Holien Posted March 23, 2001 Share Posted March 23, 2001 Aka_Tom **** Do the players in the top 10 at T-house ever play "Let the computer pick the units"? *** Hi, While not in the top ten (pretty close) I do let the computer pick forces and have suggested this to people I play. I have only just learnt of the flaw with this and I am dissapointed that you can do this as it now means people are tarred with that brush even though I have never done such a thing. I have played Knaust blind at various scenarios he has suggested and not loaded it up as his force to see what is coming. This has given me some intense games which were fun to play although a bit imbalanced at times. Both Knaust and I have lost these imbalanced scenario games so it kinda evens out. (Knaust you are getting good at long posts ) I agree with Jason that the points seem to be out of kilter and when that happens people who want to win will buy what is best from the shelf. This is "gamey" but it is a game so "C'est La Vie" if you want to play ladder you will get this. I would strongly suggest that the points for units are closely examined for CM2 as this will create situations which skew away from history. However, even if the points do get "sorted" the technicians will choose what is the best buy from the new list. I would just hope the new list would enable a more varied game. The answer without that change is to guage your opponent and enjoy those that play at your level and swiftlty move on from those that don't. (By level I mean your own personal interpretation of "Gameyness".) One can not legislate for it and there is no surefire way of defining gaming ethics as it is a game and the cultural differences of players will always cause mis-understandings. We come from many different walks of life the only rules that can be defined are those that the game allows and while Gentlemans agreements can be made the game will not support those. Gentlemen (and Ladies) will. So choose your players wisely. Trust them and hope they trust you back. It is a game and enjoyment comes not from winning but the thrills during the course of battle. (Well that's what I try and tell myself when I have been rogered badly...) H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 23, 2001 Share Posted March 23, 2001 Originally posted by Holien: Aka_Tom **** Do the players in the top 10 at T-house ever play "Let the computer pick the units"? *** Hi, While not in the top ten (pretty close) I do let the computer pick forces and have suggested this to people I play. snip So choose your players wisely. Trust them and hope they trust you back. It is a game and enjoyment comes not from winning but the thrills during the course of battle. (Well that's what I try and tell myself when I have been rogered badly...) H Hi Holien Thanks for your reply, I thouhgt I woudl post this from the other thread on this issue. Here's one good solution.. Thanks to Moriarty for this one.. -tom w "Moriarty Member posted 03-23-2001 01:28 PM quote: Originally posted: "Most "technicians" refuse to allow computer chosen forces because they already know exactly which forces give them the greatest advantage when playing any given side, within a certain pt range (usually 1000 - 2000). Said "technicians" will usually dis-allow computer force picks under the aegis of the "whoever generates the game could cheat and pick his own force, while sticking me with the lame computer chosen troopies". One way to avoid this and save time typing is to do a screenshot of the setup window and send the jpg to your opponent. Side note: I, too, have no problem with letting the AI do the unit selections. ------------------ "Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change." -- Oddball "Crap." -- Moriarty" [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 Sorry Abbot, but after reading what seemed like a list of complaints got kind of irate. Thought I provided a solution but, oh well. Oh, and one more thing. I don't give a damn about this special soldier of yours but keep off of my Nimitz quote and my beloved Corps... you're treading on holy territory of Marine history. ------------------ "Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima [This message has been edited by Warmaker (edited 03-23-2001).] [This message has been edited by Warmaker (edited 03-23-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 Originally posted by Warmaker: Sorry Abbot, but after reading what seemed like a list of complaints got kind of irate. Oh, and one more thing. Keep off of my Nimitz quote and my beloved Corps... Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 Alright man, we're cool now. Nothin' ever happened. ------------------ "Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 24, 2001 Share Posted March 24, 2001 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 The best solution I've come up with to the "Übertank problem" is to; a) don't play ladder games, so that who win/lose become less important. decide the actual win/loss based on performance during the battle, not what the in-game AAR says. Both players do a briefing and discussion based on what they think they and their opponent did right/wrong. Then it's usually not difficult to agree on who actually won (or if it was a draw). Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ckoharik Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Originally posted by Olle Petersson: The best solution I've come up with to the "Übertank problem" is to; a) don't play ladder games, so that who win/lose become less important. decide the actual win/loss based on performance during the battle, not what the in-game AAR says. Both players do a briefing and discussion based on what they think they and their opponent did right/wrong. Then it's usually not difficult to agree on who actually won (or if it was a draw). Cheers Olle If you find an opponent who is willing to take the time to analyze the game afterwards and plays well then you probably don't have to worry about them always using Ubertanks anyways. My problem is that I have a low tolerance for losing...which unfortunately is something I do all too well as it seems. -Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NigelO Posted March 27, 2001 Share Posted March 27, 2001 Originally posted by Abbott: Here you go Col_ an AAR from two highly rated player's at Thouse (posted today). AAR: 7 guns in a 1000 point game. Throw in an uber map and a Panther and it felt like I was playing (name blanked out). Serioulsy GUNS, Guns and more guns followed by a human wave of SMGs is the axis concoction to vic. We might need to start bidding for axis, cause I dont lose with em either. I been playing Allies alot lately against newer players. Some have crested the learning curve and realize that their is no excuse for losing with axis. (name blanked out) knows how to win with em. Winning with Axis has become like holding serve. Yet it is far harder to break em with allies then it is in Tennis. YOBO, hurry up with the new chat so we can start implementing a bid for axis to even this thing out. Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father. Hairy blighter Dickie-Birdied, feathered back on his Sammies, took a Waspie, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bird's Egg. - Sorry - I couldn't resist! Edited to apologise in arrears. [This message has been edited by NigelO (edited 03-31-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted March 28, 2001 Share Posted March 28, 2001 Originally posted by ckoharik: If you find an opponent who is willing to take the time to analyze the game afterwards and plays well then you probably don't have to worry about them always using Ubertanks anyways.For me the after action analysis is the most rewarding part of the whole. Gaming the battle is just the means to provide material for the analysis, and the analysis provide material to be implemented in the next battle... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 23, 2001 Share Posted April 23, 2001 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted April 24, 2001 Share Posted April 24, 2001 I think the most obvious solution to any "gamey" force mix is to crush the one doing it. If they lose while buying their favorite ubertank, then they might just decide it wasn't the best decision. Not so hard in a lot of cases. Bogging, multiple flanking attacks, heavy trees, etc. all make the heavies anything but a sure bet. For every combination of units, there is a counter that works. That's what makes most of come back for more, even after defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted April 24, 2001 Share Posted April 24, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ckoharik: My problem is that I have a low tolerance for losing... which unfortunately is something I do all too well as it seems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you implement my earlier point... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> decide the actual win/loss based on performance during the battle, not what the in-game AAR says. ... Then it's usually not difficult to agree on who actually won (or if it was a draw).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... then you might find yourself on the winning side more often. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts