How was CM intended to be played?

[Green Hornet]

I know this topic may have been discussed to death in many different forms but I'm really interested in what folks on this board might have to say about this particular topic.

At what level was CM really meant to be played? By that, I mean how much do you let the A.I. control your own troops versus how frequently should you be giving new/updated orders to your virtual squads and tanks?

Recently, I was involved in a discussion in which a player claimed that "Playing Combat Mission like chess takes all the realism out of it". That playing PBEM games gives a person too much time to think about every fold in the terrain and ponder every potential decision. This makes it unrealistic since real commanders did not have this luxury.

My initial reaction is that CM is a game and RL commanders did not have a lot of the luxuries we do in playing CM. However, this did start to make me think...

I play tons of PBEM games ( and very few TCPIP games ) and I'm a person that tends to takes his time when plotting moves and giving orders.

Am I "missing out" or playing the game in a manner in which it was not intended because I take a lot of time to think through my plans

when plotting moves?

I'm just curious as to how some of you folks play. Do you take your time plotting moves or give yourself a mental time limit? Do you give new orders to the majority of your units every few turns or do you play "hands off" and let the A.I. handle most of your squads duties?

I apologize for so many questions and the rambling of this post but after years of playing CM I'm suddenly wondering if I'm "doing it wrong"?

:confused:

[Abbott]

Recently, I was involved in a discussion in which a player claimed that "Playing Combat Mission like chess takes all the realism out of it". That playing PBEM games gives a person too much time to think about every fold in the terrain and ponder every potential decision. This makes it unrealistic since real commanders did not have this luxury.

That is the common argument put forward by the "Real time" crowd; turn base is extremely un-realistic because of the above statement.

Personally I feel that "Real time" does not take into account that there is more then one person available giving orders. Company commander, platoon leaders, squad leaders, section leaders and so on.

When it comes down to it, neither system is realistic. Some prefer the frantic "click fest" of real-time; some prefer the thoughtfulness of turn-based play. I prefer turn-based over real-time and Combat Mission's WEGO system by far and over both.

My answer to your question of:

‘How was Combat Mission intended to be played”.

Is play the way you have the most fun. You will soon enough develop enough friends that use the play-style that suits you as opponents to never be without a PBEM or TCIP game when desired.

[Dave H]

I think Combat Mission has done a wonderful job of condensing the reality of combat to a manageable time frame. Somebody (Jason C??) posted an AAR of an actual battle that stretched on through an entire day because of all of the real world delays not experienced in CM. A CMBO version of the same battle would probably last 20-30 turns at most.

Personally I only play PBEMs now. Playing against the AI has become sterile by comparison in my opinion, because there is no give-and-take with the computer opponent. I take as much time as I need for my turns. This isn't a remake of Doom, so I don't feel there are (nor should there be) any time constraints on a commander.

FYI, I really, really dislike the so-called "Real Time Games". I'm annoyed that these games claim some kind of extra helping of realism because they are not turn based. What a crock!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Dave H:

FYI, I really, really dislike the so-called "Real Time Games". I'm annoyed that these games claim some kind of extra helping of realism because they are not turn based. What a crock!

Agreed 100%.

Michael

[Green Hornet]

Thanks guys,

This is the way I've always felt as well. I'm glad to read that I'm not the only one who feels there's nothing wrong with putting some thought into your moves.

[Hans]

The best is IP/PBEM in a small battle where you know who your guys are.

Real time? You'd just miss most of what was going on.

I think many like to saviour a "good kill" or the suspense of whom will fire first plus the always popular "what the hell is that NCO doing?"

[rucrazee]

I have played CMBO and CMBB both by PBEM and over TCP/IP. Combat Mission is not an RTS or a "click fest." You are still doing the exact same thing you do when you PBEM, only you have a little less time to analyze the battlefield. That can be very challenging and exciting, but it is certainly NOT a click fest.

I get the feeling a lot of folks who claim to not like the "click fest" may have not ever tried it. Give it a shot if you haven't. PBEMs are great because you can take your turn when you need to and you don't have to set a side a time that is convenient for your opponent. TCP/IP is intense and very exciting especially when it is against a friend. Anyway, to each his own.

[ September 16, 2003, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: rucrazee ]

[Nidan1]

I usually play PBEM now, but I have a weekly "date" for a TCP/IP battle with a fellow that I have become fast friends with through CM.

Now this guy certainly takes his time plotting moves, (we don't use the timer), and depending on the size of the battle we are playing, I could go have lunch and come back to the game and he will be still plotting. Some might find that annoying, but once you develop a relationship with an opponent, it no longer matters if the games run long. It's definitely not a "click fest", and in our case we have great fun. What you do need in this situation is an understanding spouse or significant other, who doesnt mind that you are holed-up in front of the PC, playing a game for 5 or 6 hours straight.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Apologies for not having read all of the other posts, but this is the way I prefer to play the game.

First turn/setup is done in PBEM, then as some later stage, maybe turn two if both are available; convert the game to Live TCP play. In Live play no time limits on turn length but rely on individuals to push the game along.

The reason for the above mix is that I feel time pressure in setup is somewhat unrealistic, and not much fun. But once the game is up and running, it is more fun to play Live. In my view.

I can tell you, because not long ago I saw one of the powers that be round here post as much, that CM is primarily designed with human v human in mind. I guess because although the AI is outstanding, it is clearly not as cunning as a human player. So BFC expect most players to start with AI games, then go into human v human games.

But of course, what ever you enjoy most is the real answer.

All the best,

Kip.

PS . Yes, it is also true that the better you know someone, the more fun killing their virtual soldiers.

[Oddball_E8]

How about this then?

since commanders "higher-up" (ie. you in combat mission) only get to give the "general plan" orders how about giving orders in the first turn (after setup) that are to last for the next ten minutes or so and only after those ten minutes are you to give any further orders... if both parts (in a PBEM) do this it might be a bit more "realistic" since the "on the spot" decisions has to be taken by the AI.

ps. this would not be that good against the AI since it gives new orders every turn... ds.

sorry for all the " by the way...

[dieseltaylor]

I have played a lot of TCip in CMBO and mostly PBEM in CMBB.

Of the two TCpIP or network especially is an andrenaline rush even on three minutes a turn, hugely amusing and you can get more games into your life. We had 6 players in the one house playing network and watching the games develop was a great educational tool [- being able to see both sides of the battle unfold.]

Cmbb PBEM satisfying definitely but a laugh NO. I look forward to some network play on CMBB.

A great game regardless

[Jim Boggs]

I love playing PBEM. I find the actual turns take very little time at all, however the message that accompanies the turn can sometimes take up to an hour to get "just right".

[Leeo]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

What you do need in this situation is an understanding spouse or significant other, who doesnt mind that you are holed-up in front of the PC, playing a game for 5 or 6 hours straight.

They seem a bit more understanding if they were with you when it took all weekend to set-up a Map-and-counters wargame and play a few turns. Five or six hours then doesn't seem so bad...

[Green Hornet]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Of the two TCpIP or network especially is an andrenaline rush even on three minutes a turn...

I agree completely. Online games are faster paced and can be more exciting to a certain degree.

One comment I was concerned about however is that I've heard claims that TCPIP is more realistic than PBEM because PBEM allows you to take your time and analyze your situation (akin to chess). A luxury that RL commanders did not have.

I don't happen to agree with this since the argument that "time limits" make CM more realistic would follow that the closer you can make CM to a "real-time" game, the more realistic it is. This is something I just do not believe to be true.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Leeo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nidan1:

What you do need in this situation is an understanding spouse or significant other, who doesnt mind that you are holed-up in front of the PC, playing a game for 5 or 6 hours straight.

They seem a bit more understanding if they were with you when it took all weekend to set-up a Map-and-counters wargame and play a few turns. Five or six hours then doesn't seem so bad... </font>

[86smopuim]

here is the answer:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=008592

[dieseltaylor]

Re: Green Scorpion

I also agree that the closer to real time it gets does not improve the game.Your second para:

"One comment I was concerned about however is that I've heard claims that TCPIP is more realistic than PBEM because PBEM allows you to take your time and analyze your situation (akin to chess). A luxury that RL commanders did not have.

I don't happen to agree with this since the argument that "time limits" make CM more realistic would follow that the closer you can make CM to a "real-time" game, the more realistic it is. This is something I just do not believe to be true."

I have always thought the perfect analogy is American Football - you have enough time to decide on the play and put it in and allow the squads to execute. I am sure no one would argue that football would be improved if it went without huddles - or that the huddled was lengthened considerably for greater analysis or to allow the squads to catch their breath.

Curiously the analogy stretches quite well if you look at the length of battle to length of gametime. Is this a natural?

In up to a 1500 pter one or two minutes allows you as commander to appreciate and react to the latest movie and put in your play. If you wish to micr0-manage a particular sector that is your choice as commander. Other sectors can go on hold or your long-range orders still apply.

Over 1500 pts. 3 minutes seems enough as you tend to be able to work with whole platoons.One could play with less time but yuo often have several bits of info each turn to assimilate and run the film on different parts of the field.

I would point out that if you play over the net you actually get a few extra minutes per turn as the film needs to be sent. Not quite the rush of network but quick enough.

I used to be a club chess player so you would think I would be a natural for the more considered play. But CM** requires speed so bluff and errors occur to make it less analysable, less BORG and more immediate.

[HarryInk]

Haven't read all the posts so this might be a little 'off thread' but I enjoy both TCP/IP games which have more of the rush of combat to them but equally the PBEM which have a thrilling 'next chapter' feel.

Something I'd like one day is a game like CM...same 'we go' format...that works one level higher. That is, you give orders just to platoons rather than squads. This would move battles into battalion and regiment size. The AI could do all the little tactical nitty gritty, it'd be the players role to drive the overall direction of a battle and suffer the petty failures of the AI in the small stuff. However, I absolutely love the graphics in CM, so I'd be wanting something similar...seeing the folds of the terrain and watching the platoons as several piece groups do their business.

I just think that'd make an interesting variation to the micro management of CM.

[ September 17, 2003, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: HarryInk ]

[mike_the_wino]

How should CMBB be played? That's easy. If it is a hot day I wear nothing and drink a nice off-dry aromatic white wine, Riesling or Viognier. If its a mild spring day a fruity soft red, Pinot noir or fruity Ozzie Shriraz. For those winter battles I turn the AC way down, don my fuzzy hat, and crack a bottle of hearty Cabernet Sauvignon.

[Baron von Beergut]

Dumb Question:

I've only played pbem due to limited available time.

But I was wondering if a game was started as on-line, is it possible to save and later continue the game via pbem and/or head to head depending on you and your opponents available time to finish the game? And then maybe go back to on-line? BvB

[WineCape]

Originally posted by mike_the_wino:

How should CMBB be played? That's easy. If it is a hot day I wear nothing and drink a nice off-dry aromatic white wine, Riesling or Viognier. If its a mild spring day a fruity soft red, Pinot noir or fruity Ozzie Shriraz. For those winter battles I turn the AC way down, don my fuzzy hat, and crack a bottle of hearty Cabernet Sauvignon.

Amen! A dash of Pinotage too.