f...ing incomplete info on quick-battles!

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Whats next, people complaining about paper cuts that the CMBB directions book gave them?

Please, GAYlord, if wheather and ground conditions are not important for you, play as you like, but don't expect from others not caring about ground pressure, too.

[Schoerner]

double post

[ January 08, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

All i did, was to start a thread to get rid of my anger.

Get rid of your anger somewhere else. For instance, go in the bathroom, lock the door, and bang your head against the wall. Very hard. We don't need it.

Now i know that in QBs you should better forget such nice toys like Brummbärs or Ferdinands.

Depends. If you are dead set on winning every time, I suppose that's so. On the other hand, if you are just interested in seeing what combat was like with Brumbars and Ferdinands, nobody is stopping you from playing with them.

You know, Schoerner, I find that I don't like you very much, and this thread is a perfect example of why. I don't think you will ever see what it is that makes you so obnoxious, but some of us do.

Michael

[Hortlund]

Personally, I would love to be able to look at the map before I purchase my units.

The way it is now, the player has to guess and/or take a chance...the CMBB version of russian roulette.

I mean, you dont bring a knife to a gunfight, neither do you bring a platoon of Marders to a street battle...or a couple of Nashorns to a wooded alp-like foggy nightmare...or [insert own experience of unit purchases rendered useless due to terrain here]

Now before anyone points out that it happened in real life many times that commanders had to make due with their forces no matter what the terrain was and I should stop whining etc...I know I know, but the entire point with the QB is to let the player himself choose his forces, once passed that point, you have pretty much tossed all realism out the window. If QBs are supposed to be even battles between two players who gets to pick their own forces, why not let the players look at the map before they pick those forces?

[Ex Bellator]

Oh I can just see what will happen when people can force ground conditions to be dry whenever they want. Uber-armour in every single QB, the compulsory purchase choice of the unimaginative and gamey.

There are far too many extra-heavy and rare units used anyway, I'll soon lose count of the KV-2s and King Tigers I've personally run across in QBs.

Obviously you can make it more likely that the ground will be dry by choosing summer/hot weather. That will do IMO. The extra risk you take with ground conditions is a worthwhile penalty for those who are obsessed with heavies, and might actually prompt them to try some of the more historical medium, light or infantry units.

Or is it the thought of your mighty indestructable death dealing war machines actually having weaknesses which upsets? Perhaps BFC will invent the perfect unit in CM3, but in the meanwhile I'm afraid you'll be forced to use the grey matter.

[Quintus]

Let's see if I remember how this goes...

Player A creates a QB for PBEM say and selects a bunch of settings as Random.

Player A then gets to select his forces but doesn't know what the random factors are.

Player B gets the email, which helfully tells her the results of the random conditions and she then gets to select her forces.

Player A receives the email back and then discovers the random factor results.

It can therefore potentially Suck to be player A.

The only clue you get as "A" to such things as bad weather/night conditions is the inability to purchase aircraft.

Not much of a solution other than a rewrite/patch of how the PBEM system works OR a higher level of trust between players.

I SUPPOSE you could do something like - Player A gets to choose weather, Player B gets to choose time, A gets to select hilliness, B the tree cover. In essence it boils down to taking the slight problem with being Player A on the chin or talking games over with your opponent in advance.

[Lindan]

IIRC, there was a discussion over this already. (one player not getting the same info as the other in a pbem). I can't remember though what BTS' answer was. you know, it was another of that "you beta-testers are all a bunch of total losers"-thread. I tend to forget about them after a while...

The question about ground conditions:

before I move any units I check the ground conditions. It's part of the game. The uncertainty is part of the fun (for me). And it reduces the uberarmor somewhat, which is a good thing (for me). I also like to set casualties quite high, as it makes for more uncertainty and (you guessed it) even more fun (for me). I'm going as far as really enjoying the "pc picks forces"-option (ouch, did I see the ladder players duck and run for cover?? Sorry, please come back).

I understand that ladder players like it as predictable and chess-like (read: boring (for me))as possible.

that's the reason I (yup, that's me)don't like to play against them. it's plain unfun in most cases (not all).

And thats the reason why I (me again) don't care if I know the ground conditions beforehand. Never did. Never will.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

[You know, Schoerner, I find that I don't like you very much, and this thread is a perfect example of why. I don't think you will ever see what it is that makes you so obnoxious, but some of us do.

Michael

Hmmm. Ditto. I actually didn't DISLIKE Schoerner (I never really thought about it one way or another until this thread), but his post at the top of this page:

Schoerner said:

Please, GAYlord . . .

Says all I need to know about his maturity level.

Steve

[Monty's Double]

Sorry guys, I'm lost. Did the Brummbars bog or not then? I'm worried about them, don't leave me in suspense...

[Schoerner]

@Michael Emrys:

I hope i'll be able to sleep well, if you don't like me.

btw, Mr. head teachers: you missed the point

@Mr Speaker:

it's not a matter if you like gay.

GAYlord got personal, so did i.

It's ok to attack people personally, but if the answers are adequate, you're running around like startled chicken.

@almost all:

i'm quite amused about the answers of people, claiming to be QB experts, but not even interested in the weather and ground conditions.

Obviously some are talking about things they don't know. Ladder games and boring. Ladder games and only heavy tanks (this statement includes the assumption, that Übertanks are undestroyable; obviously made by a worse player, cause a good player kicks your ass, if you rely to much on heavy tanks; a cheap PAK40 can knock out everything with a sideshot)

Before talking such BS, i suggest to subscribe to a ladder and to play against good players.

The difference is, they're not good in talking here, but in achieving good results.

Once again: ATM QBs are useless for creating well determinded battlefield conditions.

[ January 08, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Jev.Dk]

As far as I remember the ground conditions, depens on wether its north, middle or south. So if you are looking for dry ground then select the Southern Battleground. Check the manunal im not sure.

J

[Ray Lee]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

The difference is, they're not good in talking here, but in achieving good results.

...as long as it's done with specific and desired conditions...

If you want specific conditions, why not use a scenario which is specific in almost every aspect? A QB is just that, a "quick" battle, not "meticulously tailored exactly to what you want" battle. It's almost on par to complaining that the tree placement and hill sloping is all wrong. Just as you can say that one might decide not to fight on damp ground, why not say you choose not to fight where the trees aren't to your liking as well?

Maybe it's just an "out from left field" inference on my part (and no, I ain't no expert), but aren't "good" players the ones who can make due with the given situation and forces?

Also, I don't think good players whine so much

Anyway, it's not like you've already lost the battle. I mean, wow, isn't it a bit defeatist to admit defeat during set-up? (hey, I've griped before after seeing a map, but one deals with it) Or do you expect to lose and you're just getting the excuse ready?

[SaTyR]

Better to have whined and lost than never whined at all

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Jev.Dk:

As far as I remember the ground conditions, depens on wether its north, middle or south. So if you are looking for dry ground then select the Southern Battleground. Check the manunal im not sure.

J

So it seems, but nevertheless there stays a random factor.

IMO it would be MUCH better, having the oportunity to select ground conditions - if you need it. If not, everything stays as it is now.

[ January 08, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Lindan]

Herr Schoerner:

I like surprises in my games: you don't.

No problem here.

The main reason I don't play ladder games anymore is that many opponents played only for winning. I play for fun.(that doesn't mean that I don't want to win, but it's not my main motivation) I like to exchange some words in my email apart from "next turn" once in a while,like silly taunts and outrageous predictions. And if I loose, ok, then I loose. I've seen too many ladder players reacting very badly if things went downhill for them.

back to the topic at hand:

IIRC it was an oversight that the players receive different info. I'm not sure if it will be corrected in 1.02 and too lazy to search for the relevant thread where this was answered.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Ray Lee:

Maybe it's just an "out from left field" inference on my part (and no, I ain't no expert), but aren't "good" players the ones who can make due with the given situation and forces?

And what if you want in one certain game to try out a special mix of forces? A force-mix that heavily depends on the conditions?

The answer is simple: now this is like rolling a dice.

Strange, no one is complaining, that aircraft isn't available for purchase, if wheather WILL be not clear, although it is set to random...

Also, I don't think good players whine so much

Still remembering about the infantry-model debate?

Now, the "super-players", that did complain about the "whiners", with their "bad tactics" became very calm.

Ofcourse the model needed a little tweaking - and so does the info for QB and the ground-conditions in QB-editor.

Anyway, it's not like you've already lost the battle. I mean, wow, isn't it a bit defeatist to admit defeat during set-up? (hey, I've griped before after seeing a map, but one deals with it) Or do you expect to lose and you're just getting the excuse ready?

For now, the problem is solved - we took a premade-scenario.

But a premade-scenario isn't always the solution.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Lindan:

I like surprises in my games: you don't.

Wrong.

I LOVE surprises.

But it's not possible to switch them off for certain reasons. Is that so hard to understand, here?!

The main reason I don't play ladder games anymore is that many opponents played only for winning. I play for fun.(that doesn't mean that I don't want to win, but it's not my main motivation) I like to exchange some words in my email apart from "next turn" once in a while,like silly taunts and outrageous predictions. And if I loose, ok, then I loose. I've seen too many ladder players reacting very badly if things went downhill for them.

Yes, this can happen. But where's the connection to the topic about missing information?

I can't understand the whining about ladder-players.

If loosing doesn't matter to you, where was the problem?

If you've won on battle after the other, you stopped playing, 'cause the oponents were not keen on talking about their defeat?

Why the bitching about ladders, instead of trying to understand what the problem is?

btw:

WHO stops playing, (usually with lots of strange arguments), if he's going to lose?

WHO disapears?

The ladder players?

Definately not.

[ January 08, 2003, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[past caring]

@ Michael emrys and MrSpkr....you might just like to check Schoerner's contributions to the "Philosophical Question" thread for confirmation of your suspicions. What a mug (if that's not too mild a word), eh?

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by past caring:

@ Michael emrys and MrSpkr....you might just like to check Schoerner's contributions to the "Philosophical Question" thread for confirmation of your suspicions. What a mug (if that's not too mild a word), eh?

This is why they don't like me, you clever boy, but they are not honest enough to tell.

It's the prototype of mass-human-being, pointing with the finger on others, (nowadays) due to politically incorrect opinions (in the past due to other reasons), but not capable to differentiate between the CONTENT, in this case a game aspect, and the person, that brings the topic up.

You're surely welcome to the club.

[ January 08, 2003, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Priest]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Before talking such BS, i suggest to subscribe to a ladder and to play against good players.

Right, and I suggest to you that you play a CMMC game to play against good players, or maybe go to the PENG thread because while there are good players on a ladder, they are by no means the only source of good players. In fact lets take an example.

IIRC Swamp was a well respected ladder player. Given a fairly static arena (read map) and no historic restrictions he would be hard pressed to actually lose a battle. I believe he like hordes of M8 Howitzer Carriages.

Now lets take a more "realistic" standard CMMC game (In my opinion the polar opposite of a ladder game) and put Swamp there. He would still be a fine player no doubt but he would probably not be as comfortable. Or maybe he would as I cannot speak for him, using him more as an example (so Swamp no ill will buddy:) )

Basically no matter how you play, ladder or fun or CMMC, if you cannot adapt, if you cannot plan on the fly, if you cannot win without totally proper conditions, and if you base your entire battle on the fact your KT or Brumbar can move then well you might as well pick up StarCraft.

You see we understand were you are coming from, it is not that "deep" of a point. What you are not getting is that so far as I can tell a great majority of us could a.) care less and b.) actually consider almost like a feature.

Lastly, take your anger somewhere else, only a child needs it to be put on display in public for attention. BooHoo your tanks might bog, hmm if they do oh well, just play another game when this one is done. You see unlike real war you can always fight again.

[Schoerner]

@Priest:

reading the posts before writing helps...

Wrong.

I LOVE surprises.

But it's not possible to switch them off for certain reasons. Is that so hard to understand, here?!

You, Mr. head-teachers Emry or Mr. Speaker are not the censors in here, deciding, what is allowed to say, in which mood, by which person and what not.

So, if you have a problem with my complaints about no weather information, then ignore the thread and just be quiet, instead of starting again and again talking about ladder-players and your experiences.

The topic is the missing weather information and that ground-conditions can't be set.

Was that clear enough?

[xerxes]

I'm more concerned you can't have snow on the ground without snow in the air in a QB.

Sorry to drag this off-topic. No, on second thought, I'm not.

[SaTyR]

Originally posted by xerxes:

I'm more concerned you can't have snow on the ground without snow in the air in a QB.

Sorry to drag this off-topic. No, on second thought, I'm not.

But you CAN. 1.01 patch added an increased possibility for North and Finland to have snow on the ground without snowfall during winter months.

[Gaylord Focker]

I don't think even ninja's would totaly flip out over a bogged tank.

I'd pick up WarCraft3, units don't bog in it if i read the review right.

Also you might want to try keeping your gamey forces on a road in less then perfect conditions, it may help you. Oh and try to avoid any soft ground, or any game that might unfairly rob you of a well deserved victory for engineering the perfect force to counter your opponents.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Priest:

Right, and I suggest to you that you play a CMMC game to play against good players, or maybe go to the PENG thread because while there are good players on a ladder, they are by no means the only source of good players.

OH NO YOU DON'T!!! No shoving your offal onto us -- we have plenty enough of it ourselves. Send him to the General Forum or somefink.

What you are not getting is that so far as I can tell a great majority of us could a.) care less and b.) actually consider almost like a feature.

Actually, many of us would consider it AN ACTUAL feature if we gave it much thought at all.

Lastly, take your anger somewhere else, only a child needs it to be put on display in public for attention.

Thus my prior comment on maturity.

Schoerner, had you approached this in a different manner, you might have gained a little sympathy and, dare I say it, you might have learned a few things yourself. Instead, your petulant attitude has alienated a good number of the people on this forum.

past caring said:you might just like to check Schoerner's contributions to the "Philosophical Question" thread for confirmation of your suspicions. What a mug (if that's not too mild a word), eh? </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

whereupon Schoerner posited:

This is why they don't like me, you clever boy, but they are not honest enough to tell.

</font>