GerryCMBB Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Hello: Playing one right now and both of us made a mad dash for the center of the map where the objectives are. In a game you know it is an ME. But in RL, this approach seems ahistorical? Wouldn't they do recon and then meet that way? Just curious. Thanks, Gerry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Meeting engagements as fought in CM are ahistorical in several ways. The point of including them is not to try to recreate history so much as to present the players with the most chess-like game possible within the system. If you want to make the game more historical, you might try giving them different geographical objectives on each other's side of the map. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I'd venture a guess that MEs as they are represented in CM are ahistorical 90% of the time. MEs are pretty much a pure game match, rather than simulating something historical. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I'm playing a couple now: Each is a "Medium" game. The first (where I chose the full setup) does indeed look artificial. Infantry only, one smallish objective in the center or the map, corner starting positions. So we've got around half a battalion on each side racing to take up positions in the woods around a small collection of houses. The other (where I didn't chose the setup) has the same force size, but Mixed. The map has a large town in taking up the whole center area of the map. This one seems much better: More like a couple of mech forces clashing over a key point. We're each probably racing for our initial positions, but by the nature of the map and the forces I think that initial phase will be quicker and occupy less of the map: I expect a fairly short but still significant scouting phase. So while they often are quite artificial I think you can get game that *seems* reasonably historical if you use the right map and relatively small force sizes. Generally... maybe "Tiny" for Infantry Only (I think that'll get you a Company) and Small for Mixed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Historically, the vast majority of meeting engagements in Normandy would have been squad sized patrols accidentally bumping into each other in no-man's-land, so Tarquelne's last paragraph above comes pretty close. But again, I don't think the two sides should have the same objective most of the time, unless it was some point from which good observation of both sides territory could be realized. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLaurier Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Michael Emrys seems to have nailed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Michael Emrys seems to have nailed it. I wonder if Michael will put this in his signature - I think he should 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLaurier Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I wonder if Michael will put this in his signature - I think he should NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpabrams Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 QB Meeting Engagements are the Call of Duty of CM:BN scenarios.........pure cheese and I don't play them. Don't be afraid to assault as the US or probe as the Germans. You would be amazed at how hard it is to defend an objective and how simple it can be to take one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I wonder if Michael will put this in his signature - I think he should jeje I think it lacks the "absolutelly correct" part! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too late. Heh, heh. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cymru Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 To put a stop to the ever-increasing Emrys signature tying up valuable bandwidth (second now only to Netflix): I suggest the following. *Everyone* post some variant of this "Michael Emrys is utterly and irrefutably correct and his answer so totally covers every aspect of this matter that no further threads on this topic will be allowed" There will be no need for more additions to his sig, and the force will cease being disturbed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Yes but that's not a real one so it doesn't count Or at least that's my understanding ... Michael Emrys's sig moves in mysterious ways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Michael Emrys's sig moves in mysterious ways. As is entirely appropriate. Modesty prevents me from saying more. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Modesty prevents me from saying more. Michael I wish you'd get a whole lot more modest. Way modester than you are right now. Righteously modest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 You're just jealous because I am Lord God and Supreme Being and you're not. You're stuck with merely being Auxilliary Backup Deputy Justicar of the Peng Challenge Thread, you poor, cold fish. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLaurier Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Being right seven times in eleven years... We can let the poor guy crow. He's been beat by the proverbial broken clock 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Being right seven times in eleven years... False assumption, as I have pointed out before. Michael 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.