Got my #$$ kicked by a veteran…

[37mm]

I’ve only played a few IP battles & thought I was okay until I played this veteran…

He kicked my ass in a meeting engagement & afterwards said that a meeting engagements was the best way to play CM or/& the best way to determine who the better player is…

What do you think about this statement?

Personally, after seeing him play, I’d have to agree but would someone skilled at defense or attack or scenario’s be ‘better’ players than those who can (dare I say it) ‘race for the flags’…

P.S.

On a secondary issue my Warsaw rising scenario’s are nearly all 90% complete… I’d like to thank those that helped me in my previous post (including Panther kommander for giving me the idea about a Sturmtiger scenario) I will be needing players to play-test my scenario’s though & was wondering if enough volunteers existed…

These are the scenario’s so far…

(1) The Rising begins:

A tiny little battle in which surrounded & surprised Germans must escape from angry Poles…

(2) Any bridge too far:

Lot’s of poorly armed Poles attack an under-strength German garrison

(3) Grave situation:

In a Warsaw graveyard Germans & Poles fight hand to hand

(4) Rescue!:

A Polish force, which includes a captured tank, attempt to liberate a Jewish ghetto…

(5) The Vile Cossack’s:

An SS battalion attempts to destroy a hospital, it’s patients (represented by expensive, exhausted but unarmed snipers) & it’s defenders

(6) SS Storm:

Two enormous monstrosities take on a polish force…

(7) Grueling existence:

a five day operation in which an elite polish force defends a district of Warsaw from King Tiger columns, SS, air attack & super-heavy artillery!

(8) To Praga:

A Polish battalion of the red army attacks the suburbs of Warsaw but encounter an artillery rearguard…

(9 & 10) Yet to be made but probably won’t be fun for the Poles!

[Bone_Vulture]

Meeting engagements are rush jobs, I must say. people who say that meeting engagements are the best way to figure the better player are similar to the people who play Starcraft online, build their base in forty seconds, rush you in two minutes and then go KEKEKEKEKEKEKE ^_____________________^.

I say attack missions are better, since they allow more diversity; some people are better defenders, some better attackers. The only problem is to find an agreement on critical map specs, like the time limit.

When playing a map of same size, same type of mission, some people complain that they're forced to "hurry" if the game time is less than 40 minutes, while others are a step away from my flags in 20 turns without a drop of sweat.

[Other Means]

the best answer to the ME flag rush is BIG ARTY. preferably over 120mm. let your opponent take the flags. you have a good idea where he is going to be and can plan your attack to come in straight after the rounds land.

also, for a 3.5k ME i like to push the turns up to ~50. especially in CMAK playing the allies. get into an infantry vs infantry fight & you'll pull his fangs by turn 40.

and you can't determine the best player over one game. if you could CM would be more like chess rather than the realistic crap shoot it is. play both sides of an attack/defense, an ME, swap sides & do it again & you still won't have proof.

at least, this is what i tell myself.

[Sergei]

Determining who is the better player is unnecessary. That would only make sense if it was the only way to see who has the bigger penis (and THAT is what competitive playing is all about - power), and thanks to digital cameras we can take a picture of the joystick and e-mail it to the opponent. (This is also why originally Chess was played naked, but sadly this practise has disappeared along with nudity in the Olympics.)

That allows us to concentrate on more important matters, like what is the best way to play in general. Your opponent seemed to think ME's are the best all around, but I disagree. Attack/Defend scenarios are more realistic and thus infinitely more fun.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Meeting engagements are rush jobs, I must say. people who say that meeting engagements are the best way to figure the better player are similar to the people who play Starcraft online, build their base in forty seconds, rush you in two minutes and then go KEKEKEKEKEKEKE ^_____________________^.

I say attack missions are better, since they allow more diversity; some people are better defenders, some better attackers. The only problem is to find an agreement on critical map specs, like the time limit.

When playing a map of same size, same type of mission, some people complain that they're forced to "hurry" if the game time is less than 40 minutes, while others are a step away from my flags in 20 turns without a drop of sweat.

I never got that KEKEKE part...

[Sergei]

Maybe that's how Koreans laugh? Or then he's been playing Starcraft with Keke...

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Maybe that's how Koreans laugh? Or then he's been playing Starcraft with Keke...

Um, yeah... Supposedly it stands for laughter. You know, when you have exactly 1,31 seconds to type your taunting message before you launch the next rush.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by 37mm:

I’ve only played a few IP battles & thought I was okay until I played this veteran…

He kicked my ass in a meeting engagement...

Not to worry... You can play me a few more times to get your score back up.

Sincerely,

Your IP punching bag,

Ken

[Vossiewulf]

The thing about ME's is that they are going to likely require the most improvisation, as both sides will probably have completely different plans- and on a map of sufficient size, that will result in both guys saying "OH SH*T" at some early point as their plans not only go out the window, but make beelines for Hawaii and a permanent vacation.

Then both sides find themselves in a position that requires lots of fancy and decisive footwork.

So in one respect, he's right (just in my opinion, of course), as ME's will probably uncover the player who is better at improvisation and radical re-tasking. But Sergei is correct that ME's of any significant size are very rare, so it's not realistic to place the skill of their handling above the skills required to handle the far more common attack/defend situations.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by 37mm:

He kicked my ass in a meeting engagement & afterwards said that a meeting engagements was the best way to play CM or/& the best way to determine who the better player is…

What do you think about this statement?

I'd say your 'veteran' doesn't know what he's talking about. The true test is how someone handls a tough situation, not how fast someone can race the center

[Bluefish]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

I agree. In Combat Mission, one side will always have an advantage over the other. Even if you could play German against German with the same OOB, for example, the terrain layout would give one player an advantage.

"The true test" really is how a player reacts to what advantage was given to the opposing player. It's not uncommon to officialy 'lose' a game of CMBB/CMAK while overcoming insurmountable odds.

Sometimes it's not the flags lost but that heavy building or church you hung on to. What a game!

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

The true test is how someone handls a tough situation, not how fast someone can race the center

i have played some 30-40 PBEM/TCPIP MEs. i think i have lost 3 of them and i have only once raced to the center/flags.

all the games have been combined arms operations on maps with lot's of cover. perhaps others play with different settings. other than that, i can't figure how rushing to the center would not lead to the total annihilation of one's troops.

EDIT: one of the games was a draw.

[Panzer76]

Its bit of an urban myth about "flag rushing" in MEs. There will usually be multiple flags anyway, and a good player knows where to consentrate his forces. People that keeps on hymning to this tune are usually players that swear to "authetic" OOBs, plays PBEM and ponders each turn for an eternity, thats my 4 yrs of experience anyway

The differeance between a good player and a great player is how good they are in reading the terrain, ME or no ME.

The real achilles heel of MEs is the predictable OOBs. As there are some combination of forces that simply are much more "bang for the buck" than any others.

[Bone_Vulture]

Don't the Germans have a bit of an unfair advantage in ME's, especially in larger battles?

They can order flexible 150mm bombardment on the field any time, while the Russians can barely drop 76mm shells without having to wait for ten minutes and pray that the spotting rounds fall anywhere in the vicinity of the targeted spot.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Don't the Germans have a bit of an unfair advantage in ME's, especially in larger battles?

I wouldnt say that, I prefer playing the Soviets. They have better infantery and they generally have on par armour. On top of that they get more armour points in a combined arms setup.

In terms of arty the Germans has the upper hand, but its not a make it or break it issue. The Sovs have afterall the 120mm mortar FO which is pretty damn handy.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

In terms of arty the Germans has the upper hand, but its not a make it or break it issue. The Sovs have afterall the 120mm mortar FO which is pretty damn handy.

Oh yeah, I completely forgot about that one.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

Don't the Germans have a bit of an unfair advantage in ME's, especially in larger battles?

They can order flexible 150mm bombardment on the field any time, while the Russians can barely drop 76mm shells without having to wait for ten minutes and pray that the spotting rounds fall anywhere in the vicinity of the targeted spot.

if you play Combined Arms battles, Germans can't even buy 150mm arty unless you have larger battles. too expensive.

i think MEs balance the game a lot against the Germans. MEs have more room for maneuver, and thus you can easily reach position in which fast light Soviet tanks wreck StuGs and such.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

if you play Combined Arms battles, Germans can't even buy 150mm arty unless you have larger battles. too expensive.

I was going for that when I said "especially in larger battles".

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i think MEs balance the game a lot against the Germans. MEs have more room for maneuver, and thus you can easily reach position in which fast light Soviet tanks wreck StuGs and such.

The problem is that Soviet light tanks lack both cupolas and sufficient crew, so most of the time they're forced to acquire targets blind. It takes incredible skill and fortune to outflank German forces with Soviet light tanks, unless your opponent is completely unprepared for this tactic. Otherwise, light PAKs will usually dismantle any Soviet tanks that attempt flanking maneuvers.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by 37mm:

I’ve only played a few IP battles & thought I was okay until I played this veteran…

He kicked my ass in a meeting engagement & afterwards said that a meeting engagements was the best way to play CM or/& the best way to determine who the better player is…

What do you think about this statement?

Maybe he can only kick ass in MEs? There is a certain type of players who bunch up most of their assets giving them local odds. This does not work when on the defense (the opponent has more arty and the flags are spread out). And it does not work on the attack (well placed TRPs or kill zones can ruin the fun).

If you've stumbled across that tactic... don't believe everything vets say. Some get "vets" just by beating greens.

Gruß

Joachim

[dieseltaylor]

Bone Vulture said

"The problem is that Soviet light tanks lack both cupolas and sufficient crew, so most of the time they're forced to acquire targets blind. It takes incredible skill and fortune to outflank German forces with Soviet light tanks, unless your opponent is completely unprepared for this tactic. Otherwise, light PAKs will usually dismantle any Soviet tanks that attempt flanking maneuvers."

I find playing that Honey's particularly and Valentines can give the Soviets a potent light force for flanking - of course they need to have some cheap infantry to get rid of light German flank guards but then if you are lucky you may only be paying 70-80 points for your tank. Of course I am in the realm of large battlefields and 2000 - 3000 points where the flanks are large enough to exploit.

With regard to flag sitters in the days of CMBO with ultra powerful infantry a friend's nephew occupied a village with all the flags and sat feeling pleased with himself. Amazing what 14" [350mm] shells can do to a village! : )

I vaguely remember it as 35 squads dead and 15 squad remmnants routed.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

I find playing that Honey's particularly and Valentines can give the Soviets a potent light force for flanking - of course they need to have some cheap infantry to get rid of light German flank guards but then if you are lucky you may only be paying 70-80 points for your tank. Of course I am in the realm of large battlefields and 2000 - 3000 points where the flanks are large enough to exploit.

Um, "Honey's"?

Pardon my opinion, but Valentine isn't exactly what I think as a light tank. Isn't it even slower than early KV-1's?

[Sergei]

Honey was the name given by British tankers to the Stuart. Possibly because after going to combat in one, the crew's pants would all be yellow and sticky. (No, they really loved it. No wonder if you look at the Cruiser series!)

[dieseltaylor]

Oops!

Stuart was the official British Army name for the Light Tank M3 and the unofficial name Honeys as Sergei said.

The British concept of naming tanks rather than numbering being a big plus to simplifying the Allied War effort .... think how many types of M3 the Americans had!

Such a popular tank they were still in the Brazilian Army in the 1980's.

Valentines came in at 18 tons metric, Stuarts 13 tons, M3 medium 27 ton metric ---- the Valentine was slow : ) so perhaps not light in the terms of across gound. But lovely in flanking as it has in the MKIX version the great 6pdr gun which can damage any German tank in the flank if not frontally.

[ July 27, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

I was going for that when I said "especially in larger battles".

i see.

The problem is that Soviet light tanks lack both cupolas and sufficient crew, so most of the time they're forced to acquire targets blind. It takes incredible skill and fortune to outflank German forces with Soviet light tanks, unless your opponent is completely unprepared for this tactic. Otherwise, light PAKs will usually dismantle any Soviet tanks that attempt flanking maneuvers.

i don't know how likely that is in a ME, especially if terrain has lots of cover or the map is not a small one. it's likely that you'd need to tow the PAKs halfway the map.

actually most of my successes with Soviet light tanks have not come from full flank moves, but from situations in which enemy tanks have moved on the flanks to new firing positions (usually now facing to the center areas of the map). i have then quickly sent the previously passive (but forward positioned) lighties to wreak havoc on the Nazi armor. coming from side or rear, they cause serious chaos for turretless targets with abyssmal turning rates.

often the lighties have been more succesful in dealing with StuGs than IS-2s and such. often a single light tank can cause a lot of damage.

the serious downside is that it's damn annoying to watch the StuGs turn so ridiculously slooooooowlyyyyy, even if you are playing the Soviets. i don't like it, but it works well.

[Bone_Vulture]

Come to think of it, I've witnessed the maneuverability of Soviet tanks in an armor ME I played. Although my trio of Stugs nearly four times as many Soviet tanks, my opponent managed to flank me with T-34. I had prepared for this tactic, and had a Stug waiting for them.

But then my opponent got an insanely lucky weak spot penetration, and my guarding Stug was no more. After that my two other Stugs got bogged when they tried to turn to face the flanking tanks (wet conditions). Obviously I lost. AAAAAAARGH! :mad: