A quick survey: is CMBN conducive to competitive gaming?

[[hirr]Leto]

What are your thoughts on how the new evolution of CM may work in head to head ladders, competitive gaming and tournaments and other areas that are very important to competitive wargamers?

WeBoB is now entertaining a ladder system, but are there other clubs out there that have in the past run ladders and competitive tournaments seeing a resurgence?

Cheers!

Leto

[Speedy]

Try chess.

[sawomi]

...as Speedy.

What is 'competitive'? Even if I go against the AI, I want to win.

[Stitch]

Luck does seem to play a large part in battle outcomes...

[easytarget]

I don't know what's changed about cmbn that makes it different for running a ladder based off it from cxm1.

Depending on what the intent is of the ladder (i.e. competitive as you say, or for fun), seems to me cxm2 works just as well or just as badly as cxm1 did.

[Bertram]

Like most games with random elements, luck does play a part. But some people are better at capitalizing on good luck, and minimizing the effects of bad luck.... In past tournaments the same names keep ending up at the top, so it seems skill does play a part (or some people hoard all the luck).

Bertram

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't know what's changed about cmbn that makes it different for running a ladder based off it from cxm1.

Depending on what the intent is of the ladder (i.e. competitive as you say, or for fun), seems to me cxm2 works just as well or just as badly as cxm1 did.

This.

The only significant issue that I can see is getting some standardized QB parameters.

I'm also with sawomi on not caring for the term "competitive". This is a war game, everyone is trying to win.

[Johnny Canuck]

As one of my boardgame friends says 'the dice giveth and the dice taketh away'. In his case, he's a statistician and one of the top Advanced Squad Leader players in the Vancouver/Seattle area. The dice usually giveth in his case, and I have no doubt that the above saying translates quite nicely to Combat Mission.

[sawomi]

For a 'competition' you need rules. WAR is the 'playground of The Goddess' - there are no rules. It's all about WARgaming. Gamey or not. Adjust your tactics.

I play pbem since CMBB. Never understood the point of CM-ladders. It just shows, who has the best acquisition to the game-engine...

Your most ingenious tactics can go to the dogs when Silly Billy does accidentally or not the right thing in the right moment... You can just adjust your tactics for good or better. Between 'total' equal players, luck would alwasy decide the outcome.

[lookeylou]

It's nice to simulate war in a test tube where everything is only dependent on the quality of your battle plan. But "luck" or "the way the ball bounces" plays a huge part once bullets start flying. I think they did a good job with the different vet levels to bring that luck in it. Some times only way to explain something is Luck.

[GonzoAttacker]

Head to Head the Game is very competitive and fun. I am currently involved in 7 0r 8 PBEMs and having a ball. As usual my tactics with armor suffers, But infantry is much better.

Purposely picked a lot on map stuff to practice. Drill, Drill, Drill.

Will probably need to institute Fionn.s Rules of 76s to be more balanced play. Or may need to institute a percentage increase for Allied side in Armor Battles.

I belive ladder play will be excellent along with tourney play.

[Vanir Ausf B]

For me the point of CM ladders is that they are convenient. They function as an opponent finder and they automatically keep track of all the games I've played.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Will probably need to institute Fionn.s Rules of 76s to be more balanced play. Or may need to institute a percentage increase for Allied side in Armor Battles.

Fionn's Rules of 76 are a good idea, but there is an issue with enforcing the limits on artillery. As far as I know there is no way to know what off-map artillery or air assets the other side used.

[womble]

Fionn's Rules of 76 are a good idea, but there is an issue with enforcing the limits on artillery. As far as I know there is no way to know what off-map artillery or air assets the other side used.

Couldn't you require a swap of game files and passwords after the game ends? You'll at least see how many assets were used, and I think they have a standard number of rounds these days.

[MikeyD]

It can be played competitively in the same way poker can be played competitively. Half the skill is in making due with they cards you've been delt.

[[hirr]Leto]

...as Speedy.

What is 'competitive'? Even if I go against the AI, I want to win.

Head to head in a ladder game where the results are recorded to provide a record and inevitably to use as a measuring stick for skill level.

Tournaments where scenarios are tested for balance or where one side competes against another where balance is not always a necessary control (skill is netted out across the one set of players who play a side in the scenario).

Cheers!

Leto

[sawomi]

To lead a ladder means nothing (in CM-wargaming)... so, what would be the point to invest time. I play since years pbem against opponents of different skill level. I still can lose against a 'noob', when the dice fall the wrong way. And winning is not winning. If you play Uncons in CMSF you will mostly NOT win, the 'skill level' you have just gives your 'likeliness' how much you are 'a pain in the butt' for your opponent when he drives home his 'win'...

WAR is not 'fair', a condition for true 'competition'. The point of CM is to simulate WAR as a 'game'.

Play Chess.

...And don't come with the argument, that ladder-CM should be played only with equal forces. That would miss the point of CM in the beginning.

I play no game with CM (would be a profanation), I play THE WARGAME.

A dismounted 'Ronson'-team has a (very, very, very, very, very, very...)-unlikely chance to win against 70 virgins or ...Tigers in CM. Not the base for a fair 'competion'.

End of story.

[[hirr]Leto]

To lead a ladder means nothing (so, what would be the point to invest time). I play since years pbem against opponents of different skill level. I still can lose against a 'noob', when the dice fall the wrong way. And winning is not winning. If you play Uncons in CMSF you will mostly NOT win, the 'skill level' you have just gives your 'likeliness' how much you are 'a pain in the butt' for your opponent when he drives home his 'win'...

WAR is not 'fair', a condition for true 'competition'. The point of CM is to simulate WAR as a 'game'.

Play Chess.

...And don't come with the argument, that ladder-CM should be played only with equal forces. That would miss the point of CM in the beginning.

I play no game with CM (would be a profanation), I play THE WARGAME.

My question was simply looking for normative responses, not philosophical viewpoints of how the game should be played that run the risk of introducing stark dichotomies that may create arguments between dogmatic positions. My question should therefore not be inferred as introducing philosophical discussion, but feel free.

To each his own.

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[MikeyD]

The CM titles have always attracted two type of player. Those who want to *WIN!* (all caps with an exclamation point), and those who want to *experience*. The experiencers want to be placed into 1944 Normandy. Not just 1944 Normandy but 11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon. whether or not they win the battle hardly matters. The others want to WIN! preferably on a mirrored map against carefully balanced forces without any pesky acts of God intervening in the battle.

[sawomi]

Leto;1273819']My question was simply looking for normative responses, not philosophical viewpoints of how the game should be played that run the risk of introducing stark dichotomies that may create arguments between dogmatic positions. My question should therefore not be inferred as introducing philosophical discussion, but feel free.

To each his own.

: )

Cheers!

Leto

It's just 'bla,bla,bla' from you. I don't talk about how CM should be played, but about how CM actually plays.

indeed... Jedem das Seine

:]

Gruß

Smaradadler

[Vanir Ausf B]

The CM titles have always attracted two type of player. Those who want to *WIN!* (all caps with an exclamation point), and those who want to *experience*. The experiencers want to be placed into 1944 Normandy. Not just 1944 Normandy but 11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon. whether or not they win the battle hardly matters. The others want to WIN! preferably on a mirrored map against carefully balanced forces without any pesky acts of God intervening in the battle.

The irony is that the real soldiers who were sent to Normandy in 1944 weren't there to experience anything. They were there to WIN!

But it's not that clear-cut anyway. I have played on ladders and would probably be classified as a "competitive" CM player, yet I embrace the randomness of the battlefield and abhor mirrored maps.

[[hirr]Leto]

The CM titles have always attracted two type of player. Those who want to *WIN!* (all caps with an exclamation point), and those who want to *experience*. The experiencers want to be placed into 1944 Normandy. Not just 1944 Normandy but 11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon. whether or not they win the battle hardly matters. The others want to WIN! preferably on a mirrored map against carefully balanced forces without any pesky acts of God intervening in the battle.

Pretty accurate...

: )

Leto

[Vanir Ausf B]

Are people comfortable with using the "Mixed" force setting and letting everyone pick anything they want, or are you guys choosing all armor or all infantry settings?

[GonzoAttacker]

I have been picking mixed forces to practice all tactics needed in game. I want to be able see what they can do at all levels to from elite to conscript, etc. I like winning but initially it is not necessary, i want to learn, see the timing on movement, etc?

[sawomi]

[...] The experiencers want to be placed into 1944 Normandy. Not just 1944 Normandy but 11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon. whether or not they win the battle hardly matters. The others want to WIN! preferably on a mirrored map against carefully balanced forces without any pesky acts of God intervening in the battle.

But the 'acts of God' [the holy RNG = random number generator] are intervening EVERY battle of CM, that's the whole point. The experiencers will never 'be placed' in 11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon'. They will be placed in a CM-scenario designed according '11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon'.

After setup all is open. Your tactics just affect your CHANCE that the following events will accord with the chance to achieve your aim, which can be even totaly different then the aims wanted on '11 June 1944 exactlly 1km northeast of Carentan at two oclock in the afternoon'.