Newbeez ME tactics (beginners luck?)

[Hoopenfaust2]

When you don't know your opponent is a newbie

Playing vets then playing an "unknown to me" newbie is a hard thing to pull off. With veteran players you can usually gamble on approaches and axis of attack. But when I end up playing a newbie he has no "real" tactics and scatters his infantry everywhere with no HQ in command. Since I'm use to the "talented" player, I assume an infantry marker means he must have infantry and since I'm use to opponents grouping infantry in "platoons", I shift my forces a little. Now when I see 20 infantry markers, I start to panic thinking he's taken 20 platoons, which I'm not used to.

Although I stick to my intial plan I tend to start making mistakes because of this unconventional way of warfare.

Who has had this experience? Or am I as bad as I thought I was.

It frustrates me because I read so much on tactics (don't know if I follow them very well) and play this addictive game I should win sometimes...right

[athkatla]

Originally posted by Hoopenfaust 101:

When you don't know your opponent is a newbie

Playing vets then playing an "unknown to me" newbie is a hard thing to pull off. With veteran players you can usually gamble on approaches and axis of attack. But when I end up playing a newbie he has no "real" tactics and scatters his infantry everywhere with no HQ in command. Since I'm use to the "talented" player, I assume an infantry marker means he must have infantry and since I'm use to opponents grouping infantry in "platoons", I shift my forces a little. Now when I see 20 infantry markers, I start to panic thinking he's taken 20 platoons, which I'm not used to.

Although I stick to my intial plan I tend to start making mistakes because of this unconventional way of warfare.

Who has had this experience? Or am I as bad as I thought I was.

It frustrates me because I read so much on tactics (don't know if I follow them very well) and play this addictive game I should win sometimes...right

Well I'm a newbie and I haven't won a single PBEM game yet! I'm an ex-soldiers so understand and try to play correct tactics (tho throwing in the odd suprise don't do any harm ). So if you want to win a game, send me a challenge, see if my losing streak carries on. Oh, I did manage 1 drawn game

[Len]

Hey, Hoop. You're not talking about ME, are you?............

[[Pvt]Darth_grandma]

My saying is : "Your only as good as the person your playing" and that comes true for just about anything. I've lost sports games a lot where I underestimated the player and I started making mistakes. Same thing happens in CM. There's not a lot you can do about it. Spose I can't complain, I'm a newb aswell

[Hoopenfaust2]

Len

You're my favourite opponent because I finally beat someone. Our first battle I made foolish mistakes and called it quits...like a baby.

The second battle I was experimenting (ya sure)

BTW I'm not complaining about you newbies at all, I'm just hoping for some more tactical tips and ideas. I've owned the game for a long time (July 200) but I didn't start playing folks like yourselves until May of this year.

Maybe its because I'm a twentysomething that all you wise folks smack me around.

Maybe I should join CBAN (Can't Beat Any Newbies). Hi I'm Brett... and I can't win at Combat Mission. Even though I love this game and play at least 2hrs a day I can't form a good intial plan. I can't get my head around Fionn's AAR's because when I play opponents they don't do what Fionn's opponents do

Maybe we should start our own ladder: Those who cannot win.

athkatla maybe we should play...but then again you are the same age as my father, and you older types know I lot more than I do and you'll probably take the piss outta me.

[ July 24, 2002, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Hoopenfaust 101 ]

[athkatla]

Ok no worries, but if you want a game anytime, just email me. I don't take the piss out of anyone, as i said, I have yet to win a game . If anything, people take the piss out of me, but I don't mind. I just love this game, and playing PBEM games is really great

[Olle Petersson]

I'm well into a very slow PBEM Probe against a relative newbie, and I've made a couple of mistakes...

Picking units:

I thought; he's a newbie => newbies overrate armour => he's going to have plenty of it => I'd better get heavy on AT.

So for my German defense I got:

Three Hetzer, three JgPz IV(70), two PzKw VG, a few Püppchen, a few 20mm FlaK, and finally two or three platoons of infantry, with some extra HMGs.

The randomised weather turned up to be fog, so I have no bonus from my long 75mm guns.

What I've engaged sofar (turn 26 of 30) is hordes of US infantry. I've had no contact with enemy vehicles, not even sound...

My opponent has hinted that he indeed have vehicles, but overrated their speed and mobility. I guess most of them have bogged down somewhere out of action.

Anyway, he didn't forget to bring the infantry, for which I was less prepared. Still I've managed to hold him at bay, holding on to the VLs I originally decided to defend.

Cheers

Olle

[Danzig]

I played an IP game last night with someone who said it was his 1st MP game. The map had some dips in it, and about the 2nd round I start to see hordes of fricking infantry coming down a valley. Line after line of infantry markers appeared and at the end of the battle, he outlasted me with just too many infantry. I had taken just a company of crack rifle and was depending on a nice AT setup on my left flank and two Stug III with a nice hull down position on my right flank....oh well live and learn.

[Len]

Len

You're my favourite opponent because I finally beat someone.

Glad to oblige, dear chap............).

I'm continuing the good work in my other PBEMs - raising morale of every opponent I meet.........lol.

[Psyched]

This is an interesting topic because the type of strategy you choose to employ depends heavily on your opponent.

It is exactly this type of question that won John Nash (that's right, the John Nash of "A Beautiful Mind" fame) the Nobel Prize.

The "Nash Equilibrium" essentially states that in any competitive situation between RATIONAL opponents, there is only one best strategy to be used. The mathmatics Nash used to prove this was perfect and irrefutable, and hence its wide application in just about any competitive situation.

Where Nash's Equilibrium loses power is when one of the opponents in a competitive situation is not "rational", meaning that they don't behave in a predictable manner. This is usually due to either the inexperience of an opponent or emotional factors. Two examples help illustrate this point.

The first is the classic prisoner's delimma. Let's say two men are arrested and then separately questioned. If both men refuse to talk, they both go free. If just one prisoner talks, then that prisoner goes free and the other is punished. If they both talk, then they are both punished. The "optimal strategy", as predicted by the Nash Equilibrium, is that they both refuse to speak. But if one of the prisoners is not "rational" (i.e., inexperienced at this game or overly emotional in trying to save his own skin), then the outcome becomes much less predictable.

A more germane example may be one of chess. Let's say a Grand Master is playing an "average" player. The Grand Master would probably be better off leaving his "A" game at home, since his sophisticated moves are predicated on the assumption that his opponent is "rational" (i.e., an expert). Since the "average" player will respond unpredictably with "stupid" moves due to inexperience and/or emotion, the Grand Master will probably be suprised and delayed in his victory. If instead he laid very crude traps, ones that an experienced player would never fall for, then his victory would probably be very swift indeed.

This can be applied when a human player plays the AI (an irrational player to say the least) or when an experienced CM player is up against a Newbie. In these cases, simple strategies provide the quickest route to victory. More complicted strategies tend to fail because your opponent does not act "predictably" (i.e., rationally).

Now I must admit right here and now that this is a layman's interpretation of Nash's Equilibrium. I am not a mathematician. I would welcome any comments from anyone who is more knowledgeable than me on this subject.

[Len]

This raises an interesting point as to whether war is in any way "rational".

The rational thing for both parties would be to get as far away from a battlefield as possible.....wouldn't it?

Perhaps a better term might be "expected behaviour"?

In this case, I'd say that, when playing, we're trying to find the UNexpected behaviour that will throw our opponent off-balance and create a confusion that can be exploited.

Best Regards, Len

[Psyched]

Originally posted by Len:

This raises an interesting point as to whether war is in any way "rational".

The rational thing for both parties would be to get as far away from a battlefield as possible.....wouldn't it?

Perhaps a better term might be "expected behaviour"?

In this case, I'd say that, when playing, we're trying to find the UNexpected behaviour that will throw our opponent off-balance and create a confusion that can be exploited.

Best Regards, Len

Len--Your points are well taken. The term "rational" was chosen by Nash (not me) to describe expected, predictable behavior. (That's how we spell it in Memphis, Tennessee--without the "u")

Interestingly, others have more recently expanded on Nash's original equations to include variables to account for inexperience and emotion.

Of course, I would never be able to understand how to ever apply it.

Math is grand, ain't it?