Judging Good play

[slysniper]

This might be a good topic that has not been discussed recently. JasonC started me thinking about it from another post. It started because of a discussion on weapon modeling.

I would not band any weapon or say it is unfare to use them just because of the moduling job, and in some ways your correct in that it might make up for the other flaws in the game.

I am one that just thinks that letting players buy whatever they think works best at values that who is to say should or should not be the value is not what I beleive to be a good method of finding or proving to each other who is the better player of tactics, many times it shows who is the better shopper, That is all.

Many like QBs and that is fine, Tournaments use that method, that is fine. But I note that when you review someones AAR, you are not interested in what they bought but how well they are using what assets they have. That is what makes a good player, so that is my point. I want to point out that no one impresses me with great purchasing skill, but by out preforming the rest of us with what they can achieve on the game board with the same tools that the rest of us have, that is the skill we should honor in this Hobby.

I would like to hear from others what they think of this concept, maybe some of you think this game is about the skill of knowing what to buy.

[Other Means]

It depends why you play I guess. If you play to win no matter the cost, then the buying in QB's is a great skill to have and should be cherished. If you play to see an illustration of tactics, then obviously it's the latter.

I suspect I'm somewhere between the 2 camps, represented on one hand by ladder players and the other by JasonC. I use the game to have fun, and the having fun is partly because it's a contest and partly because it's a tactical exercise.

So I like to win but don't devote all my time to it. There was a thread about splitting squads, where Walpurgis Nacht demonstrated how to split and re-combine squads to maximise the available firepower per unit ammo. I couldn't imagine ever doing something like that as it's just not fun.

So good play to me is using good solid tactics to win, without going into the minutia of micromanaging each unit so it's exactly the right distance from the edge of the tree line etc. And ocasionally trying something bold because the payoff is great, which you'd never do if it was mens lives at stake.

[ParaBellum]

I got bored with QBs and 'purchase rules' already back in CMBO. I've been playing scenarios (almost) exclusively since then. To me it's far more fun trying to make do with what I get instead of cherry picking my forces.

Unfortunately the option to let the AI pick forces IMO far too often completely unbalances a game, so I'm stuck with scenarios. Which isn't actually THAT bad...

And I'd rather prefer a scenario where I'm hopelessly outnumbered/outclassed yet manage to put up a good fight in an interesting scenario then play a perfectly balanced QB where I spend half an hour in the purchase screen to maximize my points allocation.

[JasonC]

There is skill at the purchase stage of course. The pricing model is not perfect, so you can easily waste points on useless items. There is also skill in composing a mix of forces that complement each other, and in using each portion to perform its combined arms role to help the other etc.

But there are also simple abuses of broken aspects of the modeling of particular items, or their relative prices, to deliberately "stress" aspects of the game that are farthest from reality. And some players do that, seeking advantage any way they can. In my opinion, such people aren't worth playing, in CM or any other game. They are the CM equivalent of "rules lawyers" in ASL, and what they do reflects not skill but mere absence of scrupple, or any interest in history.

The line between them can be and no doubt is endlessly debated. Me, if I think there is anything to debate I just chuck it. Not worth my time. There are enough CM players who do care about history, understand the game is not perfect and do not want to deliberately break it, and are perfectly willing to use realistic force mixes etc. The others can play with themselves.

Edited because Mike is so helpful, and it is an e.

[ December 30, 2005, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

There is also skill in composing a mix of forces that compliment each other,

:eek:

[PanzerMiller]

Well said, JasonC (as always...I really admire your attention to careful thought and detail -- despite the occasional and trivial spelling-based brain-fart...tsk-tsk-tsk, Mr. Dorosh).

I suppose the greatest motive I have for playing a game like CM is to try and get a better understanding of what it was really like to fight a war in the East in the 1940's...to blindly assault a well-defended village on the steppe, or to see that massed wave of T-34s racing towards your prepared defensive position behind the shield of your 75mm ATG, or to watch your platoon get cut down by artillery in the open. I want the most historically realistic portrayal of Eastern Front combat I can get...and Quick Battles with bogus force composition ain't gonna do it for me.

I only go for the "Historical" scenarios from the archives. My sincere thanks to all of you that have put your heart and soul into designing such great scenarios for CMBB. It's an amazing experience and, for me, it's the only way to go.

[Other Means]

The main reason I play QB's is because there's not enough, or really any, vanilla scenarios. That is - attack this piece of ground and take it - here's reasonable forces to do that job and your opponent will have the same.

To that end, buying is interesting because you're trying for a decent, flexible force that will do what you want on a map you've not seen. But as JasonC says, your opponent can easily buy underpriced *cough StuG's* items which present more of a challenge than really they should.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PanzerMiller:

Well said, JasonC (as always...I really admire your attention to careful thought and detail -- despite the occasional and trivial spelling-based brain-fart...tsk-tsk-tsk, Mr. Dorosh).

I will get JasonC to post a smiley to me if it is the last thing I ever do! :mad:

[PanzerMiller]

I will get JasonC to post a smiley to me if it is the last thing I ever do!

Based on my reading of his rantings over in the forum subject "Poor scenario design", I wouldn't hold my breath...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PanzerMiller:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I will get JasonC to post a smiley to me if it is the last thing I ever do!

Based on my reading of his rantings over in the forum subject "Poor scenario design", I wouldn't hold my breath... </font>

[NameUsedBefore]

My problem with scenarios?

Well, there's so many of them so I will almost always play one I have not even seen yet. What happens here? My opponent knows what I start with and probably where, but I have no idea of what he starts with and where. Can there be a larger advantage?

That's why I prefer QB's. QB's even the playing field because both of you are blundering into it with NO knowledge of what the terrain will be like and what your enemy will have. QB's DO have you making do with what you have as much as scenarios do. The difference is that you actually have to adapt in a QB whereas in a scenario you already have a mindset of where things are going be going.

So, really, I'm not a big fan of scenarios. They're far too static for my liking in the sense that some things are already pre-destined. There's only so many things you can do in one scenario and with what. In a QB you have a nearly unlimited number of variables to play with.

QB's appear to revolve around adapting to what's there; while scenarios revolve around simply knowing the technicalities of the game itself (like distancing between squads and 'splitting squads/combining them' like you said). I prefer the former.

[Efraim]

I tend to agree with NameUsedBefore: you can 'reverse' a scenario out of the position and composition of your forces and of the landscape: after having played many scenarios you kinda 'get the idea' if you have so and so many pioneers, then. If you have so and so many smgs, then. If you have a wald there and a hill there, then.

So quickbattles are more challenging (of course with ai assigning forces and a lot of random things).

[slysniper]

QB's even the playing field because both of you are blundering into it with NO knowledge of what the terrain will be like and what your enemy will have. QB's DO have you making do with what you have as much as scenarios do. The difference is that you actually have to adapt in a QB whereas in a scenario you already have a mindset of where things are going be going.

Very Good points

Thus a reason for how I hosted "From out of the Dust" Tournament, the four Scenario's I have in the tournament were made for it, no one had seen them and no player could have any fore knowledge other than what the briefing would give. Thus giving you that QB quality but with mission goals that QB's lack.

Another way to get a scenario with a QB quality that you know for sure that you are playing blind is to add a third player, each of you create a battle and select the forces, then let the other two play your battle. This works well, gives you much more variety and can still provide a true blind game match.

I'm not a big fan of scenarios. They're far too static for my liking in the sense that some things are already pre-destined. There's only so many things you can do in one scenario and with what. In a QB you have a nearly unlimited number of variables to play with.

For me I would say the same about QB's, though I agree with what you say QB's provide, to me the static of a QB is generally knowing what kind of forces I will be playing against. It is rare indeed to find someone that will select unusual or low quility troops or equipment. It becomes the same old very quickly, who cares that I do not know where the enemy stugs are at, I just know that they are stugs. Get the point.

I think there is a best of both worlds that has not been implemented in the hobby very much. I like scenario's because they feel more real, during my time in the service I do not ever remember anyone giving me a option of which units were supporting me or how I could request anything. Nor was my missions normally clueless as to what I was up against or what terrain I would be working in. Every effort is made to get this info before hand.

But like the QB, I would not have a clue normally as to the enemys exact location or for sure the tactics that they would use.

[slysniper]

For me, the the perfect situation is a good Scenario design with a interesting mix of weapons, a battle that allows the players some options on how to play it so that it is not a gareentee as to what the opponant will be doing. And the last point, a game that neither man has seen or done so that both are making decisions for the first time, just like real life.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by NameUsedBefore:

That's why I prefer QB's. QB's even the playing field because both of you are blundering into it with NO knowledge of what the terrain will be like and what your enemy will have. QB's DO have you making do with what you have as much as scenarios do. The difference is that you actually have to adapt in a QB whereas in a scenario you already have a mindset of where things are going be going.

What you said is quite the opposite of my perception of reality. Quick battles are always the same - deployment zones at areas X and Y, while scenarios offer variety and can be just anything. In a QB you don't have any need to adapt to anything, while in a scenario that simply isn't an option because you can't pick your favourite units.

[ December 30, 2005, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[NameUsedBefore]

Sorry but in a scenario you already know what you're facing, where, and in what number. Again, scenarios seem to favor those who know the technicalities of the game.

In a QB you don't know what you're facing. There's plenty to adapt too:

The weather, the terrain, what your opponent has, how much your opponent has, and where your opponent is.

BTW: most scenarios have your basic you start here I start here concept. To say that's a reason there's nothing to adapt to in QB's is ridiculous. Where else should we start? How about I start in the middle and you start to the left, yay? Yay.

P.S.

Scenario: Always the same. Units always the same. Terrain stays the same. Weather stays the same. The conept of the scenario will forever stay the same.

QB: Exact opposite.

So, tell me, there's no adapting to what is random? But in something that will never change you must adapt? I'm failing to see the logic in that.

[JasonC]

NUB - Sergei is speaking of a scenario played "blind", neither side ever having seen it before. Of course that is purely an honor system thing. In tournaments, the scenarios are freshly minted, so nobody can have played them before.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by NameUsedBefore:

Sorry but in a scenario you already know what you're facing, where, and in what number. Again, scenarios seem to favor those who know the technicalities of the game.

No, that's not true. I never know anything else about my enemy force except what is told in the briefing. And the briefing can be misleading.

You can of course have totally randomized quick battles. Then the only thing you can be sure of is the area the enemy is coming from/is defending. But in a scenario, even that is unknown to you.

[NameUsedBefore]

Originally posted by JasonC:

NUB - Sergei is speaking of a scenario played "blind", neither side ever having seen it before. Of course that is purely an honor system thing. In tournaments, the scenarios are freshly minted, so nobody can have played them before.

Well if that's the case I agree completely.

However, it appears that most often people have already played the scenario they're currently doing. If they've both played it then what is the point?

Again, QB's offer a randomness and make the players adapt. Yes, you both will start on certain edges of the map; but few scenarios deviate from this set-up itself anyway. In scenarios I know the enemy is out there just as much as I do with QB's; the difference is in scenarios I have a pretty accurate idea of where he is (in strength/weakness) and with what --- in a QB I know he's out there, but I don't know with what, or possibly where. I just know he's out there, period.

[Sergei]

I would say most people play scenarios blind. Peeking into the scenario beforehand is considered as cheating.

You know the point value of his force and therefore what to expect. You also know if he controls the flags at the beginning or not, if he has foxholes or not, if he can have mines or not... And if force types are not randomized or free, you know quite a lot about his ratio between armour, infantry and artillery.

[slysniper]

However, it appears that most often people have already played the scenario they're currently doing. If they've both played it then what is the point?

For this is how one learns, Armies have been playing wargames for a very long time. You play the same battle to correct mistakes, test different tactics and to see what the outcome of different options will do. This way when you get into the situation where it counts how you decide to approach it in first go around, your are able to draw on experience as to deciding what might be the best approach. No it is not the same trying to play a defender that has guarded the same terrian three times, he is not going to make very many mistakes. But if your battle plan is sound, it does not matter.

How much can you learn if you do not go back and review what you might have done differently.

I have not played many QB's but those players that I have played that find that type of play as their normal, so far have been the weaker players I have played. I normally am playing by their set ups and they normally have a better feel for what the map will look like and how to buy a good strong mix of units, but what I find is most are weak in knowing how to find, protect and destroy the enemy.

It is sad if you have played people that are replaying scenarios and not letting you know up front. I like playing blind, but that is not alway possible. but I always let who I am playing know if I have played the scenario before, this way they can deside if we will play or how they will play. Choosing to play blind or not. I have to admit, if I send a scenario to a opponant and let them set up and pick sides, it is amazing how they somehow always pick the strong side, so i know your point is valid, even though there is all these comments of a honor system. Right, thus the only true blind vs blind set up at the moment that has good play is found in a few tournaments.

[ December 30, 2005, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by NameUsedBefore:

Sorry but in a scenario you already know what you're facing, where, and in what number. Again, scenarios seem to favor those who know the technicalities of the game.

Excuse me...

Whose scenarios have you been playing? You certainly haven't been playing any of mine. How are you going to tell what forces the enemy has? Did you open the scenario before starting? Anybody can do that and ruin a scenario. Why are you playing to begin with if you are going to cheat before hand?

In a QB you don't know what you're facing. There's plenty to adapt too:

The weather, the terrain, what your opponent has, how much your opponent has, and where your opponent is.

All the things that make scenarios variable as well.

BTW: most scenarios have your basic you start here I start here concept. To say that's a reason there's nothing to adapt to in QB's is ridiculous. Where else should we start? How about I start in the middle and you start to the left, yay? Yay.

Excuse me...

Whose scenarios have you been playing? Scenarios can have starting positions that are completely different. How about I start in the middle completely surrounded by you? How about we both start on the same side of the map and race to the other side? Both examples of starting positions I have used in my scenarios.

P.S.

Scenario: Always the same. Units always the same. Terrain stays the same. Weather stays the same. The conept of the scenario will forever stay the same.

Okay...

Whose scenarios have you been playing? Scenarios always the same? What in the world are you talking about? My own scenarios are all setup on fights that actually took place. They cover combat in about 11 countries. In daylight and dark, snow and rain, forests, mountains, on the steppes, in cities, villages, hamlets and fights for even single farmhouses. They cover German, Finish, Romanian, Hungarian, Russian, American, British, Canadian, Polish and French forces.

I do agree that the concept of the scenario will forever stay the same. It is so variable that no two will ever be the same. You don't get to taylor your forces to what you like or stay away from what you don't. You have to take what the designer gives you. Before you open the box you have no idea what's inside. There isn't a shopping list that you use to get what you want.

QB: Exact opposite.

So, tell me, there's no adapting to what is random? But in something that will never change you must adapt? I'm failing to see the logic in that.

I agree with this last part too. I'm failing to see the logic in this post. If you like QB's fine. Play them. I like scenarios and I play them. However, I don't need to tear down QB's to justify my playing scenarios.

Your entire logic for playing QB's escapes me from this post.

Most gamers I know play their scenarios blind. That is the thrill to winning. Most gamers I know only ever play a scenario once as well. There are too many out there to play them more often than that.

[David I]

I've played every tatical wargame on WWII combat since the early 70's and nothing, NOTHING, holds a candle to CMBB and CMAK! There is quite frankly nothing like it for realism and detail.

Name a better one.

My two bits.

DavidI

[slysniper]

Orig. quote by David1

I've played every tatical wargame on WWII combat since the early 70's and nothing, NOTHING, holds a candle to CMBB and CMAK! There is quite frankly nothing like it for realism and detail.

Name a better one.

Oh, come on David, there is one, it is we just find it much more enjoyable to not have to know all the rules, move tolkens and can now see our battles play out in a little 3d world. ASL has been and still is a mark that has made this Hobby what it is, it was Miniature's brought to a easy playable level.

This is the only computer game that is close in concept, but also the reason why this is the one game that true war buffs love, hopefully we will see the next level of this hobby soon with the forth coming releases.

Oh, bye the way, I am in the process of selling my complete collection of ASL stuff, if anyone is interested, better deal now than if it goes on Ebay.

[ December 31, 2005, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by slysniper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Orig. quote by David1

I've played every tatical wargame on WWII combat since the early 70's and nothing, NOTHING, holds a candle to CMBB and CMAK! There is quite frankly nothing like it for realism and detail.

Name a better one.

Oh, come on David, there is one, it is we just find it much more enjoyable to not have to know all the rules, move tolkens and can now see our battles play out in a little 3d world. ASL has been and still is a mark that has made this Hobby what it is, it was Miniature's brought to a easy playable level.

This is the only computer game that is close in concept, but also the reason why this is the one game that true war buffs love, hopefully we will see the next level of this hobby soon with the forth coming releases.

Oh, bye the way, I am in the process of selling my complete collection of ASL stuff, if anyone is interested, better deal now than if it goes on Ebay. </font>