How to not lose when given a crappy setup?

[FM Paul Heinrik]

I played a couple of QB in CMBB where I end up getting the poor end of the map. For example, I get the side with the flat ground and few scattered trees while the ai gets the high ground and woods. The middle of the maps have some depressions, woods, hills, ect but I'm usually toast before getting there.

How is this type of setup handled in 2 player games? Do both agree to quit and try a more balanced map? Terrain factors should also be considered in unit purchasing. We should also be able to view the map "before" choosing units. Won't help with unlucky map setups but at least you could pick out better a mix of units out of your battalion/regiment and attach appropriate support. I find it unrealistic to enter the map not knowing the terrain better than a general description.

[Aco4bn187inf]

I have had some of the same frustrations with quick battles. I guess it just shows the value of a human-designed scenario, where all these issues are treated deliberately. On the other hand, dealing with bad terrain or inapropriate forces can be a good 'learning experience' if you don't judge yourself too harshly when you find the odds insurmountable.

[tar]

In fact, some of my most tense and interesting battles was just such impossible tasks. I would just try to do the best I could under the circumstances. Especially against the AI, this provides a bit of a break from my usual ability to defeat them.

One of these battles was an infantry assault (no vehicles of any type!) on a flat map into a town. First turn artillery barrage from the AI (not like there was anywhere to setup out of LOS, but I was perhaps a tad too concentrated). I managed to get into the town, but couldn't fight my way to the flags against the Russian infantry and armored cars.

Another went a bit better. I had Hungarians doing an infantry assault, again across a largely open map. I managed to carry one of the trenches and get part of the victory flags before the end. It was an interesting exercise in rallying and sending in additional waves of attackers. Of course the fact that I just had a couple of armored cars and the AI had a T-34 made things a bit tough. The tank setup on some open high ground in the steppes and sat there all game. I suppose if it had moved closer it might have been more deadly, but I really couldn't do anything against it. Couldn't sneak infantry in. Armored cars too weak. Artillery (76mm) not strong enough. It was impervious -- but I managed to get an assault past it at a distance anyway. This one ended in either a draw or only a minor loss.

Playing unbalanced battles, especially with computer purchased forces is a great way to work on improving your tactics and learning how to use forces you might not otherwise choose. If you can do well under those circumstances, then you will dominate when given better things.

[Sarge Saunders]

Always bring a mortar FO...in every battle. Then you will have some smoke and you can mass for an assault even over really open ground.

Its not pretty, but it is better than feeding your infantry to the grinder piecemeal.

[Slappy]

I know several people who play with a one reject map option for either side. Either player can balk at one setup, but then must take what they get after that.

I usually find opponents I like and play repeatedly. I find that the odds even out over time and I don't get that worked up over one map or another.

[Carl Puppchen]

It is fun to play on the AI maps from time to time. Generally we agree not to use "heavy" trees because sometimes a map will be created where you cannot bring vehicles to the objective.

Another option is to use the maps that come with the game - you can select a map from any scenario in the "quick battle maps" folder and there are lots of web sites where you can download more maps. Make sure you are picking the right TYPE of map for the engagement you are selecting - such as meeting engagement or allied / axis assault.

It is fun to try to do the impossible, especially against the AI, as mentioned above. You might have a chance to do something when you would get slaughtered against a human.

If you play in good spirits your opponent will offer you a "cease" fire if you try to play an unbalanced game and it starts going the wrong way...

[Joachim]

Donwload maps,

download scenarios and use their maps or

create generated maps in the scen editor

and import them in the qb.

IIRC if you have flags saved with the map, the setup areas and flags are fixed. If there are flags and no setup area - tough luck. If no flags are saved with the map, the flags and setup zones are generated according to the mission.

Gruß

Joachim

[Orange]

When I play scrabble with my wife, without fail she will announce at some point how her letters are so terrible (and thus her low score). Maybe it's the same with your maps.

My point is, I get horrible letters too in scrabble but I don't complain, I just make the best of them. Same thing with my maps. I usually agonize over how to defend/ attack given the circumstances. There are always faults in the terrain (not enough trees, too many trees, too flat, too hilly, buildings spread out, buildings closer to the enemy, you name it). You have to look at things and make the best of them. Chances are your opponent has the same problems.

In warfare, you don't usually get to choose your terrain. I think it's the same in QB's. The maps are random and you have to make due.

If the map really sucks, here's what I do: Adjust your objectives. Let's say your objective is to capture or defend 4 flags on the map. Maybe two of them are very hard due to the terrain. Just go after the other two. You might find that as the battle flows, the other two will be more accessible or maybe the opponent will come to you, who knows.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

This is a game, not real life. In real war people die under harsh unwinable conditions. In real war you can't sit there and pick and choose what type of units you want to select and use. In a game it's not fun if you can't win and it's not fun if you can't lose. That's why it needs to be balanced.

For the most part the QB presents a balanced map to go along with the balanced forces the 2 opponents picked. But, I'm asking how do you handle a 2 player game when one side obviously has the terrain advantage. Remember you both got the same XXX amount of pts. to spend so it's not like one side has more stuff while the other guy has better terrain. I think the idea that both agree to different maps in that situation is a good idea, or at least if you have the upper hand offer your opponent the opportunity to continue or do a do-over.

[Orange]

I say play on! So what if you have a disadvantage, thems the breaks. Of course, I really like the randomness factors too. And maybe I'm confident enough that I think I can do well in most situations. I'm also confident enough that if I lose due to bad luck of the draw it's no big deal. Come on, take a challenge, if you play enough the breaks will roll your way too.

Maybe it's that I've never seen a really skewed map. I play CMBO exclusively by PBEM. I've played over a dozen games so maybe I just haven't seen enough to see a really out of whack setup. But I can tell you this, there's no way in hell I'd ask for a new setup. That's just the way I am. If my opponent wanted one, I might consider it though, to be polite.

[willbell]

Bravo to all the play on folks and to the old salts who just deal with the hand they have been given. And I can't agree more with the concept that IRL you make do with what you have, the conditions are rarely fair.

I actually enjoy setting up quick battles with the AI that I know will be difficult.

[Joachim]

IRL you don't attack in a place where your troops will get slaughtered when there are places better suited.

I accept that you "sometimes" (always?) have to deal with what your given and can't cherrypick. But pressing an attack against the odds? Someone's gotta give me a good reason for that and a QB usually doesn't.

Conditions in an attack are rarely fair - the attacker will try to get much more than just the CM 1.7:1 odds.

Defense is another thing. I do fight QBs with 2 plts of tanks and a reinforced Infantry Coy vs 2000 regular ariborne troops (+100%) in a city. But I make sure I have a covered retreat route.

[HarryInk]

Wasn't it a French git wot said:

"C'est manifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre".

(Not that a frog post or pre Napoleon would have much sense of what good warmaking was like). Yes, suffer the merest hints of reality in the crap maps you're given. Why, in one of my PBEMs at the moment I'm pushing US paras against pillboxes and damned armored cars and I haven't got a cannon or an opposing set of wheels to save myself. Just smoke. Surrender? Run? Die? Well hell *chews cigar* the computer will organise all that for me - and write the letters home.

You have to learn through suffering - or better, you'll learn quicker. Perhaps because you'll die quicker, but then, at least, you'll learn how quickly you die if you do THAT silly thing. Next time you'll try THIS silly thing and live two turns longer...etc .etc. Also, the many and varied ways you die will create endless questions for the forum and you seek solutions to these situations quickly rather than suffer needlessly through the next half-a-dozen fights doing variations on the first silly thing. Gosh I was happy when I discovered the FAQs on these forums! And the chaps here are so helpful with suggestions.

So I say, get out there, chew Robert Duvall cigars, enjoy the smell of digital systems in the morning, take that damn town/village/pigpen. Don't come wailing back here without it tucked under yer arm, Private!! (or your privates tucked under your arm. Whatever).

[HarryInk]

Wasn't it a French git wot said:

"C'est manifique mais ce n'est pas la guerre".

(Not that a frog post or pre Napoleon would have much sense of what good warmaking was like). Yes, suffer the merest hints of reality in the crap maps you're given. Why, in one of my PBEMs at the moment I'm pushing US paras against pillboxes and damned armored cars and I haven't got a cannon or an opposing set of wheels to save myself. Just smoke. Surrender? Run? Die? Well hell *chews cigar* the computer will organise all that for me - and write the letters home.

You have to learn through suffering - or better, you'll learn quicker. Perhaps because you'll die quicker, but then, at least, you'll learn how quickly you die if you do THAT silly thing. Next time you'll try THIS silly thing and live two turns longer...etc .etc. Also, the many and varied ways you die will create endless questions for the forum and you seek solutions to these situations quickly rather than suffer needlessly through the next half-a-dozen fights doing variations on the first silly thing. Gosh I was happy when I discovered the FAQs on these forums! And the chaps here are so helpful with suggestions.

So I say, get out there, chew Robert Duvall cigars, enjoy the smell of digital systems in the morning, take that damn town/village/pigpen. Don't come wailing back here without it tucked under yer arm, Private!! (or your privates tucked under your arm. Whatever).

[Joachim]

Ah, a fellow cigar aficionado.

"I love it when a plan comes together" and prefer to smoke the cigar after successful execution (of the plan or the person that screwed it). The plan to retreat off map is more often successful than attacking a force bigger than mine on terrain where even the AI can initiate a masterful defence. Hence even a retreat might result in a cigar.

Por Larranaga in the morning, Bolivar, Punch or Partagas et al. cigars after I had some food.

Gruß

Joachim

[FM Paul Heinrik]

I guess I had already answered the question. It's a game. It is sometimes fun(?) to play a battle in which all odds are against you. You do learn how to play better in those situations.

Sometimes I get caught up in the reality of the game and I don't want to put my men through a needless meat grinder if I could simply reposition and come in at a different point on the map or at night. I realize that when on the defense you don't have a choice on where or when but on the offense you should.

Winning, losing, it's all good watching the little animated stuff getting blown up. Just makes me turn my head when it's "my" guys

[willbell]

Juachim,

IRL you don't attack in a place where your troops will get slaughtered when there are places better suited.

I'm going to verge on impoliteness here and say, you are out of your freaking mind! In the majority of battles the highest rank you play is Captain. If you think a Captain could say "No sir, I have decided not to take that objective." your wrong. The history of war, not to mention WWII, is absolutely packed with stories of commanders being required to fight in utterly hopless situations.

Charge of the light brigade?

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by willbell:

Juachim,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> IRL you don't attack in a place where your troops will get slaughtered when there are places better suited.

I'm going to verge on impoliteness here and say, you are out of your freaking mind! In the majority of battles the highest rank you play is Captain. If you think a Captain could say "No sir, I have decided not to take that objective." your wrong. The history of war, not to mention WWII, is absolutely packed with stories of commanders being required to fight in utterly hopless situations.

Charge of the light brigade? </font>

[willbell]

Hey, I couldn't stop you from voicing your opinion, even if I wanted too, I'm just some poor schmuck playing this game.

I actually agree with you on your historical points, but CM is tactical, not strategic.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by willbell:

Juachim,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> IRL you don't attack in a place where your troops will get slaughtered when there are places better suited.

I'm going to verge on impoliteness here and say, you are out of your freaking mind! In the majority of battles the highest rank you play is Captain. If you think a Captain could say "No sir, I have decided not to take that objective." your wrong. The history of war, not to mention WWII, is absolutely packed with stories of commanders being required to fight in utterly hopless situations.

Charge of the light brigade? </font>

[Sergei]

IRL an officer has, of course, the luxury of asking for further instructions from his superior when it becomes obvious that the plan is a suicide. In written form, if necessary.

This reminds me of a Finnish Jääkäri commander (or something, can't really remember), whose battalion was given an insane counter-attack order which would clearly have resulted in senseless losses. He protested but to no avail, so he then planned the attack so that he would attack at point, immediately followed by his staff and the companies further behind. The superiors soon came to their senses, though.

[willbell]

You guys are all overthinking this. There are examples of attacking against odds in history, doesn't have to be many or common. Also, we're talking about a range severity in a bad QB, they're not all hopelss. We are playing a game, with lots of abstractions, with digital guys, not real guys. You don't get any points for living to fight another day, but you will lose points for failing to take the flag.

You can be a pussy and just bounce from QB to QB looking for a downhill game, or you can have a little sand and go for what ever gets thrown your way.

[willbell]

Your choice.

[tar]

Wrong example.

The light brigade charge for some other reason - they weren't even required to charge from higher HQ. It was a decision of the brigade commander himself.

My recollection of that particular action in the battle of Balaklava is that the light brigade was, in fact, given an order to attack artillery. The problem is that there was a misunderstanding as to which artillery was meant.

Higher headquarters had a different set of guns in mind as the objective of the light brigade. It was a misinterpretation of the orders that sent the cavalry charging into the main gun line of the Russians.

Wars are not won by taking ground. They are won by inflicting more casualties to the enemy than he can replace while sustaining less casualties than you can replace.

Hmmm. This seems to be a very attritionist view of battle. I think that a lot of the maneuver theorists, and proponents of the "indirect approach' would argue that you win wars by breaking the will and ability of the enemy to resist. This is not necessarily the same thing as causing casualties, although that is one unimaginative way to stop enemy resistance.

If you think of what happened to France in 1940, it is clear that the Germans had not inflicted unsustainable casualties on the French. It was rather that they had been outmaneuvered and with the breakthrough and threat to Paris were defeated psychologically rather than physically. In general, trying for a dislocating move that demoralizes the enemy is a cheaper and faster way to victory than trying to kill all the enemy.

[willbell]

Well, yes, I made referrenced the French in my previous post.

As for the charge of the light brigade, the futility of it had nothing to do with which battery they charged. It was that you don't charge a battery with cavalry, unless you have infantry in the immediate area to support it. You can ride into a battery with cavalry, but then what? Stand there while you get shot off your horse? The error in the decision to charge was not how deadly it was, but how pointless.