Juardis Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Just curious as to your experiences with PBEM operations. Seems it could get gamey in a hurry. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I have PBEMed a couple of Ops. I actually think the net effect is anti-gamey. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherman Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 one question do you still PBEM? Hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 hmmm. I never played one myself, but I made a h2h operation, "Advance North", and I was wondering if it works well. It is envisioned as a sorta seesaw battle over an area with room for maneuver. Unfortunately, I cannot play it myself, it's obviously too easy vs the AI since it is more or less balanced, and I can't play it vs a human opponent since I know all the forces etc., but I would gladly send it to two people wanting to try it vs each other. Email me if interested. [This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 02-07-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I've done A Day in the Cavalry and Team DeSobry, and I'm currently doing Mortain. All of those have the Advance setting, which has the biggest impact on the game. In Day in the Cavalry, it was pretty easy to slip some vehicles past the enemy infantry and push the map back without doing too much fighting. The Advance setting seems to overly favor the attacker when he slips past the defender. Team DeSobry seemed broken. The first battle was entertaining, and the Attacker was able to make it about 2/3rds of the way across the map. The operation then abruptly ended, declaring a total victory for the attacker. Apparently the operation was set as an Advance, but the map is normal sized, so all the attacker needs to do to win is slip a vehicle or two past the defender and make the map roll a little bit. Mortain is the best op I've played so far, because the heavy bocage prevents the attacker from slipping past the defender. For what it's worth, I also played Red Devils from both sides against the AI, and wasn't impressed. That one isn't an Advance (I forget the name of the setting). The only way for the Germans to win that one seems to be to kill every single Brit on the map, or force a premature surrender. Merely killing most of the Brits and holding the bridge is not enough. Is there a site that rates CM scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 There's an updated Team Desobry Op that supposedly fixes the abrupt ending bug. I think you can get it from Combat Mission HQ and other places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I'm just Pbemming my first OP, and it's different. You really have to plan ahead, I feel. I'm playing 'Redoubt,' and it's... interesting, and a lot of fun. Which is pretty good, considering the designer was drunk when he made it. ------------------ Officer: Old man, vhere ist your Spinnink Vheel?! Old man: My... my what? Officer: Your Vheel! your Vheel! Vhere ist your Vheel?! Old man: Oh, I am sorry, I do not eat meat, I am a vegetarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I got the updated Team Desorby Op with the 1.1 patch, along with an updated Carentan. ------------------ "What do you know about surfing, major, you're from God damn New Jersey" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 All of those have the Advance setting, which has the biggest impact on the game. Yep, that is ture, Leonidas. And it is even intended. In fact, this is the main difference between an advance Op and an assault Op. The thinking here is that ADVANCE is supposed to simulate a delaying action in a thinly defended sector. The GOAL for the attacker is to reach the map end. He loses if he doesn't reach it before game end. As such, bypassing an enemy strongpoint IS a soung tactical tool in the Advance op, and the defender should set up his defense with that feature in his mind - delay the enemy, not destroy him. In an assault Op, the going is much slower for the attacker, because the defender is supposed to be much stronger (sometimes stron enough to counterattack). The attacker is supposed to advance only a portion of the map (as set in the preferences in the editor) and the defender is supposed to have a real chance not only to stop the attacker, but even beat him back and regain lost territory. Therefore, for PBEM's and TCP/IP, assault Ops fit much better (usually). ------------------ "An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers." - Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfgardner Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Personally, I found the OPs scenarios to be the most challenging and "realistic" in terms of carefully husbanding your forces. I too have played the Mortain Scenario, in fact my opponent and I corresponded by Email with the unit historian of the US tank battalion featured in the scenario. He supplied us with a 1:50,000 tactical map that showed the start lines, phase lines and locations of knocked out US vehicles during the actual attack. The phase lines almost exactly corresponded to the start points in each of the Ops battles, and curiously, my US side lost tanks in almost the exact locations where the vehicles were lost in reality. It was rather humbling and moving to talk to a veteran of the battle. His recollections of the battle were vivid as if he fought it yesterday. Our 'operation' featured light rain, he actually stated the battle was fought on a very hot and humid day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted February 7, 2001 Author Share Posted February 7, 2001 wouldn't a destroy type of operation work better for a PBEM? Thanks for clueing me in to Assaults being better than advances for PBEM. Which ops are Assault and which are destroy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 The operation is indeed based on the information contained in this great website: http://www.737thtankbattalion.com and I've actually used 1:25000 maps from the area (as shown on the website itself, btw). Might be the ones dfgardner has mentioned. I hope I can take "The phase lines almost exactly corresponded to the start points in each of the Ops battles, and curiously, my US side lost tanks in almost the exact locations where the vehicles were lost in reality" as a compliment for a realistic recreation of the battle juardis - yes, destroy type ops are great for PBEM as well. Might make for the most balanced play, since victory or loss solely depend on casualites; there are no territorial objectives. Destroy type ops make also for the best ops when a bridge or another confined target is the objective, since the map does not have to move at all (i.e. battle map window is exactly as large as the operational map); and therefore there are no or few front line adjustments between battles. ------------------ "An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers." - Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Originally posted by Moon: Destroy type ops make also for the best ops when a bridge or another confined target is the objective, since the map does not have to move at all (i.e. battle map window is exactly as large as the operational map); and therefore there are no or few front line adjustments between battles. This was the solution I had to resort to when designing an operation - the question that still remains unanswered for me is - what does the defending or attacking AI do in such an operation? What is its impetus for action? How does it decide where to attack? Has anyone come to any conclusions through trial and error in their own designing experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Originally posted by Juardis: wouldn't a destroy type of operation work better for a PBEM? Thanks for clueing me in to Assaults being better than advances for PBEM. Which ops are Assault and which are destroy? In my PBEMs with a friend, we've been agreeing not to look at the operation in advance, to enhance the surprise. But we did agree to look at the parameters screen for each operation, so that we could at least get the basic info on what to expect. Just load each op file (.cmc, I think) into the scenario editor, and click the parameters button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 OP's are a step up from a single game. I'm Juju's opponent in this Redoubt OP and I second his comments. There is a bit of strategic planning involved as you think about what you want to accomplish in the current game to set you up for the 2nd and future battles in the OP to come. Redoubt also is quite a good battle very balanced and poses a lot of "what if" questions as you plan your turns. The US forces have quantity vs the elite German defender's in great defensive positions. Not easy to crack open as I'm finding out . Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocky Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 I have played a couple of operations by e mail and they are lots of fun really bring strategic thinking into it especially if you have night turns, you can never ever have enough infantry! M Hofbauer we have nearly finished an operation and would be keen to try yours Hi Juju long time, you feel up to an operation give me a call if so send me a copy of Redoubt dont think I have that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfgardner Posted February 9, 2001 Share Posted February 9, 2001 Originally posted by Moon: The operation is indeed based on the information contained in this great website: http://www.737thtankbattalion.com and I've actually used 1:25000 maps from the area (as shown on the website itself, btw). Might be the ones dfgardner has mentioned. I hope I can take "The phase lines almost exactly corresponded to the start points in each of the Ops battles, and curiously, my US side lost tanks in almost the exact locations where the vehicles were lost in reality" as a compliment for a realistic recreation of the battle juardis - yes, destroy type ops are great for PBEM as well. Might make for the most balanced play, since victory or loss solely depend on casualites; there are no territorial objectives. Destroy type ops make also for the best ops when a bridge or another confined target is the objective, since the map does not have to move at all (i.e. battle map window is exactly as large as the operational map); and therefore there are no or few front line adjustments between battles. Moon, if you're the designer, indeed my comments are a compliment.....although I was judiciously cursing while playing the Mortain Op at the "unfairness of it all" and other whinny statements, while my PBEM opponent howled with laughter and taunted me..... I guess I felt better knowing what happend in the actual battle, by the way, I too accomplished the objective and was declared the winner, although with much less hardware than what I started with!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts