TH is Gamey?

[easy-v]

I agree with Abbott (not that anyone cares).

Well spoken, well said (though a little long-winded-work on that!)

I also agree with Yobobo. If you want to play CM in a clinical setting, so to speak, then set the rules before you start.

Maybe, when Yo sets up his chat (which looks awesome, btw) he should set up a short 75 room, a long 76 room, and a "I-couldn't-give- a-rat's-ass-what-you-buy-I-am-here-to-kick-ass-and-chew-bubblegum-and-I-am-all-out-of-bubblegum-room" (next to the "Don't hurt me please" room). As new sets of canned rules come out, you just add a room for those guys.

my 2 cents

easy-v

[easy-v]

another thing:

they are meant to enforce a game that is tactically interesting

IMHO, there is nothing more "tactically interesting" then facing down 2 VIe's, a IVH, and a JPZ V with an immobilized Churchill VII and a Cromwell (I've done it before, and easily pulled a draw-against a pretty good player too). That is the beauty of the game. It forces you to deal with unpalatable situations, and forces you to address the problem.

I must admit that I have not played multitudes of Übertankers, and have not had the benefit of being jaded by the experience. But I am of the mindset that superior tactics can defeat superior firepower (ala France, 1940). To me, that's the name of the game.

another 2 cents (almost up to a nickel!)

easy-v

[X-00]

Originally posted by Abbott:

The site is known as a “Powergamer” hangout, so what? It is and everyone but many and almost everyone knows it.

Good post Abbott, but unfortunately i have to disagree with the "everyone knows" it. Newbies definately don't know it. This post will try to rectify this.

If you look at some (not all) of the highest ranked "system" technicians at TH you see that they fatten their ranking by playing newbies. This does three things.

(1) It discourages the unsuspecting newbie.

(2) And worse encourages the newbie to adopt the "system".

(3) This makes ladder games mind-numbingly repetitive. Only the map changes.

The newbie must be asking the question: What is the "system" and what is a "technician".

The system is:

(1) A mass infantry force optimized by usually buying platoons of the highest quality infantry (SMG Nov 44) (Gjager pre Nov). The platoons are usually bought ala carte to avoid "useless" supporting arms and company commanders.

(2) The infantry force is backed up by massed guns (flak, 75mm Inf Guns, puppchens and PAW). Expect to see a butt load of these. Think 6-7, expect 7-8 and don't be surprised if you see 9-10.

(3) The above is generally backed buy the best TD's in the game Jadg IV/70s. These keep the gun killing and inf killing Allied tanks off (1) and (2) above. It also forces a Allied player to buy TD's capable of taking out a Jadg Iv/70 which further dilutes the HE firing tank strength because of TD's small HE load.

(4) You probably won't face off board artillery because it is viewed as "not cost effective".

(5) The aforementioned is extremely hard to beat. As an allied player (and many top ranked players will insist you play allied) play for a draw. Almost any gambit you try to beat the "system" has the draw back of reducing your front line infantry strength.

(6) The "system" can be used by allied players but it is less effective because of infantry pricing and platoon costs. The best allied infantry squads (Airborne)come with a load of "junk" (piats, 2 inch mortars, MMGs, M2 and 60mm). So it is hard to optimize infantry squad strength.

So what is a "technician" you ask? A technician is one who applies the system in a ruthless merciless fashion against all comers. Don't asking the technician to play random, he/she will state that it's "for non-competitive players." Don't asking for force agreements, he/she will state that it's "not necessary or silly or I don't have time to figure out Fionn's rules." Don't ask for playing historical he/she will say "what's historical or i don't know what historical is?"

So for all you newbies out there beware the "dark side".

The system isn't a "Uber-Tank" problem as many continue to insist it is. It is a play balance problem brought about by the unit pricing system that BTS hasn't changed. In fact the armor points reduction for the German player facilitated the maturation of the "system".

For those of you out there who will insist that good allied tactics can defeat the system please challenge one of the top ranked TH technicians (Graves Registration is the historical exception) and play a game before you post. If you win or draw I will hang on every word.

I will now Fasten my chin strap and await the SMG bum-rush and flak shells and keep an eye out for those pesky Jadg IV/70.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by X-00:

Good post Abbott, but unfortunately i have to disagree with the "everyone knows" it. Newbies definately don't know it.

I will now Fasten my chin strap and await the SMG bum-rush and flak shells and keep an eye out for those pesky Jadg IV/70.

GREAT Post!

Thank you for disclosing the inner secrets of "the system". The details were quite enlightening.

My only opinion as the Allies would be to buy LOTs of Arty and use it very effectively if you suspect you are about to become another Allied victim of "the system". OR buy the glider and airbourne troops and the Churhills?

The only version of it that I have faced was the VG SMG squads (nov 44) and a KT accompanied by hetzers and Jadg IV/70's. I admit I got destroyed, I had M18 hellcats and a Sherm Jumbo but they did not last long.

One thing that should be mentioned about the system is that is it most effective in Nov 44 as the Allies don't have widespread Tungsten use on that month and the germs get cheap SMG sqauds that month for the first time.

I am now NOT interested in any one who requestes the germans in Nov 44 and requests to buy their own units, that is an invitation to getting your Butt Kicked as the Allies.

So far no one as yelled back and said "Hell NO!" is not easier to win with the Germans.

So I still think it is easier to win with the Germans if you cherry pick your own forces.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-23-2001).]

[yobobo@tournamenthouse]

Not sure X-00, I may be wrong but a new CM player going up against a top player with 100s of games under his/her belt will most likely get his/her ass beat with any QB setting. After playing a top player they usually decide to stick with lower ranked opponents for the next few games. The uber-tank seemed to be a problem at one time until a top player at TH started wiping out everyone buy just using infantry. Have you tried this tactic? not easy to pull off. 99% cant even come close to the skill he has for the use of inf. Allies or Axis. If this is not skill but only the purchase of "gamey" units, please try it and let me know how you make out. Some have tried this, most wont again.

[This message has been edited by yobobo@tournamenthouse (edited 03-23-2001).]

[azillathehun]

The "technician" post was fairly accurate in describing the germans. I'm currently number 3 on the ladder at tournamenthouse but don't consider myself the caliber of player as gravesregistration who is 4. There are a few problems with your post. If your a new or inexperienced player (20 games or less) sides don't matter. Your going to lose. If i'm playing an experienced player then the german side has a slight advantage. You can win with the allies but you have to do it right. If your the germans nothing makes me happier than seeing a king tiger out on the field. Their slow and worthless and easily destroyed. The pz 70 is a good german tank hunter but has no turret and is easily flanked. I read one post about someone fast moving trucks back and forth. I've never seen that happen in any game I have played and consider that tactic a joke. Any heavy 50 or heavy mg 42 will stop that very quickly. (oh you didn't buy one of those? that's your mistake)

The game basically comes down to whoever uses their infantry best. If you run them out in the open early and let them get shot up your going to lose. I have seen so many players advance their infantry without proper suppressing fire. Combat Mission is not a perfect simulation but it's the best i've seen. In closing i'll just tell everyone that gamey tactics, no matter what they are (including setting a town on fire with wasps)....will lose everytime to superior infantry tactics. Learn how to use your infantry better (germans or americans) you will win.

[Dirtweasle]

"TH is Gamey?"

It sure looks that way. I'd avoid it.

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

You hand in your ticket

And you go watch the geek

Who immediately walks up to you

When he hears you speak

And says, "How does it feel

To be such a freak?"

And you say, "Impossible"

As he hands you a bone.

- Bob Dylan Copyright © 1965

[Atlas]

I think those of you who play CMBO as if it were just a mere game should go elsewhere with your "gamey" tactics. CMBO is REAL - more real than anything I have ever experienced. I look at the world around me and I know that it is just a fantasy compared to CMBO. I wait for the day when the CM Mother Ship comes to take me and all the CM faithful back to Planet BF. (BF?) Come one, come all! Until that day, you should boycott Yobobo's unholy web site. I curse TH with all my being.

-Atlas

p.s. I have felt this way ever since Swamp beat me in the TH Tournament.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by X-00:

...The system is:

(1) A mass infantry force optimized by usually buying platoons of the highest quality infantry (SMG Nov 44) (Gjager pre Nov). The platoons are usually bought ala carte to avoid "useless" supporting arms and company commanders.

(2) The infantry force is backed up by massed guns (flak, 75mm Inf Guns, puppchens and PAW). Expect to see a butt load of these. Think 6-7, expect 7-8 and don't be surprised if you see 9-10.

(3) The above is generally backed buy the best TD's in the game Jadg IV/70s. These keep the gun killing and inf killing Allied tanks off (1) and (2) above. It also forces a Allied player to buy TD's capable of taking out a Jadg Iv/70 which further dilutes the HE firing tank strength because of TD's small HE load.

(4) You probably won't face off board artillery because it is viewed as "not cost effective".

(5) The aforementioned is extremely hard to beat. As an allied player (and many top ranked players will insist you play allied) play for a draw. Almost any gambit you try to beat the "system" has the draw back of reducing your front line infantry strength.

(6) The "system" can be used by allied players but it is less effective because of infantry pricing and platoon costs. The best allied infantry squads (Airborne)come with a load of "junk" (piats, 2 inch mortars, MMGs, M2 and 60mm). So it is hard to optimize infantry squad strength.

So what is a "technician" you ask? A technician is one who applies the system in a ruthless merciless fashion against all comers. Don't asking the technician to play random, he/she will state that it's "for non-competitive players." Don't asking for force agreements, he/she will state that it's "not necessary or silly or I don't have time to figure out Fionn's rules." Don't ask for playing historical he/she will say "what's historical or i don't know what historical is?"

So for all you newbies out there beware the "dark side".

The system isn't a "Uber-Tank" problem as many continue to insist it is. It is a play balance problem brought about by the unit pricing system that BTS hasn't changed. In fact the armor points reduction for the German player facilitated the maturation of the "system".

For those of you out there who will insist that good allied tactics can defeat the system please challenge one of the top ranked TH technicians (Graves Registration is the historical exception) and play a game before you post. If you win or draw I will hang on every word.

I will now Fasten my chin strap and await the SMG bum-rush and flak shells and keep an eye out for those pesky Jadg IV/70.

Great post. Now I have an idea of what you guys are talking about. I've only played 8-9 games so I haven't yet fully discovered all the things others have. So, I went and did some research for the last couple of hours and I can now see why people are unhappy. I still don't think the Ubertanks are much of a problem but when it comes to troop prices, it's apparent why people are taking the SMG troops over the Rifle ones.

Airborne cost the same as Rifle squads yet have better fire power inside 500m. Why hasn't this been changed in price to reflect that?

Gerbil squads for the Germs only cost 3 more pts and you get better close fighting fire power. Why buy rifle troops? A very slight advantage in long range firepower. Whopeee!

Now, this shouldn't sway a battle one way or another but why would anyone buy rifle troops when there is no advantage to them? We've had how many patches now? Why hasn't BTS lowered the price of rifle troops to reflect their usefulness?

As far as the German player using PanzerIV's or a JagPanther, those tanks can be flanked easily with no turrets. They would be most useful on a small map but even then you could use heavy arty on them. I would still request that at least a moderate cover of trees be used in the game. I still think this is the problem when playing Allies. No cover, no chance.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[X-00]

Originally posted by yobobo@tournamenthouse:

Not sure X-00.]

I'm pretty sure that "thou protest too much" yobobo. Seriously, your a good man who runs a good site and I don't want to start a war but......

The AARs of your top players (1-5) speak volumes about the reality of the "system" and it's advantages Comments like:

"Guess what side I was?" (meaning lost as Allies)

"It is impossible to defend against the infantry only" swamp.

"Bumrushed again."

and the coup-de-grace that Abbott posted the other day which stated:

"Winning as germans is like holding serve"

(For those who want to read more just do a player history search at the TH/CM ladder)

These statements prove that there is a systemic imbalance in the game that technicians are exploiting during unit purchase.

This is not to say that the technicians aren't skillful or clever. They are. It's too bad that they don't test thier obvious intellect and skill more sternly vice applying a tried and true system and it's repetitive force structure and strategems. But as many have said Ladder play brings out the worst due to the ego and when our egos are on the line we all prefer to win easy.

That said i think you're courageous to talk about a German bid system. I hope that works out. Another fix could be "game brokers" on duty at TH and all other Ladders for that matter, in their chat rooms. The "game broker", a respected and experienced ladder member, would be a third party that creates scenarios that are fair to both sides. This would require a knowledge of the game imbalances and strict impartiality.

But, only BTS can fix the underlying game imbalances that created the "system" and the "technician". And unfortunately, even if BTS fixed the current imbalances, within weeks technicians would create another system.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

This whole issue is extremely simple.

Some players, caller them whiner grogs, or whatever label you feel most comfortable with, want the competition to be focused on the battle. I am one of these. I want a competition on level ground. If I find that I have chosen a force that clearly outmatches my opponent, my victory will feel tainted.

There are other players, who see little problem with this. The point of a game is to win, right? Any advantage that can be gained during the orders phase is actively sought out.

I have limited free time. I limit my play to people who share my goals for the game.

The problem with a conversation like this is that both sides are trying to convince the other that they are wrong. That is pointless, and personally I dont care what those who disagree with me want to do with CMBO. Live and Let Live. But I actively avoid playing people who use optimum efficiency units over reasonably real-life oobs.

The best use of CMBO is to try and outsmart your opponent from the basis of a level playing field.

Oh yeah, and manoovroovring is gamey..

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

It's sort of appalling that something that commanders at the level of CM had very little control over -- the makeup of their troops -- appears to have become so critical for winning games.

I don't think that this is something that BTS could easily fix without going to some sort of "relative value" system, which would take into account all game variables (including the force chosen by the enemy, the type of battle, and the location of the victory flags). Thus, a KT might cost 400 points if the weather is clear and dry, 420 points if it is overcast and dry, and only 250 points if it is wet or snowy. If the opposing army consists entirely of Sherm 75s, the KT might cost 600 points.

This is, I think, pretty unworkable.

The best solution for the "absolute value" system, other than letting the computer pick, which is not at all a bad solution, would probably be a bidding system. For this to work correctly, it would be best if BTS allowed point values to be adjusted by 1% (or at least 5%) at a time.

[LEGEND]

this is the way i see it.ive played technicians and ive played grogs.i really dont think im a tech or a grog, maybe some alien hybrid.i think its a great challenge to play random forces which techies arnt willing to do.its also just as challenging to try and beat the top players at t-house,which the grogs arnt willing to do.

t-house should have an additional league for random purchase only,this would make the grogs happy and force the techs to difersify there arms portfolio.you can make arguments either way, it seems the grogs do the most complaining though.i find it funny that a grog will acuse someone of gamey as he brings his forces up the edge of a digital mapboard not worrying about protecting his flank because there is no flank to protect.

the game is a blast no matter who and how you play.

aka weapon

-

[yobobo@tournamenthouse]

Agreed Andrew Hedges,

Would help for sure. I hate to bring this up but in CC2 we always played Axis with less points. If Allies had 200, Axis points would be around 160. It was the same problem we face here. The bidding system will help fore sure. But it would be nice just to subtract points from either side. After a few games we all would know what is somewhat fair in the point department.

[This message has been edited by yobobo@tournamenthouse (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Ksak]

This is the first honest discussion about the root cause of the "gamey vs. historical" division that I've seen in this forum. It's a lot more honest to make the argument that so called "not real life" force compositions create a play imbalance than the pontification that the composition was not doctrine or some other such nonsense.

There were probably thousands of company sized engagements in the ETO and for anybody to say that such and such could not and did not happen is a ridculous assumption that gets passed off as historical "fact." A real life commander would use every asset at his disposal to create the most unfair advantage that he could - and get decorated, promoted, and his own show on the History Channel for doing so.

CM is different because the design objective of the game is to provide entertainment, and it's not entertaining to get your butt kicked. If the perception that having one side automatically creates a play imbalance is widespread then that is a repairable deficiency in the game itself not a character defect in the player as some would like you to believe.

[yobobo@tournamenthouse]

I guess what this all comes down to is love of the game. We all love it thats why we are here. I try to keep everyone happy and add new stuff to TH to make it that way. This is not a competition with other ladders in my eyes. My interest is only in my members, nothing more. The soon to be new chat will help. But until we all sort out the small print we will keep butting our heads. CM is still comparativly new and we are all still sorting out what is right and what is wrong. There will be a happy medium, or what is fair and what is not soon. Until then lets all communicate before the carnage begins.

Yo

[Abbott]

Originally posted by yobobo@tournamenthouse:

I guess what this all comes down to is love of the game.

Yo

I think you nailed it, Yob. Well said.

[Seany B]

The answer seems to be talk to your opponent before you start the game. At least you can be sure of the sort of game you will have.

[Mark IV]

My .02, one at a time:

1. A good many of the historical German attacks (for CMBO's frame) were associated with the Bulge, and other Winter '44 ops like Nordwind. Cool... Axis attacker, with snow. A great equalizer for QBs, quite historical, and humbling.

2. Some of you must be playing for money. (I happen to think this is a very interesting idea, played for stakes just high enough to be slightly painful. They would have to be anything goes, buy-your-own, map-unseen scenarios. I wonder what force mixes would look like then. For $100 USD, how would YOU do YOUR recon? Would you risk a Jagdpanzer Bogged in Damp and trees?) I do not have these problems with Peng threaders. The odd jeep recon rush, or sudden Ubertank, is just another of the many anomalies of battlefield life to be dealt with; never been a real problem. I'm glad I'm not in any of these ladders.

PS: Germanboy and God are separate and distinct entities. The lack of divine tolerance for ignorance, and clumsiness with AFVs, are dead giveaways.

[Seany B]

BTW, my record at TH is so damn poor, I think you'll agree I just like playing the game!

[Guest JAZZA]

What type of maps do they use the "system" on?Is this just in meeting engagements?Just asking because alot of Q/B m/e maps don't always have areas in the setup zone with line of sight to the vl's or to the other side of the map.So how would lots of AAguns/AT guns work?

[ADAman]

A most interesting thread. At some point, this may be a self solving problem.

The game's still not all that old and there are still newcomers (like me). I play for fun, not the thrill (or points) of crushing someone, especially someone without much experience. At some point, there won't be all that many "new" players (CM2 won't solve it - you'll get the old players, some new ones, and after a time, you'll again have a core pool) and I think the players will split into factions: the "professionals" (those described as technicians) and the non-pros (which in no way means they aren't as skillful, just what they are looking for is different). At some point, the non-pros will avoid certain ladders or players except for the occasional foray to see if things have changed or for diversion. I saw the same thing happen in paintball when I used to play. There were "pros" who played on organized teams and went through paint balls like I go through potato chips, and there were the rest of us. It didn't take long to realize it was more fun playing guys who didn't go into a rage because they got themselves painted (not implying anyone in CM is a bad sport, just saying these paintballers had a different mindset) and even winning (seldom but it happened) didn't change that. The pros wanted to play us weekend warriors but since their games weren't as much fun, to paraphrase West Side Story, we stuck to our own kind.

Enough. Just an opinion of where this will eventually lead.

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

Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

[Windopaene]

Well I think one "solution" really needs to come from BTS. Two changes that would solve a lot of these problems.

1) Include the setup parameters as part of the encrypted game file that gets sent at the start of the game, and display it to the "player 2" who gets the file.

2) Come up with some way of preventing the "player 1" from cheating with a computer buy situation by looking at the map/opponents forces before sending it. I would think this would require the "player 2"'s computer to actually generate the map and his picks, or at least not show player 2 what the map is, nor what forces he will get, but just to enter a password. After this gets sent back to player 1 then the map gets generated, along with both sides units...

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

PS: Germanboy and God are separate and distinct entities. The lack of divine tolerance for ignorance, and clumsiness with AFVs, are dead giveaways.

Hey - I can not help being highly intelligent, always right, supremely good-looking and being really bad at handling AFVs... If I could change just one of the four...

Col_Deadmarsh - where you are talking out of your rear-end is when you insist on calling people who don't like ahistorical play (for want of a better word) 'grog's. I have played a number of people who want to play with some historical realism, who don't play to win, and who are not grogs. Where is your proof for your assertion that only grogs dislike that sort of play? Let's hear it. The rest of your ramblings about how to take out Übertanks is about as wide off the mark as my attempts at making a joke about the Queen at a recent reception in the House of Commons...

This whole debate is pretty pointless anyway - if you play on a ladder, you play to win. End of story. I would not expect a ladder challenge to come from someone who is interested in historical OOBs. I register some of my games on ladders, but could not really care much less. Maybe what is needed is an opponent finder for people who are not interested in power play outside a ladder system?

Hmm, now there is an idea for Der Kessel that we should debate...

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Windopaene:

Well I think one "solution" really needs to come from BTS. ...

Another could come from the folks hosting the game ladder. Stating up-front that this club is a no holds barred anything goes affair.