seem to be the norm in pbem CM from my watching the board. The attacker almost always has (in fact, *needs*) a numerical advantage. The challenge for the defender is using the advantages of terrain and time to act as his force multipliers. The pounding the defender takes in a lot of these situations can be a real gut-check; but it can also be satisfying to work every angle with what you have to hold the attacker off *just* long enough.

Cheers

[-tink-]

I can not emphasize enough how gracious and easygoing Kking has been over this fiasco which I precipitated through my own ignorance and lack of even tempered restraint. I would like the moderator to close this thread if he would as it is a source of embarassment to me. Once again I <SALUTE> Kking.

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

"Reality is created by the participation of the participants."- John Wheeler

[General_Petrovsky]

I think defending can be a lot of fun if you take the time and do a good setup. The most important part of a solid defense is your setup, because you're really not going to move many units once the game starts. Once the game gets rolling you'll probably jockey tanks and the likes around to better positons, but for the most part your men are going to keeping their heads down in their dug in positions. I agree with everyone is saying that the bad weather is definitely in the favor of the defender because you don't have to go anywhere. A good defense starts with setting up nasty kill zones on expected enemy avenues of advance. Like that long strip of woods coming straight down the map? Good place for his infantry to advance in cover right? Lace it with mines, then have big guns/tanks postioned in cover, but with side angle LOS to the same spot. Have some MG nests/mortors with LOS to the same spot and an arty spotter with LOS to the same spot. Whichever lucky souls make it through this will then be eaten up by your infantry who is waiting beyond your kill zone in good dug in ambush postions. Believe me there is nothing more exciting than seeing your opponent march his army right through the hell hole you've set up. And you really don't have to do much if you've set up your defense properly, just sit there and watch the enemy get blown away.

[Mikeydz]

Just for personal info. As a rule, I would tend to fight only Meeting engagements for any game for a ladder or tournyment. Just a personal preference. And that way, no matter what the weather or time of day conditions are, they benefit/hinder both sides roughly equally

[joeski]

If I get a scenario I don't like I send it back and tell them why. Usually it goes a little like this. "What are you nuts! Six feet of snow, Heavy Fog, at night, & you want me to attack?" Why don't you go push over some toddlers if you wanna win a fight!

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

"If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them." - Jack Handey

[Juardis]

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

I think that assaulta, probes and other scenario types are good and more interesting than meeting engagements.

But that is just me who likes new situations and loves being kicked in the head It is fun to try to find way to survive overwhelming odds when defending.. haven't done that yet in PBEM, but against AI it was fun

But playing mirrored games is good way to play unbalanced scenarios in PBEM without having to feel bad loosing all the time

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you jk. I don't mind getting whipped, ladder games or not. I learn something from each ass whipping I receive . Right now I'm defending against a German attack in one PBEM, I've taken the Free Fench in another PBEM just because I thought it'd be fun, same with the Canadians. I try different combinations of armor (like choose a bunch of PZ IVh's and Hetzers instead of Panthers and Tigers). Basically, I like variety. Also, the victory conditions are different for attacks and assaults. YAs the defender, you usually just have to hold on. I consider a draw a victory and a tactical loss as a victory in those situations.

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

Jeff Abbott