Meeting Engagements are Absurd

[PeterX]

From a military point of view. C'mon. How many examples in the history of modern war can you furnish showing two symetrically balanced forces, colliding into eachother haphazardly, then dueling over a central location to which both sides arrive from equidistant compass points. Preposterous!

Mind you, I'm not talking about prepared scenarios but Quick Battles. They love these things at the ladder sites, I guess because they're supposed to provide perfect competitive balance. For that I can play chess or Go. We're supposed to be pretending to be at war here, men.

MEs, in my experiences, tend to degenerate into massive furballs in the center of the map around turn 12. There, after the weird and tentative peek-a-boo between the opfors that characterizes the early turns, the game is decided with a heavy admixture of luck. Any ressemblance to real warfare is coincidental. For some reason, they're especially favored by the pre-generation X players. I submit that if one were to rank real Life battles-in CM nomenclature- in terms of probability of occurence they would be:

1-Assaults (By far the most common)

2-Attacks

3-Probes

99- Meeting Engagements

Perhaps, you had some naturally occurring MEs in North Africa when disoriented armored columns crashed into eachother out of the vast, dusty desert. I don't know, but it seems more plausible than on the Eastern Front.

A certain ladder site, which shall remain nameless, has commenced a round robin tournament and the first battle in my mailbox is an ME. Groan....

[ November 23, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Bruno Weiss]

Ha! I said the same thing about Bush and he still won.

[-E]

Originally posted by PeterX:

We're supposed to be pretending to be at war here, men.

ROFL!!!!

[-E]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Ha! I said the same thing about Bush and he still won.

Did he? hehe

[Echo]

I'm with you here. I crave the off balanced, underdog fight. How much sweeter it is when that armored recon platoon has been wiped out with nothing more than the crusty shorts of my tired infantry.

Thats true warfare.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Echo:

I'm with you here. I crave the off balanced, underdog fight. How much sweeter it is when that armored recon platoon has been wiped out with nothing more than the crusty shorts of my tired infantry.

A previous post of mine on the subject of QB's

[Ivan_996]

The meeting engagement was actually very common during WWII on the East Front, but you have to take it in context.

Armored pincers were, if they didn't run out of supplies first, best handled by similiar armored forces. Some of the most critical battles on the East Front were meeting engagements where an armored column was defeated or victorious before reaching the second pincer and thereby encircling enemy forces.

This is what made Hitler's "no retreat" orders extremely dangerous to German forces. Not the actual retreat order itself...German infanty after 1943 was far too immobile to even disengage...but within the order was a mandate that said any counterattacks had first to be approved by Hitler first.

This often meant that German forces had to fight through a ring of entrenched Russians who had encircled a couple of divisions.

[vedder]

Unrealistic? Sure. Absurd? Nah. It's fun to do attacks and other types of games to really test your brain, but imo if you want to see who is the better player you pit them in an equal M.E. and see which one can win without the other side being handicapped. That's probably why its favored for ladders because it helps keep things fair. Yes war isn't fair but this isn't war this is a game and sometimes you wanna have things evened out so you can really see who is the better man.

[PeterX]

It's fun to do attacks and other types of games to really test your brain, but imo if you want to see who is the better player you pit them in an equal M.E. and see which one can win without the other side being handicapped.

Yeah, it proves who's more proficient with MEs.

[marcusB]

I submit that if one were to rank real Life battles-in "non" CM nomenclature- in terms of probability of occurence they would be:

1-Assaults (By far the most common)

2-Attacks

3-Probes

99- Meeting Engagements

1,000,000-Out of shape guys in their underwear, sitting in front of a computer screen eating potato chips, thinking they are anywhere close to experiencing "real" combat

[Battlefront.com]

Ivan,

The meeting engagement was actually very common during WWII on the East Front, but you have to take it in context.

Actually, that isn't true at all. Meeting Engagements at CM's level (Company to Battalion) were very rare. It was, however, very common for two forces to meet unexpectedly during major attacks. The difference between this and ME battles is that one side defaulted itself to Defense, even if temporarily. For example...

Armor pincer is coming down the road, I am supposed to be going up the same road, I stop and wait for the bastards to come to me. If they do, I beat them and THEN advance to my objective. If they don't I figure out how best to attack and they are then on the defensive.

Now, from a strategic or operational level (Regt-Army Group) it might look more like a meeting engagement. But at CM's level, it would be an improvised game of "Who's Going to Defend?"

Steve

[Redwolf]

Dear Mr X,

Mind you, I'm not talking about prepared scenarios but Quick Battles. They love these things at the ladder sites, I guess because they're supposed to provide perfect competitive balance. For that I can play chess or Go. We're supposed to be pretending to be at war here, men.

Your imagination, and...

MEs, in my experiences, tend to degenerate into massive furballs in the center of the map around turn 12.

... this is who you are about as wrong as Bill Gates when he predicted 640 KB should be enough for anybody.

For your information, with experienced laddergamers there is not tendecy to have a main clash at any predeterminated point in the battle.

You apply your own tactical shortcomings to people you imagine you would dislike if you knew something about them.

Perhaps, you had some naturally occurring MEs in North Africa when disoriented armored columns crashed into eachother out of the vast, dusty desert.

Nonsense. On the contrary, the often wide lines of sight, and/or the intensive vehicle scouting, ment that usually one side would see the other coming in time to fight from a standing position.

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ivan,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The meeting engagement was actually very common during WWII on the East Front, but you have to take it in context.

Actually, that isn't true at all. Meeting Engagements at CM's level (Company to Battalion) were very rare. It was, however, very common for two forces to meet unexpectedly during major attacks. The difference between this and ME battles is that one side defaulted itself to Defense, even if temporarily. For example...

Armor pincer is coming down the road, I am supposed to be going up the same road, I stop and wait for the bastards to come to me. If they do, I beat them and THEN advance to my objective. If they don't I figure out how best to attack and they are then on the defensive.

Now, from a strategic or operational level (Regt-Army Group) it might look more like a meeting engagement. But at CM's level, it would be an improvised game of "Who's Going to Defend?"

Steve</font>

[Kwazydog]

Funnily enoungh, about a year ago I bought a German WW2 training tape on video that showed a meeting engagement and how a commander should tackle one! Apparently it was only recently found, and is fascinating to watch as it shows both Jpz IV's and Flame half tracks in action and had funky 1944 era aminations showing paths of attack, etc.

The example they used was a Russian break through through a particually weak area of the German front lines. The Russians were moving forward reasonably quickly and a force was them ordered to move forward and stop them. Not an unreasonable situation I imagine. The forces were of about equal size but of course the Germans had a wonderful victory

I have no idea how common they were, but it seems they were at least common enough to make a 20 min training tape on how to tackle such a situation.

Dan

[ November 24, 2002, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Redwolf]

I wouldn't be surprised if battles involving tanks on both sides on the Eastern Front (read: most CMBB battles) from Fall of 1943 on were even in the majority of cases meeting engagements.

The Germans had armor only in few concentrations far behind the lines, and the infantry lines were very thin. They must have met Soviet exploration armor behind their infantry lines very often.

[murpes]

Originally posted by PeterX:

For some reason, they're especially favored by the pre-generation X players.

This just kind of make you sound, I dunno, codger-like. Damn kids!

[Moriarty]

If you're looking for a meeting engagement that is not "balanced," you won't find it in ladder play or AI generated QBs.

You'll need to step out of the box and use a third-party battle map on which you and your opponent select your own forces. Such maps can be whipped up using the scenario editor or are available at CM sites such as Scenario Depot and Der Kessel.

Once you have a map, all you and your opponent need to do is agree to play a no-point game. You take what you want; he takes what he wants.

Example: You take an understrength company of infantry and maybe a couple of light AFVs. Your opponent takes whatever he wants. Your recon company might run into an armored division, it might run into 2 sharpshooters or anything in between.

You still have the flexibility to limit armor and such if you like ... or you can play absolutely no rules.

It's not the game that limits you. It's all in how you set up the game.

[ November 24, 2002, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Funnily enoungh, about a year ago I bought a German WW2 training tape on video...

The Germans had video tape in WW II? Wow! They must be getting rich off the royalties by now.

Michael

[Sgt. Steiner]

A just found WW2 German training film? Where can I get a copy! I already have "Men Against Tanks", "Engineers to the Front", and "Sharpshooter: The Unseen Weapon". Another addition to the collection would be outstanding. Throw us a link, please!

[THumpre]

I'm still trying to figure out the point of PeterX's post. Well, actually not the point of his post but the point of him posting it. If you don't like MEs, don't play them, period.

[PeterX]

Actually, that isn't true at all. Meeting Engagements at CM's level (Company to Battalion) were very rare. It was, however, very common for two forces to meet unexpectedly during major attacks. The difference between this and ME battles is that one side defaulted itself to Defense, even if temporarily. For example...

See, Steve supports my position. I think.... :confused:

Don't misunderstand. There are some good scenarios out there that depict, usually through the ebb and flow of reinforcements, relatively equal forces 'getting it on'. Many episodes in the Kursk battle might conform to the description of Meeting Engagements.

My beef against the ME, as a Quick Battle only, is the artificiality: the precisely equal forces, the flags in the precise middle of the map, the identical setup up zones with the identical depths, the predictable force selections. Also, in my experience, the game play tends to develop in very odd ways. Additionally, IMO, no computer generated map can rival, in tactical interest, a good map created by a user. (yes, I realize you can now import maps- but most MEers don't).

[athkatla]

Originally posted by PeterX:

"the flags in the precise middle of the map"

I have played a lot of Meeting Engagements and in many of them the flags have been biased to one side or the other

[Khane]

Originally posted by PeterX

For that I can play chess or Go

That's what you do when you play a wargame : play Chess. You use your brain to guess your opponent moves and try to find solutions to the problems caused by his moves. Instead of Kings , Rooks, Knights, Bishops, Queens and Pawns moving on a black and white board you move artificial Tanks , Vehicles and Soldiers on different artificial terrains. I think that any wargame no matter how well it simulates combat situations, is always 99,999 % closer to Chess than real combat.

From my experience I think that even when a ME , like a Chess game , opposes "two symmetrically balanced purchase points forces" ,it never like Chess , really opposes two "symmetrically balanced forces".

two symmetrically balanced forces, colliding into eachother haphazardly, then dueling over a central location to which both sides arrive from equidistant compass points. Preposterous!

Who said that the forces of MEs have to be "symmetrically balanced" ? It's up to you ( or you and your opponent ) to decide to play a balanced or unbalanced battle. Want to try ? You with one "Conscript" T-34 WhateverModel and me with ten "Elite" JagdPanthers.

Khane

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Moriarty:

If you're looking for a meeting engagement that is not "balanced," you won't find it in ladder play or AI generated QBs.

"AI" generated? You mean CMBB generated, yes?

Anyway, again it is the evil-non-laddergamers bashing the laddergamers without knowing what they are talking about.

Laddergames are not inherintly even when played as a meeting engagement, not even close. First of all the autogenerated maps are never halfway symmetric, and more importantly the different units available to both sides means both are drifting in force composition by a lot. They don't even attempt to select comparable forces, that would be outright loss for one side before the battle starts. The process of troop selection to emphazise a nation's strengths is a form of art that the scenario weenies miss altogether.

[ November 24, 2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Bruno Weiss]

scenario wheenies

LOL, hehehe

[ November 24, 2002, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]