One more gamey thing in CM - BTS reply?

[Seahawk-vfa201]

I came to notice the following on many occasions:

Your opponent KNOWS you can't possibly have LOS for a turn or two hence orders all troops and vehicles to RUN and FAST advance toward specific map locations. Highly gamey in my humble opinion. Your opponent is making decisions not based on the scenario or map elevations but on the specific knowledge that opponent units WILL start from a specific distance from the edge and from side to side: the no-man's land is a well known rectangular shape.

I think this is due essentially to knowing the shape (rectangular) of starting point.

Could we instaed have a zig-zag no-man's land sector, that is I cannot be sure where and how far on certain location the opponent could be. On any map location he could be in position to have a LOS or not.

I am not fully convinced about this but I rather tend that it would discourage the *gamey* tactics of having everyone running for a couple of turns (hey, he can't possibly see me, can he?!).

Of course it should be so not to give ground advantage to anyone but the straight separation between initial forces setup is the less realistic thing I had found on CM. I think it will add to the feeling of playing FULL Fog of War.

Comments?

[terry1040]

I like the uncertainty the way we have it now. When I SetUp my forces, I have to asume that outside my own SetUp-Area enemy territory starts. It is perfectly fine for me, that the enemy might make use of an early dash into No-Mans-Land. He faces the same risks, as he is unable to judge where my SetUp Area begins. I don't think this is gamey. An early dash is more a risky gamble, IMHO.

[Aacooper]

Those comments are more true for Quickbattles than created scenarios -- you really take some chances if you start off running in those!

[Jumbo]

Seahawkvfa201,

My friend and I came up with something that might help you. We play Meeting Engagements and we turn off the victory location flags and ignore them. We instead play to then find and hopefully defeat our opponent in detail. An exact knowledge of the victory points is unimportant. If you're honest with yourself, you can tell if you are losing and its time to withdraw or surrender. Sure the situation is similar initially, but I don't want to strung out racing towards the center. My opponent may not be moving towards the center. He may be moving on one of my flanks and catches me unprepared. This encourages the use of recon and formations where units can hopefully support each other. I hope this helps.

Jumbo

[Mr. Clark]

Hmmmmm... this actually touches on something I have a problem with.

You see, I prefer that opponents begin out of range, out of sight of each other. Take a scenario we all know, CHANCE ENCOUNTER. You get at LEAST one turn, usually 3 before enemy contact.

Now, the other day I fired up one of the bridge defending, river crossing scenarios that come w/ the game (NAME withheld to avoid spoiler). Units were pretty much locked in place, so setup was easy... just hit GO.

First turn, seeing NO ENEMIES on the map, I spent freaking forever coming up with a plan and then entering in all my movement orders.

HIT GO.

Immediately, my tanks start brewing up from enemy tanks located on an open street (straight, easy shot) directly to the side of one of my main forces. These tanks are located almost AMONG my second force.

I'm having trouble wording this post, so I know it sounds like whining, but all I'm trying to say is where is the fun and fairness of having your entire tank force brewed up the first seconds of the first turn by a VERY CLOSE enemy flanking force that you had no reason to expect or prepare for. In fact I could not prepare for it, because setup was locked.

All I'm saying is that I MUCH prefer scenarios that give you a one turn breathing space before contact.

[Jumbo]

Mr Clark,

I know exactly what you mean. I experienced it to. I think that the CHANCE ENCOUNTER scenario is a parody. Once that I saw the absurdity of that first turn, I stopped playing it and went to another.

Jumbo

[Jumbo]

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

Mr Clark,

I know exactly what you mean. I experienced it to. I think that the CHANCE ENCOUNTER scenario is a parody. Once that I saw the absurdity of that first turn, I stopped playing it and went to another.

Jumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooops. I didn't mean CHANCE ENCOUNTER. I meant the scenario that Mr. Clark was referring to. Sorry.

Jumbo

[A Arabian]

Mr. Clark:

Oh, you have no idea how much I agree with you. I got my a$$ handed to me on a platter on that one . We played it out, and I did stupid things anyway, but I thought it wasnt a very well designed scenario.

Personally what I think would be a better way of setting up scenarios is to have a couple of scout teams locked into place a bit forward on the map, as you would generally advance with scouts. You would then engage opfor as a scout skirmish and have a better idea as to what is going on - this I think would be more typical of a meeting engagement or advance on defended position. This instead of suddenly seeing a tank down the street that you would have known perfectly well was there.

This is a scenario design issue, and basicailly if my opponent and I don't like the scenario, we bail on it and start a new one. And go back to CMHQ and give it 1 star.

[Mr. Clark]

Yes, luckily this is a scenario design issue, and not a CM issue. I simply quit any scenario in which the first turn is unrealistically devastating before my units get a chance to swivel.

I have nothing against a good old ambush or sneak attack. I'm only talking about first turn annihilations by units that should have been spotted BEFORE you placed your first turn orders.

ALSO, let me note that this DOES NOT apply to PBeM games of mine, as I usually play Quick Battles or scenarios that my opponent and myself have played before (single play) and of course both agree upon. (I'm one of the few people who does not like to play PBeM games in an unfamiliar scenario... simply because I have no idea if I'm being screwed by an unbalanced game or not.)

[This message has been edited by Mr. Clark (edited 01-03-2001).]

[A Arabian]

I guess I should amend my previous statement - although I think most meeting engagements would begin with skirmish lines, youre right... sneak attacks and ambushes are fair game, whereas crappy first turns are just plain hokey.

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Immediately, my tanks start brewing up from enemy tanks located on an open street (straight, easy shot) directly to the side of one of my main forces. These tanks are located almost AMONG my second force.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the scenario of which you speak and have talked with the scenario designer about it. Basically, in the real battle, your tanks were shielded from that street such that you could fire smoke across the river (like I'm sure you planned ). Anyway, the solution is to put a copse of dense woods at the end of the street so that you do not lose them in the first turn (at least not from the tanks in the street).

Overall though, I like Wild Bills scenarios simply because of the instant action. Makes the 1st 2-3 moves extremely important and unaltered by arty.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Mr. Clark]

I do indeed believe you know of the scenario I'm talking about, as firing smoke across the river is exactly what I planned on doing, and is exactly what the scenario intro spells out. He he... I suppose this made the frustration and shock all that more appalling when it happened.

In general, I do need to say that I LOVE Wild Bill's scenarios. I just have issues with "very beginning of first turn" engagements.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Yes, I do know that scenario as well and I banged my head on it. I profit from that very example to say that is not what I meant.

And I do agree that some breath have to exist (I mentioned the "no-man's land" for this very reason)

What I am referring to is to the shape of the no-man's land. I do not want to find situations like in that scenario were your units end up under fire right away but I'd like to have the *uncertainty* that I COULD run into fire if on the first turn or two I advance (run and fast) without care.

I think this could be achieved with a randomly generated broken line for the no-man's land zone instead of the fixed straight line as it is now. The idea is that: yes, I do have a breath for sure but in some location maybe not that much, in some other maybe more and I could not tell because of the broken line for the setup zones. I wish no one could reasonably say: "It is the first turn: I may dash toward those woods or those buildings BECAUSE my opponent could never reach any location from where achieve a LOS on my units dashing down there."

If the no-man's land was out of a random broken line (instead of a well shaped rectangular) it might be so that my opponent, even on 1st turn, could have a setup zone that would allow him to reach a location and have a LOS on carelessly moving units.

To make all this short: I'dd like to add an uncertainty on the assurance some players have during the first couple of minutes.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

And yes: this apply more to QB than to scenarios. Scenarios setup zones (although regular shapes those too) are not limited in number and/or location creating that uncertainty making so you will be very careful from the very first turn.

QB setup zones are, IMHO, too regular and making so that most players do a simple dash to *nice* spots on the first couple of minutes giving for granted that no way the enemy could ever be seen for at least a couple of turns (especially with hilly maps).

As Mr. Clark said: a breath should be there and the enemy be encountered after a minute or two or three. QB give you practically the assurance that on the first minute at least (hilly maps) no one could see anyone.

[Mr. Clark]

I see what you are saying. Far enough away not to see each other on opening moves, yet close enough to POSSIBLY be covering the Victory locations (not physically, but within LOS, to fire on any rushers.)

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Mr. Clark: you got it right.

With a broken line for the no man's land I could never be sure that in any location my opponent could not get the LOS on any rusher.

Not necessarily Victory location though as that again would give me the certitude that in other location I am *safe* for a turn or two.

The 'randomly generated' broken line could allow my opponent to get within LOS on certain areas from certain locations. Maybe he can reach that hill on the right, or be able to get to those buildings, etc: I would never know so I could not be reasonably sure to be able to rush on the open because in the next ~30 seconds he could actualy get a LOS. He might never be able to do it before two or more turns (as the broken line could be not favorable to reach a LOS location) but he might if the broken line - for that particular random generation - allows my oponent to have units *there* in a short time.

I know I am being prolix now but with respect to the actual straight setup zone where all locations are at equal distance from the closest setup zone line, the broken line would make some spot in the map reachable in one turn, some others in two, others in more: map locations being at *different* - this time - distances from the closest setup zone line.

[Moriarty]

I guess I'm in the minority here.

I found that scenario to be a hoot. Nothing historical about it, just a slugfest from the get-go. It also was an interesting test of one's ability to respond immediately. Granted, I wouldn't want to play such a thing all the time, but it was a fun change-of-pace.

Just my 1/50th dollar.

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

"Moriarty, you suck." -- Dunno, but somebody must've said it somewhere along the line

[Guest Big Time Software]

I hear you guys, but here is something else to think about...

I personally have no problem with a scenario which starts out with an Ambush, on turn one, and there is nothing you can do about it. HOWEVER... the scenario should be balanced with the notion that a certain number of the ambushed units will get clobbered. This then puts the player in the spot of having to recover from a devistating blow BUT still have roughly enough force to overcome the enemy.

Think of this as simulating finding yourself in command just after your CO gets whacked during the initial slaughter. The recently departed CO got you into the mess, now it is up to you to get your guys OUT. I think such a scenario, once in a while, is a really cool thing to play. But again, the key is balancing so that you can have a hope of winning even with your initial force wiped out.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-04-2001).]

[Mr. Clark]

Agreed Steve! I would love to try the scenario you just described.

It's the overwhelming feeling of "well, why bother now" that forced me to stop the scenario in question. If the scenario you described is the "briefing" or "backstory" that begins a scenario, I'm all for it!

Once again, I hate to even discuss this really, because I do so love all of Wild Bill's other scenarios!

[GonzoAttacker]

Gentlemen,

As a scenario designer that starts most of his scenarios with some sort of ambush and forces being hit it is wise to read WWII history. Most of the scenarios are right in the middle of a conflict, and you are hit immediately and must react! That is what war was. All the planning goes out the window in War once the men hit the beach, forest, hill, road etc. Now if you are into chess, QB battles then! just play them.

Also 90% of my scenarios have more than enough time to win from either side and have been play tested significantly. The ones that state that they are for computer play only mean just that!

Right now I am developing a series of battles that will be for TCP/IP or PBEM only with NO FLAGS only Objectives such as a Crossroad, a hill, a Church, a bridge, etc.

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

"Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after they occur."

General Guilio Douhet

1920

[Shatter]

Originally posted by Aacooper:

Those comments are more true for Quickbattles than created scenarios

_____________________________________________

Shatter here I agree with your post, I just figued Seahawk played alot of quickbattles. Seahawk I have made alot of scenarios, several are based on my Grandfathers tales during his time in WWII. No I do not post them at websites or give them to anyone, except for my Father, who recently I bought the CM for. My point being, in all my scenarios I have spacific depoyment zone in mind before I have finished my maps. This way when I play one of my scenarios the starting distances are alot closer than in a quick battle. I also have a couple that have a small group defending a town, then others in the rear with a different colored zone. It is like the small group has to hold out until the rear forces reinforce them. It is sort of like starting with a reinforcement. When I say small group I mean small like 1 mg a squad and 1 anti-tank weapon. Then set up enemy assulting forces closer than reinforcements. So that the small force has to hold out for 5 turns or so against a company and a couple tanks until they can be reinforced.

BTS I do not have a single problem with your wonderful game. Never hear a bad word from me. I like the option to set up close or far away.

Shatter out

_____________________________________________

[This message has been edited by Shatter (edited 01-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Shatter (edited 01-04-2001).]

[Lacky]

Would be interesting to have QB start zones non-rectangular. Perhaps a square or a hemisphere. Hrm... perhaps a circle if the map is large enough!

As it is now the other side starting locations are rather predictable. It's not hard hopping into 7 view and eye-balling where my opponent is permitted to setup.

[Mr. Clark]

Gonzo, a scenario that begins with an ambush is one thing, but the fact is that it is simply NOT FUN to ALWAYS lose all your tanks in the first seconds of a game... BEFORE you can possibly react or think or even attempt to use any tactics what-so-ever.

You say it's realistic, but it certainly does not feel realisitic when I'm supposed to believe that no-one in my entire BATTALION went so far as to turn their head 45 degrees to the side, peer down a street, and notice the 6 enemy vehicles sitting right out in the open, preparing to fire immediately upon pressing of the GO button.

There is a fine but definate line between "Hey, this scenario is going to be a fun challenge!" and "Well, that was certainly a cheap rip-off!"

One makes you become engrossed in commanding your troops, the other makes you turn off the PC.

That's all I'm saying... and so far it has only occured in a VERY small number of scenarios. It's just a preference of mine, and it's certainly not a CM flaw, just a scenario builders "decision."

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Shatter and Lacky:

i agree with both of you. I do play scenario and I like them best because the setup zones are not so predictable as in QB.

I think QB setup zones would profit from having variable setup zones as in many scenarios.

Shatter: it looks like you took my posts as a flame to BTS. I tried instead to cast an idea for a possible improvement to the game in the treating of QBs as with the oh so many ideas from all users that have contributed to make CM what it is today (a small percentage but CM has profitde from having users discussing possible changes to the game and BTS filtering out the best ones).

As Lacky said: in QBs it is VERY easy to figure out where muy opponents units could possibly be and where I could run/dash without fear of being spotted for the first couple of turns: I'd like a solution to avoid that in QBs (which are the standard if you play CM ladder groups) and tried to suggest one.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Seahawk,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As Lacky said: in QBs it is VERY easy to figure out where muy opponents units could possibly be and where I could run/dash without fear of being spotted for the first couple of turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I am going to disagree with this I think the "problem" is more perceived than actual, and the suggested fix would cause QBs to be rather frustrating for both sides.

1. Not a real problem - Yes, you know the general location of the enemy is a certain map edge with a certain depth depending on what the side is doing (i.e. the type of game being played). You also know that inbetween is neutral. But you do not know where the enemy's units are going to be within the roughly known setup area.

You also can't predict, with any extra degree of certainty, what the enemy can or can not see during the first couple of turns. Not unless the map is particullarly dense and hilly. And depending on where the enemy and you set up your units, even though the boundaries are roughly known, will make a huge difference in just about any map.

2. There is no good solution even if this were a big problem - Making oddly shaped setup positions does not get you any closer to what you think you are looking for. The reason is the degree of variability will likely have to be rather limited.

The main reason is that unlike a premade sceanrio, where the designer picks and chooses which units can be deployed where, QBs must stick all units in ONE deployment zone. If one side, say in a Meeting Engagement, received a little 80m salient into no-man's land, this would give most likely give that player a HUGE strategic advantage. Since a Meeting Engagement is supposed to be even (at least by default), this is asking for trouble.

The same holds true for different types of scenarios. The oddly shaped, and randomized, deployment zones would be without any game balancing logic. And therefore would likely help/hurt a particular side each and every game. Go into the Editor and draw some wildly different deployment areas, purchase a bunch of units, and see what you could do with them. If you draw more modestly different zone shapes, you will likely notice that it really doesn't make a hill of bean's difference.

At least this is my opinion

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-05-2001).]