Running out of time often when on the attack...

[Yskonyn]

I am participating in my very first CMBB tournament (KOTH Prov. Grnds). Made it to Round 2, but in every match I seem to run out of time.

My advance is slow because I want to cautiously recon the battlefield minimizing casualties is a top priority, especially early in game.

This, however, results often in having just a few turns left for the final push that will hopefully save the day and capture the points...

When I have only a few turns left I get the urge to advance and doing dumb things is in close relation to that.

How do you guys generally cope with the time limit?

I guess my 'weak knowledge', so to speak, about what units can do what on the battlefield contribute to the problem I've been having.

I mean I do know the general roles of infantry, AFV and support weapons, but translating that into the game environment (like how far can a unit actually see on the game map, how far can it shoot (be it to supress) across the map) is something I still find quite hard.

[Bone_Vulture]

I reckon your only solution is accepting a higher risk of casualties early in the game; you need to perform some aggressive recon to spare time.

If possible, also try to play the same game, switching sides - this way you can figure whether the time limit is clearly biased, or is it simply a question of player performance.

[securityguard]

On attack aggressive recon is key in this game, because the time limit artificially increases the difficulty by a million. I think without the time limit ANY attack could over come a defense unless that defense is incredibly over dug in some way (tons of mines, road blocks, and other traps). What I usually do is give one squad a move to contact ahead of everyone else, then move everyone else behind him. Give him a little zig zag, make him attract fire in some way. When he dies you can use the next squad in the recon platoon.

Has anyone here ever been twarted by a defense so rugged? I have through time limit, but given ample time attrition would work in almost any situation.

[Dandelion]

Yskonin

I actually have the same problem after - what is it, four years now?

So I don't play QB.

I play scenarios, where you as commander will normally be realistically informed about the enemy (reducing the recon need to realistic proportions), and not forced to launch a full charge into utter ignorance.

If the briefing reveals nothing, I check number of turns. If too few given the scale of map and battle (say a 3km map in 20 turns), I pick another scenario and explain my problem to my opponent. This has happened.

While not cracking your problem as such, it works real nice for me.

Cheers

Dandelion

[Yskonyn]

Thank you for your responses, gentlemen.

I never liked games with timelimits, especially platform games... Luckily CMBB has chance to survive then. LOL

Seriously though, I do understand the need for agressive recon in many maps in relation to the time limit, but its no use sending your recon troops into the grinder just to find out in time where the enemy is, but I guess that's in close relation to my (absent) (detailed) technical knowledge about the units themselves.

Dandelion, isn't declining a scenario cosidered gamey or lame if the reason is you think you cannot cope with the time limit?

Most scenario's are thoroughly tested, right?

Your statement about choosing scenario's versus QB is a valid one for sure, however in the KOTH tournament we only play scenarios.

[JasonC]

Do scenario designers make games too short, in a way that favors whoever starts with the flags? Sure.

Can an attack always beat any defense if it just has infinite time, making the above the only way to balance games? No, not remotely. Competent defenses smash attacks and win outright, not by just outlasting the enemy.

But it also sounds like the original poster doesn't see the recon vs. carefulness trade off. If you conduct broad front recon for five minutes, it is supposed to find you a poorly defended route. Which you are then supposed to travel over at speed, to the point you deliver your actual attack.

A careful advance, on the other hand, meaning packet movement (only some units moving at any moment), use of all available cover, moving only about half the time on "advance" - etc. That "drill" will get you across even defended areas. It is used when you don't give a darn where the enemy is, you are going -this- way.

They are alternatives. The first invests lead time in figuring out where to send an attack, then sends that attack fast, everybody moving continuously. The second has a few half squads out on point, and the lead platoons stepping off a minute or two early. But no real recon has been conducted, when the main body moves out.

Either of those methods will get you across the initially undefended portion of the map in 10 minutes. 15 if things go badly and the defender dumps arty on you or the terrain is quite hard etc. There is no reason, with either, you can't be having the serious firefight by turn 15. And units only have ammo for 5-10 minutes of serious firefight.

If, on the other hand, you send scouts until they find everybody, with the main body waiting for the first five minutes - and then also move out with the slow, "packet movement" drill, getting 25m to 50m per minute speed - then you will be slow. As slow as you like.

Look, the scenario or QB is going to have a no man's land. The defender isn't going to put all his men at the edge of his set up zone. A few LPs for delay, maybe somewhat more. He is going to try to use all the terrain he is given, to pick the best spots to fight from. This means he is going to be somewhere around the mid point of his set up zone, with longer range weapons back even further than that and only a screen and obstacles and such, closer to you.

Which means, the first half of the map is supposed to be the easiest part to cross. You have to be a lot more careful in the second half, because a full defender's line can be right ahead of you. But you can afford to be more aggressive up to then. You face long range fire - OK, the packet drill will get you through it easily, or you can find a route the enemy can't readily stop you along and have your leading scouts put out some of his eyes, get close for spots at units that do fire, etc.

You should also have a plan at turn 1. And I don't mean a plan on what to do in the first two minutes, followed by "and then we will see". I don't mean a single set of movement orders, even more elaborate ones. I mean a decision tree, at most.

Something like - If the scouts find nobody on that little hill, the whole main body races for the depression in front of it. Then we go right, into those woods. Heavy weapons set up in them. Attack then goes right front or straight, whichever way looks least defended. Overall, I want to get far enough ahead on the left to get LOS to the back of the map, then wheel right and forward to kill him from that flank.

Or - wing attack up the left side, overwatch here, deception screen only elsewhere, meant to look like a scouting wave. Main body advances 50m per minute average pace, fired on or not, to here by turn 10. Planned arty fire then sends these and those woods skyward. Main body attacks immediately after the barrage. Overall goal, kill all his forces on the left 2/3rds of the board.

You can get behind schedule sometimes, but you should have one. Don't make the plan a "taut rope", meaning something that will break the instant something happens you weren't anticipating. You can keep a modest reserve that decides which part to give more weight too, later on. But have a plan. Give it 5-10 minutes on the back end to mop up, and to take up delays. Push with all moving periods, briefly, when in dead ground or after a set of shooters have been silenced by overwatch fire. You do need to have some sense of the time.

But do not rush if you haven't made it. If his fire has stopped you and his men are still intact and he is on the flag and you've only got five minutes - then fight just as you normally would for those five minutes. Everyone with a morale problem stays in cover and sends bullets. Units in good shape advance to nearest cover if it looks like they can, and shoots anything they can hurt otherwise. Don't give him knock out points, too.

You need to be rushing a bit more in the first 5-10, largely by choosing between a wave of scouts wave ahead of your men everywhere (the "broad front recon" option), then going fast where they don't find stuff, and the careful short advances option ("packet movement"), just 50-100m behind a few leading half squads, but moving from turn 2. And rushing a lot less on the last 5-10.

Practical advice.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Yskonyn:

Dandelion, isn't declining a scenario cosidered gamey or lame if the reason is you think you cannot cope with the time limit?

In a tournament you cannot choose opponent, nor scenario. Being in there to compete, you must submit to the rules at hand, which by necessity are the same for all. So I also do not play tournaments

Choosing your opponent is even more important than choosing scenario. The community has no cosi fan tutti or comme il faut, so what is considered what will depend on who you are facing.

Choosing a scenario I will enjoy is a privilege upon which I insist and I recommend you do the same - why would you waste time playing scenarios that you do not find entertaining? I grant my opponent the same and will not debate his declination, should it come. We'll simply find another. I don't want a bored opponent at the other end either.

But you know there is such a wealth of solid scenarios out there that these four years haven't provided a single challenge - mine or directed at me - where we could not rather easily find a mutually enjoyable battle.

Most scenario's are thoroughly tested, right?

Your statement about choosing scenario's versus QB is a valid one for sure, however in the KOTH tournament we only play scenarios.

Judging from experiences I'd say no, most of them are not. Playtested yes, but perhaps not in a manner that could be called thorough. That said in general - I have no idea what the KOTH scenarios go through before issued.

If a scenario is designed for a tournament, or for online play, it will be kept brief and scaled down, by necessity.

One turn in Pbem means 3 mails. If a player can mail three times a week - for a working man a very honourable rate - that's six mails per week, or 2 turns. Meaning a scenario of 35 turns takes more than 4 months to complete. Doesn't bother me one bit, but in the light of it many designers hesitate to be generous with turns.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Shmavis]

It's better to have a half-squad chewed up on recon than a whole platoon. You have to accept certain losses.

[dieseltaylor]

Regarding the testing of scenarios I have come across a few lemons , and one or two good ones. I , however play very few scenarios as I always feel that I am being coerced to play a certain way to get the right result. A few notable scenarios allow you to feel there are several ways to win and it is up to you to be effective.

One thing that amazes me, as you see the designers pleading for playtesters - [or feedback on released ones] is that so few designers use PBEMHelper when testing. In trusted fast mode where you are playing two minutes gametime per e-mail testing should be a doddle. My brother and I playing a competitive game 32+ turns variable ending finished in 2.5 days having sent I think 39 or 47 e-mails each. I have played at nearly this rate with others also.

So if Dandelion could find someone he trusted enough to use PBEMHelper in fast mode, and with the right scenaio : ), he could cut down remarkably on the 4 months postulated. Mind you I would look askance at anyone not sending daily turns anyway

[Larry Thorne]

Yskonyn

I designed the scenario you are attacking as Germans in KOtH round 2. If you mean this scenario, IIRC in the Axis briefing there is an order in capital letters about moving FAST to the objective. The briefing also states that there is only a very low risk for strong resistance before the objective and a low risk of AT assets in the objective itself. This scenario was tested before the tourney and those PTs revealed for me the thing that I should be more informative about moving fast to the objective. I don´t know any other way than using capital letters in move fast, AFAIK there is not a way to bold the txt in briefings. Looking forward to your review after you finish the scenario. Best of luck to you and make those remaining turns count!

-LT

[MikeyD]

If you're going to play a QB and fear too little time, design your own custom QB maps! That's what I spend much of last weekend doing.

The vital part is placing setup zones properly. Close enough so you don't spend half the game walking up to the engagement point, but under cover so his tanks won't murder you in the opening move. If you're defending, plop that setup zone into the center of town!

Its best to do a bunch of maps at once (preferably very late at night), then put them away long enough til memory has faded about precisely where the enemy's setup zones went. Its certainly preferably to both sides facing-off along a long strip of land at each board edge!

[JasonC]

Larry - has it ever occurred to you that if you have to tell the commander how to play in the briefing, that you are scripting the scenario, trying to sit in the player's seat, instead of letting him command his own forces as he sees fit? I hate it when scenario designers won't freaking let go. In fact, it is the main reason I do play QBs so often - at least somebody isn't bossing me around.

[tar]

Of course, part of the problem is that NOBODY actually TRUSTS the briefings.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Yskonin

I actually have the same problem after - what is it, four years now?

So I don't play QB.

I play scenarios, where you as commander will normally be realistically informed about the enemy (reducing the recon need to realistic proportions), and not forced to launch a full charge into utter ignorance.

If the briefing reveals nothing, I check number of turns. If too few given the scale of map and battle (say a 3km map in 20 turns), I pick another scenario and explain my problem to my opponent. This has happened.

While not cracking your problem as such, it works real nice for me.

Cheers

Dandelion

same here, couldnt agree more.

haste makes waste.

I feel artificially pressured into making sacrifices that I wouldnt have to make if I had a bit more time. There may be reasoning for giving an assault only 30 turns or less, but it is simply a matter of taste, i just dont enjoy it. therefore I look for scenarios that give me enough room to maneuver and enjoy playing the game - both in terms of time and of the "scripting" jasonC complains about - or I just go and play QBs.

its a matter of personal taste, methinks. others might get their kicks out of having to decide between taking casualties and failing the objective due to time constraints; I dont.

as regards reluctant or aggressive style...there is no *one* right way to play CMBB - either way that makes it enjoyable to *you* is the right way.

yours sincerely

M.Hofbauer

[Yskonyn]

dieseltaylor - In a tournament I would never use the trusted mode Actually, I would never use trusted mode with PBEM Helper with someone I don't know, meaning about everyone on the opponent finder lists

LT - Nice to see the author of the map I am playing scavenging about!

Indeed you made it quite clear one should get a move on and focus on getting there fast.. early.

However, Tar has put it in the best possible way: Nobody trusts the briefing and always think some sort of trap has been set! It's really true. So then you always get pressured by a time limit because you continue cautiously...

[dieseltaylor]

Yskonyn

Not trusting someone! With one exception nobody has cheated on me in thirty-ish opponents. To take a slight risk to substantially improve my playing pleasure seems a reasonable trade.

Regarding tournaments I can see good reason why, as many players would be affected, playing the traditional way would be safer. However even the traditional way has its cheats as we have all recently learned from the fallout in the Armoured Joust series.

Also playing in a club, as I do, means that everyone has had a little bit of vetting before joining so it is a slightly safer enviroment.

[Larry Thorne]

As a designer I don´t wanna give any false info for my scenario as I want the player to enjoy the fight as much as possible.Who would wanna play scenarios that constantly give info on some things and lead the player to ambushes over and over again. I might leave questionmarks to briefings as the intel would never be 100% accurate, but still point out some hints for the player to make the fight tough...tough but fair

Jason C

Word on the fact that scenarios shouldn´t be designed to be played one way only. I try to make them interesting with many approaches and many tactics that are possible to use. Making them close to historical though makes some limits to oobs and so on. As I like scenarios that have a small plot or atleast a reason to fight the battle out. I like historical/semi-historical fights or fictional fights with a plot, instead of catch the flag QBs without briefings...but as this game provides us all with tons of varieties I cannot expect everyone to like my stuff. That´s why I design scenarios the way I like to play the game. As this is a matter of taste it is no use to argue over

I wish you all great moments assaulting across the eastern front from Barbarossa to Berlin

Cheers

-LT

[JasonC]

Thorn - sure I prefer a well made scenario. But a scenario isn't well made if the designer tells me what to do. Or if there is only one approach that will work. Or if he puts little 1/3rd subformations in three separate set up zones in neat little pockets on one long side of the map. In short, when the designer won't let go, get out of my chair, and let me command my men, instead of trying to direct some movie he thinks I want to watch. Hint - I don't watch better movies than you will ever make, because they bore me to tears. Strategy games are only interesting because what happens depends on decisions. Mine, not yours.

[Runyan99]

CM battles, when compared to real life AARs, are too short right across the board.

CM was developed under the influence of the ASL history school, where WW2 engagements lasted 15 minutes.

[MikeyD]

As a test on longer game times you could open one of your favorite scenarios in the editor and extend the time out as long as you want. There's a pretty good chance that you'll experience either:

(a) You still complete your objective within the original timeframe and you have to sit and wait for the clock to tick down.

or ( You and/or your opponent run your men out of ammo before the scenario's half finished and you get a default cease fire, or you have to sit and wait for the clock to tick down.

or © You've got the luxury of plenty of time to properly recon and identify the enemy, which greatly aids in war-fighting.

If I were a betting man I'd put my money on B.

[Yskonyn]

Yes, it probably does turn out that way, Mike, but the 'Tar-statement' still stands:

Nobody trusts the briefing!

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

As a test on longer game times you could open one of your favorite scenarios in the editor and extend the time out as long as you want.

I routinely do that when I play a scenario. I'll usually bump it up to 60 turns. My experience is usually answer 'C'.

In fact, sometimes I could even more time after the initial 60 minutes. Other times, the battle is clearly finished one way or the other after 40 or 50 minutes. It depends.

There is no reason to sit around at the end of a scenario ticking off turns, because both players have access to the cease-fire button.

[walpurgis nacht]

One aspect of the perception regarding time or lack thereof is the difference between the different CM games. I remember when BB came out it took me time to realize how much MORE time was needed to do a proper attack, relative to BO.

The difference from BB to AK is not so extreme as BO to BB, but it is another notch up in time from my point of view.

In BB for a 1000 point attack QB, I would typical use 32+ turns. In AK I lean towards 34+ now. It's been so long since I've played BO I can't recall what I would have use, but it was certainly less.

[Aragorn2002]

As a test on longer game times you could open one of your favorite scenarios in the editor and extend the time out as long as you want

I usually end up in adding some more armour to most scenarios I play. I know it's not fair to the scenario or the person who made it, but I like lots of armour and in the end the only thing that matters is having FUN and learning a little bit more about how things must have been on the battlefield. Having said that I also realize that one can learn most from the smaller scenarios, so I also play those smaller ones to gain experience and insight. I never bother with time pressure, if necessary I also change the number of turns.

[MikeyD]

About longer times, I think BFC has said that their plan is to SLOW DOWN th battle even more in CMx2. Give it more of a 'real world' pace and get even further away from video game scampering about. I guess in real life a company of crack infantry cannot usually be cleared out of a village inside of 20 minutes.