One more gamey thing in CM - BTS reply?

[Lacky]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The current system is fine, yet there does exist a very predictable setup.

Your example of a meeting engagement being balanced (based on forces) is quite expected when facing off against an opponent. So instead, I check the map + weather for balance. Eyeballing the map and predicting the limits of my opponent's setup area, it's not too hard gauge if my forces can attain a certain position (in relatively safety) before my opponent does.

Here's but one example: In a recent QB via TCP, a hill with Pine tree's dominated the middle flank of the map. A perfect position to take command of the rest of the map. Although this might be construed as "gamey," I used the high altitude map view and gauged from my own setup area, the limit's of my opponents'! And yes, I got a platoon up there before he did. The entire battle boiled down to, "Whoever could get to this hill is going to win."

The point values assigned to units is a mesh of their offensive and defensive capabilities. Most often than not, units are severely under-valued while on the defense. My example TCP game was a wrap. Given an equal point value and my forces on the defense without foxholes (which is great because this allows me to maneuver instead of hiding in a hole), my opponent had to overcome my huge advantage.

In most random ME's, there generally no more than two key features (a village, town, hill etc...) that shift the entire outcome of the battle. Buildings are less of an advantage now due to the new infantry self preservation AI.

Pardon the length of this post. I started to write and kept on going like the Energizer Bunny.

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Now I do fell like the Energizer Bunny!

Steve,

of course I do see things from your point of view but I also do see things from the same perspective as Lacky: especially in ME QB.

I do perceive that as a problem not from the CM point of view - which is fine - but from the opponent perception deriving from how the setup zones are constructed suggesting to 99% of times doing a 100mt sprint to the best spot.

Maybe - I know I am unrealistic - disallowing run and fast move for the first two turns?

[BIG DD]

if u disallow running and fast move for the first two turns both players will just run and fast move after those two turns...and the same goes for 3 turns and 4 turns...etc.it wont stop it only delay it ...

[Shatter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seahawk-vfa201:

Shatter and Lacky:

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).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

_____________________________________________

Maybe I should have reworded that.

I should of said; BTS you have by far made the most realistic wargame, even though an issue comes up from time to time, CM is still the best game known to man. Not just wargames, all games.

If I offended you Seahawkvfa 201, that was not my intention.

[Mr. Clark]

Okay, here is another take...

This whole argument started because it seems unrealistic and gamey that forces should run a bit towards the victory flags at the beginning of a QB meeting engagement, right?

The stated reason that this feels "unrealistic" is because the charging forces should not know that they have a safe run at the flag.

However, if both sides ARE charging at the flag, then it is NOT actually a safe run, because eventually the two forces are gonna smack into each other, completely unprepared and possibly "tired."

If only one force rushes the flag, while another approaches carefully, then the rushing/defending force opens itself up to one hell of an arty licking once the other force discovers it's presence. (I almost always bomb the heck out of the victory locations as I approach.)

If both forces approach carefully, then they are STILL going to hit the objective at about the same time.

As this situation (flag rushing at the start) only applies to meeting engagements, I don't see that there is a problem with the current setup system...

Maybe I'm just not understanding the thread again...

(I'll admit I fell way off topic the first time when I was complaining about starting "amongst" the enemy.)

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello Seahawk:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do perceive that as a problem not from the CM point of view - which is fine - but from the opponent perception deriving from how the setup zones are constructed suggesting to 99% of times doing a 100mt sprint to the best spot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. Mr. Clark did a fine job expanding upon it from the other side of the coin too.

The problem here is that BOTH sides know EXACTLY what is going on before the battle starts. They know the following for a Meeting Engagement:

1. That they are going to meet enemy resistance.

2. That this enemy resistance is not currently in the middle of the map.

3. The objective/s are in the middle of the map, therefore are undefended.

4. The entire terrain layout is know, with 100% certainty.

5. The enemy force knows all of the above.

6. It is likely that the enemy player will mad-dash for the center.

7. If you do not take the center, and generally do better militarily speaking, you will be judged the "loser".

Now... how much of this would a real battlefield commander know? Possibly the force would assume #1 and might have a good idea about #4, but a near definate "no" on the others.

How does this "ahistorical" knowledge, possessed by the player, influence how a Meeting Engagement is played out? Total and absolute infuence.

What I think Seahawk and Lacky are looking for is the uncertainty that goes along with a real world Meeting Engagement. I would like to see this too. Unfortunately, it is not in our power to do this because it is inherent to the nature of it being a game.

Messing around with the setup zones will not bring us closer to the ideal expressed here. On the contrary, it will cause a whole bunch of problems and frustrations that nobody would want to play Meeting Engagements any more. So best to leave it as is and simply recognize the inherent limitations as such and enjoy it anyway

BTW, I play Meeting Engagements like Mr. Clark. I am in no hurry to get to the middle. Last game I played like this (as the US) I won very solidly. Funny enough though, the other player moved even slower than I did Me thinks my use of artillery did not help him in this repsect

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello Seahawk:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do perceive that as a problem not from the CM point of view - which is fine - but from the opponent perception deriving from how the setup zones are constructed suggesting to 99% of times doing a 100mt sprint to the best spot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. Mr. Clark did a fine job expanding upon it from the other side of the coin too.

The problem here is that BOTH sides know EXACTLY what is going on before the battle starts. They know the following for a Meeting Engagement:

1. That they are going to meet enemy resistance.

2. That this enemy resistance is not currently in the middle of the map.

3. The objective/s are in the middle of the map, therefore are undefended.

4. The entire terrain layout is know, with 100% certainty.

5. The enemy force knows all of the above.

6. It is likely that the enemy player will mad-dash for the center.

7. If you do not take the center, and generally do better militarily speaking, you will be judged the "loser".

Now... how much of this would a real battlefield commander know? Possibly the force would assume #1 and might have a good idea about #4, but a near definate "no" on the others.

How does this "ahistorical" knowledge, possessed by the player, influence how a Meeting Engagement is played out? Total and absolute infuence.

What I think Seahawk and Lacky are looking for is the uncertainty that goes along with a real world Meeting Engagement. I would like to see this too. Unfortunately, it is not in our power to do this because it is inherent to the nature of it being a game.

Messing around with the setup zones will not bring us closer to the ideal expressed here. On the contrary, it will cause a whole bunch of problems and frustrations that nobody would want to play Meeting Engagements any more. So best to leave it as is and simply recognize the inherent limitations as such and enjoy it anyway

BTW, I play Meeting Engagements like Mr. Clark. I am in no hurry to get to the middle. Last game I played like this (as the US) I won very solidly. Funny enough though, the other player moved even slower than I did Me thinks my use of artillery did not help him in this repsect

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dang... dupe post

Steve

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

[coralsaw]

Steve,

Have you guys thought of a random possibility of one or none of the two players having a few of their units placed on the flags during a meeting engagement, simulating recon patrols of some sort.

If there was a real possibility that the enemy could be at the flags, at least one of the players would not dash.

I don't think it would change the ME objectives, since no digging in of defence (i.e. no setup) has really taken place in the flag territory.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[jshandorf]

What difference does it make if your opponent runs his units the first few turns or whether he moves them?

I really don't see what you guys are complaining about at all.

Any battle can be won. It just takes skill and good judgment. Don't blame the game for your inability to win.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Polar]

After reading all this, I got an itchin' to makes me a scenario!

Now I just need the time to make one.

Won't spoil it... but it will be COOL!

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[pktaske]

I'm really surprised that this has become a point of contention. I find employing the 'run fast for the flag' paintball-like tactic all the time only works vs inexperienced players or someone who has fielded a relatively unbalanced force. First to the flag a good portion of the time equates to 'first to eat fire from 105's' not to mention giving away position. Generally, I've found stealth and patience wins the day. The situations where I find myself in a mad dash to the center is when the ME generator has dealt me unusually open and flat terrain on my half of the map. Otherwise I take the Old Bull strategy:

An old bull and a young bull were on a hill overlooking a meadow full of cows. The young bull tells the old bull "Hey, lets run down there and f*ck one of those cows". The old bull tells the young bull "Lets walk down and f*ck em all".

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Hi there,

first of all: whoever thought this was complaining about winning or not being able to got it all wrong.

Shatter: no prob man, I did not get offended, really.

Steve: RIGHT IN THE MONEY!, it is about seeking for a closer-to-real-world meeting engagement.

Actually, fact is that it is often easier to win against a rushing-like-mad opponent than against a careful approacher (so if complain was, it was about winning too easily. The complain - for so to say - is against finding yourself playing a ME against an opponent that makes the approach a bit "ahistorical", hence disappointing in a game such as CM which spend so much in trying to realisitcally reproducing WWII battles.

Steve, for what concerns me your last reply satisfies me and nails the argument: the thread is then dead (I started it, I declare it now dead ).

I play for the fun of reproducing battles, yes, I do play ladders from time to time (10% of my games) and when I encouter a *runner* I simply tell myself: oh well, another gamer, time to use my 4 to 6 arty spotters for a while. I usually do not encounter a strong resistance after that kind of rain from the sky but it certainly takes a bit of the pleasure out. He certainly does not spot (able to fire at) my units on the first turns.

Seahawk out

[Lacky]

Rushing to the Flag('s) is generally a sure fire way of getting whipped. It's far better to rush to a superior terrain feature. If the flag is occupying one of those terrain feature's, so much the better.

There's a lot of pre-turn 1 placement and map over-view surveying involved. If one side (determine's/is capable) of reaching key, defensible location's prior to their opponent because of the predictable setup placement of ME's, then that's generally the game.

One quick exception: If the map is utterly huge, then this sort of pre-game gameyness is minimal.