Simultaneous scenario play idea by M. Dorosh

[Ace Pilot]

Orignally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Has anyone ever set up two identical PBEM games against the same opponent and played them simultaneously - once from each side? I'd be interested in hearing about anyone who has experienced CM in such a manner - surely also an alternative way of ensuring competitive play.

One might argue that knowing one's precise force mix takes away from the fun, and alters the decision making process.

I’ve never played this way, but it certainly sounds like a great idea and I’d like to give it a try. It would seem like the combined score of the two games could be a good indicator of the overall better player (kind of like the British Army in Quebec). On the other hand, losing a scenario both as the attacker and as the defender can’t be good for my fragile ego.

Whether it would take away from the fun is another question. It would certainly result in the CM equivalent of card counting and remove some uncertainty (e.g., I’ve spotted both of the enemy AT assets, so I know where it’s safe and unsafe to move my armor). On the other hand, I can’t think of a board game that I’ve played where I didn’t know what my opponent had before the game started, and that didn’t take the fun out of the game.

I would think that it would work best with scenarios that are specifically designed to be replayable. Does anyone know of any scenarios that are very replayable, or even what the characteristics of such a scenario are?

Ace

PS – Mr. Dorosh posted his idea in another thread and rather than hijack that thread, I thought the concept deserved its own thread.

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks Ace - let us know how things turn out. And just so its clear - this wasn't my idea; I read about it in an article I posted here on the board from The General Magazine - it was about PBM for board games, and was the first time I've heard of anyone playing simultaneously like this. I believe the author was Tom Oleson (?)

[Terence]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Thanks Ace - let us know how things turn out. And just so its clear - this wasn't my idea; I read about it in an article I posted here on the board from The General Magazine - it was about PBM for board games, and was the first time I've heard of anyone playing simultaneously like this. I believe the author was Tom Oleson (?)

Mike, if you'd like to try this, we can give it a shot when we've done with Rocky Fields. Should be with something small, though...

[Commander]

Leta and I recently played three PBEM games simultaneously although they were not the exact same layout. We each played an Attack, Defense and Meeting Engagement.

We are currently going at each other on a large mirrored map with knowledge of our opponents forces (and they are all elite forces). We gave each other mega amounts of artillery too. No, its not historical... it is definately tactical and its King Tigers versus Super Pershings, Panthers versus Shermans and Pumas versus Greyhounds, plus we each have about a battalions worth of men.

What do you do under a 170mm artillery storm?

Die! thats what...

[Pak40]

Im doing this right now in the Rugged Defense Tourneyment Final Round.

--oops, scratch that. I didn't see the bit about using the exact same forces.

[ May 21, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Fionn]

I've done what is outlined below.

Dealing with uncertainty is part of what separates great players from barely competent players. Totally mirrored forces not only prevented players from choosing forces to suit their individual, separate, styles but also resulted in a lot of " I've spotted his two ATGs therefore now I know I can... insert risky manoeuvre here..." which skewed the results of the games IMO and those of the two people I tried this with.

Again, you're welcome to try it out for yourselves but removing the requirement to deal with uncertainty really narrows the margin between competent and great players. Since most players are merely competent I'd imagine this would be popular but it would also be misleading IMO.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fionn:

I've done what is outlined below.

Dealing with uncertainty is part of what separates great players from barely competent players. Totally mirrored forces not only prevented players from choosing forces to suit their individual, separate, styles but also resulted in a lot of " I've spotted his two ATGs therefore now I know I can... insert risky manoeuvre here..." which skewed the results of the games IMO and those of the two people I tried this with.

Again, you're welcome to try it out for yourselves but removing the requirement to deal with uncertainty really narrows the margin between competent and great players. Since most players are merely competent I'd imagine this would be popular but it would also be misleading IMO.

This seems inconsistent with your stance on "balanced" scenarios. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong. I understand that one can play a "balanced" scenario and still not have a clue exactly what the other side has....but doesn't the exclusion of certain types of units, as outlined in your proposed rules set(s) actually create an atmosphere in which "surprise" is greatly reduced?

[Fionn]

Dorosh,

It is internally consistent as I see a great difference in surprise potential between a situation where one might face any of 20 different vehicles and any number of those 20 different vehicles ( e.g 1 KT or 4 Pumas or 2 Panthers and a Puma etc) as against a situation where you KNOW you can only possibly be facing 2 Veteran Panthers.

One situation allows a great deal of surprise ( if not total surprise since, perhaps, KTs are outruled) whereas the other allows for surprise only with respect to place of employment.

[Randl]

Before I came to play CMBO I played PGII at the Freedom Fighters club. PGII has nothing but scenarios. There are no generated battles of any sort. It was common procedure to play Mirrored games in which we would play each side of a scenario at the same time with one another.

I feel that playing Mirrors adds a balancing aspect to the play when there is a limited number of scenarios that have been played umpteen times by the participants. Mirror play also makes playing unbalanced scenarios more palatable for ladder play as by rights you will win one lose one.

I can see a place for Mirror play in CMBO in some instances. However, with the ability to generate QB's with rule sets and the like, I have not felt the desire to do any.

Regards,

--Randl

[Commander]

I forgot to mention that Leta and I are not playing with any Victory Locations - this is strictly a 40 minute search and destroy type game.

We may score the results ourselves.

We each have four of the Uber Tanks, four of the medium Tanks and four Recon level vehicles. The uncertainey is the eventual match up of armored units, my men are praying they don't run into a pack of King Tigers head on! I feel that even the Super Pershings need to hit those bad boys from the side or rear.

[Deadly Dave]

There are other options to consider. Making a QB and picking troops . save the game and then make a duplicate file, rename. reopen both games and try differant tactics or attack avenues to see how much of a differance it can make to the outcome.

Or pick a map and then get third party to buy sides both axis and alled. start game. use same map and get third party to set up opposite side and play simultaneous games but neither knows what the other has.

[Traject0ry]

Playing simultaneously does cut some of the surprise element for sure and this type of game will certainly not suit every gamer playing CM:BO.

I'm playing one (Abrams' Thunderbolt) from the Depot (I've played it before) against a beginner who wanted me to comment his progress. In order to do so I decided that we'll play this mirrored and I'm personally employing risky tactics in order to take advantage of the map and employ my troops to their fullest extent. As I'm certain that he will play a more cautious and concentrated match it will allow him to see the strengths and weaknesses in both tactics.

In my opinion it can be great fun to play mirrors especially when gaming against an old trusty opponent and when the pair of you already have given the scenario in question a go (and know what the opposition has to offer).

I also underline that ofcourse such mirrored rematch requires a balanced scenario (or the results could be compared from the different games just to see which one achieved a greater margin of victory - a good way to play a scenario which often ends up in a draw) if the players want a match that either one could win.

-T