Wally's World Posted September 4, 2001 Share Posted September 4, 2001 Just a silly question if you don't mind. Which type of battle (non-quick battles) or operation would you rather play? A historical one or a fictional one? With regards to myself, I prefer historical or at least semi-historical ones because they seem to make the battle/operations feel more 'real' to me and help me get a better understanding of what the people present at the actual event had to go through to accomplish their mission. Fictional ones are almost too artificial for me and I just can't get that much into the game when playing one of these. Am I nuts for thinking like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 5, 2001 Share Posted September 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wally's World: Just a silly question if you don't mind. Which type of battle (non-quick battles) or operation would you rather play? A historical one or a fictional one? With regards to myself, I prefer historical or at least semi-historical ones because they seem to make the battle/operations feel more 'real' to me and help me get a better understanding of what the people present at the actual event had to go through to accomplish their mission. Fictional ones are almost too artificial for me and I just can't get that much into the game when playing one of these. Am I nuts for thinking like this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your not nuts... just not many people use this part of the fourm. I prefure historical as well. Its just that so many of the battles in CM are just One German company/Battalion ect against one allied compay/ battalion. The Germans alwas get 10 Super heavys and the allieds just get Stuarts or something. But thats just my point of view. [ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tread Head Posted September 5, 2001 Share Posted September 5, 2001 Historical all the way..... at least pair off forces that may of met in one of the thousands of unrecorded tiny battles..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted September 5, 2001 Share Posted September 5, 2001 I prefer the semi historical. The truly fictional are closer to science fiction, and any of the truly historical are not very balanced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 6, 2001 Share Posted September 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: I prefer the semi historical. The truly fictional are closer to science fiction, and any of the truly historical are not very balanced<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats the problem... people are get the miss contecption that everything was balanced...that is why they are no good. Balance didn't always happen. Which is why I like histoicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leta Posted September 6, 2001 Share Posted September 6, 2001 I prefer the historical battles too, even the unbalanced one. I love to read about WWII battles and CM gives me some of the sensations that the soldiers in these battles probaly has. Anyhow, you can enjoy with CM even when your isolated company are crushing by an armored battalion. You can try to minimize your casualties, find an escape route or plan a decent withdraw. BTW, when I design a battle (always historical battles) I try to find a well balanced one. It's better for multiplayer games ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lempereur Posted September 7, 2001 Share Posted September 7, 2001 Historical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigdog Posted September 7, 2001 Share Posted September 7, 2001 It’s in the map but I must give a hats off the Historical Authors much more work goes into their design. So I will say Simi-Historical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted September 7, 2001 Share Posted September 7, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bigdog: It’s in the map but I must give a hats off the Historical Authors much more work goes into their design. So I will say Simi-Historical <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And that's not a typo, I presume. As a designer I prefer the semi-historical ones. I think it is very difficult to get the material together, and I like the creativity of designing scenarios. Someone once dubbed these 'Anyday, August 1944' scenarios. The ones I like to design, and I rarely play, except to test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted September 7, 2001 Share Posted September 7, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: I prefer the semi historical. The truly fictional are closer to science fiction, and any of the truly historical are not very balanced<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which leads to a question for you scenario designers. In general, attackers only like to attack when they have great, or preferably overwhelming, superiority on the local level. Yet that doesn't make for a particularly good CM battle. So, what I want to ask as a player and potential scenario designer is, do those of you who design historical scenarios find yourself tending to cook things a bit in favor of balance? For example, in real life, Allied Shermans probably often found they had the fabled "5-1" superiority they said they needed against Tigers or Panthers, but in CM its often more like 1.5-1 or 2-1, which creates a great challenge both ways. But when the German's concentrate for a counterattack, the Allies generally have just enough resources to hold them off with a well-conceived defense. Is this because you're great at finding really well balanced battles, or because you tend to adjust things a bit towards balance? I'm not objecting, if that is the case--simpy wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 8, 2001 Share Posted September 8, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms: Which leads to a question for you scenario designers. In general, attackers only like to attack when they have great, or preferably overwhelming, superiority on the local level. Yet that doesn't make for a particularly good CM battle. So, what I want to ask as a player and potential scenario designer is, do those of you who design historical scenarios find yourself tending to cook things a bit in favor of balance? For example, in real life, Allied Shermans probably often found they had the fabled "5-1" superiority they said they needed against Tigers or Panthers, but in CM its often more like 1.5-1 or 2-1, which creates a great challenge both ways. But when the German's concentrate for a counterattack, the Allies generally have just enough resources to hold them off with a well-conceived defense. Is this because you're great at finding really well balanced battles, or because you tend to adjust things a bit towards balance? I'm not objecting, if that is the case--simpy wondering.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where to start? Well I my self look at a battle as it happend historically, no editing of forces to make it balenced or anthing like that... battles didn't happen that way. If historically the battle had a well prpared defence then I make it that way.(Only one or two of my Histical battles are public at this time). One of the battles I am working on for the Low-Countrys pack is a histical battle between a allied tank force and a well prepeard German defence, but because it is still in testing I will say nuthing. As a designer I feel that you make three kinds of historical battles, ones that end the way they did in reality, Historical forces put on a map somewhere and put into a historical battle, and finaly a semi historical which depicts two real units/ and or places, but is a could have type battle. These are only my points of veiw though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther G Posted September 8, 2001 Share Posted September 8, 2001 I like both Historical and Fictional as long as the fictional are believable and not silly, such as "Iron Fog Battle" or "Valley of Destruction: AT Guns". Regards, Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leta Posted September 10, 2001 Share Posted September 10, 2001 It's only my opinion, but thinking about designing historical battles there are, probaly, some ways to do a well balanced battle: - Strong attacker and weak defender: You can reduce the time limit. This way, the attacker should plan his attack with care because there is no place for mistakes. In that manner, the defender has an opportunity. And you can count with the poor attacking AI CM has. - Strong defender and weak attacker: You can put objective flags in key points so it's not necessary for the attacker to crush the entire enemy force to win the battle. This, combined with a well timing, give a chance to the attacker. Remember: it`s only my opinion. Don't harass me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted September 10, 2001 Share Posted September 10, 2001 I prefer to play historical battles. As a designer, I make exclusively historical battles including "Debut Of the Jadgtiger", "Indian Fighting", "The Bloody Causeway", and "Dunkirk Again". Part of my pleasure in making a scenario is doing the research and delving into the details of what really happened. Balancing a scenario based on an unbalaced historical fight is possible through different means including restrictive game lengths, exit objectives, victory flag placement and values, and outright giving the defender a point bonus at the start of the scenario. But what is most important is to convey the feel of the battle. It is impossible to get detail on the position of each man, each weapon, etc. Except for instances on the Russian front where the Russians were able to concentrate forces for 10:1 local numerical superiority (1944 on), I find many battles were not complete walk overs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted September 11, 2001 Share Posted September 11, 2001 Historical TOE. Fictional or Historical engagements. Briefly, Toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts