What kind of Battles do you like best?

[Chad Harrison]

ive been trying my hand at creating battles for CM. and i would like to know what kind of battles there are an interest for?

do you look more for PBEM/TCP games or for playing against the AI?

do you like armour on both sides? one with armor the other with light AT weapons? or forget the armour, lets go for it with only infantry!?

short battles (less than 30 turns), med (30-50) or LONG battles?

big forces (3000+ pts), med (1000-3000) or smaller forces?

slugfest? part slugfest/manuever? or lots of manueving around the battle field (small force on big map)?

big HUGE maps that allow lots of room to plan, or very straightforward maps?

for me personally, i like to play maps that are very straightforward. i dont like too much to move around forever looking for each other. i play this game to fight, no to look. i like med force sizes. i tend to like to play the AI on pre made battles (i prefer QB for PBEM/TCP).

so what do you like? i dont you like?

thanks!!!!

chad harrison

[Viceroy]

Chad,

I prefer PBEM suitable battles, short game, small forces and a med map. Thanks for asking

[argie]

I prefer the ones in which I win :cool:

[Roborat]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie:

I prefer the ones in which I win :cool: <hr></blockquote>

Really! me to, unfortunately it hasn't happened yet.

[Chad Harrison]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie:

I prefer the ones in which I win :cool: <hr></blockquote>

does anyone know how to design those ones?

isnt there a setting for that? its something like "allied +200%" when im the allies. hard to loose when you have 8 shermans for his every one markIV!

what do ya all look for though? what appeals? what do the CM old timers look for?

[Stixx]

There are lots of battles that i like but my favourite is.

HUGE! Battles!

10,000pt plus

60 turns plus.

Map no smaller than 1.5Km square. Max 2Km square

REALISTIC forces. Just because it's a big battle does not mean everyone should have loads off heavy ARTY and Heavy Armor.

Keep it as realistic as possible. Panver IV's and Vanilla Shermans. Standard 25pdr or 105mm ARTY.

If you wish to create an entire scenario i would prefer it playable against the AI. For most of them time when playing these battles vs a Human we just use the map and pick our own forces.

Love to write more but i've got to run.

Stix

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Stixx ]</p>

[Chad Harrison]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stixx:

If you wish to create an entire scenario i would prefer it playable against the AI. For most of them time when playing these battles vs a Human we just use the map and pick our own forces.

<hr></blockquote>

i have a 60 turn PBEM game that i have been playing since august! for the bigger ones (more than 30 or so) turns i like to play against the AI.

i personally would like to see more battles that are made to play against the AI, and made to be challanging against the AI. sometimes i dont have the time to look for a TCP game, wait for everything ect, i just want to play now and see my turns happen when i click "go".

[argie]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

what do ya all look for though? what appeals? what do the CM old timers look for?<hr></blockquote>

A good opponent in a medium to big battle, where skill counts a bit more than luck.

[Commander]

Personally, I like playing any kind of a game. Although the hardest so far is the current battle I have going with Herr Kruger (night with fog) Visibility is 50 meters and negates the effectiveness of all units.

[Pzman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

does anyone know how to design those ones?

isnt there a setting for that? its something like "allied +200%" when im the allies. hard to loose when you have 8 shermans for his every one markIV!

what do ya all look for though? what appeals? what do the CM old timers look for?<hr></blockquote>

That depends on what you call an old timer. There is a way so only one side can win. A Jagdtiger vs. a US sniper.

[Juju]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman:

There is a way so only one side can win. A Jagdtiger vs. a US sniper. <hr></blockquote>

I played one of those once... It was a 1 turn scenario with a lone sharpshooter in open terrain (me) VS 4 or 5 heavy tanks inna circle around it, all facing it.

I managed to pull off a draw by hiding the one turn. They didn't even spot the sharpshooter.

[109 Gustav]

I prefer defending in PBEMs, preferably with lots of AT guns and little or no tank support. 900 points is about right. I prefer terrain in which I can maneuver on the defense without losing troops crossing open ground, especially heavy woods.

[russellmz]

i like small battles against the ai, less than 15 turns. i also like scenarios that are different, or are gimmicky battles: funny ones, weird ones, one with different win conditions: nachut! (or something like that), where you try and get german trucks and vehicles off a map while allied armor are nipping at yr delaying force, the two saving private ryan scenarios, my scenarios ( )...

[JasonC]

Short - 15 to 25 turns. On the small side, force-wise - the largest side should have between 600 to 1500 points. Maps deeper front to back than wide, about between 4 to 3 and 2 to 1. Not filled with heavy forms of cover (buildings, thick woods, etc). Definite strengths for each force, but unusual ones and limited to a portion of each force. Not parallel forces (games where both sides have n of each arm get boring). Lower unit qualities - vets rare, greens common. Definite missions stated in the briefings, the more inventive the better (but plausible).

[Gyrene]

I like the big nasty bloody scenarios where I don't know the result until the last turn and tanks & buildings are burning everywhere...

Attack! Attack! Attack!

Kill! Kill! Kill!

...Huh, yes. Yup, I like those.

Yup.

Gyrene

[PiggDogg]

I prefer MEs, 1500 pts or so, definitely computer troop selection, random everything else (let the computer or dice decide as the program requires).

In these battles, everyone gets crappe (no uber armies, that is: no all nuclear arty, no all hetzers, no all Jumbos, no all paratroop/falshimjagers). Also, everyone has to make do with what they got. :cool: :cool:

Cheers, Richard

[Cameroon]

I really like being able to play against the AI, even if one can do so only from one side. Better than just against AI is when a scenario is playable against either the AI or a human. Even if I were to start playing PBEM games (something I'm not currently interested in due to the length of such games), I also like the instant gratification of being able to see the outcome of the turn within moments.

The size of the map (both in geography and point cost) is not as important as the "content" of the scenario. What I mean is that I enjoy scenarios for their thoughtfulness in design (is it detailed and realistic looking?) and effort to make it mission oriented instead of QB-esque. Fertile Fields is exemplary at both of those. However, I also would think it crazy to request that amount of work for every scenario. Other, more sane, examples are Armored Ambush and even the supplied St. Anne's Chapelle (its fun and quick).

For example, an assault on a small outpost that has some anti-aircraft guns because it needs air protection NOT because it's a cheap and effective light armor and infantry killer.

Regarding length, 45 is about my limit (though the 75 turn All or Nothing was fun, if frustrating) with my preferred being between 15 - 30 (depending on size and objectives).

I'm not a big fan of infantry-only type scenarios, unless the scenario idea is of the commando raid variety or similar. St. Anne's Chapelle is probably an exception because it's short, small and straightforward.

So even if what I've written above makes no sense to you , I'd probably like scenarios that JasonC likes.

[Chad Harrison]

thanks for the replies! i do enjoy playing against the AI inbetween PBEM games. its nice to be able to watch my movie here and now!

seems like shorter games are a preference also. i tend to learn towards the 30-45 turn range.

[Andymann]

I like around 20 turns and 1500 points if I'm attacking. A few turns extra if it's the comp attacking as he's a bit slow! Quick win or quick lose !

I like exciting maps and realistic looking maps! Hills trees winding roads etc.

I like balanced forces not, boom boom boom and it's all over !

I like against the comp' but if there are only a few lines of trees THEIR ttack is very predictable !

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie:

I prefer the ones in which I win :cool: <hr></blockquote>

For the record, I like short-to-medium battles (15-25 moves) with an asymmetrical mix of forces. I generally prefer attack/defense to ME, I like interesting, unusual terrain, and enjoy games where both armor and infantry (as well as arty) play a role for both sides.

But one time I just wanted to win, so took a scenario with an existing smallish map and (giving each side about 2100 points to work with) remade the forces, giving the Allies a Co. of infantry and 4 Jumbo76s and 3 Jumbo 75s against a Co. of infantry and a slew of MarkIVs and 3 Hetzers--then took the Allies vs. AI. Boy it was fun--like shooting fish in a barrel! Final score something like 98-Allies to 2-Axis. It was cool to play the Allies with unkillable tanks against helpless Axis armor for a change.

It also shows just how deceptive equal point totals can be. Often one force mix can easily decimate another, even if the point totals are identical. When one side has ubertanks and the other has soda cans, it takes much more skill to win with the soda cans, even if point totals are equal.