Is "Buy your own" realistic?

[Eric Alkema]

Buying a custom force for the specific purpose of fighting a single confrontation strikes me as being, shall we say, not representative of the realities of WWII. First of all I wonder about how much latitude a Company or Battalion commander had in the composition of his forces. I really don’t know all that much about WWII but I would have thought that making do with what one was given would be the norm. In addition to that, I wouldn’t think that a commander would be able to change his forces on a whim and would therefore have to assemble a more all around type force in order to deal with a variety of threats.

I understand that I don’t have to use hand picked units (and I usually don’t) but I am kind of surprised that computer purchase seems to be as unpopular an option as it is. I understand that the non-grognards play whatever way is the most fun but how do grogs justify hand picked forces? (That was intended to be a real question, not flame bait, like I said, I don’t really know that much about WWII)

[Mr. Johnson--]

Grogs study all levels of commander, not just company level, not just divisonal.

Part of your job as a grog is to question everything. Even questioning if the army that went to war brought the best weapons. Plenty of people pick realistc force selections. Often times on defense the more ad hoc your force looks the more realistic. No reason a grog can't wonder what an additonal battery of 88s or Field guns would have done to change the course of a battle.

Have you played any of Rune's battles Tcp/IP? They are really good about giving you realistic forces. The only time Rune even gives you a Tiger is because it was historical at the battle. Most of his "What Ifs", just for tcp/ip play. will only dish out a few PZ-IVs. Just for example.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think hand picked forces are partially compensated by the fact that you don't get to see the map beforehand; thus you can't tailor your forces to either the enemy (whose composition remains unknown) or the terrain.

[Slapdragon]

There is nothing wrong with "buy your own" but it can be abused. Like any other game it is best to pick your enemies wisely.

However, I will say that CM has less chance for abuse than games in the past since the model is more grounded in realism. Gamey is possible, but harder than games like CC or even ASL.

[David Aitken]

The fact is, quick battles aren't realistic at all. How often did two opposing forces meet which were perfectly equal, and fight in an environment totally unaffected by nearby friendly or enemy units, the 'winner' being the side which has secured some big flags in random locations on the terrain whilst inflicting the most damage and suffering the least damage in exactly 30 minutes?

Predesigned scenarios have the scope to be historically accurate. Quick battles do not – what they are is an arena for two people to try and overcome each other with superior tactics or more cunning strategies. Quick battles are gamey, but testing pure leadership skill in a controlled environment is no bad thing. Picking your own forces ensures that both players are fighting with units they are familiar with and can use to their full potential.

[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

The fact is, quick battles aren't realistic at all. How often did two opposing forces meet which were perfectly equal, and fight in an environment totally unaffected by nearby friendly or enemy units, the 'winner' being the side which has secured some big flags in random locations on the terrain whilst inflicting the most damage and suffering the least damage in exactly 30 minutes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, except for the VL locations, doesn't this describe most scenarios as well? Most scenarios I've seen are designed to be fairly even fights, they all have set in stone time limits and they are played on maps with borders.

[David Aitken]

What I said was:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Predesigned scenarios have the scope to be historically accurate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say many of them were. One has the scope to give players reinforcements, simulating the arrival of nearby friendly or enemy forces. One can also bias the conditions towards one side, but give the other side weight of numbers. This kind of fine-tuning is absent from Quick Battles.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

The fact is, quick battles aren't realistic at all. How often did two opposing forces meet which were perfectly equal, and fight in an environment totally unaffected by nearby friendly or enemy units, the 'winner' being the side which has secured some big flags in random locations on the terrain whilst inflicting the most damage and suffering the least damage in exactly 30 minutes?

Predesigned scenarios have the scope to be historically accurate. Quick battles do not – what they are is an arena for two people to try and overcome each other with superior tactics or more cunning strategies. Quick battles are gamey, but testing pure leadership skill in a controlled environment is no bad thing. Picking your own forces ensures that both players are fighting with units they are familiar with and can use to their full potential.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't confuse Quick Battle Meeting Engagements with all Quick Battles, though.

Your points are well taken and my views on QB MEs are plastered all over the board.

Does anyone have an opinion on attack/defend type QBs?

[Slapdragon]

QBs for their unrealistic even steven element (but how many people play scenarios that are walk overs?) add an element of randomness that cannot be planned for, which is great. You first find out about the lay of the land when the board comes up. Great fun all around.

Scenarios are OK when you have never played them before, but when you have played all the good ones, it lacks the element of surprise.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I love attack/Defend QB battles. Sometimes it seems like you need to restrict attack -10%, sometimes its just fine. Its very fun, unless your playing a 30 round attack. 26 or 28 depending...

[PiggDogg]

Without doubt the Random AI purchase of units gives a more accurate feel to the game. Further, I suggest, that such AI purchase is more accurate. The AI gives you crappe. Well guess what, your opponent gets crappe also. If you and your opponent choose your forces, you won't choose crappe.

The AI gives a player many units that most players would not choose for various reason (example: unit x is a better buy than unit y because unit y is too expensive for the points spent, or a Panther is a better/worse buy than a Hetzer).

In a random AI purchase, as Germans in a defense, you might get one 50mm AT gun and a few 20mm guns to kill Shermans. Guess what, those 20mms just are not going to kill many Shermans from the front. But you just got to live with it and be innovative in those pesky 20mms use. (actually, your computer men might die from it. Lol.)

In real life if you were a company commander, you would get whatever you had left from the last battle. Additionally, if you are lucky, you might get a few infantry replacement to replace your previous casualties. Further, if you are 'real' lucky you might get whatever vehicle or gun that the repair pool sends to you. Cool.

If anyone thinks that in real life a company commander gets to pick his force, well, that anyone is 'mistaken'. A real life company commander if pretty far down on the food chain and he gets whatever is available. He just makes do. He just doesn't get to choose a Panther or Jumbo 76 because they are great weapons. He usually gets a Marder or a Sherman w/ short 75. Sometimes, fate smiles on him and sometimes fate does not. Those are the vagaries of war.

I just like random AI purchase of units & I feel it is more accurate and is a better gaming experience.

Cheers, Richard Cuccia, ICQ# 116577632

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If anyone thinks that in real life a company commander gets to pick his force, well, that anyone is 'mistaken'. A real life company commander if pretty far down on the food chain and he gets whatever is available. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But a Company Commander will always know what his company consists of - not the support he can expect, but he knows how many squads he has.

Perhaps instead of "points", Quick Battles should have been done on company lines - ie you can get one regular company or one depleted company, with random support elements - arty, tanks, air, etc. That way you would always be assured of at least an infantry company, and not some weird mix of one platoon of infantry and 6 infantry guns.

[PiggDogg]

A company commander may not know what his company may consist of until the night before a movement or just before jump off. The new warm bodies and new equipment come when they come. I submit that sometimes, and probably somewhat frequently for the Germans on defense, a company commander may get a weird mix of units because that is all that 'he is given' by the higher-ups or that is all that he has left.

Further, the game has "alt p" to stop the timed setup, so one can familiarize himself with his company during set up. :cool:

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Don't confuse Quick Battle Meeting Engagements with all Quick Battles, though.

Your points are well taken and my views on QB MEs are plastered all over the board.

Does anyone have an opinion on attack/defend type QBs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that attack/defend QBs are reasonably 'realistic'. Not every attack was balanced, but many were, and if you let the AI pick than one side or the other can get handed stuff that is essentially useless for the battle, changing the balance again somewhat.

Also, using a QB AI-pick defense and deliberately sticking some or all of your assets in road column at the back edge can make things interesting.

Actually I tend to enjoy scenarios less as games than QBs, because many scenario makers fall victim to the need to put in some sort of 'hook'; some modifying factor that turns things from a relatively straight fight to a kind of 'solve the magic puzzle' game. "Ooo, I have great tanks, but only one road and it's muddy" or "I have Crack troops but they all start a million miles from the battle". That kind of stuff makes a scenario interesting every once in a while, but on a regular basis it bores me and makes for a frustrating game.

-dale

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Does anyone have an opinion on attack/defend type QBs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do

Attack/defend QBs are mostly what I play. They are great for honing your tactical skill with a variety of weapons platforms, and playing with different combinations of units and formations to see what works. Just pure tactical warfare, with a greater variety of methods than seen in MEs.

The one big problem with them currently is that they are unbalanced. The defender is at a real disadvantage. There are multiple reasons for this, some of which have to do with the game in general (MG effectiveness and gamey rush tactics, being fixed in CM2). The problem particular to QBs is the shape of maps. QB maps are simply too shallow in depth to allow the defender to set up much of a layered defense. In large QBs, if you luck out with the terrain, you can sometimes get a compressed defense in depth, but the spacing is not good. Your MLR is usually on or just in front of the VLs, so if the MLR is penetrated there is no real fallback position, as falling back means conceeding the VLs.

Hopefully CM2 will allow deeper QB maps, either by default or through greater player control over map size and shape. This would allow VLs to be staggered more front to back as well as side to side, making VL possession less of an all or nothing proposition.

For MEs opposing forces should not be starting as close to one another as they currently do. Deeper maps or thinner setup zones are in order.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Jarmo]

I prefer self purchase over auto-shopping just because of realism.

Admittedly there is too much force optimizing going on, also by me. But computer picks stuff "eyes closed". You end up with stuff like one hellcat, one sherman, one halftrack, one stuart.

It would be more realistic to have a platoon of shermans or hellcats. Germans would usually have more mixed force.

[Stacheldraht]

I'd like to second the request for deeper maps so proper defenses in depth can be established. Please make mines and wire realistically cheaper too. One way to make defense QB's more balanced is to select a small map and perhaps reduce the attacking forces a bit.

***

Hand-picking QB forces may not be realistic, but to me it seems very much to be a grognard approach: it lets you explore the subtle nuances and abilities of different units and force compositions. Sure, these compositions may not be rooted in history, but that's half the fun of playing a wargame: playing "what if" and exploring and creating tactics.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Jarmo]

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

Sure, these compositions may not be rooted in history, but that's half the fun of playing a wargame: playing "what if" and exploring and creating tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's also fun. And I do that quite a lot too.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

QBs for their unrealistic even steven element (but how many people play scenarios that are walk overs?) add an element of randomness that cannot be planned for, which is great. You first find out about the lay of the land when the board comes up. Great fun all around.

Scenarios are OK when you have never played them before, but when you have played all the good ones, it lacks the element of surprise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

QBs are fun, but you jsut can't beat a scenario for human vs. human play.

The only thing I would disagree with Slaps comments is the replay value of scenarios. Coming from a long history of playing ASL, where you always know the lay of the land and the force composition, I think the CM community is missing out on a lot of fun by not replaying some of the very good scnenarios.

Replaying a scenario moves it back to a QB-like test of pure skill, but in a generally much bett thought out context. Take Move It or Lose It for example. Outstanding scenarion, and playing it double blind is incredible. If you have not played it yet, quit reading now and go find a human to TCP/IP or PBEM game.

However, playing MIOLI again with someone who has alreayd played is a very, very different experience. The fore-knowledge of what to expect makes it almost a new game. As the Germans, you know that that FB is coming, you know that your light armor on the bridge is almost certainly toast. How do you try to keep the in town units alive as long as possible? How much should you send to defend the far bridge? How much are you going to try to pull back across the bridge? You do not realy answer these questions the first time, because you are generally overwhelmed trying to figure out how to put out fires.

One of the best things about ASL was dissecting scenarios in detail and arguing over what was the best way to win a well-balanced scenario. The great thing about CM is that you can do double blind, whereas you could not in ASL. The *really* great thing about CM is that you can do both, if you want. Playing a scenario over again with knowledge of what the other side has and when it will arrive is a lot more like a chess match.

The only thing that ASL has that I REALLY miss from CM is a more robust and varied victory model. It is very hard for scenario designers to create interesting victory conditions. This contributes to the "even-steven" nature of most scenarios, since you can not tweak the VC conditions much, you have to keep the sides even to give both players a chance. I miss winning (or losing) ASL scenarios on the strength of a conscript half-squad holding out in the cellar of the last victory hex after surviving that final close combat attack...

Jeff Heidman

[Panzer Leader]

There is a big difference between Attack/defense and Assault/defense. I think Attack/defense battles arewell-balanced, and may even favor the defender, however Assault/defenses are VERY hard to win as the defender.

I think the answers to making it better for the defender are listed above: deeper maps, longer instead of wider, closer (or defense-pickable) VL's, and cheaper Defensive assets, better MG fire -- these are the things that will make defense more equal. However, I think lowereing the ratio of troops (points) is NOT the answer, in fact I'd like to see the game tweaked enough so that the ratio could be RAISED and still have a fair game. 3:1 is what I'd like to se, and with those features above, I think it could happen.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The only thing that ASL has that I REALLY miss from CM is a more robust and varied victory model. It is very hard for scenario designers to create interesting victory conditions. This contributes to the "even-steven" nature of most scenarios, since you can not tweak the VC conditions much, you have to keep the sides even to give both players a chance. I miss winning (or losing) ASL scenarios on the strength of a conscript half-squad holding out in the cellar of the last victory hex after surviving that final close combat attack...

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having converted a fair number of scenarios myself, I find this is my biggest frustration; not having a clear idea of how the CM victories are determined (ie exit points) is also a tough thing to deal with in getting a scenario balanced.

Specifiying certain "zones" of exit rather than just a map edge would help.

Being allowed to specify multiple, random entry points for reinforcements would be good, too.

The ability to turn off the casualty counter (for victory purposes only,not battlefield integrity) and have victory determined solely by control of flags would also be useful.

[Conscript Bagger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...not having a clear idea of how the CM victories are determined (ie exit points) is also a tough thing to deal with in getting a scenario balanced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might've missed the thread a while back where somebody (can't remember who ) gave the following (I renamed the variables to suit my own preference but the info is the same):

Cp = total points of player casualties (units captured count double their casualty value)

Ce = total points of enemy casualties (units captured count double their casualty value)

F= total value of flags

Fp = point value of flags controlled by player

Fe = point value of flags controlled by enemy

A = player score

E = enemy score

Units are worth BPV except spotters which are 30

( Ce + Fp )

--------------- = A

( Cp + Ce + F )

or Player score =

(Enemy casualties + Player flags)

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

(Player casualties + Enemy casualties + Total flags)

Exit scenarios:

- exited like it should: player gets (cost * 2.7) points

- not exited like it should: opponent gets (cost * 2.7) points

- killed: opponent gets (cost * (2.7 + 1.0)) points

- captured: opponent gets (cost * (2.7 + 2.0)) points

For flamethrower teams and trucks insert 2.3 instead of 2.7.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Offwhite ]

[Commissar]

Non-grogs are hardly the only ones who want to choose their own forces. Grogs are especially interested in what if scenarios. Plus, experimenting with different force mixes also allow us test out tactics and what works best. Besides, always playing with the same force mix would get boring real quickly. Another thing, you assume that the computer necessarily picks "historically accurate" force mixes when you choose the option for the computer to pick forces for you. I am not so sure it does as it is a random pick.

Also, forces were not always standard out-of-the-box organizations. The Germans are particularly well known for creating ad-hoc groups for specific missions. These kampfgruppen had no specific organization and were usually composed of whatever units were at hand. The high level of German training and command allowed them to create these units and have them work extremely effectively. You can sort of think of quick battle forces like that.

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus, experimenting with different force mixes also allow us test out tactics and what works best. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It also allows you to delve into the little details of each unit, particularly vehicles, and learn all their quirks and how they handle different types of opposition, terrain, and so forth. That's fun in its own right and also leads you to ponder how well the vehicles are modeled in the game, if the real-life counterparts could have been employed more effectively, and so forth.

[Jeff Duquette]

Buy your own isn’t realistic, but it seems to add a lot of fun to the game for some folks.