The Ancient Art of CM.

[The_Capt]

Ok time to up the ante here and start up a really mind bending topic.

In CM or reality, why does one side win and another lose?

What constitutes a win or loss?

We argue on this board about "critical factors" and "turning points" but why does a battle turn out one way or the next.

Is there such a thing as an unbeatable battle?

Is it just luck or can we set pre-conditions in such away that victory is almost always assured. Or is it simply figuring out the game to an extent where victory is almost always assured.

How much is technical and how much is psychological?

I had the opportunity to play an individual who is very good at the game (he will remain nameless). I found that the longer I played him the better I did. Is this because I am figuring him out and what role does "know thy enemy" play.

I recognize this is an enormous topic and may be an exercise in mental masturbation BUT are there golden conditions which lead to victory and others which nearly ensure a loss?

This is at the heart of why some win and others lose. Let's stick to CM here. In a ME QB with two players of equal experience and capability, odds are someone will win or lose. Draws are rare. So why and if they play the same game again will it turn out different..you bet. So with so much randomness in the game one would think we should all have a 1:1 win loss ratio but some out there do not..why?

I will offer a few ideas.

"First Seen and First Shot". This is the theory that first to see and shoot will have set a pre-condition to win.

"Motion is death". If you are not moving and he is you are going to win. So positioning or gaining positions of advantage quickly is very important.

"Seek the Mad Minute". Overwhelming firepower at a critical point will win the day. When combined with the first two it can be a game winner.

"Send the Sinking Feeling". This is psychological pure and simple. It is a point where your opponent goes "Oh ****" and is no longer able to carry out anything but a response to what you are doing.

"Speed". Get there with the mostest, fastest.

OK, that is a start. Any thoughts from the truly great players? Any thoughts from those who should be great but aren't?

We need an "Acient Art of CM" and I think this may be a good place to start.

[ElGuapo]

I've won some, I've lost some, but I've always learned from my experiences, so I'll give this topic a shot.

First of all, I will relate this to CM only, as a discussion of why battles are won and lost in real combat is way outside the scope of this argument. Given CM is a great game, given it is as realistic as possible given TacAI calculations, stat modelling, etc. Given all that, and the fact that it is the best tactical wargame out in the market today (IMHO), I think the thing to keep in mind is that it is still a GAME.

So in the end, there will be some people that play the GAME of CM better than others. I've read a ton of comments, threads, attacks, AARs, and such describing tactics and theories. I, like many others, have played those new to the game and those who have been playing forever.

This game is at once similar to and completely different than any other "strategy" game, such as chess. It is similar because a better player, given the same map, same units, etc., every time will almost always beat a worse player. Yes, you have chance shots like a Stuart taking out a Tiger with one shot to the front turret, but over the long run these things even out.

So following this line of (il)logic, I think the question becomes ... what makes a good player? Certainly there is a lot of randomness in this game, a lot of chance. I think a lot of being a good player is dealing with this chance. But it also has to do with knowing the game, the units, and the combined arms tactics to win the game.

As has been mentioned before, I think one key is in the setup and planning of your tactics. Assuming you are playing a QB, I know all of the good players I have faced take a long time in the beginning, analyzing the terrain, lines of fire, cover, etc. They decide whether this particular map requires a swift attack in a certain area, holding back armor assets, taking a certain hill, taking a side of a village, or advancing down a valley. Whatever the action, good players are flexible in their overall strategy as well as nity gritty tactics. On the scale of CM, if the original plan goes badly (for instance, you thought your opponent would bring tanks up a certain part of the map, but he came another direction, flanking your column), a good player will adapt. But if the plan and setup was bad, there is a great chance you will lose the battle.

It's very complicated, but I'm to the point now where I'm planned out in the beginning, but have contingency plans and try to remain flexible if I encounter something unexpected. Using troops and weapons for what they are meant for is also big.

All in all I've noticed that tactics change depending on maps, terrain, location of victory flags, etc. It's all about understanding what gives you those number at the end and maximizing them. Maximing expensive enemy losses as well as flag rushing near the end of the battle and holding the flag are the two key factors.

Guap

[The Commissar]

To add on to ElGuapo's post, I would also have to say that the rules you choose to use, if any, make a big difference.

Some players prefer to play without rules. Then they load up on units that are very good in theory (yet were lacking or under-modeled in real life) and wreck havoc with them. They are gamers, and they use the game's best assets. These are the sort of people who can spoil your best laid plans by a barrage of 200mm arty, relying on mostly luck to determine whether those shells had any sort of effect or hit your scouts. The good players of this category not only know how to use their gamey forces, they are almost always very lucky. This makes them very dangerous in their own territory.

Other players prefer to have restrictions. I place myself in this category, usually. I don't like people having a KT, JagdT, and two Pumas as their armor, coupled with Fallschrimajager infantry and 155 VT artillerly. I prefer to have my games go in a controlled manner, and reduce the effects of luck as much as possible.

So depending on how you choose to play the game, the factors contributing to victory are certaintly very different. It is a fact that luck plays a enormous role in all battles, even the "realistic" ones. Ive seen arty bombardments that completely and utterly missed their targets. Ive seen tanks foul up a crucial shot at a range when it would seem impossible to miss. Ive seen infantry who rush across an open clearing while being seemingly targeted by everything else on the map, and others who panick at a single shot. It's a lot of number crunching and statistics involved, but with a great deal of luck thrown in. Personally, from my experience, the "Luck Factor" goes to determine a game's results from as low as 25% of to more then 80%

So there you go, some more wood for the fire.

[Spook]

Some good starting points from you, Capt, but I'll have to clarify from my perspective.

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

"Motion is death". If you are not moving and he is you are going to win. So positioning or gaining positions of advantage quickly is very important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, I would re-label this, because relative "motion" isn't inherently death, and is unavoidable if you are pursuing the "Speed" element as you cited later. Rather, I would label this as "Location, location, location." Getting into advantageous deployments first doesn't always guarantee a win (even on defense), but goes a long way to help.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

"Seek the Mad Minute". Overwhelming firepower at a critical point will win the day. When combined with the first two it can be a game winner.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, but it usually takes "motion," or rather "speed," to set up strength against an enemy position of weakness when attacking; unless you've got a bunch of artillery spotters with LOS to that point of weakness, and with the spotters holding a real grudge against the enemy forces there.

Here are now some added points:

"Deceive, deceive, deceive." If you find the enemy's position of weakness, and want to mass your strength against it, then screen your main attack force as long as possible. Use terrain, feint movements, or smoke barrages to help. Then use "speed" to hit the enemy's weak point with a "mad minute." A little bit of maneuver & attrition mixed together, as you've often argued for in the past.

"Reach out & touch someone." This mainly for defense, and falls under "Location, location, location." If you've got long-range weaponry that is "tough" in frontal defense (like a KTII or Jagdpanther), set it up to see as far of front of it as possible, and to cover as much area in-between. Even if the opponent doesn't lose much against this defense in initial engagement, by his trying to "go around" later if possible, the psychological value can be tremendous. Then again, more better might be....

"Ambush." More preferable if your effective long-range weapons are limited, and also much more likely to be decisive if an ambush can be set up like a "mad minute" to hit the opponent in multiple directions at the same time. But the opponent first has to accomodate moving into your ambush position, or you have to "guide" him into there through terrain usage and arranging obstacles.

Other guiding rules can abound, but this generic Napoleonic maxim is typically relevant:

"One engages, one waits, then one sees." Because in a CM game, it may take a little while to frist find the enemy's weak point.

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Interesting topic. There is so much ground to cover here so I'm only gonna touch on a few points: bringing out one's queen piece, intelliegence, and unbeatable battles.

I like to think of CM as a game of chess in a parallel world. You have the same immense layers of strategy along with each unit having it's own strengths and weaknesses. Of course, in chess, some players win over and over again because they can rely simply on their own skill and not be subjected to the "luck factor."

In CM, we know this is not true. Even the best laid plans can be spoiled due to a hit to a shot trap or a lucky arty strike. So, the most talented players in CM will always be atop the ladder or whatever ranking you choose to give them but for every game played, they still have a much greater chance of losing than that person's equal in the game of chess, simply due to the luck factor mentioned before.

Speaking of chess, I like to relate the strategy of moving one's queen out on offense as being very similar to moving out one's queen piece in CM. In the movie, "Searching For Bobby Fischer," it was debated whether one should begin the game by moving out one's queen early to attack, or to keep it "behind the lines" and wait for an opportune moment well into the game to bring it out, thus keeping it safe until it's needed.

I think this can be debated in CM too. In a 1000 pt. ME, do you order your Panther to crest that big hill in your back lines in the first few turns, giving him full range of anything that moves on the other side of the map, or do you keep him hidden and let your enemy move first, hoping the other person will move into a position where you can then spring the trap?

It is a difficult question to answer because each has it's own advantages and disadvantages. If you move the Panther up to that advantageous spot, you may clear the way for other forces to move at will being protected from the Panther. You will also dictate where your enemy can move certain forces so as not to put his weaker units in a defenseless situation against your Panther. Then again, without doing recon first, that same Panther could be hit by an unseen AT gun in the enemy's back lines. I struggle with this question in every game: Do I move out my queen piece early?

I touched on intelligence in the previous paragraph so I'll say a few words on that now. Unlike chess with it's own plethera of strategic layers, CM has one that Chess doesn't, and that's intelligence.

I believe it's extremely important for one to know what his opponent has hidden. It is not enough to rush to the most desirable locations and wait for an attack. Probing the enemy's flanks to check for weak points is very important because it can allow one to advance with the known amount of support needed to take that enemy position without weakening one's other positions to the point where they cannot stand a counter attack by the enemy. By not probing, one is in the dark about the other's strength and therefore you don't know what you need to attack with to take that position. Therefore you commit too little and needlessly lose units or you commit too much and suffer an attack by the enemy on the other side who knows you don't have enough to defend where his numbers are. There are many more strategic layers like these that decide whether one is good at CM or one is one of the best.

First off, one must know all the different strategies like these to give himself the best chance at selecting the right one for a given situation. Next, that person must use the correct tactics to implement the strategy. Finally, that person must know "when" to use the tactics because knowing "when" to strike is as important as knowing "where" to strike.

These points and many others will allow that person to win over and over again in CM because the less skilled person does not yet posses this knowledge (or is too lazy to use it) which means that person has less weapons to use in the game. When the skilled player sees his opponent is not probing his flanks, he can allocate more men from that side to help fight in other battles while feeling safe that he will not be overrun on that weaker side. It's little things like this that allow one person to win over and over again.

Capt, you had asked whether or not there is an unbeatable battle...

Well, I believe from the onset of deployment, there are only advantages and disadvantages. Even the poor soul who is given the worst possible terrain in which to work with can still pluck a victory from his opponent if he is of the caliber which I spoke of previously.

Although, after the first few moves, I believe a player can end up dominating the board. The advantages are not only that his opponent has lost a few key units or an advantageous position but that the psychological aspects of those losses so early in the game will take their toll in the end. When this happens, you may have planted the seed in your opponent's mind that this is an "unbeatable battle."

This is a gargantuan topic and I only wish I had the time to explore all the other topics I wanted to talk about.

[ElGuapo]

I too made the chess analogy, for the reason that I have played a bit of chess and see the similarities. However, what I failed to mention in my post is are the extreme differences between a pure strategy game and CM.

For instance, in chess you have the same setup and board EVERY single time. So much so that any opening you make, no matter what it is, probably has a at one or two names for it. In CM, however, things are infinately more complicated. So goes the entire game, as there is ABSOLUTELY no luck in chess. The only luck there is in chess is when your opponent makes mistakes. Two Big Blues who play each other face to face should draw every time under ideal coniditions, or at least have a 1:1 win/lose ratio.

In CM it is much more complicated, which is why programming AI for CM is about 1000 times more difficult than programming a chess AI. There are far more variables ot worry about, both for humans and the AI.

I'd also agree that it depends on if you are playing purely "gamey", or trying for historical accuracy. That is one thing that I really enjoy about the game. All things being equal, I feel I could plug in the terrain, troop types and numbers, and vehicles for a real battle, and CM would give me a very accurate model as to how the real went, or would have goen had a few key decisions been made. You must admit this aspect of teh game is extremely well thought out, researched, and is impressive.

Guap

[The Commissar]

Col_Deadmarsh,

I must symphatise with you and say that once upon a time, I also had a similar problem. What to do with my "Queen".

Since every game and every opponent was different, the results were never the same. Sometimes I would move my Queen out only to discover my opponent had prepared for this and has either a bigger tank, or some other means (air attack, AT guns, smoke). Other time, I kept the Queen hidden only to discover that because my opponent went the "Quantity over Quality" approach, had I set up my Queen to overlook the map, I could of easily delt with his inferior forces.

So I went around this dilema and stopped buying "Queen" units. I now prefer to have a few midium priced units which can perform medium tasks, not a high price unit which can perform highly, but only at a high risk to its own well being.

<-- Misses the spell check

[Lawyer]

Capt, as usual, you need The Lawyer to correct some of the info you spill forth.

Here it is: In a draw, you have two LOSERS. No truly great CM player accepts a draw. Therefore, the amount of losing in CM will always exceed the amount of winning. ipso facto

Glad to be of service. Now, carry on...

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'm a little disappointed that some of you Pengers and other mental masturbaters haven't taken this opportunity to delve into this expansive topic that Cap has put forth.

Come on now, don't be shy. Step forward and offer your wisdom for others to learn by.

[Agua Perdido]

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

I'm a little disappointed that some of you Pengers and other mental masturbaters haven't taken this opportunity to delve into this expansive topic that Cap has put forth.

Come on now, don't be shy. Step forward and offer your wisdom for others to learn by.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me put aside my mental hand lotion for a moment and offer some wisdom:

Cheat Early and Often. Every Penger worth his salt has long ago hacked the game engine and can alter his/her/its opponents' turn files at will. The only reason our Greyhounds ever fail to get first-shot frontal kills on King Tigers at 1000m is that our opponents also cheat.

Be A Gamey Bastard. Stock up on Puppchens, SMG squads, Glider Troops and Churchill VIIIs. Your opponent will always come up something worse.

Stall. This is my personal favorite. Drag the game out forever, especially when losing. Perhaps your opponent will forget he's playing you and you can claim you won. Alternately, he may at least confuse your game with another one and give the wrong orders, allowing you to make a comeback.

Send The Wrong Turn File. Related to the above--be sure to insist it is the right one. Tell your opponent he must have forgotten his password and demand that he surrender.

Did I Mention Cheating? Exploiting known flaws in the game engine is perfectly historical--WWII history is filled with anecdotal accounts of units capitalizing on rifts in space-time and such.

Well, time to make dinner. Thanks for reading!

Agua Perdido

[Edited to note that if you do any of the above (especially the bit about Stalling, which is really unforgiveable) you are a complete pillock.]

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Agua Perdido ]

[Leeo]

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

Come on now, don't be shy. Step forward and offer your wisdom for others to learn by.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never listen to a thing COLONel_Deadhead has to say.

NEVER!

[Edited due to playing in the Elysium fields of UBB]

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Leeo ]

[Mikael]

I feel there is a huge difference between a company sized engagement and a battalion sized one. Or rather, between a game played on a small map and a game played on a large map.

In the first case, one single mistake, like rushing a turn or two too soon, or positioning one AT gun badly, can cost you the game. Similarly, just one spell of bad luck can have devastating effects.

Whereas larger battles, where the maps are at least 1km on each side, mostly consist in several small independant engagements that aren't directly linked to each other. For example, on the left flank you might be attacking a village with a company, and the nearest friendly forces might be located up to 600 meters away, advancing through a forest. So, if one of these small engagements turns out badly, it isn't such a big deal for the big picture.

As a general rule I'd say the better players win more often in large battles than they do in smaller battles.

Also, when it comes to the type of tactics used, smaller battles tend unfortunately to turn into slugfests, wars of attrition, of firepower versus firepower, and the biggest firepower wins. In larger battles the art of maneuver, of making wide sweeps down the flanks for example, becomes much more crucial.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Never listen to a thing COLONel_Deadhead has to say.

NEVER!

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Leeo ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sexual frustration setting in, is it?

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:

I feel there is a huge difference between a company sized engagement and a battalion sized one. Or rather, between a game played on a small map and a game played on a large map.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let me put aside my mental hand lotion for a moment and offer some wisdom:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ha, ha, pretty funny Agua Perdido, that's pretty funny, I mean what you said there when you, JUST KIDDING of course, said that we did those things in the CessPool WHICH OF COURSE WE DON'T, on account of how you were JUST KIDDING AROUND ... right Agua Perdido ... RIGHT?

Joe

[Agua Perdido]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joe Shaw:

what you said there when you, JUST KIDDING of course, said that we did those things in the CessPool WHICH OF COURSE WE DON'T, on account of how you were JUST KIDDING AROUND... RIGHT?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, of course. What we really do in the CessPool is:

. Carefully analyze the terrain, looking for covered approaches, reverse slopes and dead zones.

MCMLXXVI). Match your units to the job, and to each other: if I have slow heavy tanks, do I have infantry or light units to cover their flanks? Do I have a good mix of infantry AT to accompany my skirmishers? Do I have support weapons to establish a base of fire for my maneuvering infantry? Do I have enough artillery?

First-of-all). Make a Plan! Establish a defensive line and figure out where you're going to fall back (and you'll usually have to fall back) before the attack. Or, scout out likely lines of attack and try to figure out how your plans will change in the face of unexpected resistance. Will I turn my main assault into a pinning attack, and convert my feint into a flank assault?

81.2.1a). Keep a reserve. This is very difficult (for me, at least). There's almost always a task for every unit, and an almost-irresistable urge to throw everything into the fray at once. It's almost always a bad idea. Saving the last half of an FO's barrage, or that extra platoon/AFV/Puppchen regiment until the second half of the game and having it come into the fray fresh, with full ammo and good morale, can swing the battle.

#). Keep your nerve. Remember you can only see your own problems. It may look bad for you, but it may be even worse for the other guy. If you're really getting beaten around, persevere until you get through it--maybe the other guy's shot his bolt, or you've beaten his toughest strongpoint.

The End). Know when to say "when." Responsible drinkers always designate a driver (or so I'm told).

It's only a game). So have fun. That's why we play, isn't it?

1). Persevere. I know I mentioned this one before under "keep your nerve," but it bears repeating. I can think of at least four recent games that I was positive I was going to lose (based on the first 15-20 turns), but ended up winning through sheer bloody-mindedness (and a bit of luck). This can be encouraging, since I'm postive I'm going to lose all of my current games. It ain't over 'til the auto-surrender (unless you're really not having fun, of course).

Agua Perdido

[The_Capt]

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

Capt, as usual, you need The Lawyer to correct some of the info you spill forth.

Here it is: In a draw, you have two LOSERS. No truly great CM player accepts a draw. Therefore, the amount of losing in CM will always exceed the amount of winning. ipso facto

Glad to be of service. Now, carry on...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that is one bottom dweller who feeds on the misery of humanity and sacrifices his soul in pursuit of the almighty dollar's , opinion.

A draw can also be seen as A DRAW in which neither side can achieve victory. A win or loss would have to be determined in context to a higher situation.

OK I've seen some good stuff and the Peng crowd are starting to swarm.

So I'll inject another intelligent question and scare them away.

What type of personality makes a better CM player.

If CM is closer to chess than a meticulous "detail man" should have an advantage.

BUT with the human element, instinct comes into play. So the "quick thinking" hip shooter should have an advantage.

I personally think that flexibility is key to winning the game and making sure your forces are purchased and deployed to support that flexibility.

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

I'll ignore the disparaging Peng reference, Captain Ro. I know you are fishing for people to bump your thread.

I can speak to the last subject you raised. I play Chess quite well and Combat Mission poorly. I am cursed with a random/abstract personality. I can emulate analytical thought and patient reasoning but I'm not that type of person. So, its obvious that reading my response to your topic has been a waste of 3 minutes of your time.

My observations of others who have won include many who are quite logical and and well versed in tactics. I don't know if "war gamer" is a personality type though.

If I was helpful, then it was by mistake.

[Lawyer]

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

What type of personality makes a better CM player.

If CM is closer to chess than a meticulous "detail man" should have an advantage.

BUT with the human element, instinct comes into play. So the "quick thinking" hip shooter should have an advantage.

I personally think that flexibility is key to winning the game and making sure your forces are purchased and deployed to support that flexibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The correct answer to your loaded question is "Neither", Capt. The narrow way you look at "draw" has also infected this question, in which you offer only two possibilities. Neither of them are correct, as CM is not an accountant's game nor a twitch game.

Drinkers, most commonly beer drinkers, play the best. That's the correct answer.

A bit of the juice brings on genius and daring not normally seen by dry players. More juice brings on more genius. I'm certain that most, if not all, my opponents are playing under some sort of influence. At least the ones who are doing well.

Now before you start scolding me, just remember that we are accurately modeling the imbibed state of many of WWII's famous players. Making war under the influence has deep roots in history, and make difficult decsions in CM much easier.

Glad to be of help again.

[MrSpkr]

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

Well that is one bottom dweller who feeds on the misery of humanity and sacrifices his soul in pursuit of the almighty dollar's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You say that like it is a bad thing.

[The_Capt]

Fionn Kelly sends:

"Warren,

I found your thread in the CM forum very interesting to say the least.

So, I'd like to send you some thoughts for you to post on my behalf

if you wish ( and discuss).

In CM and reality the side with the "better" leader generally wins

given equivalent forces. CM features more balanced forces so

the "better" leader generally prevails. In reality the "better"

leader may be outnumbered 10 to 1 and in such a situation all thought

of pushing the enemy back must, in general, be banished and be

replaced with thoughts of maximum force preservation.

Unwinnable battle: Ah Kobayashi Maru (sic?) . I firmly believe

that there is NO such thing as an unwinnable battle. There are only

battles in which the conventional victory conditions are not utilised

to assess "victory".

Conventionalists work within the parameters set by others ( in this

case the game company and the gaming peer group) and, as such, they

only ever use "ordinary" ways, means and viewpoints ( "ordinary" is

used in the Red Army meaning of the word). Because they work within

parameters it IS possible to create a situation which is unwinnable

within those parameters. When such a situation is presented to

conventionalist they will gird themselves and either:

a) complain loudly about the unfairness of it all or:

do their best and decide that today IS a good day to die.

Non-conventionalists ( let's call them progressives) are free to

redefine the parameters within which they function. Non-creative

progressives will not use this freedom to their full advantage but

Creative Progressives will milk every ounce of advantage from this

characteristic and, thus, CANNOT be faced with an unwinnable

situation since the very fluidity of their parameters allows them to

create an attainable goal no matter what the terrain, goal and enemy

force composition is.

In effect they redefine what we mean by "winning" and thus can always

ensure it is achievable. This is not a virtual "cop-out" but

something which you can see the great commanders in history doing

time and again irrespective of the parameters set upon them by higher

command levels. These great strategists and tacticians continuously

redefined their parameters to their own advantage, limited only by

the harsh realities of physics and logistics. I speak here of those

such as Chuickov, Tuchachevsky, Model and Manstein and, to a far

lesser extent, of Rommel and Montgomery.

As regards your comment regarding playing a good player and improving

as you played him. I've seen this phenomenon in action several times

myself. I believe that the reasons you improve the more you play

against a particular, talented person are as follows:

a) You DO get to know their style. Some people have a fondness for

hilltops, others for houses, others for reverse slopes. Often you can

be quite certain of their force choices pre-game. E.g. In a 3600

point game I will purchase 1 Bn of Regular Motorised SS

Panzergrenadiers, 4 x 120mm Regular Fos and 3 to 4 Veteran Panthers

if I'm the Germans. This is the same whether I attack or defend or am

conducting a meeting engagement. As people play me time after time

they see this and begin to pick a force designed to hamper my

expected force.

A good player WILL find any slopiness in your play and punish you

for it. Things which you would get away with against a moderately

good player will give a very good player all the advantage he needs

to rip your front apart. Consequently you WILL "do the basics right"

when facing a very good player. Most people are very sloppy about the

basics and paying attention to them DOES improve one's play markedly.

So, part of the improvement you have noted is attributable to that.

c) A good player will NOT be beaten unless you focus on your

decisions. This doesn't mean spending 3 hours deciding your moves BUT

it does mean not making your orders whilst watching TV, reading a

book and/or singing along to the radio. I, personally, very often

issue my orders whilst distracted but against people who might be

able to beat me I turn the radio off and concentrate for the 2 or 3

minutes it takes to issue one's orders. So, when you play someone

good you concentrate a hell of a lot more and consequently play

closer to your "best possible performance" then you would when facing

someone you know you're going to beat handily.

One important caveat I'd insert here is not to forget that "studying

the opponent" is NOT a one-way street. You may think you've learnt a

lot about your opponent but if he or she is as really a good player

they will, almost certainly, have been studying you at least as

much. Perhaps they will have learnt more about you than you about

them. This issue also touches on maskirovka measures.

A very good player will, when playing someone he judges to be a

possible future threat, know that this opponent is playing with a

view to learning as much as possible about the very good player.

Knowing this the very good player will take care to play "against his

style" in their initial matches, doing only enough to win but not

showing "all of his cards" at this moment.

The longer the very good player can keep his opponent and his

opponent's contacts in ignorance of the current state of his

doctrine, the insight he has into his opponent's play and thought

processes and remain under-estimated the better. As the opponent

improves the very good player can always bring elements from

his "first team" of tactics and tricks into play in order to keep

winning.

If engaged in a protracted series of battles NEVER show an opponent

more than you need to in order to secure the win in any given battle.

If you can secure the win by walking slowly forward over open ground

a la World War I then THAT is the proper course of action since that

will lead him to under-estimate you in the next battle. Save all the

fancy combined arms, mech-mounted stuff for later on when the really

basic stuff no longer works.

So, in general, I would feel that you DO generally improve when you

play very good players since you concentrate more when playing

against them and get punished so much for any sloppiness that you

soon eradicate it. I also think that you get to know your opponent

and thus begin to be able to anticipate his placements and reactions

with obvious beneficial consequences.

However I must warn you that a very good player knows all these

things and will ONLY use the minimum skill etc required to win since

by limiting the amount of his tactical vocabulary he exposes to you

he ensures:

a) he doesn't punish your slopiness as much as he might thus you're

likely to keep being sloppy. If he's ever in a really bad situation

you'll still have a bit of slopiness left and if he can take

advantage of that then he could turn that game around and still win

it. Keeping you sloppy is his insurance against a run of bad luck.

if you underestimate him you won't concentrate as much when you

play him. This means you will play more poorly and he can lower his

game even more whilst still beating you. It's a positive feedback

cycle. The worse he plays ( whilst still playing well enough to just

beat you) the less you'll take him seriously and the worse you'll

play.

c) That he can keep his best tactics and tricks in reserve for when

he really needs them. After all, he probably wasn't contracted to

make you a better player. He was asked to give you some games.

There's a difference in those two roles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> are there golden conditions which lead to victory and others

which nearly ensure a loss? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. Yes, there are golden conditions which lead to victory

and others which nearly always ensure a loss. Actually, that's

mistaken. There is A golden condition which leads to victory. That

condition is having a precise, creative, experienced, well-read ( as

regards doctrines etc), unflappable, confident, commander who is

certain that this PBEM game came about so that he would win it. The

fact that he can't always win is immaterial and irrelevant. What

matters is that he believes every game he plays is merely another

game he will win. He is aware that this is impossible but the mental

state is more important than giving voice to sheer mathematical

reality.

Precision: The importance of precision is that it feeds into

efficiency of force utilisation. This determines force component

effectiveness and allows the keeping of reserves. These are essential

to victory.

Creative: Creativity is the cornerstone of greatness in chess,

CM and all other problem-solving ( a CM game is merely a problem-

solving exercise set within certain parameters). I fundamentally

believe that it is impossible to be a great chess player (or CM

player) if you aren't extremely creative ( to the point where you

would like to chuck it all in and make your living as an artist or

writer etc).

Experienced: Experience allows one to build up schema which

eliminate the need to actually consider tactical problems as they

arise. One need merely dredge up an applicable schema which yielded

an acceptable solution, alter it as little as possible to fit in with

the unique objective reality of the situation and enact it flawlessly

( again the importance of precision). Removing the need to actually

consider CM's tactical problems in detail removes a HUGE source of

error ( human's are highly imperfect at this sort of analysis and

therefore I feel the adaptation of existing schema INSTEAD of

analysis of this unique problem is the method least open to error

introduction), improves predictability and not only yields a "better"

solution most of the time but does so with less thought AND with

greater predictability in terms of time taken, cost and results

achieved. These greater predictabilities allow much greater cohesion

then if a "from the beginning" tactical analysis was conducted and

enacted.

Well-read: Well, this is just a personal thing but I think that

it helps if the person has read enough about various doctrines to be

able to anticipate them. The toughest group of opponents in the CM

world are, IMO, professional military officers. Knowing how they are

indoctrinated to think, what their doctrine tells them to do in

response to certain situations etc etc allows one to skip the

whole "learning about the enemy" routine and skip straight into the

whole "showing them something for them to react predictably to" area.

Once that happens you can get them to react to you exactly as you

want to WHILST still ceding them the initiative.

Truth be told that's my favourite style to use. Beating someone by

allowing them the initiative for the whole game BUT using their own

training and instincts etc against them so that they use that

initiative to do ONLY what you want them to do is, for me, the most

satisfying CM victory since it really is a case of using one's

understanding of a powerful enemy to advantage. Kinda like what the

NVA did to the South Vietnamese and American armies in Vietnam for

such a long time with blockades and relief convoy ambushes etc.

Unflappable: Setbacks are natural. If a Battalion CO falls apart

when a company gets ambushed then he isn't going to be able to

stabilise the situation even though he might have a reserve company

in the area, be really well-read, confident etc etc.

Confident: You win by taking risks. One thing I have learnt is

that a situation which should be 50/50 given the laws of physics is

NEVER, in reality, 50/50. No ALL situations are skewed towards the

person ( or commander) who is more able to take advantage of them.

Sometimes that might mean waiting and NOT doing something dumb but

mostly it means charging in there as quickly as you can. A confident

CO will be ready to charge in there in a 50/50 situation. His less

confident opponent will hang back. End result whatever vital terrain

was the object of the 50/50 situation will fall, generally, to the

more confident CO since he will be willing to risk more.

Experience, unflappability and reading will all give the confident CO

the necessary tactical insight to accurately size up the odds and

advantages/disadvantages in a situation. Someone who always rushes in

is worth nothing. You need the brains to know when NOT to rush in too.

Commander: Don't get stuck in the nitty gritty of placing this

MG 2 metres to the left once it is in roughly the right place. So

long as your guys are in the right general location by happy. Micro-

managing them is the job of small minds. Your job is to maneuvre a Bn

by companies and platoons. Worrying about squads and half-squads is

beneath you and will distract you from your most important role.

As regards some of the ideas:

"First Seen First Shot". Hmm, I'd distill that down to "First Shot".

I don't care whom sees who first. I care about the first shot.

"Motion is Death".> Disagree. I wouldn't argue that "Motion is Life"

either since some motion can be pretty god-damned dumb. I would argue

that perhaps one might write "Exploitation is Vital" and "Positional

Advantage is Life". Moving to advantage is the lifeblood of maneuvre.

And moving to advantage without moving to exploit is like getting

married without the wedding night, IOW a real waste of good time and

money. When you get an advantage you are either exploiting it with

movement and fire OR you are wasting your men, ammunition and time.

All three are finite and to waste a finite resource in combat should

be a capital offence.

"Seek the Mad Minute".. Agreed. Most players are immensely fragile

psychologically. I put a lot of this fragility down to them not being

in a mindset where they believe that this game is destined to be won

by them. It doesn't matter if you believe in a god or pre-destination

or whatever. Every game you start is NOT an opportunity for you to

win it is a pre-destined win. The ONLY issue is how hard the other

guy will fight before losing. Anyways, hit most people hard for 90

seconds and they'll mentally fold. Their units might fight on a bit

more but rocking them back on their heels is enough to send them to

the canvas.

"Speed". Hmm. I would kinda disagree. I see myself as being very

cautious in the approach march and usually "get there" more slowly

than my opponent with tanks etc. but get there more quickly with my

infantry. I might suggest that Speed might be better replaced

with "Get inside his OODA" since that is really, I feel, what you're

trying to say Warren.

Speed for its own sake can get people into a lot of trouble. Speed

with a PURPOSE, on the other hand, is good.

ElGuapo:

I thought you made some interesting comments but I would like to

disagree with one aspect. You stated that all the good players take a

long time analysing a map etc and then seem to suggest that good

players have fixed ideas of how the enemy will initially act and then

adapt if this doesn't happen. I would argue that the better the

player the less formed his initial ideas will be ( in general) and

the more he'll just spread a line of infantry across the map in

order to leave no massive gaps and then use his reserves etc to kill

the enemy wherever he turns out to be advancing/defending. I think

that that is the difference between good and great. Good try to

figure out what the enemy will and won't do whereas great just bring

their stuff to the "party" and react to the enemy wherever he turns

out to be. Said reaction either seizing the initiative or ceding the

initiative but "guiding" the enemy.

And now onto the comparisons with chess. which were fascinating to me

since I used to play that competitively and still find it a very

interesting subject. I've often also tried to decide if computer

wargames and chess can be accurately compared or not. On this issue

at least I'm undecided so far. Comments and arguments welcome however.

" Of course, in chess, some players win over and over again because

they can rely simply on their own skill and not be subjected to

the "luck factor."

Or they can rely on getting inside their opponent's OODA loop. I won

many of my games by setting a tempo and aggressiveness which simply

blew my opponent's OODA loop out of the water. The OODA loop is NOT,

as many seem to think, something which can't apply in games where

people have several hours or days to make decisions. I've had 8 and 9

hour chess games with my opponent taking 15 to 20 minutes per move

which I've won through shattering his OODA loop ( even though he had

20 mins per move). Same in CM PBEM.

"It is a difficult question to answer because each has it's own

advantages and disadvantages. "

Hmm, I think that you're making it all too complicated there. There

IS a single absolutely correct answer to that question. This answer

is: "A great player will be able to analyse the situation or draw on

a schema and decide the correct course of action for whatever

objective reality prevails at that time."

A great player will decide on the correct course of action and make

it happen. Certainly it's an imprecise answer etc BUT it is also

correct since it is no more imprecise than the question.

Personality to be a great CM player. Same as makes a good problem-

solver. Someone with a mental switch so they can go from human being

with a sense of humour, care for others etc etc to an entity which

calculates probabilities, doesn't let subjective emotion, wish-

fulfillment etc impinge on its objective analyses of the situation

and is disassociated from the subjective aspects of the problem,

solutions and resulting consequences. If you've got the sort of

confident, experienced etc guy outlined above AND he can conduct

objective analyses AND be willing to do what it takes ( within the

rules) to win then that person is going to be a very good player

indeed IMO. People who can't flick the switch can be very good indeed

but I'm a bit suspicious that they really will let subjective factors

have too much impact in their decision-making processes and that that

will prevent them reaching their full potential. Flexibility etc are

all part of divorcing subjective issues from analyses of objective

reality. If you search for the best solution to a problem with no

regard for what you would prefer to do etc then you won't be held

back from extra-parametal (aka extraordinary) solutions. This is

known as flexibility.

As to whether a detail man or a hip-shooter makes a better player.

Detail men make bad players IMO. They're also dreary to talk to

during PBEM games. Hip-shooters draw on schema more. Detail men

conduct new analysis each time. That's an inferior solution IMO. Hip-

shooters should find more correct solutions than those who being

analysis afresh each time BUT without all the other stuff ( see

above) backing them up hipshooters will never become great either IMO."

[Seanachai]

Actually one of the more interesting threads I've read on the Outer Boards in some time. For a change, people are discussing the playing of a completed game rather than the unending idiocy of second-guessing it and rehashing old arguments (which simply couldn't have been concluded correctly, since the latest arrival and their special relationship with reality hadn't been part of the final decision).

And although I found Fionn's piece very interesting, I was dissapointed that he did not address the concept of attacking the Peng Challenge Thread. His failure to describe whether such attacks were fruitful or ridiculous was the only flaw I found in an otherwise very thoughtful piece.

The Capt is to be commended for an effort to get game-players discussing the playing of the game again. For his slight to the Peng Challenge Thread, well, he's a low fellow and a poltroon. But that sort of thing's never bothered us from anyone who's shown some honest worth otherwise.

And I very much hope in my next game against Lawyer to get a draw. It seriously bothers him more than an outright defeat, which makes what would otherwise be a very unsatisfying conclusion quite enjoyable.

[The_Capt]

Thanks Seanachai,

I guess that was my free Peng Bump. I actually have nothing against your crowd. I figure they are like a lost tribe of cannibals from "Ol Days" when CM was naught but a sexual fantasy.

You guy hang out on your Island and wait for some unexpecting explorer to show up...then you eat him.

Now I believe in live and let live, so long as you painted devils stay on the island. Otherwise I'll start loading the Blunderbuss.

Fionn makes some very good points. But I think there is one more factor..Luck. A good player has the ability to skew odds in his favour. Some do it instinctively and others know some "tricks". But the result is the same, in any given action the have a better chance of winning.

As to "better players" well I do agree that if they are smart they will tailor their style and not show all of their tricks. I also believe that style is a character trait and you can't hide everything.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Fionn makes some very good points. But I think there is one more factor..Luck. A good player has the ability to skew odds in his favour. Some do it instinctively and others know some "tricks". But the result is the same, in any given action the have a better chance of winning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When it comes to luck, I agree with what Lombardi said: "Luck is just preperation meeting opportunity."

[Seanachai]

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

Thanks Seanachai,

I guess that was my free Peng Bump. I actually have nothing against your crowd.

You guy hang out on your Island and wait for some unexpecting explorer to show up...then you eat him.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, lad, but we never preach at him first. They show up, we put the boot in, and then we start the coals.

Because I actually do wish to see more players discuss the how, why, and wherefores of playing CM, I'm pushing this back up the page.

Also, I might add I had an email tonight from the estimable Fionn Kelly saying that attacking the Peng Challenge Thread was the 'sport of idiots'. That, at least, was the gist of his message, which was much too good to share with pillocks.

Where are the Grogs? Send in the Grogs. There ought to be Grogs...