#1 Tip for Newbies????

[xerxes]

I'm almost always wrong in predicting what my opponent will do, in fact, I've stopped trying. I assume I'll be wrong.

[ZOR58]

Fionn mentions reading and viewing AAR's. Where can you find good one to use and how can you tell the good examples from the bad?

Thanks.

[ciphrix]

Its abit hard for me to tell higher ground from lower, from some screenies I found some grided terrian but its for CMBO, was wondering if there is such a mod for CMBB? And if so, where can I get it?

[Edward Windsor]

Originally posted by ciphrix:

Its abit hard for me to tell higher ground from lower, from some screenies I found some grided terrian but its for CMBO, was wondering if there is such a mod for CMBB? And if so, where can I get it?

Try Captain Wacky's creations here: http://www.cmmods.com/

Teddy

[Fionn]

YD,

Actually this concept is MOST applicable in defence since giving your opponent the initiative, allowing him to keep it but gradually leading him into a firesack is the most imperceptible of things if done correctly.

That is why I once argued that defenders moaning about attacker initiative and going spare trying to take it from him was stupidity exemplified. Instead they should count on turning this attacker's advantage AGAINST the attacker ( a little bit like using your opponent's mass and speed against him in Tae Kwando). Of course as is their wont on this forum people chose to misinterpret this and pretend I was saying initiative wasn't important so I left that discussion and topic.

I suggest you go and take the "What is God" ( it has a different name) test listed in the General Forum. I would suggest that those players who are best at CMBB (and have best made the switch from CMBO) are those people who score very well in that test since that test is actually a test of the ability to reason rationally and with rigorous internal consistency about an emotionally laden topic.

Self-criticism is emotionally laden and the ability to self-examine honestly and rigorously without making excuses or taking the easy way out is what separates the guys who are going to become good wargamers or chess players from those who are simply going to be the mediocre mass. (Not politically correct but true nonetheless.) Most people need others to critique them but then again most people end up lashing out at those who do, so even that fails for them.

They then end up posting threads to these fora asking for tactical advice either for a given scenario ( little more than "learning how to beat the boss" in an FPS... of limited value outside of that scenario/level and certainly not going to improve your overall play much if at all) or solicit advice from others re: their play ( which invariably ends up with lots of terrible advice and a smaller amount of good advice... this good advice is NOT internally consistent both within the topic being discussed or across the wide variety of topics the gamer wishes to learn about. Thus the gamer has difficulty fitting all the advice together. A VERY common issue brought up by repeat posters is that they cannot reconcile advice by one player in one thread re: ATGs with advice from another in another thread about infantry ( or whatever two examples take ur fancy). The reason for this is that the two pieces of advice are inconsistent since they come from two different schools of players. Unfortunately the gamer wishing to learn almost never seems to have done that most essential of things; "deep reflection" on what was said in order to incorporate them into a cohesive and internally consistent whole.

Of course all of this goes unnoticed and very few people ever realise the stunningly similar patterns of question-asking, answer-giving and future disasters which occurs because these factors are unrecognised both by those asking for advice and those giving it ( because neither party has ever thought deeply about the issue of teaching people how to think tactically and operationally and develop their OWN style).

So, the best things, IMO--- which I'm sure loads of people will happily tell you are BS --- are:

1. Read AARs, watch movies of them and then reflect on what these guys did and what worked and didn't. Figure out which aspects might work for you and then integrate them into your play. If you identify major shortcomings in your play ( e.g. too slow) then work to eradicate them by constant practice.

2. Find a good thinker who understands MORE than just CMBB ( we can all find good CMBB players whose lessons will only apply in CMBB but they are worthless for your overall tactical and operational thinking IMO) and play him/her, get critiques from them and watch them play others. Discuss things with them and their opponents and then try to come up with your own style. If they try to force you to play their style (except in the earliest stages when your own style is likely to be extremely error-ridden) then you should drop out. Develop your own style which will probably be similar to but slightly differently flavoured than theirs.

That's what I, personally, find works anyway and was the ethos I was using in the tactics stuff I was typing for CMBB. It took longer and made for more complicated lessons but I think it is a superior approach.

[ January 16, 2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Specs]

Holy cats -- Fionn and JasonC both posting to the same thread! I feel like I've just plunged into a Las Vegas swimming pool after being lost for weeks in the desert...

One thing I didn't notice anyone mention but which, I think, deserves to be stressed to every newbie until it sinks in is to start playing against another human ASAP. Eighteen months ago or thereabouts, I foolishly reasoned along the lines of, "Gosh, I guess I should play against the CMBO AI until I can beat it soundly, then I can apply what I've learned to human opponents." I'm still paying for that stroke of genius, and probably always will...

The CMBB AI is an improvement, to be sure, but still no substitute for the real thing. Not much of a conversationalist, either.

[ciphrix]

Damn right, being a noob, I don't even make some of the dumb mistakes the AI does (some what to my delight).

It was 2 Panzer 38s vs my 1 Kv 2, I backed it up behind a dead tank and out of LOS, I thought it would do something like come around from both sides of the dead tank and therefore make me having to change the greatest direction to shoot both of them....not so, not only do they not follow me, but turn 180 degrees (showing their pretty rears) as well as bunch up.....now I'm no expert at this game, but that seems to be a pretty dumb thing to do, and they paid for it. Umm, out of sight, out of mind? If this was a "improvement", I'd hate to see how it was like before....

So yeah, if anyone is tired of getting their butts kicked by such as Fionn and JasonC and would like to dish some out, email me

I'd be happy to get my arse kicked up and down the map.

[Redwolf]

The is a true bug around the turn/rotate cmmand at the end of movement paths that is currently being discussed on the main forum. You might want to check the thread out.

Tanks, vehicles and pillboxes do not give cover to objects behind it in CMBO or CMBB, except when they burn and hence the smoke obscures view (why this mechanism cannot be extended to have the dead vehicle block view without smoke is bejond me, BTW).

I think the TacAI in CMBB is cause more problems than the oen in CMBO. I was always thinking the TacAI whinerin CMBO times were wrong, that the TacAI is adequate. But in CMBB I had an annoying number of clear screwups (unrealistic screwups) and totally uncomprehensible choices of paths etc. so far.

I don't know whether the code got worse of the fact that the game is more detailed exposed more existing problems or maybe I just look closer. Probably a mixture of all of that. But fact is the CMBB TacAI annoys me, the CMBO one didn't.

[ciphrix]

Really? Thats kinda dumb ain't it? A tank hiding behind another dead tank still gets shot at like his in the open? Are u sure, a game with such high attention to detail screws something so obvious? Or was that how it was?

Who knows, not me obviously, I'm just another dumb noob.

[Redwolf]

It's true.

You have to take into account that this would be a feature difficult to implement.

First, tanks, vehicles and pillboxes are just points in space in CMBO and CMBB, they have no dimensions you could use for detemining LOS.

Even if they had, the 3D engine right now makes most LOS calculations (with the exception of smoke and shot down buildings) in a totally static environment. Most of what is true in turn 1 is true in turn 30, with regards to LOS lines.

Last but not least it creates a TacAI and strategic AI nightmare. You would have to teach units to go around vehicles to have a field of fire (or to take cover). Take into account that the TacAI right now is so dumb it doesn't even know a wall is offering cover. Imagine how much of a leap it would be to make it take moving objects into account for cover.

And last of the last, I think it is good for the player. How so? Because we don't have enough control over tanks and resulting LOS. Imagine you move 4 tanks to a shooting point somewhere on the map. In CMBB you can just place them one after another and since they can shoot through each other. In reality they would have to go side-by-side or otherwise interleaved to have a free field of fire each. But I think it would be punishing the player in CM unrealistically. The player has no way to influence the exact end-of-path placing of a tank precisely enough. In reality the tanks would micromanage the positions of their tanks to achive a field of fire. You cannot do that in CM. So I think just assuming they did and giving them the open field of fire "for free" is overall a better choice for realistic gameplay.

Edit Thinking about it, I think it would be best to make them transparent for friendly fire (for the reasons given in the last paragraph) and LOS and fire blocking for enemies.

[ January 17, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[YankeeDog]

Fionn –

Interesting test. I ended up biting the "rational discourse about God is impossible" bullet, but that doesn't make me logically inconsistent, just weird (according to the test, anyway). I guess that makes me a 'high scorer'.

Your comments about defending and using the attackers' initiative against him and the similarities to some of the basic concepts of force redirection in martial arts are quite apt. One can argue that the defender, by anticipating and directing the attacker's energy, is effectively co-opting the attacker's initiative, rather than ceding initiative to the attacker. That is, does an attacker who allows the defender to control his actions through the use of ruse still maintain the initiative, or has he effectively ceded the initiative to the defender by allowing his actions to be controlled, however unwittingly?

You brought up Tae Kwon Do and the fundamental ideas of energy and counter-energy present in many eastern martial arts. Since I have studied TKD (and other martial arts) for quite some time, I thought I might put down some of the teaching from that sphere in regards the strategy of conflict. If you’re not interested in (or are already familiar with) these ideas, perhaps others would be interested in my musings (it’s a slow day at work. . .).

The Tae Kwon Do master I study under teaches that there are three basic strategies that can be implemented in any conflict:

1. Attack. This strategy relies upon the idea that the combatant who initiates attack generally has the advantage of moving first (i.e., the initiative). This is an inherently speed-based strategy. Theoretically, if I attack first and keep attacking, my opponent will be forced to continually react to my moves, never gaining space to initiate a counter-move. In this way, the best my opponent can do is continually block my attack, never mustering the energy for a counterblow himself and perpetuating a draw. If I can keep the attack up for long enough, eventually my opponent will make an error and I will gain an advantage. The weakness of this strategy is that its success is dependent upon keeping your opponent off-balance (and keeping yourself in balance!). If your opponent anticipates your next move, you are vulnerable to counterattack as all of your energy is going into attack, leaving little or none for defense.

2. Defense. In this tactic, I cede initiative to my opponent in an attempt to take advantage of the weakness that is inherently present in any attack in order to counterattack at my opponent’s most vulnerable spot. Theoretically, since I am focusing in watching for my opponent’s attack, it should be easier for me to read him and anticipate his moves in order to counterattack at the most opportune time and place. The danger inherent in defense is that my opponent will misdirect me with his attack and I will counterattack at a time and place that my opponent is anticipating, thereby exposing myself to attack.

3. Feint. This is the strategy that we have been discussing. Here, the martial artist masquerades as an attacker, but the initial attack is not his primary effort. In so doing he is hoping to draw his opponent into an anticipated counter and so be able to counter the counterattack at the most opportune time and place. The danger of this strategy is that, since the martial artist is splitting his energy between attacking (some energy must be committed to the initial attack in order to make it appear authentic) and defending (so as to prevent the anticipated counterstrike from landing), he is in danger of being caught ‘neither here nor there’. If the opponent simply attacks strongly and consistently, the martial artist will be unable to either defend effectively against the incoming blows, or muster sufficient energy to mount an effective counterattack since his energy is split between the Attack and the Defense.

Tae Kwon Do holds that none of these tactics is superior to the others. Rather, their effectiveness is interrelated. As the above descriptions imply, Attack is generally considered the most effective against an opponent who is employing the strategy of Feint, Defense is considered the most effective against Attack, and Feint is considered the most effective against Defense. A true master, therefore, must be equally adept at all three tactics, and employ them each as the situation dictates. To give a simple concrete example, assuming equal technical skill (i.e, both fighters equally competent at the raw mechanics of punching, kicking, moving, etc.), if one combatant always employs the strategy of Attack, once his opponent understands this pattern, he can move to the strategy of Defense and so gain an advantage.

Tae Kwon Do masters view this ‘mind game’ of the choice of Attack vs. Defense vs. Feint, with each combatant switching back and forth between these three strategies many times within one contest (and usually at blinding speed), as the fundamental determinant of victory vs. defeat.

I currently structure my CM strategizing on this basic triumvirate as well, although I must admit that much like the beginning martial artist who is still learning to kick and punch properly, I am still learning many of the basic techniques needed to implement the strategies effectively. The important thing to recognize in CM, I think, is that it is quite possible to use any of the three basic strategies in any tactical situation – i.e. it is possible to be the defender in a CM battle, but structure your defense around the “Attack” strategy, or to be the attacker in a CM battle, but structure your attack around the “Defense” strategy.

Anyway, I hope at least somebody else finds this stuff interesting.

Cheers,

YD

[Hammer]

Wow, a lot accurate, and well prose statements in here. I’m going to print them on nice paper and put them on the wall around my office! Just like when the Navy started pushing Deming’s Law, many upwardly mobile officers and senior enlisted folks used to put quotes of what we called “Deming ****’ around their spaces.

Of course there is no comparison between Deming **** and the "thoughts to fight by" I find here.

They will love this around the office:

“Remember even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day.”

“Remember, you don't have to think allot you just have to think well.”

But the more tactically focused statements will get the most attention: o

[ January 17, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Hammer ]

[jtcm]

Fionn:

it's "Qui tacet, consentire videtur", not "Que tacet"

[this from a professional classicist. I'm terrible at CM, but still know Latin for my job]

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by jtcm:

Fionn:

it's "Qui tacet, consentire videtur", not "Que tacet"

[this from a professional classicist. I'm terrible at CM, but still know Latin for my job]

I was wondering about that. . . I figured it was some wierd conjugation thing I didn't know about (not being a professional classicist and all ).

[Fionn]

YD,

Couple of points...

"That is, does an attacker who allows the defender to control his actions through the use of ruse still maintain the initiative, or has he effectively ceded the initiative to the defender by allowing his actions to be controlled, however unwittingly?"

I believe that:

a) the defender can "guide" the attacker without having to use "ruses". Showing the enemy real strength where he expects to see it isn't a "ruse". It does however still accomplish the objective of causing a predictable attacker to re-evaluate his plan and alter it in a predictable way.

An attacker who is guided into a certain set of actions or on-map region maintains the initiative until the point in time the defender ACTS ( by moving his reserve to counter-attack or opening fire with his ambushing units etc etc). After all up until the instant the defender opens fire the attacker can make an unexpected choice which throws all the attacker's plans out of kilter and which will force the defender to engage in another OODA loop (whilst the attacker doesn't have to engage in an OODA loop). By this criteria it is the attacker who has the advantage in terms of potential OODA loops ( which is what we really mean when we talk about "initiative"...) and thus has the initiative.

Once the ambush is begun both sides must begin new OODA loops. Whichever side has the LEAST success in the ambush will have to re-orient most and enact a greater number of new decisions ( all of which takes time ) than the side which has the most success in the immediate aftermath of the springing of the ambush ( this side will have to re-orient and enact little).

I believe that while I am couching these discussions in lower-tactical level terms you can easily transcribe them into Tae Kwon Do euphemisms . ( I am familiar with the form.)

" their effectiveness is interrelated. "

As are all things. To attempt attrition without maneuvre is as stupid as attempting maneuvre without attrition as is attempting to attack without being aware of defence as is defending without being open to the possibility of launching an attack.

" Tae Kwon Do masters view this ‘mind game’ of the choice of Attack vs. Defense vs. Feint, with each combatant switching back and forth between these three strategies many times within one contest (and usually at blinding speed), as the fundamental determinant of victory vs. defeat."

Of course . What is true in Tae Kwon Do and life in general is also true in battle. Most people here view the on-screen battle as what is important. This is, IMO, a fundamentally flawed approach and I've been on record for years stating that the game is decided by the "mind game", the contest of wills and flexibility which goes on between the minds of the two opponents.

The "pieces" on the CMBB virtual battlefield are merely minor adjuncts to the mental battle going on between the two opponents. They are, if you wish to so phrase it, the "physical manifestation" of one's mental stance ( attack, feint, defence, ruse) and help to "strengthen" the impact of that mental stance on one's opponent.

At one time I used the phrase moral superiority to describe the effect of winning the mental battle ( this is the phrase used by writers of the calibre of Napoleon and Clausewitz to refer to the same issue) but some folks of course chose to state that I was claiming I was "morally better" than my opponents as if my morality could have any bearing on a CM game. Would this mean that if I was a burglar and thus "morally impure" in the eyes of some that my CM play MUST, necessarily, be worse than if I had never gotten a speeding ticket? It is a laughable concept but it is what they chose to take from the discussion and how they chose to misrepresent my point.

ANYWAYS... Suffice it to say that I've never lost the "physical" representation of battle ( the CMBB game) once I've won the mental aspect of the battle ( cowing the opponent psychologically). Of course the mental aspect of the battle is the most important aspect... All the great commanders knew this ( even Napoleon that great proponent of dreadful slaughter wrote that "In war the moral is to the physical as three is to one")... unfortunately most CM players don't seem to be even the slightest bit interested in acknowledging the existence of this aspect.

Caveat: Obviously you've got to have a good grounding in the basics of movement, fire and terrain analysis to get into the top, say, 20% of players but the thing that differentiates the top few players from everyone else is a conscious or subconscious manipulation of the psychological aspect. This doesn't just occur in CM, it occurs in chess ( most famously of all) and also in the physical sports many people here will support on weekends.

FWIW I find the discussion interesting. Unfortunately discussing this sort of non-conventional thing here is usually a bad idea and attracts vermin.

Ps. Re: your view that any of the three strategies can be used in any given situation. Of course that is correct. They are, after all, only ethos within which to frame your responses.

[Fionn]

jtcm,

TY. Unfortunately Latin isn't my strong point and I only put it in Latin so that those whom it spoke of wouldn't cotton to it... The knowledge of Latin amongst said entities would be extremely limited.

Thanks for the pointer though, I've amended it in my sig. Personally my favourite part of the sig is the 2nd portion. It is just such a "powerful" statement of action and misrepresentation IMO.

[Hammer]

"Latin", aint that the stuff they say in church?

:cool: :eek:

[Fionn]

Not since 2nd Vatican Council ( at least so long as you aren't a follower of Bishop Lefevre (sic) ).

[ January 17, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[jtcm]

Fionn:

you're v. welcome. Actually, I was wondering where the second part of your sig comes from: sounds like Plutarch or Diodorus, certainly not in Herodotus, the main, earliest and most reliable source. But I'm being a prig, or worse.

[Fionn]

Ah, indeed a classical scholar. The search for sources and concern therefor is typical .

I will admit that it is not material to me where it came from (although I believe you are correct. If it is important to you I can find the source for you tomorrow. Just let me know ok? ). I chose it simply because of the sentiment it embodies.

[Malcom987]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Read AARs. (preferrably with movie files attached). It is the best way to see what works for others and why. Gains you lots of experience very quickly if you do it BUT you have to be willing to improve/change ( which few are).

I think he wrote this before his psychotic episode.

[Xipe]

Originally posted by jtcm:

Fionn:

you're v. welcome. Actually, I was wondering where the second part of your sig comes from: sounds like Plutarch or Diodorus, certainly not in Herodotus, the main, earliest and most reliable source. But I'm being a prig, or worse.

From what I can find it should be ascribed to Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303), in the Decretals (canon law).

[Troy Spiral]

Interesting Scholarly comentary goes *points elswhere*

Awesomet thread idea. Hopefully it will not be hijacked to badly

Some very good ideas in this thread.

Im still somewhat of a newbie myself but my

NO 1. Newbie Tip (applies to all areas of endevour)

Develop a deep burning desire to become successful.

That one will help you more than any other. Once you get the "hunger" the rest will come eventually.

[Fionn]

Malcom987,

Well as a first post to the forum it is certainly interesting. Did it help the newbies? No. Did it move the discussion forward? No. Was it on-topic? No.

Was it anything other than a spiteful little post designed to get an angry reaction? No. Hell, I doubt you could even define psychosis without running to a dictionary or google, nevermind accurately label it in accordance with your in-depth knowledge of what I was talking about.

P.s. BTW thanks for clarifying to people the sort of completely off-topic BS which saps my will to contribute. You were a great "case in point".

[SurlyBen]

Here's my newbie tip (and it's as simple and concrete as I can make it): keep your armor at least 200 meters behind your infantry, and farther back is better.

Obviously there are times when violating this rule is ok, but keeping the armor back means never losing it to close assaulting infantry so it's a good rule of thumb.

Other than that, practice, learn what all the numbers mean, and if you get to buy your own units, make sure you know what you are buying.

Make an effort to relate non CM knowledge to CM are spot on. I tend to think of CM battles in chess terms

IMO, Fionn's comments about the headgame are pretty much spot-on. Between good players of roughly equal skill, the fight is likely to go to the one who doesn't lose his nerve. One second guess, or overcautious (or uncautious)move and suddenly the guys are all over the place, dying in detail. I'd say that most losing players defeat themselves. Once they start losing they stop caring about the fight, or they just make bad moves.

I guess I try to take the view that any given fight on the CM battlefield is a sideshow to the overall fight. Losing any one fight doesn't necessarily mean the battle is lost.

Surlyben