Jump to content

Extra time for a battle


Recommended Posts

Treeburst 155 in his last mail to me:

"I think we will run out of armor before we run out of time."

He is closing in on the flags in the center, I try some attack on the flank to reach positions where I can control access to the flags. Turn 45 of 45+. I fear the showdown will not happen. Either he will not be able to reach the flags, or I will not be able to beat him back.

In this kind of siutation, I'd like to be able to increase game length if both sides agree.

Either by fixed amounts (e.g. make it a 50+) - or until low morale or low ammo end the scen.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is "Nein, Sie amerikanischer Hund, Sie".

And I doubt somebody would end an attack just because it took to long (well, maybe the Brits stop at 5 o'clock, but that's another matter)

"Sir, I'm afraid, we were just a few metres short of the objective but according to your order we agreed to a ceasefire after 30 minutes"

As the question will come up anyhow:

Yes, IMHO opinion my opponent wasted a few turns till and a decisive tank plt which allows for an important endgame (about 55:45 right now). But with two careful players who try to preserve their forces and win by maneuver, not slaughter, it is sometimes hard to bring the battle to an end.

Part of the trouble is that the scenario designer might have had a different strategy in mind when designing the scenario (that's the impression I got from his reply on an email I sent him after some turns were played). As we d'led the scen as an early version from TPG and played it blind (I had a look at the points total for each category and the map), even the designer can't be blamed. Maybe in a later version he adds that extratime. But anybody testing a scen might miss the experience of a showdown a player just playing thorougly tested scens might enjoy. But playtesting is important, so it should include all the fun.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Runyan99:

I don't see what this is all about. Everybody knows that company level engagements in WW2 didn't last longer than 45 minutes. In fact, they were all fought in 20-45 minute chunks, just like in Combat Mission. No improvement in this area is needed.

I think you forgot your sarcasm tags...
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been quite a lot of discussion of being able to save QB's and restart them.

So if that feature makes it you could sort of convert a good but unfinished battle into round one of an operation, with limited repair, reload and reinforcement.

It's a different way to achieve the same thing and it opens up the possibility of new units appearing to counter that flanking thrust, which when you think of it was only possible because you knew...

iIt was near the end of a "Game".

On a preset "Map". and,

with "know Forces".

Peter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Runyan99:

I don't see what this is all about. Everybody knows that company level engagements in WW2 didn't last longer than 45 minutes. In fact, they were all fought in 20-45 minute chunks, just like in Combat Mission. No improvement in this area is needed.

Hey... wait... isn't this the guy who designed the 120 turns monster scenario I currently play (just reached turn 63 or sumfink).

Cory, I probably don't need extra time for South of Kharkov. But there are some scens where I would really appreciate it.

Maybe I have no historical facts. But just out of fun I'd really like it. And the battle where I want it has 40% of the force entering combat after turn 20. Not much action till then. Just scouting and deploying after the heads of 2 armored columns meet. Actual combat (ie firing or incoming) time for any plt involved is much less than half an hour.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always have had a problem with the feeling the strict timeframe produces. After the first few minutes of firefights, someone usually knows, if things work fine and how the rest of the whole battle will develop. A lot of certainity is taking place, once this point is reached. And usually this point is reached quite early.

To make this point of certainity appear later, would be desireable IMO.

On the other hand it is necessary to keep up time pressure, to give the attacker not the possibility to concentrate all his foces on one objective, taking it, and afterwards move to the next one, without any punishment.

Therefore the secenario designers need the possibility of some kind of time-pressure.

But on the other hand, we have interrupted battles and miss the possibility to give the commander more freedom to decide if a battle should be continued - maybe at some costs...

Who knows what the next future in war will bring?

This brings me to the idea of some kind of player-influence, if he wants to attack further, beyond the planned timeframe, but maybe at some cost.

There should be the possibility for the scenario-desingers, to punish the attacker, for taking more time, than 'allowed', but to reward good decisions, too.

Example:

attacker has 45 mins to take objective A.

He comes close, is sure to take it, but needs some more time. But therefore he saved a lot of his men and material.

Since the time is up, the player should be able to decide if he wants to attack further.

"The time is up!

What do you want to do now:

1) End of battle - show me the results!

2) I want to continue.

He chooses 2.

Then he recieves a pre-made message from the scenario designer:

"There came just a radio message from the BTN-HQ: strong enemy forces moving from north in direction of Hill 117. Contact expected in 30 minutes. Do you want to continue?"

YES!

"You have 20 more minutes to reach objective A".

But the enemy reinforcements appear already after 10 minutes and suddenly the remaining time time of the battle is expanded to 60 minutes... :D

In this example a victory could turn into a total defeat, because the attacker needed to long to reach his objective.

This concept could be expanded, to several 'ends' within one scenario.

Quite some uncertainity could be added to the battles outcome (not in a random sense but according to the wish of the scenario designers, what decisions they want to honor and what they want to punish, but a lot of uncertainity for the players).

And it probably could be used quite effectively for modeling the outcome of historic battles.

I imagine how this enhanced possibilities could be combined with the briefings: how much will be told to the player? How much freedom will be given to him in the briefing?

Or will he just see the huge chance and maybe even ignore an order?

Even within single battles, it suddenly would become important, how much a player takes care of his men and material, since a battle could last longer.

Since i can imagine, not all players would be glad about more uncertainity about battle durations and their outcome and freedom for the player, such enhanced battles could be marked somehow (enhanced tactical possibilities).

[ September 17, 2005, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steiner14,

Some excellent ideas. I would like to see and think that having a battle run for as long as it takes with bonus's for completing the task within certain time frames would be a better concept.

The problem is that we have minutes, not hours to complete a battle. Not realistic.

I feel the scoring system needs to put more emphisis on the objective to make it more worth the loss of points attaining it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For solo battles, the player can set the limit to 120 as described by Blah^3 - which will usually be enough for any battle. Most ammo wil be gone then. A solo player can easily reach an agreement with himself how the extra time he needed affects the result (if he cares at all).

For PBEM, 120 turns is not an option for me. Some time limit is needed to actually start the battle, not just maneuver around (at least for me). I'd need some other condition for a variable end if I would set the battle to 120 turns. A fixed end (+ extra time) is easy to simulate. But a variable end is tough this way. That's why I want a new feature.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few more thoughts, on extra time, or expanded battles:

the possibility to expand battles like i suggested above, offers another (IMO complete new) aspect:

Say, you choose such a "tactically enhanced battle" (then you know, many unexpected things could happen. So no disappointments, if a battle will last longer. Those wanting to finish battles until teatime, just can choose scenarios, which aren't marked as TEBs, btw. But for all others, they offer the possibility of total uncertaiity).

So you choose a TEB battle and read the briefing and see: 30 minutes is your timeframe.

Now in CM, the duration gives away a huge amount of information. If you see a big map, you know, there will most probably not be much resistance in the first few hundred meters - so you can rush forward to save the time for the real attack.

If it is a smaller map, you can expect the line of defense quite closely. You choose your tactics accordingly, only becasue of the given timeframe.

And so far this has worked in 99% of all battles i played.

But in a TEB, you still see the minutes but you can get no additional information out of this display!

Maybe the designer shows you a big map, and a small timeframe? In old CM-terms you knew, you have to rush forward. But now, this timeframe can be completely wrong. It may be based on completely wrong intelligence. Maybe the enemy has been reinforced over night and has silently taken new positions?

You will need not 20 minutes, you will need 60+!

And a unrealistically rushing forward, would lead to a desaster!

Easily possible with TEBs.

Finally the timeframe would become what it should be: a tool for the designer to put time pressure on the attacker, but not a tool offering HUGE additional information about the battle itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...