Players who only play PBEMs, QBs, scenarios, etc.

[dalem]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by someone in another thread:

Wow...I just want to say as a "PBEM only" player, -snip-<hr></blockquote>

Wow. That's one thing I can admit to never having understood - some folks' abhorrance of either scenarios, PBEMs, or QBs to such an extent

that they never play a particular type. Personally I enjoy them all. I must be missing the point, I guess. Can someone who shares the opinion of exclusivity of the above player share their motivation with me? I'm curious.

-dale

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: dalem ]</p>

[LarryWR400]

"Tim", I play a lot, its just much easier to get turns in here or there, then to find 2-3 hours for tcp, not that I wouldnt if I could I just cant, So I too, but Not by choice "PBEM only".

Larry/ "Havok"

[LarryWR400]

That wasn't "Tim" it was "Time" sorry..

I have no time...

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dalem:

Wow. That's one thing I can admit to never having understood - some folks' abhorrance of either scenarios, PBEMs, or QBs to such an extent

that they never play a particular type. Personally I enjoy them all. I must be missing the point, I guess. Can someone who shares the opinion of exclusivity of the above player share their motivation with me? I'm curious.

-dale

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: dalem ]<hr></blockquote>

Can the above player comment?

I only play PBEM because I'm meticulous about finding the perfect spot for my men and tanks when I deploy them. I spend hours looking for the best LOS on the map, the best areas to bait and trap an opponent, and when the film arrives I spend a good half hour watching that over and over and over again. I guess to some it might get boring but I'm sure there's players who do the same thing as me and find it more fun than rushing to get to your next move.

I guess it all boils down to why you play CM. For those players who like to blow stuff up, they're probably more likely to enjoy those TCP games with the quick action.

I think for some of us, we view CM as a kind of chess game. Analyzing our opponents moves to see what they're doing before we move our own units for the next turn...plotting future moves in our heads in advance while moving for the current turn...Studying film repetively not to see explosions, but to analyze the end results of our strategies to see if they worked or not....and other stuff that would be catigorized under under "anal" by some.

I think the "analyzation" trait is probably a dominant one in the "chess player" types you find in CM, me being one of them.

Anyone else here agree with this or have a theory of their own?

[Seanachai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I only play PBEM because I'm meticulous about finding the perfect spot for my men and tanks when I deploy them. I spend hours looking for the best LOS on the map, the best areas to bait and trap an opponent, and when the film arrives I spend a good half hour watching that over and over and over again. I guess to some it might get boring but I'm sure there's players who do the same thing as me and find it more fun than rushing to get to your next move.

I think for some of us, we view CM as a kind of chess game. Analyzing our opponents moves to see what they're doing before we move our own units for the next turn...plotting future moves in our heads in advance while moving for the current turn...Studying film repetively not to see explosions, but to analyze the end results of our strategies to see if they worked or not....and other stuff that would be catigorized under under "anal" by some.

I think the "analyzation" trait is probably a dominant one in the "chess player" types you find in CM, me being one of them.

Anyone else here agree with this or have a theory of their own?<hr></blockquote>

Meticulous? Meticulous?! My gods, but you're a bloody idiot! How I despise the fact that I agree with many things you've said, given that I hate you!

Mind, lad, you're my very good friend and boon companion while within the Peng Challenge Thread, but out here, you're just another annoying pillock. I pray every day that rats will swarm over you in your sleep, and rend you into a mass of quivering but lifeless flesh.

Have to agree, in many way, with what you said about PBEM play, but that doesn't negate the fact that you're too useless to live.

Affectionately yours,

Seanachai

[dalem]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Can the above player comment?

<hr></blockquote>

But of course! I was merely preserving anonymity if desired.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I only play PBEM because I'm meticulous about finding the perfect spot for my men and tanks when I deploy them. I spend hours looking for the best LOS on the map, the best areas to bait and trap an opponent, and when the film arrives I spend a good half hour watching that over and over and over again. I guess to some it might get boring but I'm sure there's players who do the same thing as me and find it more fun than rushing to get to your next move.

<hr></blockquote>

Wow. I can definitely see a major difference here. I try to give the map a good once over from my side, will sometimes spin it around and take a look at it from the opponent's side, if I feel I have some sort of 'specialty' weapon that needs real attention, for instance. Other than that I try to ID key approaches and the like within about 5 minutes, start setting up my guys, and let my first impression and the 'weight' of my force setup decide where defenses get placed and attacks get started. If I have a bunch of fortifications I will definitely spend some time getting them 'correct' simply because they're stationary.

I rarely watch turn movies more than once.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I guess it all boils down to why you play CM. For those players who like to blow stuff up, they're probably more likely to enjoy those TCP games with the quick action.

<hr></blockquote>

Hmm. I don't think those two necessarily go together. Not every TCP game involves careening around the map, guns a-blastin'. In fact, TCP games are enjoyable to me for the very fact that they are by their nature more continuous than any other type of game: No need for me to try to remember what my plan is, or whether my MG position is being shelled - I know because I saw it happen in semi 'realtime'. My plans flow much better in TCP games, and I believe I play better, and more 'realistically' (whatever that means).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I think for some of us, we view CM as a kind of chess game. Analyzing our opponents moves to see what they're doing before we move our own units for the next turn...plotting future moves in our heads in advance while moving for the current turn...Studying film repetively not to see explosions, but to analyze the end results of our strategies to see if they worked or not....and other stuff that would be catigorized under under "anal" by some.

I think the "analyzation" trait is probably a dominant one in the "chess player" types you find in CM, me being one of them.

Anyone else here agree with this or have a theory of their own?<hr></blockquote>

Yup. Anal. And you will not be surprised to find that I'm not a chess player, either. All that being said I'd say I split my time roughly 50% PBEM, 45% QB/scenario vs. the AI, and 5% TCP. But the TCP games are my favorites.

-dale

[Viceroy]

Dalem,

I try to give the map a good once over from my side, will sometimes spin it around and take a look at it from the opponent's side, if I feel I have some sort of 'specialty' weapon that needs real attention, for instance. Other than that I try to ID key approaches and the like within about 5 minutes, start setting up my guys, and let my first impression and the 'weight' of my force setup decide where defenses get placed and attacks get started. If I have a bunch of fortifications I will definitely spend some time getting them 'correct' simply because they're stationary.

I rarely watch turn movies more than once.

That's how I play PBEM's!

Maybe that's why I lose.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Seanachai:

Meticulous? Meticulous?! My gods, but you're a bloody idiot! How I despise the fact that I agree with many things you've said, given that I hate you!

Mind, lad, you're my very good friend and boon companion while within the Peng Challenge Thread, but out here, you're just another annoying pillock. I pray every day that rats will swarm over you in your sleep, and rend you into a mass of quivering but lifeless flesh.

Have to agree, in many way, with what you said about PBEM play, but that doesn't negate the fact that you're too useless to live.

Affectionately yours,

Seanachai<hr></blockquote>

Can I attribute this kindness to the fact that you are trying to bait me back into the Cesspool so you and your hooligan friends can tar and feather me?

I fear if I return there, I will never make it back out alive. And by the way, my official Peng badge has still not arrived in the mail. Are you people on dope over there?!?

[LarryWR400]

I guess that is another thing, I too like to analyze, Before CM my ASL opponents feared me, not so much because I beat them consistently but because I took FOREVER to to play, I also watch the movie several time's per turn.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>originally posted by Colonel Deadmarsh (yes, I'm quoting myself...so what?)

I guess it all boils down to why you play CM. For those players who like to blow stuff up, they're probably more likely to enjoy those TCP games with the quick action.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>originally posted by DalemHmm. I don't think those two necessarily go together. Not every TCP game involves careening around the map, guns a-blastin'. In fact, TCP games are enjoyable to me for the very fact that they are by their nature more continuous than any other type of game: No need for me to try to remember what my plan is, or whether my MG position is being shelled - I know because I saw it happen in semi 'realtime'. My plans flow much better in TCP games, and I believe I play better, and more 'realistically' (whatever that means).

<hr></blockquote>

Okay, lemme just clarify here. I don't mean that all TCP'ers like to blow stuff up. But...I think that people who like to blow stuff up are more likely to want the semi-real time action as opposed to waiting a day or two for the video turn.

I'd still like to hear from the other "analyzers" on the board to see how many of us there are. Do you possess the same traits I outlined for this type of player?

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[dalem]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Okay, lemme just clarify here. I don't mean that all TCP'ers like to blow stuff up. But...I think that people who like to blow stuff up are more likely to want the semi-real time action as opposed to waiting a day or two for the video turn.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]<hr></blockquote>

Okay, that makes sense to me. I should have also added that I am an 'infantry-heavy' plyaer. I view AFVs as support, and rarely play CM with armor as the focus.

I guess you and I are almost the only ones interested in this topic.

[Marlow]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dalem:

Okay, that makes sense to me. I should have also added that I am an 'infantry-heavy' plyaer. I view AFVs as support, and rarely play CM with armor as the focus.

<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm. I must have scarred you for life with that 3000 point armorfest we had a couple of years ago.

[Speedbump]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dalem:

Okay, that makes sense to me. I should have also added that I am an 'infantry-heavy' plyaer. I view AFVs as support, and rarely play CM with armor as the focus.

I guess you and I are almost the only ones interested in this topic. <hr></blockquote>

Great, this means you really did buy that division of conscripts to human wave my AFV's?!?!

Gamey bastage...

Speedbump

[dalem]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Marlow:

Hmmm. I must have scarred you for life with that 3000 point armorfest we had a couple of years ago.<hr></blockquote>

It was my 2nd PBEM so I thought I should accept what was cast before me as a SSN. Interestingly Croda and I just finished a long-overdue rematch. I asked for an armor-heavy one, because I don't do that often at all. It was a fun change of pace.

And sorry Speedy, ours is another in the 'Dale wants to try a few tank heavy battles this year' series.

-dale

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: dalem ]</p>

[Silvio Manuel]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I only play PBEM because I'm meticulous about finding the perfect spot for my men and tanks when I deploy them. I spend hours looking for the best LOS on the map, the best areas to bait and trap an opponent, and when the film arrives I spend a good half hour watching that over and over and over again. I guess to some it might get boring but I'm sure there's players who do the same thing

I think for some of us, we view CM as a kind of chess game. Analyzing our opponents moves to see what they're doing before we move our own units for the next turn...plotting future moves in our heads in advance while moving for the current turn...Studying film repetively not to see explosions, but to analyze the end results of our strategies to see if they worked or not...I think the "analyzation" trait is probably a dominant one in the "chess player" types you find in CM, me being one of them.<hr></blockquote>

I'm another. CM is certainly akin to Chess to me, just far more interesting what with exciting historical context and all the nasty RV's and weapons being used (I had been subconsciously waiting for CM since seeing my uncle's copy of the boardgame PanzerBlitz when I was little).

I also spend a good deal of time planning moves and watching the movies to see what worked and what didn't. I don't usually spend so much time at the start, because mostly I just look at the map for a bit and then I'll get a strong intuitive feeling about where my opponent will advance and with what.

I tend to spend a greater amount of time these days on Level 1 (instead of my typical level 3), esp. when seeing how terrain can be used to mask my maneuvers (i.e. elevation changes)

I certainly have used chess experience in my CM play from the beginning. Interestingly enough, I did the reverse recently in chess. I was determined to "flank" his pieces if possible, and in the endgame I wound up breaking a rook or two into his back rank and unnerving him enough to force a checkmate.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

TCP/IP is the best way to go. I do not like time turns though. It's fun to watch what view what happens during a turn a couple times.

The last timed game i played i did'nt enjoy as much as the non timed. I was the British and the attacker, i had 20 turns on a medium map to force my enemy out of his dug in territory, wait it gets better, it was a 1500 point map, so me being the attacker i eneded up with 1700 or 1800 to sepnd on units. Here is the good part, the game was set on 300 second turns. My opponent did not have to do much moving around being on defense, where i had to think of a plan move units, check line of site and coordinate attacks all in a 300 second time frame, i had no time to replay a turn or anything. I won the battle, it went to turn 20 and i came away with a minor victory, if it was a 25 turn game i wwould have had a total victory. Though i impressed myself and i'm sure my opponent, the non timed games are alot more enjoyable and i won't play a timed game.

[Compassion]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Studying film repetively not to see explosions, but to analyze the end results of our strategies to see if they worked or not....and other stuff that would be catigorized under under "anal" by some.

I think the "analyzation" trait is probably a dominant one in the "chess player" types you find in CM, me being one of them.

Anyone else here agree with this or have a theory of their own?<hr></blockquote>

I agree with what you said, and find that I probably play more like you than dalem... but I have had a couple of rewarding tcp games with palyers who are of the same mindset. No time limit (or a long one), lots of chatting, and looking at the board (erm, map, the old school in me). But that's rare as it's a not too often that i get the kind of time needed to play that way online.

[GenSplatton]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I only play PBEM because I'm meticulous about finding the perfect spot for my men and tanks when I deploy them. I spend hours looking for the best LOS on the map, the best areas to bait and trap an opponent, and when the film arrives I spend a good half hour watching that over and over and over again. <hr></blockquote>Are you single? I would be if I spent that kind of time on CM! You must be, or have a very understanding spouse (or a spuse that really doesn't like you and is glad you shut yourself up in the den for hours at a time ). Seriously, there's just no way I could justify that much time on a game while the wife and kids are around. But that's also why I seldom do TCP, I can't justify two or three hours parked in front of the comp to play one. So I play PBEM almost exclusively, but not for the same reason as you.

[BloodyBucket]

Mostly PBEM because of time constraints. However, TCP with a fairly short time limit is interesting because of the pressure it puts on you. You know the old saying about how the good plan today beats the perfect plan tommorow...

QB's against the AI permit me to try goofy matchups that no human in his right mind would consent to.

[Col Deadmarsh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

I certainly have used chess experience in my CM play from the beginning. Interestingly enough, I did the reverse recently in chess. I was determined to "flank" his pieces if possible, and in the endgame I wound up breaking a rook or two into his back rank and unnerving him enough to force a checkmate.

<hr></blockquote>

Does Rook=Hellcat?

[Chad Harrison]

i also only play PBEM games. for what reason is very simple:

playing against the computer forms bad habbits of laziness, and i dont have time for TCP games. so, to get my CM fix, its PBEM all the way. i like not being rushed too. so when i am losing, i have more time to get out of the pickle i am in!

if there were a better way than PBEM, i would jump for it.

Chad

[Deadly Dave]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Can the above player comment?

I only play PBEM because I'm meticulous about finding the perfect spot for my men and tanks when I deploy them. I spend hours looking for the best LOS on the map, the best areas to bait and trap an opponent, and when the film arrives I spend a good half hour watching that over and over and over again. I guess to some it might get boring but I'm sure there's players who do the same thing as me and find it more fun than rushing to get to your next move.

I guess it all boils down to why you play CM. For those players who like to blow stuff up, they're probably more likely to enjoy those TCP games with the quick action.

I think for some of us, we view CM as a kind of chess game. Analyzing our opponents moves to see what they're doing before we move our own units for the next turn...plotting future moves in our heads in advance while moving for the current turn...Studying film repetively not to see explosions, but to analyze the end results of our strategies to see if they worked or not....and other stuff that would be catigorized under under "anal" by some.

I think the "analyzation" trait is probably a dominant one in the "chess player" types you find in CM, me being one of them.

Anyone else here agree with this or have a theory of their own?<hr></blockquote>

Yes Colonel, I enjoy scanning the opponants area at level one and listing for noises like the distinctive lynx or listening over and over and over to the recoil from sharpshooters rifles - which reminds me i know where he is also anticipating the enemies moves and trying to either block or set traps.. or listening to guns going off then trying to line up a projectory to see the most likely spot theyre hidden

The worst thing is though is that as you are driving to work and you start fretting because you realised that perhaps you shouldnt have nosed that sherman out from behind the house without a couple of pauses because you know that the smoke will take at least 40 seconds to kick in. or even worse you are just watching your email disapear and you have this gut feeling that you should have been a bit more conservative with that platoon -shall i hit the stop button?!?!

or you brace yourself when you open their emails incase they write something lke "TAKE THAT"

Thats why I like PBEM

[Hensworth]

Reasons why I only play scenarios by e-mail :

1. Time.

2. The possibility of reinforcements. Zero in QB's, bugged in TCP/IP (the AFV cloning phenomenon)

3. Varying force composition, play balance and good maps. Scenarios designed for head to head play are far better than QB's in this regard.

The one big drawback is that people tend to quit games when they are losing, but I expect that's no different with TCP/IP.

[Derfel]

Well, gents (and cesspudligans)

I cannot let this go by without singing the praises of the Kessel-born "Byte Battles".

For a middle aged man with no life but a lot of comittments it is ideal.

You and your opponent sit down to a set table so to speak, just pick a scenario and about an hour later (with the time set to max 5 mins) you will have lost severly... well, that's just me maybe... but it is really a very enjoyable way to play TCP/IP.

Thanks to the shortness of the scenarios (usually around 10-12 turns)it is comparatively easy to find the time/opponent even if you're half a world and twelve timezones apart.

Also, the smallness of your force makes for intense and exciting play, every mg and every sharpshooter can make a difference. A single AFV is a huge force equaliser and so on.

In fact I like these little nuggets so much that I've created a good few myself and will force them on Der Kessel one of these days...

Of course every now and then I also enjoy to set up a LAN, invite a friend over and have a go at some 6000+ points monstrosity but it seems to be happening less and less...

-Derfel

[dalem]

So I guess I'm the only big QB fan? I probably do about 4 vs the AI aweek, average.

-dale