 |
|
Game Mechanics - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Combat Mission (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Thread: Game Mechanics (/showthread.php?tid=39187) |
Game Mechanics - Copper - 02-15-2007 There will probably be a lot of disagreement with this post but I feel studying the minute mechanics of this game down to the last detail spoils it. People are more and more looking into whether a German landser can hear a Soviet sniper fart from 20, 40, 60 or 80 meters away or the probability that Uncle Ivans truck will blow up by repeatedly reversing and driving over a discarded hand grenade. I like the vagueness and the need to rely on instinct. If we continue to go down the route of "Heh heh.... I can see him crawling across the open and he cant see me because Im exactly 25.7m inside a wooded area and his vision only extends to 25m" I can see this game coming down to who studies the minute mechanics strongly enough being the winner taking the enjoyment and chance of a lucky win for new players away. I think one of the virtues of CM is the pick up and play value... it is incredibly in depth but has an easy learning curve, with people starting to study the mechanics hard it will turn this game into a chess like adventure. I was never into tabletop gaming due to the large amounts of rules included within and that is why I like CM... Im an average player but play for fun. I dont want to spend hours remembering that the 3rd guy in a squad always has a squint so dont use him on the outside edge for spotting... blah de blah. Of course everyone to their own but personally I dont have time for these percentage games. I mean if I was on a battlefield and my armour was approaching a minefield I wouldnt think... Hmmm.... 38% chance each AFV is gonna get immobilised should I go through it..?... hell no... I would either try to clear it or avoid the bugger completely. What are your opinions? RE: Game Mechanics - mTk(FGM) - 02-15-2007 That's pretty much the way I play the game as well. CM is the only wargame I've ever played that applying common sense military tactics you would employ in the real world will give you a good chance to win. Sure, you need to know the game basics to succeed, but at some point I think the "blade of grass inspection" renders diminishing returns. "When firing at AFVs, front is bad, side is better, rear is best." Works for me. :) RE: Game Mechanics - Colonel Talvela - 02-15-2007 I think your post highlights different - but sometimes overlapping - modes of play. Personally, I am a game mechanics player, and it has really improved my game as I learned more. RE: Game Mechanics - The Coil - 02-15-2007 RE:��Game Mechanics - Copper - 02-15-2007 The Coil Wrote:Nice thing about the Blitz is there's plenty of folks here who understand game mechanics very well, and plenty of folks who don't understand 'em at all, so I guess you can chose your opponents accordingly... Oh, I'll play anybody. It doesnt bother me the way ''they" play. Im talking about the way I play. Yeah I know some game mechanics but like mTk says .... I just like to go with the flow and not get stuck analysing the minutiae. What kind of players are you guys.... study everything, work out percentages etc. or play it loose and let your intuition have a bearing. RE: Game Mechanics - kineas - 02-15-2007 CM is a decision game. That means the purpose of the game is outthink the other player within a frame of a WWII tactical battle. I absolutely understand if someone plays by instinct, but I will use every piece of knowledge to get an edge over him. This is the way to do it. Just check FM3-90 and the similar documents. This can be a profession on its own, utilising mathematical methods, decision theory etc. Of course a company commander on the field can't perform long calculations. But almost every wargame unrealistic in this aspect, each has an 'overmind' effect. You see everything on the battlefield, and in the next turn you scatter all the bits of information throughout your troops. The realtime pressure is not modeled. There's indeed a gamey issue here: that 25m probably an design error. The 'safety range' in woods should be a random variable, sometimes 20, sometimes 30. If that was the case the 'instinct' players wouldn't suffer a disadvantage here. So I also dislike 'magic numbers' like this. This shouldn't be a hard number but typically an instinct property (50m is enough, 10m isn't) RE:��Game Mechanics - The Coil - 02-15-2007 kineas Wrote:I absolutely understand if someone plays by instinct, but I will use every piece of knowledge to get an edge over him. My feelings exactly... kineas Wrote:There's indeed a gamey issue here: that 25m probably an design error. The 'safety range' in woods should be a random variable, sometimes 20, sometimes 30. If that was the case the 'instinct' players wouldn't suffer a disadvantage here. So I also dislike 'magic numbers' like this. This shouldn't be a hard number but typically an instinct property (50m is enough, 10m isn't) That's an interesting idea - would go a long way toward making the game less open to mechanical micromanaging. Maybe they'll implement it in the next patch. RE: ��Game Mechanics - The Coil - 02-15-2007 RE: ��Game Mechanics - Copper - 02-15-2007 The Coil Wrote:Maybe they'll implement it in the next patch. Their wont be a next patch. Lined up is Shock Force then episodic WW2 offerings. RE: Game Mechanics - herroberst - 02-15-2007 I think guys who want to worry the "mathematics" of the game bring something to it even if only for their own personal satisfaction. I also think guys who rely on Rommel's "finger feeling"... I forget the german word for it, but in other words battlefield awareness are also okay. And then there are some of us who do a little of both and don't tire of the nuances and possibilities after many years. I left the CS games for CM because for me it's more fun. |
){kind=link}