A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[Battlefront.com]

Understand the above but for all it's realism CM lacks something even the crappiest first person shooter has that requires victory. Teamwork.

Yeah, but they lack just about everything else Combat Mission has. Gotta prioritize resources because if we try to have everything you guys will wind up with nothing since we'll go out of business.

Just hoping that the QBs aren't slugfest over victory locations because that would make them gamier than they already are.

Casualty counting needs to be changed, for sure. It's been on a list of things to get in before release and I just sent a reminder to Charles.

Hmm, I know it's just an artifact of the VC being location-dominated, but this seems like this should be a German Minor Victory. As others have noted, those 5 panzers and 13 crewmen are irreplaceable in the bigger picture; the Allied losses eminently replaceable.

Not relevant. This is a battle between two players. It is extremely unfair, to the point of absurdity, to suggest that the German player should ALWAYS be hammered extra for his losses. That's a non-starter position to take because in real life the value of losses was always relative to the specific mission and the overall end results.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Personally I also really detest the heavy emphasis on controlling locations. If at the end of the game, side 1 was in the capture zone with 1 infantry squad and the rest of the force wiped out completely while side 2 was just outside with 100%, surely force 2 would be in a much better position and should have points awarded accordingly.

The argument was put forward several months ago by a number of people including myself that force preservation is a very realistic consideration and should be rewarded accordingly. This doesn't have to be an automatic mechanism, it can be left to the discretion of the scenario designer to allow for the occasional "do-or-die" situation. BFC has made no comment on this that I am aware of so they may not have gotten around to it, I don't know.

Michael

[Peregrine]

Casualty counting needs to be changed, for sure. It's been on a list of things to get in before release and I just sent a reminder to Charles.

Steve

Haven't seen the balance in practice with the CMx2 QBs but it would be a shame if too much emphasis is on the victory locations. I can't see how this wouldn't result in even more suicidal attacks for the sake of the VL.

More importantly in the two players PBs I think it is important the battle loser gets credit with a lower victory condition than Total loss.

I have played a squillion QB MEs PBEM and I don't think I ever saw a Total Victory.

Hopefully in the next month it will be a squillion and one.

PS I saw that my preorder amount in AU$ was less than the full amount US$. Whoever is in charge of your economy keep up the good work.

[Other Means]

The argument was put forward several months ago by a number of people including myself that force preservation is a very realistic consideration and should be rewarded accordingly. This doesn't have to be an automatic mechanism, it can be left to the discretion of the scenario designer to allow for the occasional "do-or-die" situation. BFC has made no comment on this that I am aware of so they may not have gotten around to it, I don't know.

Michael

That's because that's how it already works in CM2.

Haven't seen the balance in practice with the CMx2 QBs but it would be a shame if too much emphasis is on the victory locations. I can't see how this wouldn't result in even more suicidal attacks for the sake of the VL.

More importantly in the two players PBs I think it is important the battle loser gets credit with a lower victory condition than Total loss.

I have played a squillion QB MEs PBEM and I don't think I ever saw a Total Victory.

Hopefully in the next month it will be a squillion and one.

PS I saw that my preorder amount in AU$ was less than the full amount US$. Whoever is in charge of your economy keep up the good work.

I disagree - I want a QB to be a ding-dong, all out slugfest. The higher the VL points, the more energetic the players are going to be to get them. The dullest type of QB is when there's two evenly matched VLs and the player camps theirs and recces forward.

As a Liverpool fan it reminds me too much of the Houllier years *shudder*.

[Praetori]

I noticed that in the tank info boxes, the German tanks are listed as "destroyed," whereas the US tanks are described as "knocked out."

Is there a reason for the difference?

This also made me wonder.

[Sergei]

'Knocked out' means that a tank has become unusable but might be salvageable after battle, just cover a penetration hole and clean the guts of the gunner from the floor and she's as good as new. 'Destroyed' would refer to a state where the vehicle is damaged beyond repair, possible burned.

[PanzerMiller]

Thanks to Bil and The Capt. for a great AAR -- and to all of you for a really great set of discussions! Can't wait to play...

[Peregrine]

That's because that's how it already works in CM2.

I disagree - I want a QB to be a ding-dong, all out slugfest. The higher the VL points, the more energetic the players are going to be to get them. The dullest type of QB is when there's two evenly matched VLs and the player camps theirs and recces forward.

As a Liverpool fan it reminds me too much of the Houllier years *shudder*.

This a game so there will always be gameyness, I just think high point VLs maximises the meeting engagement gameyness which isn't what CM is about.

These are also meeting engagments rather than assaults on specfiic locations.

Unless the map is a mirror image before you even start one player should have a noticeable advantage.

I was daunted when I first started playing CMBB/CMAK PBEMs and actually kept detailed records of every battle I fought so as not to repeat mistakes. In all the games I played I never lost a meeting engagement because I didn't hold enough VLs or I got dudded by the map. I hope that doesn't change.

[Peregrine]

That's because that's how it already works in CM2.

As a Liverpool fan it reminds me too much of the Houllier years *shudder*.

Aren't Liverpool doing worse now?

I would prefer an ugly win to dazzling flowing loss.

[Baneman]

Was also going to mention - didn't Liverpool do better during the Houllier years than recently in the Hodgson years ?

Still, shouldn't talk, I support a team of proper surrender-monkeys...

[Bil Hardenberger]

All this talk about the points and the scoring... as Steve said this is still a BETA and scoring is being looked at. For another thing, when I play I don't put too much stock into the end game scoring... I have problems with the score most times.. instead I look at in game performance versus my competition (and I rarely play the AI) to decide how I did...

...in this game I would say I got a tatical victory, on losses alone, I lost five tanks to Warren's nine, plus I held the objective, if not with overwhelming manpower I did control it by fire.

So take any of these end game scores with a grain of salt, as they never tell the whole story.

Anybody have any comments on the tactics that were used in this game, or on battle plans/approaches used?

Bil

[Other Means]

Was also going to mention - didn't Liverpool do better during the Houllier years than recently in the Hodgson years ?

Still, shouldn't talk, I support a team of proper surrender-monkeys...

I will gladly go into depressing detail in the GF if you want

[The_Capt]

All this talk about the points and the scoring... as Steve said this is still a BETA and scoring is being looked at. For another thing, when I play I don't put too much stock into the end game scoring... I have problems with the score most times.. instead I look at in game performance versus my competition (and I rarely play the AI) to decide how I did...

...in this game I would say I got a tatical victory, on losses alone, I lost five tanks to Warren's nine, plus I held the objective, if not with overwhelming manpower I did control it by fire.

So take any of these end game scores with a grain of salt, as they never tell the whole story.

Anybody have any comments on the tactics that were used in this game, or on battle plans/approaches used?

Bil

Ya, I knew the end screen would raise some eyebrows. I think QB scoring is something that will be seriously tweaked before release and it has been raised in the beta forum.

I agree with Bil this was a tactical victory for him. We (Bil & I) are pretty much ignoring those end screens for now.

[Praetori]

All this talk about the points and the scoring... as Steve said this is still a BETA and scoring is being looked at. For another thing, when I play I don't put too much stock into the end game scoring... I have problems with the score most times.. instead I look at in game performance versus my competition (and I rarely play the AI) to decide how I did...

...in this game I would say I got a tatical victory, on losses alone, I lost five tanks to Warren's nine, plus I held the objective, if not with overwhelming manpower I did control it by fire.

So take any of these end game scores with a grain of salt, as they never tell the whole story.

Anybody have any comments on the tactics that were used in this game, or on battle plans/approaches used?

Bil

It would be kinda neat if the end score was connected to the purchase points with a modifier/multiplier for rarity (ie kill score).

[Broadsword56]

I disagree - I want a QB to be a ding-dong, all out slugfest. The higher the VL points, the more energetic the players are going to be to get them. The dullest type of QB is when there's two evenly matched VLs and the player camps theirs and recces forward.

I disagree with this disagreement! Battlefront, please be very careful before ruining CM by turning it into an arcade game of suicidal armies and adolescent one-upmanship. Make this sort of gameplay an option, if you need to do it for commercial reasons. But please make sure all the work you've put into realism isn't ruined by forcing us into some gamey way of playing.

[Other Means]

I disagree with this disagreement! Battlefront, please be very careful before ruining CM by turning it into an arcade game of suicidal armies and adolescent one-upmanship. Make this sort of gameplay an option, if you need to do it for commercial reasons. But please make sure all the work you've put into realism isn't ruined by forcing us into some gamey way of playing.

It's a QB. QB's aren't realistic. Besides, as noted above, it IS an option already.

[Michael Emrys]

Anybody have any comments on the tactics that were used in this game, or on battle plans/approaches used?

I think your general conduct of the battle was pretty good and especially that you were able to maneuver into a position where he was more or less forced to allow you to get flank shots at him toward the end.

Michael

[Bil Hardenberger]

I disagree with this disagreement! Battlefront, please be very careful before ruining CM by turning it into an arcade game of suicidal armies and adolescent one-upmanship. Make this sort of gameplay an option, if you need to do it for commercial reasons. But please make sure all the work you've put into realism isn't ruined by forcing us into some gamey way of playing.

Then don't play QBs when you get the game. As has already been stated QBs are not supposed to be realistic representations of WW2 combat.. the way I look at them is they are more akin to a really advanced chess match (especially my preferred MEs). Two evenly equipped forces facing off against each other. They are a test of skill, and perhaps a test bed at times for equipment effectiveness, but they are definitely not realistic.

For more realistic play, you need to look at the scenarios. Some of these give a very real, gritty, and sometimes scary look at what combat was really like.

I think your general conduct of the battle was pretty good and especially that you were able to maneuver into a position where he was more or less forced to allow you to get flank shots at him toward the end.

If there is one important thing I would like people to walk away with from this AAR, its that you should never plan a battle down to the lowest level when starting any scenario... do some recon, find out what you are facing, and where, what speed is he travelling? What is the terrain like? How can I use the terrain to my advantage? Where is he strong? Where is he weakest? etc...

Once you have those important questions answered, or sometimes even hinted at, then you can start manuevering with intelligence.

Bil

[sburke]

All this talk about the points and the scoring... as Steve said this is still a BETA and scoring is being looked at. For another thing, when I play I don't put too much stock into the end game scoring... I have problems with the score most times.. instead I look at in game performance versus my competition (and I rarely play the AI) to decide how I did...

Anybody have any comments on the tactics that were used in this game, or on battle plans/approaches used?

Bil

Not enough to become a Monday morning Quarterback :-P Thanks for the AAR though, I believe the comments made during the AAR about recon and possibly making better use of the time allotted would have significantly altered the way the game played out for both sides. Found it very interesting how you both maneuvered and how battlefield intelligence or lack thereof affected your decisions. Some good lessons there on game play as well as how to make good use of terrain. Just sad to see it end. It was really helping kill time while waiting for the release.

For what it's worth I would agree about the victory points. Honestly between two adults debating the pros and cons of the battle afterwards kind of makes worrying about what the victory screen says irrelevant. Much more interesting to talk about the OK corral shootout between the two tank teams in the woods LOL BTW where was tube guy? I am betting he drew up the map to lead the infantry units to the battle.

Again thanks a lot, this was priceless

[willmontgomery]

CoPlay is not up for consideration for a while. It's a huge thing to put in and we're not convinced it's commercially viable.

If it's a huge thing to put in, then I imagine that it's not commercially viable, in the sense that lack of CoPlay probably would cost you very few -- if any -- sales. However, I imagine that you're talking about real-time CoPlay.

I dream of a CoPlay-lite, where a friend and I could play cooperatively against the AI, much like playing turn-based, single-player but where the two of us would e-mail the game file back-and-forth to give our orders and stuff. The only major obstacle we face (with CMx1) is that it seems that only one of us can watch the "movie" each turn. If something could be done about this -- which I doubt is a "huge thing" in itself -- it would enhance our enjoyment of your product.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Not enough to become a Monday morning Quarterback :-P Thanks for the AAR though, I believe the comments made during the AAR about recon and possibly making better use of the time allotted would have significantly altered the way the game played out for both sides. Found it very interesting how you both maneuvered and how battlefield intelligence or lack thereof affected your decisions. Some good lessons there on game play as well as how to make good use of terrain. Just sad to see it end. It was really helping kill time while waiting for the release.

Thanks. I see you "got it".

For what it's worth I would agree about the victory points. Honestly between two adults debating the pros and cons of the battle afterwards kind of makes worrying about what the victory screen says irrelevant. Much more interesting to talk about the OK corral shootout between the two tank teams in the woods LOL BTW where was tube guy? I am betting he drew up the map to lead the infantry units to the battle.

Again thanks a lot, this was priceless

I agree.. Warren and I especially have as much fun post game discussing it that we did actually playing the game. We often cease fire before the game even gets as lop-sided as it did this time... because the writing is on the wall. We both have military backgrounds, and ot be honest that is my preferred opponent.. I seek them out actually as the gameplay to me is the most rewarding.

So how about that "OK Corral" shootout? Did you feel that the interplay between those two crews was realistic? Think two crews ever really faced off outside their vehicles? I bet they did at some point.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I dream of a CoPlay-lite, where a friend and I could play cooperatively against the AI, much like playing turn-based, single-player but where the two of us would e-mail the game file back-and-forth to give our orders and stuff. The only major obstacle we face (with CMx1) is that it seems that only one of us can watch the "movie" each turn. If something could be done about this -- which I doubt is a "huge thing" in itself -- it would enhance our enjoyment of your product.

You could do this now.

If you are playing against the AI and want to team up with another player, just save the game after you give your orders, etc. then e-mail the saved game to your friend... he will give his orders to his assigned forces and generate the movie.

He would then save the file and send it to you.

Both of you could watch the movie independantly, but he wouldn't give his orders until you e-mailed the save game back to him.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[James Crowley]

There are a lot of comments suggesting that QBs are not realistic and that they are a match-up against equal sides.

Do the sides have to be equal? In CMX1 there was, if I remember correctly, a set ratio so that an attacking force would have a 2/3 to 1 numerical advantage over the defender; you could also handicap either side to varying degrees.

As to realism; QBs might not be based on historical incidents but such scenarios that are announced as being so based usually, in my experience, have only a fairly tenuous connection to the reality of the situation.

I would suggest that playing QBs with randomly selected forces for both sides and thus having no pre-knowledge of the encounter, is about as realistic as you can get.

[Childress]

Not sure re the realism of QBs in general but many, including, iirc, Steve, find that 'Meeting Engagements' are inherently unrealistic. Equal forces colliding and KNOWING that they're equal may sound cool but it's something not found in nature. Kind of like unicorns.

An odd phenomenon: in my days of playing CM1 pbem I recall that there were two non-communicating camps; those who played almost exclusively MEs and those who didn't. MEs have a strong constituency.

[sburke]

So how about that "OK Corral" shootout? Did you feel that the interplay between those two crews was realistic? Think two crews ever really faced off outside their vehicles? I bet they did at some point.

Actually reading an account of the Cobra offensive now - After D Day- great read. Just finished and one of the last chapters talks about the 2nd Armored. You have CCA running into a counter attack by the 2nd and 116th Pz and CCB facing a nighttime engagement with the 6FJR remnants backed up by 2nd SS pz tanks. Total mayhem. It is hard to believe this situation wouldn't have come up or something similar. BTW, 2nd Armor beat them all in a swirling no front, no flank, no rear battle similar in a way to the later fight by 4th Armored at Arracourt. The US army when well led was an extremely impressive combined arms fighting force.

But back to your question, yeah it did look realistic, that was what was so darned cool about it. Our hero pops up, gets a shot off downing one of his attackers and takes off. That shot of the Panzer trooper in the distance watching as he shows all Americans are Jesse Owens in the right conditions is too funny.