Making MEs better fun

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

ME's are the best-balanced of the game type choices. The advantages given to the attacker in the other types of game are IMO too great (though what I really mean is that the bonus should depend on how hard the terrain is to attack, which would be hard to program). The trouble with MEs is that there isn't much incentive to get adventurous. The MEs I have fought fit one of two patterns:

1) Both sides sneak forward cautiously, and a game of cat and mouse develops, where unless one side gets lucky and destroys all the other side's armour, a draw results

2) One player gets adventurous, which, after 10 turns means he has either stolen a big march on the opponent or had a nasty accident as his opponent had that area well covered and decimated his troops as they advanced. This is too haphazard an approach for most. I do it a lot cos it's more fun and I don't mind getting myself kippered from time to time.

I hate to criticise a truly superb game without being constructive, so how about this:

For ME's, have more flags, all over the map. Have about 10 x 100 pointers in the middle third of the battlefield, and 6 x 300 pointers, 3 in each players home third. This will reward aggressive play (for aggressive read exciting), and make sure that it doesn't turn into a creep-fest aroung a couple of flags in the centre of the map.

It may be that the value of each flag should be dropped so that losses still have the same effect on the victory points, but I'm not sure about this, as I think the high VP cost of losing your troops is one of the reasons people get so cautious. At this point, the simulation guys will point out that losing your men IS one of the worst things you can do in a real battle, so I'm not closed on this point. I don't want CM to become 'not a sim' either.

What does everyone think of that lot?

[WWB]

Try scenarios, the best fix for the QB ME known to man.

WWB

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

The scenarios are OK, but you don't get to choose your units, which is fun, and the winner is likely to be the one who has practised the scenario, rather than the best player.

Sorry to be pissy to the one person who could be bothered to respond!

[Scooter]

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

For ME's, have more flags, all over the map. Have about 10 x 100 pointers in the middle third of the battlefield, and 6 x 300 pointers, 3 in each players home third. This will reward aggressive play (for aggressive read exciting), and make sure that it doesn't turn into a creep-fest aroung a couple of flags in the centre of the map.

What does everyone think of that lot?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't having a lot of victory flags let you know exactly where your opponent is? The flag turns and you have a nice reference point for artillery or whatever.

Try turning the flags off and ignoring them even at the end of the scenario. (Don't peek.) Determine a victory based on casualties alone.

It would be nice if when we turn off the flags, the game would totally ignore them as well -even at the end when determining who won. Turn them off at the beginning of the scenario and they stay off. A tiny little thing for sure, yet important, IMHO.

[WWB]

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

The scenarios are OK, but you don't get to choose your units, which is fun, and the winner is likely to be the one who has practised the scenario, rather than the best player.

Sorry to be pissy to the one person who could be bothered to respond! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can kind of understand the choosing units part, not that I care for it. But there is no excuse for not being able to find a double-blind scenario. There are ~800 battles in the Scenario Depot, and new ones come out every day.

WWB

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

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

Wouldn't having a lot of victory flags let you know exactly where your opponent is? The flag turns and you have a nice reference point for artillery or whatever.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. It would. Firstly, I wouldn't mind that too much. Secondly, if it IS a true sim, then it would be better if the status of ALL flags was left unknown till the last turn. I would say that you DO need to count the points for 'em though.

[Ben Galanti]

The battle flags that you see are not the same as the ones that your opponent sees (except for after the last turn).

So a flag that is a ? to you, could be actually in control of your opponent. Or, a flag that is shown in your control, could be shown to your opponent in his control, and in reality would be a ? at the end of the game.

The flags only show who you think is in control. If you can't see any enemy units around the flag, it won't be shown in your opponents control. But if he does have units around the flag that you can't see it will actually be under his control (and shown to him as such).

And to answer the original question (sort of), either play scenarios (which is my preference, there are plenty of them out there), don't play MEs (I think this is a fine option, but you don't agree about the point balances), or have a third party make a map (it can be randomly generated just like a QB in the map editor) and you send your purchases to them.

Ben

[ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: Ben Galanti ]

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

The news on flags is welcome and cool.

However, what about the original idea?

I would agree that MEs were probably rare, but they could still have a lot to offer. I just feel that they aren't as much fun as they should be

[Wilhammer]

How about miniMEs?

On a small map with small forces, it boils down quickly to an unsure brawl at close range.

Other than that, house rules.

[Treeburst155]

What we need is QBs that can be played on custom maps so that a third party is not necessary to place the forces.

Your ideas concerning victory flags are good IMO. If you pack lots of VL points (flags) into central areas of the map you will have an action packed aggressive game. When the total VL points on the map amount to only a third (or less) of the army point values there is much less incentive to go after the location. They just aren't worth losing a bunch of troops over unless you can really damage the enemy while going after the victory locations. Having QB maps generate more VLs is one fix, allowing QBs to be played on custom maps is even better IMO.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

What we need is QBs that can be played on custom maps so that a third party is not necessary to place the forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A third party is not required now (so long as you trust your opponent). First player buys the Allies and sends to the second player, second player buys the Germans and starts the game

[Juardis]

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

A third party is not required now (so long as you trust your opponent). First player buys the Allies and sends to the second player, second player buys the Germans and starts the game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Berli is correct. But the key is that the ALLIES should buy first since, when you open the file, it defaults to Axis purchases.

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

So you start the game as something other than a PBEM, then load it as a PBEM?

[Redwolf]

I, too, would like to see more flags in ME, but not for spreading them out, but to place more possible points in flags. In scenarios I place several flags next to each other to make this balanced.

The last MEs I played had about 400 points in flags for forces of 1250 points. That is not enough, in my opinion, as flag value is almost irrelevant to the outcome in the typical ladder ME. Half or even 2/3 of avarage unit points is better, IMHO.

[Treeburst155]

What you do Peaveyyyyy is buy the Allied forces in the editor, save the file and send it to your opponent. He opens the file in the editor and buys the German forces, saves the file and then starts a standard PBEM game. As long as the German player does not look at the Allied purchases in the editor, or do a dry run (hotseat) of the game then neither side will know the others force picks. It works rather well if you trust your opponent.

One issue that may come up is that when purchasing forces in the editor the player has much greater flexibility in his purchases as compared to QBs. For example, large formations can be purchased and unwanted units deleted. Ammo loads, leader bonuses, experience levels, numbers of fausts, rifle grenades, satchel charges can all be edited. Of these things, only experience levels are paid for with points.

Also, there is no restriction on the number of points that can be purchased from any category of unit such as Armor, Infantry, etc.. Because of this players need to come to an understanding about unit editing, especially the features that don't cost points.

Treeburst155 out.

[Peaveyyyyyyyy]

magic.

thanks for that T155.

[Vanir Ausf B]

For some reason MEs do seem to have fewer flags than attack/defend QBs of the same size. I agree this is not good.

One other thing that could make MEs better is to increase the distance between the forces at the start of the game.