There are big differences between players out there

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Greetings

After playing CM for some time now, both over pbem and tcpip, I have noticed how different some people behave when it comes to multiplayer games. Lately I have met many players who buy a special set of units every time, and use them in a certain way. There has been talk about "The system", a set of units supposed to be very effective in QB's. A number of players seem to have adopted this "system". Often they do not use these units the historical way, but to solve some other usefull purpose on the CM battlefield.

One player I met had a special combination of forces he said he could guarantee a win with. But the map had to have a certain set of parameters, weather, date and so on for it to work properly. I thought ok, lets go and setup the game. When we got into the game I had selected small hills instead of gentle slopes, and my opponent quit because that didnt suit his selection of forces!

I think most of the players using this system are playing in ladder systems, cause they seem desperate to win every battle. And to win they will use what I call unrealistic methods. Both by selecting a special set of units, and to deploy them in a unhistorical way.

Do I have a problem with this? No, but I sure dont want to play against them. I like playing historical, and I mostly play premade historical scenarios. When I do play QB's I tend to like having the computer select forces. I find this much more challenging, cause you just have to do the best with what you got. The "system people" will not do this because its possible to cheat. Another reason why I dont want to play against these people, they dont trust eachother when setting up a game. One side could buy units for himself and give the other player crappy forces.

I would of course never cheat in a game, cause I play to have fun! People that know me and have played against me know that I would never do such a thing.

Thankfully most of the people I have encountered in the chatroom on www.combatmission.com are decent folks just wanting to play a game.

I only wrote this to illustrate that there is a big difference between players out there, I do not say there is something wrong with any of them.

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

And my Panzer Elite site:

25th-pzrgt.de

[Wilhammer]

I am with you Heinz.

I avoid ladder play and prefer to play the historically minded players.

Fancy a PBEM?

[Mlapanzer]

Why play in a ladder when your already at the top . I'm with you guys. I play historical scen. and QB,s but with guys who don't only buy Ubertanks and SMG on nice bright sunny dry days.I don't mind playing against a Tiger or 2 but why play if it's the same game all the time. I don't understand that mentality. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it just that I don't understand the mentality?

[PeterNZer]

Agreed

I find the idea of a perfect system a bit silly. If you do things a little out of the ordinary against them they get in serious trouble i've noticed.

Once faced a guy in a terrible close assault and he was starting to loose it, in the end he charged his 2inch mortars at me to draw fire. I would say they did have an impact on the battle since for more than 60 seconds my guys weren't firring at a real threat. Very annoying.

He said it was because the situation was desperate enough and it happened in real life too. Hmm. Well seems that this guy has desperate situations in just about every battle he plays i think.

Anyway, I now tend to stick with people I know. Get great games that way.

PeterNZ

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

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and Joe Shaw -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hmm... Well, I play mostly ladder, only QBs and never computer pick. Yet...

I hate cherry picking, and am annoyed by players who will only play with certain units/certain setting/one side only. I like playing with random weather, time of day and terrain. I'll play any side and prefer attack/defence to MEs.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Abbott]

Many inexperienced players, myself included stumbled our way through attacks, defensive battles, probes and assaults with the release of Combat Mission. Many fun and tense battles, never knowing what was going to happen followed. It only took us (about 20 new players in our group) a few weeks to discover Meeting Engagements were the best choice for Ladder play amongst our group. We found it was the better way to offer a level playing field.

Two main styles within ladder play became the norm. One style tries to be pitted against the opponent on a level playing field and one style does not.

I prefer the “try for a level playing field” approach myself and have learned to screen my opponents before starting a ladder game. My take on Combat Mission's multi-player/ladder play is it’s supposed to offer a rating amongst your peers, fairly. This does not happen when the two main styles of play are mixed. Ladder play can be very enjoyable when you are able to match your style with your opponents. Ladder play can almost add That “Campaign” feeling of play to Combat Mission.

[StellarRat]

I'll take whatever I get and try to make the best of it. I prefer battles where everything is random. I don't even care which side I'm on.

[Bruno Weiss]

Never did understand why some seem to have so much trouble with ladder play. I've played ladder games exclusively since CM came out, and I play along historical lines for force selections, however I'm not all wrapped up in this or that defination of gamey. In discussing game parameters prior to accepting a match, I've found that such discussions eliminate most, if not all of the problems I've seen discussed with regard to this or that perception of a problem with regard to finding a suitable match.

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

"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)

[Vanir Ausf B]

What Bruno and Stellar said.

Ladder play is what you make it.

If I can't select it as random in the setup I'll roll dice for it. I even choose which side I play randomly.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Guest Rob/1]

We really want to talk histoicl acurisy the number of tanks used by Axis forces should be cut...what I mean is so many Axis players use way to many tanks...(1 German and was destroyed for every 4 allied tanks and most German tanks were destroyed by allied Close air support).With that in mind should we think of ways to set up a historical CM ladder?

[This message has been edited by Rob/1 (edited 03-30-2001).]

[MC]

I think since the 'unrestricted' setting came into effect the German players who are ahistorical tend to have an advantage. My friend and I have been playing and for some time we always selected unrestricted, and he has been kicking my ass. ut the last time we played, we chose a combined arms game, which I believe levels the playing field somewhat. Not that my buddy picks KT's and SMG squads all the time, but I know some of those players out there probably would not know what to do with all those extra purchase points in the other categories if forced to play a combined arms game.

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

Don't shoot...let 'em burn! - from opening scene, SPR

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by Rob/1:

We really want to talk histoicl acurisy

Couldn't have put it better myself

[Bruno Weiss]

I agree that the unrestricted purchase option leads to an over abundance in certain areas, which, is precisely what the unrestricted option was created for. For those who wish to purchase forces in an unrestricted manner. Makes sense.

On the other hand, the problems being related are not programmatic in nature, but rather seem to stem from a lack of consensus between two potential opponents prior to initiating a game. Wherein, the most simple solution is to discuss the game preferences and parameters prior to entering into a match. If an agreement cannot be attained, then a match should not be initiated.

I.e.,

Philbert; "I prefer to use the combined arms option instead of the unrestricted option for force purchases."

Egor; "Agreed."

Whereupon, together with the other agreements on game parameters, the contest begins.

or

Bubba; "I prefer to use the unrestricted option for force purchases."

Stanley; "See ya!"

Pretty much resolves the issue.

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

"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)

[109 Gustav]

I agree with Bruno on unrestricted battles, they just don't seem as fun as combined arms for some reason. I don't know why, but they always seem to be composed of a tank battle and an infantry battle, rather than one large battle of balanced units. Although AT guns rock in unrestricted battles, becuase so many people will buy one or two more tanks than usual.

I do wish there was an unrestricted unit quality option though- I'd love to go hold off an army of elite troops with nothing but green and conscript volkstrum.

I've never tried ladder play, and don't plan on it. I'd rather lose while playing my best with semi-historical units (No more than 2 pumas, but mixing British airborne with US armor is ok) than win a victory that means something with the gamiest units I could buy.

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

The Last Defense- Made any scenarios? Send them here!

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

[Guest Rob/1]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

Couldn't have put it better myself

Get off me!

[Col Deadmarsh]

Ugh, I can't believe I'm saying this...Abbott, your idea for having multiple ladders is starting to sound better and better.

I was arguing for trying to counter these tactics before and forget having a multiple ladder site but now that I think of it, I don't want to play these people who use this "system."

I consider myself ahistorical, but not a powergamer. I will take certain ahistorical units but not because I desperately want to advance my ladder standing, it's because I desperately want to find a way of winning with certain units using certain strategies that I conjure up in my mind.

On the other side of the coin, I'm not sure how happy I'd be playing the grog and having to use Shermans time after time. After all, they have their set of standard units too just like the powergamer, but for different reasons--there's being historical accuracy.

So Abbott, maybe your idea should be strongly considered. I just don't know how you'd catagorize everyone. Off the cuff, I'd say there are 3 different categories: The Grog, the Ahistorical player, and the Powergamer.

That's about as far as I can get without getting bored talking about the suject. You've convinced me though that this ladder needs to be broken up. We have too many different types of players here who play for different reasons and having ladders for each general group would probably be a good idea. I just don't know how you'd go about doing it.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[PakFront]

After playing CM for some time now, both over pbem and tcpip, I have noticed how different some people behave when it comes to multiplayer games. Lately I have met many players who buy a special set of units every time, and use them in a certain way. There has been talk about "The system", a set of units supposed to be very effective in QB's. A number of players seem to have adopted this "system". Often they do not use these units the historical way, but to solve some other usefull purpose on the CM battlefield.

How boring to play the same settings/units all the time just to win.I can think of no other way to get sick of playing this game,than to use a "system" all the time.

[Moriarty]

I'll play ladder or not. I'm on two of them (TH and RD) but that was because some of the guys I play regularly like them. Personally, I don't care. I, too, am more likely to take historical unit setups ... to the limits of my TO&E knowledge. Sometimes I goof up ... like using Priests on front lines when, I recently have learned, the should be used as supporting arty. Oops. I would hate to be locked into a "system" ... taking the same stuff every time.

Quite frankly, I enjoy the strategy aspects, the fight itself and meeting good people moreso than the victory (rare in my case).

In a recent game, I was fortunate enough to witness my HMC from Hell kill a KT with a turret shot. I couldn't have cared less whether I won (I did, but that's beside the point) ... that memory is the one I'll take away from the game. And, that's something the uber-armor types won't experience.

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

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

Crap -- Moriarty

[Stix]

Originally posted by Moriarty:

Sometimes I goof up ... like using Priests on front lines when, I recently have learned, the should be used as supporting arty. Oops.

I have a slightly different opinion on that. If you are using historical units to start with why does it matter how you use them?

Only deploying your troops the way they where in WW II is quite restrictive if you ask me.

[bigmac@work]

Nothing more fun than punching autoselect and going at it! Every game is different, some place you as an underdog, some overpower you, all are fun. Whoever wins wins. Of course this kind of play isn't conducive to ladder play (as can be discerned from my ladder position), but damn it, I'm enjoying myself! I don't feel compelled to cook up a system to plant me on the top of a ladder. Nothing against the guys that fine tune their game with set pieces, but that's just not MY bag. That's the great thing about a game. There's no wrong way to PLAY it!

bigmac out!

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

All CM All the time!

Check out the Dogs of War CM Players Community

[Micheal Wittman]

Myself, I like to get jiggy withit in a historical kinda way. Although I jump on the

chance to play against somebody whatever conditions they like. Kinda of a challenge.

Do you find the AI on auto select for combined arms favours buying those halftracks?

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

"Is this thing loaded?"

[tailz]

In almost a year, I have yet to play a battle involving a single 'uber tank'... the few times I've even PBEM'd as the German I steer away from Panthers and Tigers for fear of being called a 'gamey'.

In all honesty, I don't really have the TO&E of the allies and Germans memorized, so when I try for 'historical', it's pretty much a guessing affair... and I have to trust my opponent is in the same boat. I don't pick more than one Firefly (I like the Canucks) without grabbing a few regular Shermans, and I have actually had infantry vs armour/combined PBEM's that were a lot of fun. But you know, sometimes the fun is lost when you are sitting at the Force Pick screen worrying about your picks and that your opponent might think you're a gamey sum'bitch!

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by bigmac@work:

Nothing more fun than punching autoselect and going at it! Every game is different, some place you as an underdog, some overpower you, all are fun. Whoever wins wins. Of course this kind of play isn't conducive to ladder play (as can be discerned from my ladder position), but damn it, I'm enjoying myself!

bigmac out!

You've said a mouthful. Enjoying yourself is the name of the game.

I have played AI-choose and player-choose and I don't really have a strong preference. Sometimes I like choosing the units because it allows me to use things the AI typically does not select: bunkers/pillboxes, for example. Other times, there are specific units I like to take out for a spin. But I don't mind playing where the computer selects ... even though it sometimes is a lopsided affair.

In one game, the computer chose for me a rifle company, an 81mm FO, 3 Stuarts, 2 HTs and a jeep. No mortars, no MGs other than those mounted on the vehicles. My opponent had a reinforced company of Panzergrenadiers, 2 StuGs, a Panther, 3 HMGs, and 2 or 3 FOs. Unbalanced? A bit. Fun? You bet. Damned challenging to try to do something against those odds. I lost but I enjoyed every minute of it.

As far as worrying about whether my opponent thinks I'll make "gamey" force selections, I'll generally tell them before we get going that if it's historical, I don't know all the ins and outs of TO&Es and he or she might see some weird things, but it won't to too far off the map.

Communicating usually eliminates the "gamey" factor.

Just my 2 cents.

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

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

Crap -- Moriarty

[Moriarty]

Originally posted by MC:

I think since the 'unrestricted' setting came into effect the German players who are ahistorical tend to have an advantage. My friend and I have been playing and for some time we always selected unrestricted, and he has been kicking my ass. ut the last time we played, we chose a combined arms game, which I believe levels the playing field somewhat. Not that my buddy picks KT's and SMG squads all the time, but I know some of those players out there probably would not know what to do with all those extra purchase points in the other categories if forced to play a combined arms game.

I've been playing a few unrestricted games and I find my unit selections gravitate toward a Combined Arms setup anyway. I figure I've got to try and cover as many bases as I can. If I've got a bias, it's toward selecting infantry more heavily than anything else. Armor is nice to have around, but it's still the ground-pounders who carry the day. One of the best challenges yet, is playing Infantry defense against a CA attacker.

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

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

Crap -- Moriarty

[Capt. Vance Astrovich]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

After all, they have their set of standard units too just like the powergamer, but for different reasons--there's being historical accuracy.

Well put. The Wargamer has a set of biases just different from the powergamers. I fall to the historical side of things, but I don't feel any problems with doing some things other purists call gamey. Like the Jeep Recon, or that fellow making the 2 in Mortar charge out to draw fire. Man, you do what you have to with your units to win the battle. War is like that. Now I think buying a ton of Assault Boats to draw fire is a lame and really Gamey thing, and I wouldn't play that game, but if it isn't outright cheating the system like that, then I am for it.

Hey, I think you can get quite a nice human wave attack with a huge number- of crews form abandoned or destroyed vehicles. Would that be a gamey tactic? I am about to try it.

Capt. Vance Astrovich