GriffinCheng+ Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 First off, this is another spin-off inherited from these very thoughtful threads: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015753.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015818.html I suggest people read and think about it. First off, I am no tactical genius as every one who play PBEM with me knows very well. But from these thread mentioned a question which I think experience players can shed some lights on it. Are we playing our moves with victory locations (VL) as focual point? Please note that I am restricting our discussions based entirely on meeting-engagement-quick-battle (MEQB) type of games between two human opponents. We know that the TacAI always puts all its mass to one or at most two of the VLs at a time during attack. And you seldom see TacAI leaving a VL empty in defense. For me, in a MEQB, I always view the VL is a magnet to opfor where I plan the moves and ambushes aournd it. What would it be if I change the plan -- hunt down the main body of the opfor first and let the VLs automatically fall into my hand? This may sound a little simple to many of you but I am thinking staring a PBEM game to test some new ideas. Griffin. ------------------ "When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI." "Can't get enough Tank?" [This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 02-02-2001).] [This message has been edited by GriffinCheng+ (edited 02-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 Originally posted by GriffinCheng+: First off, I am no tactical genius as every one who play PBEM with me knows very well. But from these thread mentioned a question which I think experience players can shed some lights on it. Are we playing our moves with victory locations (VL) as focual point? Please note that I am restricting our discussions based entirely on meeting-engagement-quick-battle (MEQB) type of games between two human opponents. We know that the TacAI always puts all its mass to one or at most two of the VLs at a time during attack. And you seldom see TacAI leaving a VL empty in defense. For me, in a MEQB, I always view the VL is a magnet to opfor where I plan the moves and ambushes aournd it. What would it be if I change the plan -- hunt down the main body of the opfor first and let the VLs automatically fall into my hand? This may sound a little simple to many of you but I am thinking staring a PBEM game to test some new ideas. Griffin. For me it just depends on where exactly the VLs are. If I notice that they are in good defensible terrain, then I'll usually try to get there first and set up a defense. If they aren't, than I'll look around and see where the good terrain is. My definition of good terrain depends on who I'm playing of course, against someone I know will run for the VLs regardless, I'll look for terrain that will allow me to flank and attack. While if I'm playing someone who will do as you say, and actively search for my main force, I'll try to find some good defensible terrain and try and plan my ambushes. Usually, that's the same thing I would do against an unknown opponent also. Personally, I would prefer to attack in almost any situation, as I would rather set the tempo and location of the battle myself. So, all in all, I'd say I personally ignore the VLs unless they are positioned on terrain that I can use to my advantage in completing my main task which is to destroy the enemy forces. I think that the destruction of the enemy forces should always be foremost in your mind except in two situations: a) Your force is so lopsidedly inferior, that it would be virtually impossible to destroy the OPFOR before being destroyed or b)The time limit is so short that you won't have time to destroy any significant portion of the OPFOR As neither of these situations is likely to come about in a MEQB(Although I could argue that point sometimes with computer selected forces ), in that context, my feeling is that destruction or incapacitation of the enemy force should be formost in your mind. ------------------ It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory. [This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ron Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 From the point of view of quick battles I always treat the VL's as the point of the battle exactly as you would in a scenario. Although there is no briefing for a QB I form one in my own mind as 'take and hold the following objectives' which are the VL's. The idea is that this avoids the 'gamieness' described in other threads where players hug the map edges. All the people I've played so far (half a dozen) seem to treat VL's in the same way. The point of a meeting engagement is that both sides were going somewhere in the first place and there's that place, marked with a flag, you can't miss it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 GriffinCheng+ wrote: Are we playing our moves with victory locations (VL) as focual point? Yes they are interesting discussions, especially Henri's comments on 'flag-oriented scenarios' in CM, though they are out of my depth. I have a simple suggestion that may subtly, or fundamentally, change the way you play CM. Turn off the Victory Flags, right from the start eliminate them as factor by not even looking at them. You will look at the battle, your forces and their maneuver in an entirely different light. The goal in a ME engagement is always the destruction of your enemy but how you go about doing that is completely up to you. Why feel 'constrained' at all? You can *win* without ever *capturing* a flag. Just my .02... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 I believe VL are used to artificially represent Key Terrain and Vital Ground two key products in terrain analysis. The problem is that in a QB these locations are random and not based on any real analysis of the ground. The flags are in fact much more "gamey" than any edge hugging tactics, which in fact is employed to prevent attack at least one flank, effective but dangeous at it eliminates an avenue for your own movement. VLs can be susicide, I usually analyze the ground picking out dominating terrain against enemy avenues of approach. If you know your enemy is going to head for the Flags this is much easier. I have handedly won battles by picking ground which dominates the VL and letting my opponent stroll on in. I like the idea of turning off Flags and focusing on the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts