GreenAsJade Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I just discovered that I can do pre-plan arty barrages in ME QBs. This means that I can load up on arty and carpet bomb the oppos's starting position. What's more, since I can, I have to, because he can too, so if I don't do it I am going to put him on a winning footing, missing an advantage I could otherwise even up. IIRC pre-plan was not allowed in MEs in CMx1 for this very good reason. It's even more important now because arty is so much more deadly. BFC: help, fix or do somefink Meantime: if you sign up for a QB ME, make sure you agree with your oppo whether or not pre-plan arty is going to be allowed. FWIW, I think the obvious answer is "no, that would be silly". Another helpful thing would be if ME maps had less predictable starting zones, but this is not the case for any ME QB map I've looked at so far. Another helpful thing would be if there were generated starting zones, or generated maps, so that you couldn't predict, but that isn't going to happen GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I think anyone using pre-planed arty in ME's should send their opponent some Maungatautari cheese from the Pukeatua Peak dairy near Te Awamutu, NZ. Just a suggestion. (Another one is: Use rocket barrages. Units in ME's may move from their starting position very quickly.) Anyway... it does strike me as odd, but I'm not sure it's enough of a problem to justify making a change to the code. I wouldn't be sorry to see it made, but I'm curious as to how it'll work out over many maps and games, and why it's in CMBN. Plus of course... What's more, since I can, I have to, because he can too, so if I don't do it I am going to put him on a winning footing, missing an advantage I could otherwise even up. ... maybe ME's are best played as a handful of FOs with lines to 150+ mm batteries. A change is as good as a rest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Smoke is OK, HE not so much in my book. As long as the players agree of course. I agree that it is a tad wankerish to prep fire HE arty into setup zones in a QB ME. One possible solution is to make the maps much larger than needed for the force and mission, thereby making setup zones too large to target while still making the approach march significant. - 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 This is like saying auto makers should build cars that people cannot drive over cliffs. An easy 'fix' is to halt the game at 2nd turn and refuse to play your opponent again. That will nip your bombing setup zones problem in the bud. If you're the one whose tempted to bomb starting positions then your request is of the "Somebody please stop me before I kill again" variety. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidFields Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I was going to start a thread: Are pre-planned barrages too powerful? So, instead, I am glad to, rather, add to this thread. Compared to CM1, pre-planned, TRP accurate pre-planned barrages are even more effective, in my opinon, because of the linear fire plan orders. The linear fire plans seems to triple (more or less) the abilities of artillery--so they can fire along ridges, or along forrest lines--much more efficiently than before. Then there is the anti-personel choice, the higher abundance of artillery in the '44 US army, and little overhead protection of current foxhole/trenches. If one is confronted with mostly infantry, a linear fire order, paralleling he edge of the map, crossing the likely start area, would be horrifying. This is not a reality issue, this is a general conceptual issue: I thought in CM 1 the concept was that the battle was after the initial barrage. The concept, again, is that withstanding the initial artillery barrage is...no fun. Work arounds: give people artillery after turn one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Since the classic meeting engagement implies haphazardly deployed forces colliding unexpectedly on the battlefield it seems a bit bizarre, if not a contradiction in terms, to provide for a 'pre-planned' barrage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I would ask anyone I played against to agree to no PP arty, regardless if it's an ME or something else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Hence my signature.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 To those who say "just don't do it, or stop the game if you don't like it", the problem is that as a gamer you simply should be be faced with "silly embarrasing issues". I want to spend my time playing fun games with known rules, not sending appologetic emails that I forgot to mention I don't like preplan on an ME, and all the subsequent fallout of time wasted setting up etc, or the other way around hearing my opponent crying gamey at my ME pre plan. We don't need it. It doesn't add anything. Hence my sugestions 1) When you agree to an ME QB, state your preplan assumption upfront 2) Add the rule to the game so we don't have to worry GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 BTW, preplan should have a place in attack/defend scenarios. I think the accuracy and precision of linear strikes combined with the horrific effectiveness in game means that this is a bit of a worry still. The ideal thing would be the capacity for a scenario designer to explicitly turn on pre-plan if the scenario suits it, otherwise have it off. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wego McPbem Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Yeah, I don't really have a problem with them in attack and defend. The problem is mainly meeting engagements, especially with the maps that have really small deployment zones in a corner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.