Meeting engagements how CMBO sets it up is not historical

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

So pretty much any thing goes right? I mean it usually ends up being a mad dash a start for flags or going for good terrian and dashing at the end. I prefer attack/defend maps much more then ME. Today I played this guy in a ME, he bought a KT and some infantry. I got British Kangaroos even a few trucks, some Churchills (75 and 90) and some Infantry and a crapload of PIETs just cuz he wanted to be Germany from the start so I was scared. I started the attack with Infantry on a flank and churchills moving close between infantry and town. I saw him rushing infantry stright into the middle of town and he rushed flamethowers halftracks and started all the buildings on fire that I would have been in had I done what he did. Then I send all my APCs round the flank nicely covered by a ridge (he chose modest hills) to get in his rear. And low and behold I see to my dread a panther that ridge pointing its deadly weapon at my over watching Chuchill 90 and it turns into a KT and kills my tank. But my Piets quickly dismont right behind the KT as it was moving to a new firing postion and kill it. At which point the other guy quits right there. I mean I did not make him bet everything on a KT. I would at least try to hold the flag with my infantry for a few rds. He could have maybe taken out both my tanks with Zooks or fausts. They were at a pretty close range to the town. He had A Sturmkompanie and I had only wiped out one squad and maybe wounded one. So should I feel bad that I won the way I did? or Should I go with a single Sherman Jumbo or Pershing supporting my inf on a rush into a bad situation?

[chasd]

Whatever you do, dont rush your infantry into a town. I did that today and the guy had flamethrowing halftracks. The battle turned out to be a huge barbeque-american infantry snaggers well done as the main course.

[GriffinCheng+]

Sometimes it depends on who get there first. If you generate a QB, make sure you check out the value of the "Attacker". The VF usually, I mean empirically, closer to the attacking side. So if you can reach the VF first and have good cover, you are generally in a better position.

City fightings, or house-to-house fightings is even more nastier than wood fighting, IMO. IIRC, Fionn or BTS mentions that if you do not have a 2:1 advantage when entering a building, expect the attack goes foiled. It can go worse if the defender have powerful short-range weapons, like SMG or flamethrowers.

Griffin.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

[Guest Germanboy]

Yes they are not historical. MEs were quite rare in Real Life™. If you want to play something historical, play attack/defense Qbs or canned scenarios. MEs are good for competitive play though, and my guess would be that this is why they were put in.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Bruno Weiss]

I'd agree with Germanboy, the ME's make for quick, fairly balanced, not too complicated scenarios for PBEM play, but aren't all that historical. Some shy away from pre-made scenarios since the surprise factor doesn't exist, but the balance in them is to play it twice switching sides, and the advantage of them from a historical standpoint is that the TOE's and terrain can be tailored to fit a point in time.

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

"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)

[Wilhammer]

Well, Mr. Johnson, apparently that fellow was basing his victory on the KT, so since he surrendered to your Piat teams, I'd say you did an excellent job.

In these types of QBs, I have learned to not rush the town center. (I got flamed once doing that, it was not pretty).

2 things, I think, would really help MEQBs be more realistic, and that is much shallower setup zones, and maps with more depth.

[Panther131]

I agree that usually, not rushing into bulidings in ME's is more beneficial and certainly more historical. However, if there is, say an area that is completly blocked of any LOS so as not to be seen, it seems like a sound tactic. However, I am pretty tired of the "rush in" tactic.

It would be neat to have QB's where there is NO flag at ALL. This way its a straight foward " capture this city" or "contain this area" objective. This would make a bit more realistic IMO. This way it would play out more like realisticaly in some ways. Also, It would be strictly up to you where to defend, and the winner of the game is based on who beat up the other player, instead of just being near a flag. Maybe for CM 2 there will be a no flag option. (I know we can disable flags but it would be more straight foward this way)

That being said, I dont think you should feel bad. You should feel good. You beat his pants off! Anybody that quits in the game without giving a decent reason is displaying bad sportsmanship. I would say you did one heck of a job, by knocking out a KT with a zook. I would commend yourself and chaulk it up as a great victory...after you KO'ed the KT he ran ****-less!!

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-12-2001).]

[Henri]

Anybody who jumps out without warning when things get sour is an asshole; if one wants to quit, he can always surrender or request a ceasefire. When playing someone new, I always poit this out. If you put time into the game, at least you deserve to know what the ending situation was.

Henri

[Francesco]

Excuse my ingnorance but what is a canned scenario???

[Gremlin]

A designed scenario, like the ones that ship with CM, as opposed to a QB with all its random elements.

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

War does not determine who is right--only who is left.

--Bertrand Russell

[The_Capt]

A real Meeting Engagement involves an "normally" unexpected unit/formation colliding with an en going in the opposite direction. These battle are fast and furious in which the fastest "draw" usually wins.

I believe CM is mistaken in placing objective flags in the middle of the two forces as it tend to draw focus on terrain rather than en units locations which in a real ME is ultimately more important.

The error is compounded by the fact that the objective flags do not represent terrain which is really important to the battle (ie random)

I think MEs should be based on unit strengths remaining and not positions on the ground.

Please note that I have absolutely no idea what this would involve from a programming point of view, only what is correct from a military doctrine POV.

[coralsaw]

I would like to second The_Capt's position. No need for flags on MEs. At least non AI games.

Regards

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

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

[Vanir]

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

2 things, I think, would really help MEQBs be more realistic, and that is much shallower setup zones, and maps with more depth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll second that.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Pak40]

There should be an option NOT to have VFs on Meeting Engagement maps. That way there is no mad rush to capture the flags in the beginning. ME score should be based solely on unit loss/capture.

[Theron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

There should be an option NOT to have VFs on Meeting Engagement maps. That way there is no mad rush to capture the flags in the beginning. ME score should be based solely on unit loss/capture. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is one problem with a no VF meeting engagement. Often I have battles where most of the armor gets knocked out quickly. Either person A or person B wins this armor battle. I have been able to knock out the remaining AFVs with infantry AT assets and pull out a win. The reason that this happens though is that we are forced to fight over a flag. If it were no VF at all, my opponent could reatreat into a prime defensive location or avoid battle for the rest of the game and win.

Theron

[kunzler]

Yes, a gamey response to not having victory flags would be to just pick a nice defensive position close to your setup zone and wait for the opponent to come to you. Even more gamey would be to pick lots of artillery observers and shower him with artillery then hide them or bail from the map.

I am wondering if maybe putting several victory flags in or near the setup zones of each opponent would not help. That way, it would be more of a challenge to eliminate the other player's forces so that you could get to his flags, rather than game just being a rush to be the first one to the middle.

[Maximus]

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

2 things, I think, would really help MEQBs be more realistic, and that is much shallower setup zones, and maps with more depth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ain't ****tin' me there. Ever tried playing a ME on a large map. You end up having a HUGE wide front with very little depth (no-man's-land) between forces.

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

"Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII

"Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

[Slyss]

I agree completely with Theron. Even if this so called meeting engagement is historical, The flags at least give you an idea that you are fighting for something. Otherwise, I might as well play a click fest RTS game like Total Annihilation(the thought makes me wanna puke )

I totally disagree that everyone just jumps the flags. Maybe if you want to lose vehicles in a hurry in a mad rush. I find it is easy to cream someone that rushes to the flags without properly supporting their suicide units up front. Do that against someone that knows what they are doing and you'll be crying over you KT more often then not.

Unless I am also mistaken, the game lasts more then 3 turns. In any timed game, like football and hockey, managing the clock is important. Its not a tank rush game. I seen a couple of postings mentioning vehicles knocked out early. Umm. I learned not to do that and had much nicer games.

Also, moving quickly and everything at once leaves you open to all kinds of heartache. Most notably you will get spotted easier. Its easier to react to an attack IF YOU SEE IT COMING!

No victory flags will just lead to either gamey tactics (like the mentioned and highly dreaded camping tactic), and more importantly, IMHO, the feeling that you are not fighting over anything.

Campers. Hmm. I really hated Campers. <cringe>

[Moriarty]

Let 'em rush the flag. Then I know where the majority of their stuff is.

Now, it's no longer a meeting engagement, but an attack/defense with both sides having the same points and the defender unable to dig in.

Further, now it's a matter of using what assets you have to accomplish the mission at hand. If you think about it, that's what the majority of commanders faced on a daily basis.

Just my 2 cents

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

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

[tailz]

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

Let 'em rush the flag. Then I know where the majority of their stuff is.

Now, it's no longer a meeting engagement, but an attack/defense with both sides having the same points and the defender unable to dig in.

Further, now it's a matter of using what assets you have to accomplish the mission at hand. If you think about it, that's what the majority of commanders faced on a daily basis.

Just my 2 cents

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with Moriarity on this one... there's lots of time to die, so why be first to the flags... the other guy just knows where you are. Paying attention Bruno? LOL

[Olle Petersson]

I also did the misstake to rush the flag in one of my first PBEMs.

It was fairly dark and fog, so LOS was limited, but once I reached the VF my troops got shelled by 12cm mortars.

This took out a fair part of my force, and then I had problems holding on for the rest of the scenario. In the end I lost.

Cheers

Olle

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

Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

[Michael Dorosh]

The King Tiger fanatic needs to realize that the average Second World War was decided by infantrymen. King Tigers were so rare that I am willing to bet the majority of western Allied soldiers never even saw one, much less had to tangle with one. While the inclusion of armor is obviously necessary to a game on this scale, the majority of actions were decided by what the infantry did - not how big and bad the tanks were (or how cool their camo schemes were). Anyone who can't handle infantry in this game is going to have his butt handed to him - and rightly so.

Good for you, nailing his tiger! Your opponenet obviously thought he was immune to your fire. What is the fun in beating up on someone who can't hurt you back?

As for historical accuracy, the quick battles have been mentioned elsewhere and I was going to comment. In action, an infantry battalion usually operated as such, assigning objectives to its companies - support was attached as necessary - and while it is possible to simulate the actions of a company within the framework of the larger battalion action, I think the assessment of quick battle meeting engagements as ahistorical is on the mark. The y are designed for fun - sort of like capture the flag - and if you look at it from that standpoint there is no harm down. There are plenty of historical scenarios out there for you to play the "real thing", I'm fairly sure the intent of the designers with the quick battles' meeting engagement was not to simulate anything historical.

Should you feel bad, Mr. Johnson? Why on earth would you? I think that the game would have been most fun once the heavy armor was destroyed - even if I was playing the Germans - because then it becomes a challenge.