Guidelines to winning CM battles

[Runyan99]

Most battles should be longer. Tactics should be slower. But gamers aren't patient enough for 2 hour battles in 1 minute turns, so most scenarios are pretty short.

It's easy to simply increase the number of turns for a scenario in the editor, however.

[ATCS]

True, adjusting a scenario is simple enough. Finding an opponet willing to commit to a 60-80 turn game is a different animal altogether.

[Runyan99]

Just because a scenario CAN go as long as 60 or 90 minutes, doesn't mean that it actually WILL. It might be over before all the time is used. But, that is a subtlety that escapes most CMers.

[Ratzki]

I think with infantry you have to be very wary of not overcommitting your forces. It is very hard to disengage with infantry. The time limit on the games is a fact the we have to deal with, made worse by the overuse of pregenerated maps. I just don't feel that they allow the game to play properly. These wide and shallow maps encourage armor purchase over infantry and then we are off to another arms race as they are able to roam the map and flank with ease. Add to that, that we usually have to spread out and move too quickly towards too many poorly placed flags. If we put some thought into our games other then "You be the Germans and I'll take the Russians and it will be an unrestricted 3000 point game in 1945" alot of problems would solve themselves. The maps should be no where near as wide as the AI makes'em and should be deeper, with the right amount of logically placed flags. And force selection gets way outa whack as bigger and better takes over,... why is placing realistic "restrictions" on purchasing units a bad word? WE get unbalanced forces that WE choose with a map WE don't take time to even check out beforehand, which leads to poor tactics and gamey moves, then WE complain about the game's shortcomings. At least no one has yet suggested to "scout with ATR teams as they are cheap to buy" yet.:soap:

Ok, climbing off the soapbox now.

[spike1234(FGM)]

I find a good tactic is to scout with ATR teams as they are cheap to buy;)

[TheBlackHand]

[Mike Abberton]

In regards to game length versus real-life, I think part of the problem is that we tend to simulate a whole attack at one time that would really happen in phases, particularly in a QB.

Consider that most QBs, particularly attacks/assaults, represent a completely un-reconned situation. You have some basic intelligence, i.e. you know it is defended (or you wouldn't be playing the game in the first place) and roughly the total amount of forces (by the point totals). But you don't know the enemy force mix, positions, etc. All you really have are the objective locations.

Presented with that situation, I suspect that most real-life commanders would send in a small detachment to scout things out, but with orders not to get to heavily engaged until they report back what they find. There would be a pause in action, maybe long or maybe not, while a plan was put together. Then, the main attack would go in. I don't think the real-life commander would routinely say "well let's just send everyone in from the beginning, because the Colonel wants this wrapped up in a 1/2-hour".

But in the game, who wants to play a 90 to 120-turn QB where, the first 30 turns is a recon phase with sporadic low-level engagements. Then 30 turns of no fighting while the attacker positioned his men for the attack. And finally 30 to 60 turns of actual fighting.

An interesting way to go would be for the defender to set up first. He saves the file once before hitting "Go", and e-mails that file to a third person. Then he hits Go and e-mails the file to his opponent. After getting a recon plan (direction and units involved) from the attacker, the third person takes a look at the defender's setup and gives a generalized "recon report" to the attacker before he sets up. Nothing too specific just very generalized observations (e.g. infantry near the cluster of buildings in the center, a possible tank spotted on the crest of the hill in the background, etc.), with an eye towards the attacker's recon plan. Everybody assumes the recon was of a non-contact nature and that casualties/ammo expediture were essentially nil or that they were from forces not to be commited in the attack. The defender is also notified of the recon (direction of advance, general idea of types of units involved) The attacker then sets up and the QB represents the actual attack phase.

Obviously such a system requires a willing third person and is open to complaint/abuse depending on too much or too little detail in the recon reports, but it could be an interesting change of pace. In fact, if someone wants to try it, I would be willing to serve as the third-party neutral observer.

Mike

[TheBlackHand]

Basically, BAMCIS.

Begin the planning.
Arrange for reconnaissance.
Make reconnaissance.
Complete the planning.
Issue the order.
Supervise.

[McIvan]

[ATCS]

McIvan, I agree with you in that recon of defense in depth is unlikely. But the point here (I think) is that often, particularly with a QB, there is NO recon available. At least none prior to engagement. You have no idea of the force ahead of you - other than what Panther Bait outlined - possible strong points, flanks, etc. This all must be identified and exploited within the typical QB timeline of 20-35 minutes.

Panther Bait, I am intrigued by your suggestion of a third party providing a type of recon. I would be willing to give it a go...if we could find a third to give the recon. A smallish skirmish just to test the idea. I'm currently at work (Okinawa time), but could probably get some turns done around lunch time.

Mike