Who are the better players poll?Pbemers or Tcipers?

[GenSplatton]

Hmmm, I would make a smart arsed comment, but there are enough of those already (darn). But I think it is a valid question, so here's my take.

TCP/IP players are better. Why? Simply put, they have a heck of a lot more games under their belt than PBEMers (i.e. me). Fact is, if they play a game a day, they get over 20 games in a month. PBEMers, on the other hand, will take months to complete that many. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions to my PBEM example, guys that have 50 games going at once, but they are an exception and never leave the house anyways, so they don't count. To be honest, I just don't see how a strictly PBEM player could learn the game, and get the experience level, of a TCP/IPer.

By the way, I do little TCP just because of the time/availability factor. But when I get the chance, I REALLY enjoy it. Much, much easier to keep my strategy in mind and execute it when it happens in one contiguous time block rather than being spread out over a month and a half. Also, I can keep straight what the enemy is doing too and therefore learn much better from my mistakes. I can follow more eaily what just happened against me and understand why it worked. Just another reason I think TCPers have the advantge.

[Fionn]

EVERYONE here is making a certain assumption which simply can't be defended.

What is it?

That all PBEM players take longer over their moves than TCP/IPers.

If Legend42 had actually conducted any analysis he would have realised that while TCP/IP imposes an upper limit on the time taken to process a turn it does NOT impose a lower limit whilst PBEM differs only in imposing no upper OR lower limit on time taken for turn processing.

So, while it is possible to say that a PBEMer has the OPTION of taking more time to process a turn one cannot draw the conclusion that a PBEMer DOES take more time to issue orders given equal force structures, sizes and missions.

Also to equate "speed" with "better" is questionable at best. It is my opinion that better players will actually make tactical decisions more quickly simply by virtue of the fact of greater experience, self-confidence etc BUT speed does not MAKE one better. A monkey might well simply hit the GO button within 1 second every turn. Doing so would not, however, make it a good player.

So, in summary, Legend42 ( whoever you may be):

1. Speed is something which good players have BUT most speedy players aren't good.

2. Even if we agreed that speed was a measure of excellence it would still be true that TCP/IP games only prescribe an upper limit to the time taken to issue orders we would not be able to say that PBEMers actually take longer to issue orders than TCP/IPers in similar circumstances.

Even if we were able to say the above ( which we aren't) it would be entirely meaningless to say it since speed is not the crux of the matter.

I suggest you actually consider the various parameters and their inter-relational nature and interactions (causality vs association... this lies at the heart of your speed/excellence misrepresentation) more carefully next time.

[McAuliffe]

I suppose everyone has is preferences, but when opposites meet, you better quit. Anyone remembers that post of the Capt about that grog engaging the C&C adept.

I like playing TCP/IP - with no time limits - because of the satisfaction of an instant outcome of your decisions. No sleepless nights "did I made a good move by inching that Sherman to the crest of the hill?" But as soon as my opponent starts barking after a couple of minutes : "Can I get a beer from the fridge", I prefer to call it off. No offense, but I like to enjoy the game. I watch the movie over and over. e.g.: I just enjoy watching that Panther creep over the hill or when suddenly you hear at the far side of the map a ricochet on one of your tanks, but the gun did not reveal his position yet, I try to watch over and over the movie in order to find out what direction that shot came.

I prefer also to play bigger battles where the outcome of the battle does not depend on losing or keeping your übertank you spent all your points on. The lack of the "follow the leader group command" forces you to switch to PBEM when you are playing scenarios or QB over 3.000 pts a side. I want to take Legend42 on in every larger battle and see if his fast play pays off.

And as GenSplatton already pointed out, lot's of PBEMmers have several battles going on at the same time. They are able to finish as well 10 battles in 3 weeks where the TCP/IP player may get the same score if he plays a complete battle every 2 or 3 days.

[ August 10, 2002, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: McAuliffe ]

[skelley]

I don't know which are better players but Tcp adds a lot of pressure to a guy when he doesn't have 24hrs to ponder his options.

[Bruno Weiss]

But as soon as my opponent starts barking after a couple of minutes : "Can I get a beer from the fridge", I prefer to call it off.

No beer? What about coffee. Can't be a fitting without drinking some hotjoe.

[legend42]

Who am i Fionn?

Someone who enjoys this game very much whether it be pbem or tcip.I stand by my initial point.The TCIP game with a time limit is a harder task than a pbem without one.I really dont care what or how people play as long as there having fun.

And Mr. Fionn I play all the big boys at T-HOUSE.

I dont run from them like you did with Skelley.When I see your name at the top of the list with the big dogs than youll earn my respect.

[Tarquelne]

I stand by my initial point.The TCIP game with a time limit is a harder task than a pbem without one.I really dont care what or how people play as long as there having fun.

I still don't get that.Awhile ago someone brought up the point that a PBEM, who can easily take a long time on each turn, can "squeeze" the maximum effectivness out of his troops.

He's not working as hard over a given amount of time as the TCIPer, sure, but he'll probably be harder to beat than someone taking, for example, 5 min. each turn. If his opponent does the same then, all other things being equal, he _must_ "squeeze" his troops to win. Such maximization requires skill. Not the _same_ skill as useing troops effectively under a time limit, but skill nonetheless. I've seen nothing to indicate that the PBEMer is demonstrating _less_ skill. So, operating under time-pressure is harder than not operating under time-pressure... well, OK... but that doesn't automatically make the TCP/IPer _better_ at the game, just better at taking turns quickly.

If you want to assert "TCP/IP players are better at games in which large amounts of time can be spent taking each turn - ie, most TCIP games - than PBEMers who commonly use large amounts of time when taking each turn." I don't think anyone would argue with you, even those who worked thier way all the way to the end of the sentence. But it's a trivial point.

The only argument I liked toward "TCIP superiorty" was the one based on how much experience TCIPer gets vrs. the experience of a PBEMer. The arugment is, basically, TCIP games take less time, so TCIP gamers have more experience. That makes sense, though we should say "TCIP gamers will tend to have more experience." I don't know just how all PBEMs play - PBEM games can be almost as fast as TCIP games.

However, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't play timed TCIP games or PBEM games: In a timed TCIP game movie-watching time after the first run through is counted against your orders phase, right? But in a PBEM game the player can watch trough the movie as often as the player wants, right? So: A PBEM might be learning much more from each game than a TCIPer, since TCIP games do generally have a time limit. (Even if the timed turned function isn't used, I suspect that most TCIP opponents don't want to have to wait around.) The PBEMer can take more time to really see how CMBO works, and so learns more each game.

Overall, I think other factors (a player's inherent "knack" for the game, native intelligence, and desire/ability to learn) overshadow the TCIP/PBEM issue. If there is a difference I doubt it's at all significant.

[BFCElvis]

Fionn, I agree with you that just because someone is a PBEM player doesn't mean he is a slow player. Most of the very good players I know tend to be fairly fast at playing a turn for all the reasons you stated. However my gut tells me that the majority of TCP players are better than the majority of PBEM ONLY players (key words folks are "majority" and "ONLY"). Plus I have found TCP games to be more engrossing and interesting even though I have several PBEM games going at all times and am lucky if I get one TCP game in per week.

Lengend42, not being high on a ladder or even playing in ladder and tournament type games has zero bearing on someones skill at CM. I have absolutely no interest in those types of group activities......it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them at all but it should be kept in mind that not everyone cares about someones status in those areas. The only group thing that interests me is something like CMMC which is not a king of the hill type group gig. To imply Fionn is less of a player because he doesn't participate in those things is wrong and unfair and just baiting him into a pissing contest....and no one wins them on this forum. Am I considered a weak player for not playing in a ladder? I played Skully once in a pick up TCP game while I was trolling the chat room looking for a game. He didn't want to play for a while because it wouldn't be a ladder game. I ended up winning. Does that make me a better player? Who knows if we played 10 more games he may have won the next 10. My point is.....ah damn...I've forgotten my point.....TCP players are better and leave Fionn alone.

Let's just get back to bad mouthing PBEM players.

[skelley]

Hey fionn, we aren't assuming that the PBEMers are slower, we are saying that PBEMers can take their time if they choose. They have the ability to look over every possible move they can make and weigh the consequences of those moves. TCPers generally get about 7min for a 2k game which forces them to recognize the benefits and drawbacks of the terrain much quicker than a PBEMer. I agree that it is the quality of the move rather than the speed with which you make that move.That being said I know a few PBEMers who are great at the game. VonSchalburg jumps to mind. We could always get our game going again to find out which of us is better (I believe you are a PBEMer and I am a TCPer). Email me if you are interested:)

[WWB]

Legend42/Weapon:

Big dogs at Thouse. If that makes you the best, the CM world is going down hill. And if you just want people to enjoy the game, then why do you claim one group is superior?

Anyhow, I play PBEM. I probably play a bit more TCP. And I have tested some 10000 point scenarios on a 5 minute time limit. I actually find TCP easier than PBEM by virtue of being more in the game. No need to try and remember what happened last movie turn, no chance to forget plans, etc. While I do not time myself, I doubt if I spend any more time on a given turn no matter what the medium. It really is pretty immaterial. Whatever kind of game you are playing, you and your opponent are subject to the same limitations.

WWB

[ASL Veteran]

I think that Legend 42 is a legend in his own mind. Yeah that was bad, but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by Legend 42

Hi everyone. I am a TCP/IP Player, and because I play TCP/IP I can beat the pants off of anyone who plays PBEM. Come see me bask in my greatness at the Tournament House. Everyone knows that all the Titans play there so I must be great. Just don't be blinded by my tactical brilliance though cause I am quite spectacular at this thing we know as CMBO. If I fought for the Reich in World War 2, Hitler himself would have awarded me the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves.

I'm a PBEM player who only plays scenarios so I guess I really stink . It is obvious that the only way I am ever going to be any good at this game is if I play TCP/IP Quick Battles using the same optimized force mix over and over again.

I actually find it a little interesting that some might equate the number of CMBO games someone has played as being a barometer of tactical brilliance. This is especially interesting if someone exclusively plays quick battles with purchased forces. If you use the same force mix over and over again your tactical brilliance will remain a constant since you are only learning how to use your tailor made force to its best advantage. At some point there will be a diminishing return on your tactical learning because you aren't learning anything new. You only gain tactical insights by encountering new situations and tackling new or unanticipated problems. It doesn't matter if you have played 10,000 games TCP/IP with the same force mix and tactical situation when you are given an unfamiliar force mix and you are faced with an unanticipated or difficult tactical situation. When faced with that situation you are just as much of a greenhorn as the guy who has just bought the game a month ago - and you can fail just as spectacularly.

I think many ... perhaps most players who post on this board either have extensive wargaming experience and/or military service. Many of the tactical lessons learned from that experience is applicable to CMBO as well, so it is probably not accurate to judge a player's skill level exclusively by the number of CMBO games played. There is a lot more that goes into a players skill set than the number of games played.

[GenSplatton]

This is especially interesting if someone exclusively plays quick battles with purchased forces. If you use the same force mix over and over again your tactical brilliance will remain a constant since you are only learning how to use your tailor made force to its best advantage.

I have to ask, why would you assume someone that plays QBs all the time uses the same force mix? I despise scenarios and really like QBs. Yet I bet I have never bought the same unit mix twice. I just don't see where you extracted this conclussion/assumption from.

[skelley]

I don't know about the rest of you, but every QB I play has a different set of rules so it kinda makes it difiicult to use the same force mix for every game. I think I've used about every unit in the game so I don't know what you are talking about ASL. My tactics remain relatively the same no matter what force I am given. Most of the good players I have played can use any force composition to win. I do think that if you play more games you will become better. The biggest factor in the game is using the terrain to your benefit and that doesn't change no matter what force you have.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by legend42:

its just my opinion that the best tcip players will beat the best pbemers 8 out of 10 times in any format.

I'm not the greatest PBEM player (never player TCP/IP) but I'll challenge you to a game (QB of your choice) and since the format doesn't matter, lets make it PBEM 1 turn per day. You may impose a time limit on your turns if you wish.[/QB]</font>

[kump]

Never mind...

[ August 11, 2002, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: kump ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Hey Legend...why don't you challenge this PBEM'er to a PBEM match and I'll "wipe the battlefield" with you.

[K Jonsson]

But does a TCP/IP player always play more games? One of my opponents had the game installed at work so he could play a turn when he had a couple of quiet minutes. By doing that he managed to play games ge wouldn't have had the time to play if the only option had been TCP/IP. I think the same thing applies to a lot of other players. Even when Real Life™ is at its worst I can usually squeeze in one ore two replies each day. In those cases I probably use less time than the average TCP/IP player. Maybe that makes me a better player

/Kristian

[Bruce70]

You could also argue that a PBEM player who plays several games in parallel gets a tougher work out than an IP player who plays only one game at a time. I think most people prefer PBEM because they don't have the same amount of spare time as IP players. Hence they probably spend as little time on their turns as possible.

P.S. Still waiting for that game "Legend".

[Walker]

Sorry, slightly off topic:

Originally posted by legend42:

And Mr. Fionn I play all the big boys at T-HOUSE.

I dont run from them like you did with Skelley.When I see your name at the top of the list with the big dogs than youll earn my respect.

I’m sure Mr Kelly will be inconsolable when he learns he has yet to earn the respect of legend42 who, when he next requires urgent medical attention, will I hope not be at the mercy of a superficial blowhard whose priority in life is to win his current ladder game.

[Sitting Duck]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

You could also argue that a PBEM player who plays several games in parallel gets a tougher work out than an IP player who plays only one game at a time...

Ahh...but what of the IP player that plays more than one IP game at a time?

[legend42]

ok bruce your on ,I just emailed you

[legend42]

ok deadmash if you read what i said it was that the top tcipers would wipe the battlefeild of the best pbemers under a tcip format with a time limit.

You guys just dont get that and your putting words in my mouth.Ive never claimed to wipe the battlefeild with anybody.Im average to above averagr player in my opinion.

That being said ill be happy to play you as well.

I just mailed you.

[GenSplatton]

But does a TCP/IP player always play more games?

Kristian, I'd say yes. This is because I believe that TCPers probably do email games too. They just prefer TCP games. I doubt they do TCP excluseivly. So, they have PBEM games AND can complete a game totally in a few hours here and there.

p.s. Plays at work? Nice to know the boss is getting his money's worth.

p.s.s. Bruce, what is the chest thumping challenge supposed to prove? The question was about TCP/PBEM players in general, not just one player. Wondering what you think winning would prove. It sure won't invalidate any of the points made here in the thread.

[legend42]

hey wwb i never claimed that one group was superior,I said I play all the big dogs at T-house.Its my opinion that alot of the best players play there,I cant prove that, but all the guys in this post flapping there gums that im wrong about that can prove me wrong by playing there and racking up the victories.Now Im willing tp play anyone of you guys by pbem and ill post the results as well.Now why dont one of you guys join the t-house ladder and kick some but.

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by legend42:

hey wwb i never claimed that one group was superior,I said I play all the big dogs at T-house.

hhmmm...

Earlier you wrote:

"thanks for all your valued opinons, im not trying to insult anybody, its just my opinion that the best tcip players will beat the best pbemers 8 out of 10 times in any format."

For myself I do prefer PBEM for the following reasons:

I seldom got time for a whole game at once; real life keeps me simply too busy. This is the main reason.

What I do like about PBEM is:

I watch the movie several times from several positions; This gives me more accurate information about what's going on and I simply just enjoy to look at all those beautiful mod.

Giving orders actually doesn't take long. I do need rather little time for it compared with the time used just watching the movie.

I do sometimes finetune my move orders if needed to the last meter (then giving orders takes considerably longer of course), but overall I doubt if this really would make a difference at the end of the game.

all the best

Marcus

****