Lame but Effective Defense

[General Bolt]

I've got another lame but effective defense.

In a meeting engagenemt, race like hell to the center victory flags, then fight a defensive battle with nearly equal forces. I took the Germans in "van Lauchert" kursk scenario. I lost one tank in the mopping up stage. The Russians lost 56. 18 men to 260. 10 of those were a squad I sent to scout for USSR infantry.

Lame-o but effective.

[CombinedArms]

This may be lame but it's also the standard way to handle an ME, AFAIK. Maybe moreso in CMBB, since arty is a bit downgraded in terms of effectiveness, and that minimizes the potential penalty for seizing the flags first....

This is one reason I'm less fond of ME's than attack-defense battles. There's a standard way to handle them and the battles can get rather predictable.

[Redwolf]

Initial flag rush is a must in CMBB. You have to go there before he can bring MG fire on the approach areas (mortar fire on the other hand is not that bad) and artillery is much less effective than in CMBO.

The only disturbing things are 122-152mm assault guns. But using Pz IV lang class vehicles you can usually scare the Russian big guns away. Most German ones are thin and vulnerable to ATR fire. Brummbaers are nastier, but expensive and vulnerable to flaking T-34 while they engage infantry in a ME.

CMBB is really more of an attack/defense game, the CMBO rule that an ME is better from a balance/competition standpoint doesn't really hold up anymore.

[xerxes]

QB MEs are inherently unrealistic and "gamey". If you want realism you should go elsewhere. They do make perfect good games if you like that sort of thing.

btw, I tried the 25mm Soviet flak defense. I got bored after killing 1/2 the flak guns while losing a handful of infantry and have one PzII crew member killed by a frontal penetration.

I might try buying some flak in my next defense and placing them deep with a wide field of view.

[tar]

QB MEs are inherently unrealistic and "gamey". If you want realism you should go elsewhere. They do make perfect good games if you like that sort of thing.

They might be a bit more interesting if there were an option in QBs to have flags hidden from both sides until the battle was over.

[Redwolf]

People liked MEs because they are easier to balance without playtesting (e.g. a spontaneous battle).

A better alternative, at least in bigger games, would be a "capture the flag" situation where both sides have flags which they own at game start and then go capture the enemy flags and defend their own.

The only problem is that CM doesn't support both sides having foxholes and fortifications at the same time and obviously, this needs a third party to set up since the Quickbattle generator doesn't have it.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by redwolf:

obviously, this needs a third party to set up since the Quickbattle generator doesn't have it.

Couldn't it be done with pre-made maps? I haven't tried handmade maps in QB's so far, so I'm not sure if victory locations stay at place.

[xerxes]

Quite easily Sergei.

I tried designing some "Capture the flag" style maps. I didn't care for how they played so I ditched them.

[PeterX]

Redwolf posted:

People liked MEs because they are easier to balance without playtesting (e.g. a spontaneous battle).

You put your finger on the main problem preventing more interesting and, above all, varied QBs; the fetish that every battle be as perfectly balanced as a chess match. In my ladder proposal post, which sank like a rock, I pushed the concept of the Random QB where every parameter- including terrain, engagement type, nationality, and force selection- is generated by the computer. Yes, some of the setups will be unfair, but played in a quick TCP/IP format with smallish forces (~ 1000 pts) perfect equality would be traded for surpise, variety, and more authentic force composition. Luck will even out over time as the player's battle dossier thickens.

The other night I played a QB against the computer. It generated a night assault in the fog by crack Finnish infantry against entrenched Russian pioneers. It was hair-raising in intensity and not the sort of encounter you'd find with the usual ladder fare which, IMO, is stuck wheel deep in the ME, cherry picking quaqmire. I'm convinced this is the future of multiplayer once BFC applies a few tweaks to the this underutilized format. (And perhaps acquires their own server )

[ June 06, 2003, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Redwolf]

PeterX, by your own words you don't understand the mindset of these people, how could you expect that your proposal could attract them?

Nobody wants a chess like game. Even the most hardcore CMBO laddergamers emphasized on the different units available for the different forces. But outright invalidating one force, as you seem to find OK, is not what people with limited time want to play.

[PeterX]

Redwolf:

But outright invalidating one force, as you seem to find OK, is not what people with limited time want to play.

Your illustrating with your comments the 'perfect balance fetish'. In my experience, only a small minority of computer generated battles are unwinnable by one side or the other. They may not be as 'fair' as a QB ME with mirrored terrain and mirrored forces, that's true.

I'd wager that, if your a ladder player, you've never played with any nationalty other than Ger or Sov, never played a night battle, or snow battle, or rain battle, or even purchased one tenth of the available units in CMBB. I'm a member of of a ladder- I know how it works. One ME follows another ME with identical settings and minute differences in force composition. Personally, I find it rather mind numbing but to each his own....

[Cpt. Cook]

I have played more than one scenario in which trenches have figured largely in my victory as defender. However it is due I believe to the fact that assaulting tanks did not *necessarily* properly target dug in infantry. I think with the new patch this may figure differently.

In my opinion it is unrealistic for a commander to attack a seriously entrenched force he cannot outflank, surprise, or bombard to bits. Yeah there's exceptions...those do not often prove the rule wrong however.

Anyways, have fun outwitting the common-sense, rational, logistical parameters of the game.

[Redwolf]

PeterX, your imagination of what laddergamers do is just that - your imagination.

You badly need to read AARs. I think you can still access the AARs on tournamenthouse.com although the site is not in use anymore.

It is true they mostly play in good weather, and they play force where each one has decent antitank weapons, but otherwise you will noot find a single battle which resembles a chess game from a force balance standpoint.

[PeterX]

I stand by my remarks.

[Redwolf]

There is nothing wrong with that.

But there is something wrong with going around like a preacher, telling people who's play style and fun factors you know very little about what is good for them and what is not.

Somehow you first got hooked on a fantasy picture of what laddergamer's life is like, with no foundation in reality, then you got the master idea for their happyness and now you wonder why they don't accept it. Go care about your own happyness.

[ December 21, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Lady Roxanne]

I think 100% random QBs would be great for a ladder. Imagine the variety...as in PeterX's game described above. Also, the good and bad luck would even out for the active ladder player IF he does TCP/IP. If you play 25-50 games per month, the luck in random scenario generation will cease to be a factor very quickly. It WILL even out.

The ladder should use some sort of chess-like rating system, and NOT reward people for the sheer number of games they play. The latter means new players can never catch up. The reward for playing lots of games is that luck ceases to be a factor in your rating.

So, who is going to start the "All Random QB Ladder" for CMBB? When you think about it, fully random QBs are THE best way to test your all-round CMBB skill. Once you've played 50 games or so, your rating will begin to reflect the probable truth.

[ June 07, 2003, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[PeterX]

Aha, an ally! Thanks for your support.

So, who is going to start the "All Random QB Ladder" for CMBB?

Unfortunately, BFC needs to fix a couple of things before the Auto-Ladder becomes viable. And there are some other considerations, namely:

1- Defaulting to the Send Turn screen BEFORE the initiator views his kampfgruppe.

2- The Map Generator churns out a bit too many treeless maps, IMO. Nevertheless, I've discovered it's possible to open up a a match in full view of the enemy and still carry the battle. Perhaps there's way to incorporate player created maps.

3- It's a bitch attacking or asaulting with Conscripts. Not nececssarily impossible but a grind. It might be good to be able to exclude them from selection when attacking. If not, well, that's life....

4- There should be a way to include a 10-20% adv for the attacker given CMBB's defensive bias. This is now only possible when you already know who the attacker is going to be. With the Auto-Ladder you have no idea whether you're attacking, defending, or probing- or which side or nationality you're assigned till you receive your file.

5- There should be a way to register a game with the ladder site so if a player doesn't like what he gets, he can default the match but pay penalty points and start over. You'd receive, say, 3 points for a Decisive victory, 2 points, for a Tactical, etc. You pay a 2 point penalty for defaulting. So there's a risk/gain assessment to be made at the beginning. You can fold your hand as in Poker- at a price. It's a wargame casino.

One possibility to consider is that the site autogenerates the parameters and sends them to two randomly matched players. For example:

1- Battle Type: Assault

2- Player 1: Soviets

3- Player 2: Italians

4- Year: Nov, '42

5- Moderate Hills

6- Sparse Trees

7- Dusk

8- Rain

9- Attacker Bonus: 20%

Force selection, casualties, damage, and experience are random.

Anyone with any thoughts on this concept?

[Lady Roxanne]

Perhaps fitness and experience should be set to "fit" and "medium" to avoid the possibility of having to assault with troops who have no business going on the offensive.

Tree coverage could be set to "heavy" with all other map choices random. Doing this, you could get a dense forest on a rural map, or a barely moderate amount of trees on a town map. The one thing you won't ever get is an open rural map.

These suggestions cut down on a few of the random elements, but a wide variety of battles will still come about. All that players would know for sure is the map won't be barren, and that they will be facing fit, medium quality troops.

As for the game initiator being able to "reroll" his forces, perhaps the attacker could always initiate the games. This "reroll" ability might compensate for the natural CMBB bias toward the defense. The attacker could even be encouraged to reroll his forces.

So we give a up a little randomness to deal with two issues, and turn the reroll issue into a way to help the attacker a bit.

[dieseltaylor]

Regarding samey ME. I started a thread in March - Patrix's Uncertainty Principle which was exploring the benefits of choosing mismatched forces [points] in meeting engagements.

You over or underspend by the 100/200 points and adjust the score in the flags at the end of the game. It prevents people knowing you have to go for the majority of flags and deducing your force make-up.

Please give it a read and give me your comments

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006366#000000