GillFish Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 How often do you play a given scenario before winning? After reading many of AAR and posts on this board I'm left with the impression that just about everyone playing CM:BB but me is a junior Manstein or Guderian, capable of winning every game on the first try without breaking a sweat. Me, I'm just a guy who has read a bunch of WWII related books, but is no way an expert. It usually takes me three tries to win a given scenario and I consider myself lucky if I get a draw on the first try. For example, in my first attempt at 'Jaegermeister', I managed to take control of the village, but lost all my armor in the subsequent tank duels. In my second attempt, I lost 20% of my initial armor allotment before the village assault even started due to an ATG and, I believe, a hidden panzerfaust. For my third attempt, I think my tanks are going sidestep the town completely and leave the assault to the support guns and infantry. So back to my original question: how many tries does it take you to get a result better than a tie? For the really honest players, here's a second question: have you ever replayed or reploted a catastrophic turn hoping for a better result? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooz Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by GillFish: For the really honest players, here's a second question: have you ever replayed or reploted a catastrophic turn hoping for a better result? [/QB]Yep. Better than deleting the battle file. I do this a lot--especially if I'm playtesting. However (and fortunately) you can't do this with PBEM. This, by the way, is far and away the best way to play. I've never had a TCP/IP game--my ISP is too slow here for that--and too expensive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 I never play any scenarios twice, unless there is like 6 months to a year in between, and then only if it is really good. There are just so many scenarios out there to play and so little time to play them all. If I were you, I would not concentrate too much on any one scenario and just move on, win or lose. Then you could play more scenarios and leave more reviews at the scenario depot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by V: I never play any scenarios twice, unless there is like 6 months to a year in between, and then only if it is really good. There are just so many scenarios out there to play and so little time to play them all. If I were you, I would not concentrate too much on any one scenario and just move on, win or lose. Then you could play more scenarios and leave more reviews at the scenario depot. I am in complete agreement with you. I play exclusively PBEM, as I appreciate taking some time with the game and having a real opponent. Personally I enjoy the uncertainty each new scenario creates, as I have no idea what units my PBEM opponent has. Once I find out, I'm not interested in a philosophy of "play until I win". I'd much rather play another scenario! Thankfully Combat Mission isn't a game with "levels", which force you to play the same situations over and over until you figure out the trick to win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GillFish Posted December 5, 2003 Author Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by Dave H: I'm not interested in a philosophy of "play until I win". I'd much rather play another scenario! Thankfully Combat Mission isn't a game with "levels", which force you to play the same situations over and over until you figure out the trick to win.Dave, My philosophy isn't so much "play until I win", it's more like "this blew up in my face, so let's try something else". The reason I re-play the games is to figure out what works and what doesn't. In jargoness this translates as "refining my tactics in a risk free environent". Yes, the surprise is gone after the first game, but knowing what’s out there still doesn’t mean I can effectively counter it (although the intelligence certainly helps). Perhaps I should restate my original question as ‘How many gamers enjoy playing against the AI and find it a challenge?’. There’s gotta be some of you out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by GillFish: Perhaps I should restate my original question as ‘How many gamers enjoy playing against the AI and find it a challenge?’. There’s gotta be some of you out there. Fighting the AI is a challenge... if you give him some bonus. At 3:1 odds, the AI makes a tough attacker. At 1.5:2 odds, it is damn hard to attack vs the AI across open country. Sound tactics can win. But you have to be careful and plan every move. Patience is the key. If you try to achieve total victory and capture every flag, you are often doomed. Go for 50% of the flags at a favourable kill ratio. This is usually enough. Keep in mind that a) the AI usually goes for the nearest flag when on the attack - so don't defend frontally but from angles of the expected approach route. Ambushing the AI's troops at the forward flag after his spearhead moved further is fun. But if he spots your troops, he goes after them. the AI counterattacks if flags are threatened. Thus capture or move close to an outlying flag, wait for the counter from everywhere on the board. Slaughter the movers or fix them outside their foxholes. Continue attack. Roughly one third of the battle for each phase. A bit gamey, but maneuver works better than attrition vs the AI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by GillFish: For the really honest players, here's a second question: have you ever replayed or reploted a catastrophic turn hoping for a better result? That's exactly what seperates CM from the other computer games for me: CM is probably the only game where I never reloaded a previous savegame if something went wrong. (Ok, Nethack is the second one.) Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Originally posted by GillFish: My philosophy isn't so much "play until I win", it's more like "this blew up in my face, so let's try something else". The reason I re-play the games is to figure out what works and what doesn't.The problem with that is the tendency to try to "crack" a particular scenario rather than learn general tactical principles that you can apply in any situation. For that reason, I play QBs against the AI and never play the same one twice. If my CMAK CD doesn't arrive today, I may replay LoD, but this time I will give the AI the free set-up option so that there will be some surprise for me. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Alkema Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 GillFish, I think you have the right idea. For me playing CM takes a while. Unless you do nothing other than eat, sleep and play CM, never going back is going to slow down the learning process. If you never encounter the same situation twice in a month, it is hard to learn from that experience. The key is to understand why attempt number one failed and number two was better. I also take back the occasional disastrous move. I am trying to learn how to win, not spend a bunch of time minimizing a catastrophe. Especially if the real life solution would be to break off the attack / run away. I guess some folks are just better at this stuff than we are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 I noted you specified 'scenarios' in your question. I've found generic Quickbattles to be mostly winnable on the first go, or rarely absolutely UNwinnable no matter what (light tanks vs Tigers with no cover for instance). Properly constructed scenarios can be a challange-and-a-half. The reason why you return to them is you feel you did everything right but it just didn't work, and there's got to be a key to unlock this puzzle! What I do when I return to a scenario is 'make believe' I don't know that anti-tank gun is where it is, but let's see what happens if I were to (for instance) send my troops out in from this time. You're using the scenario for training purposes! Usually, if I haven't got it by try 3 I'm never going to get it (usually involving 88s on distant hilsides). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 GillFish, Good question. Regardless of game type - scenario vs. AI, QB vs. AI, QB PBEM, scenario PBEM, I always try to win the first time. If I lose vs. the AI, I'll try again if the scenario was good. Usually I'm trying to tweak the AI higher. I really enjoy going in blind in a new scenario. Thus a repeat play is only for lessons or increasing my victory level. Ego and all that. The most enjoyable style for me is a well crafted scenario played PBEM against a fun/courteous opponent. To sum, I play all the different styles you mention ed, and each holds its own attraction to me. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.