Who are the better players poll?Pbemers or Tcipers?

[GenSplatton]

Ok, never mind. I thought this thread had a chance at some interesting points being made, but now even the thread's originator has gone in to "beat chest, prove manliness" mode. Time to move on I reckon. No need to feed the trolls.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by 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.

The biggest factor in how you approach your battles may be terrain, but there are numerous different styles of play out there and each player has his or her own ... distinct personality. Bold and aggressive? Cautious and plodding? Each tactical situation demands a different approach to give yourself the best chance of coming out on top. Even then, if a cautious player decides that bold and aggressive action is required - well he may fumble it because he will revert to cautious mode at the wrong point in time. What may work for one player may not necessarily work for another. This leads to some players being continuously unsuccessful in certain situations where others might succeed with ease. Some players also have hundreds of games under their belt but never learn anything from that experience.

I want to draw your attention to one critical thing that you just said:

My tactics remain relatively the same no matter what force I am given.

I can guarantee that using the same approach with every force in every situation will cause someone to get spanked a few times. The key factor in a purchased force is exactly that - a purchased force. At some level you are in control of your force and you are able to make your force fit your tactics as opposed to making your tactics fit your force.

Originally posted by Gensplatton:

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.

Why don't you like scenarios? I've found that many players who prefer to purchase their own forces don't like to be placed in a situation where they have absolutely no control over their force mix or the terrain - and subsequently pay the price when put in a situation where they don't have control over those factors. The reason for this is that it takes them out of their "comfort zone."

When I play a scenario, my opponent either selects the scenario or the side, but not both. So, if he picks the scenario he doesn't know what side he will be playing (some people really can't handle that). If I pick the scenario, I will pick something where I am comfortable playing either side so it makes no difference to me which side he chooses. Yet for the force purchaser, he might not be comfortable with either side if I pick the scenario so he is in quite the dilemma. Does he pick the scenario without knowing the side he will play, or does he allow the opponent to pick the scenario and take a chance that he might not like either side? Usually he takes the third choice - and that is don't play a scenario at all.

[GenSplatton]

Why don't you like scenarios?

Interesting question. The answer for me is simple. I like to win or lose based on my use of tactics. In scenarios, the half dozen or so I have played, I found that tactics weren't necessarily what won. In fact, I lost a few despite good tactics. I found that scenarios force me to think about what the designer expects me to do rather than what do I want to do. Several times I went the non-obvious route and had success initially only to have replacements pop out righ ton top of my now woefully exposed force. Nothing to me is worse than carefully plotting and moving, haveing a succesful infantry attack against all odds, only to suddenly have two Panthers and a JadgPanther "reinforce" right on top of them. Needless to say, they are quickly wiped out and the scenario lost, not because I was outplayed, but because the designer decided thats where the reinforcements should go. To me, scenarios are a puzzle. Where does the designer expect me to go? What if I don't go there, will I pay? Will MY reinforcements pop out on the other side of the map because I didn't go where he wanted me to?

I realize I am a minority, at least among senior players. But I definitely prefer QBs any day of the week over a scenario. And I do not believe that those that play scenarios are any better tacticians because of it. I find that most folks that play scenarios do so for one reason, they grew tired of MEs. Personally, I came in to the game late and have well less than 100 games, so I haven't reached that point, nor will I before CM:BB comes out. But I don't find to many people that play scenarios because they felt that the tactics required were any different/tougher. Of course, some of these may have played ladders where the top dogs only played one setting with one force all the time. I know a few of them are cropping up at another site I used to play at. I suppose that would drive some away from QBs. But personally, it would only drive me away from those individuals, not the game type.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by GenSplatton:

Interesting question. The answer for me is simple. I like to win or lose based on my use of tactics. In scenarios, the half dozen or so I have played, I found that tactics weren't necessarily what won. In fact, I lost a few despite good tactics. I found that scenarios force me to think about what the designer expects me to do rather than what do I want to do. Several times I went the non-obvious route and had success initially only to have replacements pop out righ ton top of my now woefully exposed force. Nothing to me is worse than carefully plotting and moving, haveing a succesful infantry attack against all odds, only to suddenly have two Panthers and a JadgPanther "reinforce" right on top of them. Needless to say, they are quickly wiped out and the scenario lost, not because I was outplayed, but because the designer decided thats where the reinforcements should go. To me, scenarios are a puzzle. Where does the designer expect me to go? What if I don't go there, will I pay? Will MY reinforcements pop out on the other side of the map because I didn't go where he wanted me to?

I realize I am a minority, at least among senior players. But I definitely prefer QBs any day of the week over a scenario. And I do not believe that those that play scenarios are any better tacticians because of it. I find that most folks that play scenarios do so for one reason, they grew tired of MEs. Personally, I came in to the game late and have well less than 100 games, so I haven't reached that point, nor will I before CM:BB comes out. But I don't find to many people that play scenarios because they felt that the tactics required were any different/tougher. Of course, some of these may have played ladders where the top dogs only played one setting with one force all the time. I know a few of them are cropping up at another site I used to play at. I suppose that would drive some away from QBs. But personally, it would only drive me away from those individuals, not the game type.

Excellent comments. Yes, I suppose some scenarios could be looked upon as puzzles in some cases. I never really thought about them in that way though. The skill of the designer and the balance of a scenario will have an impact as well, but that should be handled in the scenario selection process. You probably wouldn't pick a scenario that was obviously unbalanced toward one side since your opponent will probably select the side with the advantage (if he can correctly identify the advantage). The bottom line is that people are going to play what they enjoy playing. Some like scenarios, others like Quick Battles. Some like TCP, others like PBEM. Each form of playing has its own set of skills and these skills aren't always directly comparable in terms of 'best' or 'worst' between methods of playing. People should just be happy to be good at what they are good at and leave it at that.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread because the thread isn't about scenario vs quick battle but TCP vs PBEM. I only speak to the games of experience issue and why I think it is a relative non factor for tactical skill. Game experience is probably more important to the force purchaser than the non force purchaser because game experience will give him more insights into how the game works with respect to certain units and will allow him to maximize his purchases. This doesn't mean that the player with more experience is inherently better at tactics than someone who has less games under their belt. All it means is that the player who has more experience can exploit the game better under situations where they have full control over their force mix. Learning how to exploit the game and how to maximize your purchases does not make you a good tactician. All it does is make you good at exploiting the game and maximizing your purchases. There is much more to it than that .

I'm sure it wouldn't take Colin Powell 1000 TCP IP games to be considered a worthy opponent. He may be able to kick anybody's a$$ after playing his first game.

[ August 11, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]

[legend42]

Im sure you will all be happy to know that this will be my final comment about this thread.First of all this thread has gone far beyond my intentions.I was hoping to create a fun little debate of tcip vs pbem.My intention was not to insult anyone who plays by pbem.If I insulted anyone in this thread about how they play or if they pbem or not than I apologize.

[skelley]

ASL are you saying that you have to play scenarios to become a good tactician. If so, that is complete nonsense. I love it when you guys who don't play QBs say we manipulate the game engine. We simply know how to use the equipment that is available. When people design scenarios they give you the equipment you need to do whatever the mission is. This carries over to QBs also. Its not as though we know what the map looks like and know exactly what to purchase. Learning how to use your infantry is a big part of the game and that doesn't change whether it is a scenario or a QB. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on your contention that we are manipulators of the game. That being said I would like to play you sometime. We can even play a scenario if you like email me if you would like to do this. skelley1@cinci.rr.com

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by skelley:

ASL are you saying that you have to play scenarios to become a good tactician. If so, that is complete nonsense. I love it when you guys who don't play QBs say we manipulate the game engine. We simply know how to use the equipment that is available. When people design scenarios they give you the equipment you need to do whatever the mission is. This carries over to QBs also. Its not as though we know what the map looks like and know exactly what to purchase. Learning how to use your infantry is a big part of the game and that doesn't change whether it is a scenario or a QB. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on your contention that we are manipulators of the game. That being said I would like to play you sometime. We can even play a scenario if you like email me if you would like to do this. skelley1@cinci.rr.com

Nah, I'm not saying that you have to play scenarios to be a good tactician per se. A person can be a good tactician in either a scenario or a QB format. I think the skills are a little different though because if a player is going to be good at a QB or on a ladder, one of their skills is going to have to be purchasing for maximum advantage, and maximizing that purchase to fit his tactical set of skills. A scenario player need not be skilled in this area, but does need to be skilled at assessing what he is given and making a plan of action that fits the force he has. The difference is rather subtle I suppose. The QB player tailors the force to match the plan while the scenario player tailors the plan to match the force. I personally think that you gain more from the latter than you do the former, but that's just my opinion. Either a QB player or a scenario player can be good at both ... just depends on the individual and what they like to do.

The argument in this thread that, by definition, a TCP / QB player is a superior player, is the topic I was addressing. Yeah, you can play TCP with a scenario, but I just added QB in there cause of the nature of the discussion. The idea of this thread is nonsensical on so many levels that I had to chime in. It is just as nonsensical as someone saying that a scenario player is by definition a better player. There are good and bad players in both categories. I certainly hope I'm making some sense, cause I'm just shooting from the hip here .

I hadn't planned on playing another game until CMBB comes out, but I guess I can make an exception under the circumstances. Very generous to offer to tackle me on my own turf - I'll give you a tip of the hat for that one . Should be an interesting game. E-mail on the way.

[GenSplatton]

ASL, just wanted to say great comments. Very well thought out, very well presented, and not a touch of sarcasm. We may have hijacked the thread for a moment, but it was a civil hijacking.

[Foobar]

ASL,

I think we are hitting upon that age old difference in motivations behind playing. My own opinions aside, I am not posting to demonize anyone or belittle them.

But the answer to the following questions delineates the differnces.

1) Would this tactic work in real life? Would men fight this way?

2) Would I ever find myself in this situation as a ww2 commander?

Some answer no, and feel disappointed by the break with reality, as the simulation in reality is what they were seeking.

Some are unfazed by this, as their motivation leans more towards simply winning the computer game.

Im not the first to post along these lines, and surely wont be the last. I have to concur that the skit created by The_Capt does the best job at presenting the dilemna when two worlds meet

[skelley]

I agree with you in part Cpt. Foobar. I think there is a difference between playing QBs with a fairly historical force composition and buying 10 wasps and burning the whole battlefield. Which is what I think of when I think of somebody caring about nothing but winning. Now I haven't read a million books on infantry tactics but I know how to move my infantry without getting them slaughtered. I don't know if my moves are text book movements and like you say I am unfazed by this. I wanna meet the guy who knows the text book tactical answer to every situation faced in this game. I don't use uber infantry (Volksgrenadiers, Gebirs, Falschirmjagers, and usually not Motorized). I believe these infantry types take absolutely no tactical skill because their firepower is so high that they mop the floor with the allies. I mainly stick to vanilla forces where it is definitely tactics that win the game.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by legend42:

hey seanachai

thank you for your valued opinion,you have added so much to this topic that I really look forward with great anticipation to all your future comments.

your one of those guys who puts up a topic and gets 0 responses arent you?

Well, in point of fact, lad, I've probably really only started 'one' thread, but it's paid great dividends in terms of a response. We've pretty much lost track of the number of generated responses, but I believe, taken in their entirety, they probably crest the 10,000 post mark. Certainly the first two, that had my name on them specifically as 'author', broke 5,000 posts. Let me know when you want to swap anecdotes about your posting history.

But that's neither here nor there. I found your original claim 'intriguing', but it's presentation so useless as to make it almost valueless. You weren't interested in 'debating' the relative values of PBEM or TCP/IP play; you were interested in claiming that yours was 'bigger', and that by virtue of what style of play you favoured.

You weren't a champion of TCP/IP play, you were a champion of 'mine's bigger because I play TCP/IP'. Rather sad, actually. Kudos to all those TCP/IP players who overlooked your rather needy insistence to debate the question more fully, including that annoying swine, Elvis (we know that you would spread your filthy habits, from TCP/IP to 'no numbering of turns' to the entire community if you had your way, Elvis).

Of course, you might primarily be a champion of 'stirring the pot, and then running away', as you've already admitted, and since confirmed by saying you're leaving the thread you started.

Also, you keep saying that you 'run with the big dogs' on one of those ladder threads. Good for you, lad. A poodle can run with a rottweiler, after all, as long as the rottweiler permits it.

As for PBEMers having all the time in the world to get out the calipers, consult the collected wisdom of the German High Command in a Google search, and make a phone call to their favourite Combat Mission Tactical Guru, as opposed to the lightning reflex response and the steely-eyed tactical fortitude of those TCP/IP fighter pilots, that's all a gross and useless over-simplification of how 'real' people play.

In fact, I'd thought the whole issue would be interesting to play out, except for four basic points:

2) Your taunt to me was pitiable, and uninformed. It would be very awkward for me to accept a game against someone with so little panache to support it.

A) You clearly have the aggression and energy to stir up trouble, but not the personal fortitude or sense of honour to maintain or defend your position. Someone who overturns a garbage can and then runs off to tell his friends about it is rather sad, don't you think?

&) Like a teenage vandal (and not a particularly interesting one), you seem completely incapable of writing or formatting correct English, although you're clearly a native speaker. I find the phenomenon of attempting to mask educational and personal inadequacies by the smokescreen of 'internet useage' insupportable. If you can't use English correctly, then learn. If you won't use it correctly because you can't be bothered, then sod off.

Final) Your whole argument is based less on a considered and defensible position, than a desire to drop trou and dance around pointing at yourself. We are all amazed at your supposed 'CM Prowess'. But that doesn't mean most of us are all that intrigued by your need to do so.

[ August 12, 2002, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Seanachai ]

[NightGauntt]

I've said it time and again, Time is a HUGE factor in measuring someone's ability in CM.

playing pbem games are interesting, but without a factor of time, you really don't know if your opponent is really good or just average with time on his hands.

I like to state that taking time is the most abused gamey tactic there is. It exploits the uber sight problem, which i think most agree is a big problem that unfortunatly can't be solved.

I know players that spend an hour just watching the replay for any tell tale signs ie arty spotting shell, listening for missed audio queues, etc.

What i find, is people who do not play with time limits MISS things, like the above noted examples.

Players also do not have time to get into the picture perfect hull down position with every tank, have every infantry unit just perfect inside the woodline, etc etc etc.

In other words, the games are a bit more realistic because everything is not perfect. Which is what seems to be the goal in pbem games sometimes.

people under pressure make mistakes, they miss sounds, don't notice units, forget to move units, etc etc etc

time is pressure. Your ability to deal with pressure is an important factor to how good you are.

[xerxes]

Wow, I hope I never run into one of these "perfect" PBEMers that can take all the time in the world and always make the perfect move. I take all the time in the world and I NEVER HAVE MADE A PERFECT MOVE. Not even close. If you're short on time I can send you some of mine in a zip file, or an hqx file if you're so inclined.

Insomnia sucks btw. This thread is good though and there hasn't been a train wreck in my backyard so this'll have to do. Next best thing and all.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by NightGauntt:

I like to state that taking time is the most abused gamey tactic there is. It exploits the uber sight problem, which i think most agree is a big problem that unfortunatly can't be solved.

IRL you have hundreds of intelligent soldiers using their eyes to gather information.

...watching the replay for any tell tale signs ie arty spotting shell, listening for missed audio queues, etc.

Similarly it is unlikely that IRL these would be missed as often as in CM (including PBEM). I don't know anyone sad enough to spend an hour looking for them either.

What i find, is people who do not play with time limits MISS things, like the above noted examples.

Which I think is why playing PBEM is closer to RL. Well I think the result is closer to RL, not the actual gameplay obviously.

Players also do not have time to get into the picture perfect hull down position with every tank, have every infantry unit just perfect inside the woodline, etc etc etc.

Real soldier on the other hand do and in fact do so without even thinking about it.

In other words, the games are a bit more realistic because everything is not perfect. Which is what seems to be the goal in pbem games sometimes.

To have a realistic game you need time to be the eyes, ears and brain of every soldier on the battlefield since the AI does not currently do this for you or only does so in a very limited way.

people under pressure make mistakes, they miss sounds, don't notice units, forget to move units, etc etc etc

People under pressure do miss things but real soldiers use their own initiative in the absense of orders or at least try to obtain orders if none are forthcoming.

time is pressure. Your ability to deal with pressure is an important factor to how good you are

In IP games, it seems from this discussion (I don't play IP) that time limits are chosen to create pressure. Therefore the ability to deal with time pressure is an important factor in IP games and the same is true IRL. But that doesn't mean that short turn duration IP games are more realistic and it also doesn't mean that you will be a better player in PBEM games or a better commander IRL (nor does playing PBEM games).

[bTW just to give a ball park figure I would say that if I am attacking in a PBEM game then my turns would take between 2 and 10 minutes depending on the amount of action and I would view the replay 1 to 3 times depending on the map size.]

[Geier]

A few things that popped into my mind and wouldn't go away.

1. There is one hell of a difference between "competing" and "playing". When you play ladder games, you are competing. I find no enjoyment competing with computer games. Others do.

2. Being good at CM has no bearing on being a good combat leader in RL. Not a thing. Tcp/ip or pbem doesn't even come into it. It makes you good at playing a computer game a certain way. Beating Fallout doesn't make you great at surviving in radioactive wastes.

3. I never understood what this subject really was about. I'll never know if someone of the Big Dogs (omg but I do find that funny) from Ladder X is better at playing tcp/ip games of CM than me, simply because I never will compete against them. They might even bench press more than me. I fail to see the relevance of this.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Geier:

2. Beating Fallout doesn't make you great at surviving in radioactive wastes.

You ARE joking about this one, aren't you?

[Ron]

Originally posted by NightGauntt:

I've said it time and again, Time is a HUGE factor in measuring someone's ability in CM.

Why? As many have said before the *player* is wearing ALL of the hats and has no one under him that will act like a RL counterpart, relieving the burden of doing everything all of the time. That alone makes the time pressure argument an artificial one.

Battles in RL as depicted in CM didn't last 10-20-30 minutes, they lasted for hours. What do you think all of the commanders and sub-commanders were doing in that time? Perhaps thinking and acting instinctively? Getting a feel for the terrain? Getting a feel for the unfolding battle through radio chatter, sights, sounds etc., all from being there?

CM, like others, is just a game, playing it PBEM or TCP are just different aspects of playing the game, not RL. One form is not superior to the other because the game cannot model all of the factors present in RL, only some of them, limited at that.

The one thing in agreement from earlier is playing more games and learning from the experience will make you a better player. TCP allows that, though PBEM can also. I have heard some players have had as many as 19 PBEM games going at one time, and trying to continually get files out and replying to the ones you did in an evening of gaming creates its own form of time pressure.

Ron

[Traject0ry]

I play TCP/IP and Pbem.

I play for fun.

I play for the victory.

If somebody constantly beats me in CM:BO he is a better player than I am.

What counts is that if he is fun enough to be bothered to play with or not.

I'm not sure about the bunch posting here ...

-T

[NightGauntt]

to answer bruce:

the reason is it is more realistic is because commanders DO NOT get all the information immediatly. Their troops may see it, but the COs that make the decisions don't.

Just because your infantry see the tank, your tank 2 kms away doesn't immediatly know its there and turn to get that perfect hull down position on where the enemy tank is heading to.

You have hundreds of soldiers to see things, but this is WW2, you have maybe 4 soldiers in a coy that can communicate anything. And out of those 4, maybe 1 can communicate with the person you need a minute or 2 after you spot something. Not immediatly.

Time pressure is an important factor in a more realistic game. No matter what the outcome, a time included game is more realistically PLAYED than one without time.

to ron:

"Battles in RL as depicted in CM didn't last 10-20-30 minutes, they lasted for hours"

that is a player problem; not a game problem. I rarely play games with less 90 turns. Considering battle tempo is set by how players play, battles can last hours.

'That alone makes the time pressure argument an a"

artificial one."

not true. Yes they had help, but what they didn't have is the ability to sit at the edge of a battle field and wait for 2 hours until every single piece of information had been thouroughly disected. They went with what was known at the time.

expirience makes you better, no doubt, and I play plenty of pbem games. What am am stating is timed constrained games, are a more complete experience because time is both a realistic and very difficult factor..

Another thing I should like to state. "Timed" doesn't even mean a set time like 10 minute turns.

In fact I have never set a time limit on any game I ever played. Never played a ladder game.

Timed means doing your turn without taking advantage of the ability to look over everything for an extended amount of time. Not that you get cut off doing a move because of a time clock.

What does that mean, is it is up to the player not to take advantage, I trust my opponents don't do it (i'm picky with my opponents).

[Geier]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

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

2. Beating Fallout doesn't make you great at surviving in radioactive wastes.

You ARE joking about this one, aren't you?</font>

[CMplayer]

People who say TCP is more realistic because you don't have much time in real warfare don't understand what they are talking about.

When plotting moves, you are plotting the decisions that would have been made simultaneously by _many_ officers, non-coms and even plain old enlisted men. You are NOT role-playing the highest commander on the field.

Since they are all making their decisions simultaneously, but you have to do it sequentially, it is natural that you need more time to plot one game-minute's worth of orders.

When it comes to 'getting out the compass and ruler', again, those are the sorts of decisions that sergeants and others on location would be making during a fight. If they detect enfilades/defilades and other small scale topographical features that can give their squad an advantage you can bet they use it. Otherwise they're dead. But as the game player, you once again have to spend the time sequentially, platoon by platoon, instead of it all going on simultaneously.

So again, taking time to micromanage is not unrealistic.

I didn't read the whole thread, so if anyone else brought up this OBVIOUS answer to the question then I'm glad someone else is sensible.

[ August 12, 2002, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Grisha]

Thank you, CMPlayer, for pointing that out. I began to respond to this last night but, after the 3rd paragraph, gave up. The CM community seems to possess a greater percentage of 'traditional' wargamers (maps, counters, rulebooks, dice) than most other computer 'wargames' (I'm sorry, a tactical RTS is not a wargame. However, the idea of an RTS for strategy-level wargames is an interesting idea. One caveat should be that the term 'real-time' refers to the game design, i.e. no game stops, rather than a correlation of actual time to game time). I guess it needs to be reiterated from time to time what a wargame is - including a computer version like CM. Personally, if I'm playing TCP/IP I need a minute of time for every HQ unit in the game.

[ August 12, 2002, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Fionn]

Skelley,

Given what you said publicly to make it appear that I ducked out of our game AFTER I'd sent you emails weeks ago telling you precisely when I had the free time to start our game (end of August) you will, undoubtedly, understand that I don't trust you to be honest. Not replying to emails privately and then publicly ignoring the fact they were ever sent is an "interesting" gambit to say the least.

So, since I try not to play people I don't trust I'll have to turn down your offer of a game. Feel free to dress this up as fear of you etc etc.

Walker,

LOL!!!! Thanks for the laugh .

General point:

Good, experienced tacticians will make good tactical choices irrespective of the forces at their disposal, the terrain, their mission and force correlation factors.

A great player will not always win ( since he may sometimes get truly awful forces which simply can't stand up against the enemy... ie. 1 platoon and 3 HMGs vs 1 experienced infantry Bn backed by a platoon of tanks) BUT he will always, always, always exact a higher toll of the enemy than one would normally expect. This can be seen in the CMMC and balanced PBEMs where some players routinely inflict 4 or 5 or 6 to 1 exchange ratios no matter whether they are defending, attacking, winning or losing. These same players, when given exceptionally favourable circumstances (ambush situations etc) have been noted to habitually inflict casualties at rates of up to 20 to 1 in company and Bn-sized engagements. So, the exchange ratio habitually acheived by a good player in poor to normal circumstances is going to be much better than that achieved by the average player ( who when playing other average players will often end up with a bloody slaughter won by only a narrow margin).

The results of several tournaments back this up with very few of the winners exceeding an average score of 65 over the course of the entire tournament. This is a terribly low average winning score and speaks of a great deal of mutual slaughter and very few one-sided massacres ( of the sort a good player could be expected to engineer every couple of games).

The outstanding players in these tournaments had significantly higher average scores. This came about as a result of their constantly inflicting far higher exchange ratios than the norm AND, occasionally, engaging in absolutely brutal massacres of their enemy ( with exchange ratios in excess of 4 to 1).

The exchange ratio shows that no matter the overall context their tactical skills are superior. Of course in the game-world of "wins and losses" and balanced games exchange ratios are rarely ever mentioned and so few will find what I say popular. Still, if you look at history you will see that the historical stature of a general is usually not based on his victories or losses BUT on the exchange ratios involved irrespective of whether victory was achieved locally or globally ( Phyrrus, Hannibal, Caesar, Alexander, Leonidas, vonLoringhoven, Baeke etc).

Caveat: When facing untutored hordes exchange ratio relevance fell somewhat for obvious reasons.

So, begin twisting this as you see fit until you can discount it.

[Bruno Weiss]

legend42 wrote:

I was hoping to create a fun little debate of tcip vs pbem.

Your kidding right. A fun lil debate. Of somefink versus somefink. On this here forum?

[NightGauntt]

To CM player:

"People who say TCP is more realistic because you don't have much time in real warfare don't understand what they are talking about....."

wrong.

Micromanaging ends up exploiting the biggest (but understandably unavoidable) flaw in the game. Universal spotting.

If your infantry spot a tank, your tank 1 km away would NOT know about it. Therefore, when you move your tank to take advantage of that situation, you are exploiting a flaw.

By spending unlimited amounts of time on a turn, you exploit the flaw even more because you can continually look around and figure out possibilities well above and beyond what the individual commanders on scene could know.

Time limits help to minimize this, not a perfect solution, but at least it helps a bit.

It also removes a very very powerful tool from commanders that use it namely: trying to force a player to do something. When a player is trying to force decisions to be made by his opponent, the longer the opponent has to react, usually the better the opponent will react because he has TIME to think about different possible solutions.

In a timed game you get: SH**! i didn't think he was going to do that, how to react how to react.

In a non-timed game you get: interesting, hmmm. I think I'll go eat a bagel and think about this one for a while.

VERY big difference.

To Grisha (If you were talking to me, otherwise ignore):

1. There is only 1 tactical RTS to my knowledge Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

2. I don't play any other RTS games (i did play starcraft, it was a guilty pleasure )

3. I am a hc table top player, whether it is squad leader, harpoon, A&A, Europe Aflame, Diplomacy, and a whole bunch of others i'm going to remember as soon as i post this

One of the advantages of computer games is that they CAN include time in them. And in a game that is based on actual time, IE CM vs Strategic command (which is based on elapsed time of months), time is a major factor.