Wanting opponents please!

[naughtkris]

Game created

password "blitz"

[Cupressus]

> For our R vs B; I'll claim a Total victory there...

I agree with you. Report your Total Victory to the Ladder, please.


> ...I had a bunch of GRAD arty...

I think you meant BM-21 "Grad" Rocker Artillery here. This is a bad choice, in my opinion; they are expensive as **ck, inaccurate, reloads slowly, and not effective against buildings. On your place, I would choose off-map heavy mortars instead; they are cheaper and they have smoke rounds at least. I think smoke screens are very useful during river crossings.


> As for B vs R, we can wait to the bitter end if you like.

As I said in my previous post, I will switch on the Ceasefire after I clean my riverbank, as I am sure that with the cleaned zone, I will have the suitable ratio of my and your VPs to obtain the Total Victory.


> In that match, I completely messed up on the timings of my Mortar rounds. Because of that, any frontal assault was suicidal.

My thoughts were that you chose perfect moment to cross the river, right after your mortars and exactly before mine (I switched them on-off-on-off to maintain ammunition; initially, I had 90 rounds; at this moment (Turn 42), I still have two thirds of them). I think that your "infantry only" attack was suicidal in any way, as control of crossings (bridge and ford) against infantry is too easy for defender side. I was able to suppress and break your infantry using only MMGs and on-map mortars; I even did not have mines/barbed wire. I think you need some more advanced tactics for river crossings: amphibious vehicles, smoke screens, at least some tank as cover for infantry. My opinion.


> ...When ever it comes time to save a file, if click three times, the game freezes up and crashes...

My advice: do not click it three times. I am not an expert, but I think that to click it one time is quite enough, lol. In overall, sad that the CMCW is so buggy, it is most interesting Combat Mission game as for me.


> So what kind of work around would you like to try for games 3 and 4?

As I said, I am quitting out of them. I think my technical problem may appear again. I think I have seen threads where players have encountered bugs in only certain scenarios or maps; I do not know if that is my case. I will try to make some tests on this map later.


> Ok, I'll create a teeny-tiny battle for us to fight as a test game.

Great! Thank you! Let's go! I have already accepted the Challenge. As at previous time, I will start making the turns after a few days of preparation.

[Cupressus]

LOL. I am so stupid. "I am sure... I will obtain the Total Victory". Stupid monkey. I am forgot about 80% rule; to obtain the Total Victory player should score at least 80% of max score. I had need to prolong this battle a bit more, at least to wait for my Hinds and to use my **ing mortar rounds. Since I achieved only 74%, not 80%. LOL.

Thank you for the match.

[Cupressus]

Yes. I forgot, I somehow fixed the "R vs B" match; I pressed Surrender there. I will try to figure out my technical problem more later.

[naughtkris]

>> ...I had a bunch of GRAD arty...

>I think you meant BM-21 "Grad" Rocker Artillery here. This is a bad choice, in my opinion; they are expensive as **ck, >inaccurate, reloads slowly, and not effective against buildings. On your place, I would choose off-map heavy mortars >instead; they are cheaper and they have smoke rounds at least. I think smoke screens are very useful during river >crossings.


So, when planning, I had to assume you had defence in depth (foolish not to assume). The Grad was meant to be a slow but constant thumping around your back line limit your ability to reinforce. In this case, I wasn't going to need a smoke screen to cross, because I had a MG (man portable, or on the BDRMs) to suppress each building. Smoke screens can be usefully for crossings, but its all about the coordination of the two (as in the failure of B vs R).




>> In that match, I completely messed up on the timings of my Mortar rounds. Because of that, any frontal assault was >suicidal.

>My thoughts were that you chose perfect moment to cross the river, right after your mortars and exactly before mine (I >switched them on-off-on-off to maintain ammunition; initially, I had 90 rounds; at this moment (Turn 42), I still have >two thirds of them). I think that your "infantry only" attack was suicidal in any way, as control of crossings (bridge and >ford) against infantry is too easy for defender side. I was able to suppress and break your infantry using only MMGs and >on-map mortars; I even did not have mines/barbed wire. I think you need some more advanced tactics for river >crossings: amphibious vehicles, smoke screens, at least some tank as cover for infantry. My opinion.

Lesson's Learned: 

(a) I forgot that you could start on my side of the river. Luckily, that wasn't a huge problem here.
(b) I meant to, but forgot to buy real anti-air, and not just a few darn redeyes (as bad as a blowpipe).
© I didn't take a tank, because the chance of cheap ATGMs poking out of every window was too much a risk.
(d) which leads to- but not taking tanks, your ATGMs become less valuable. Instead, I took some ATGMs, just in case you have tanks, but they were also suppose to provide suppression of your troops in buildings, but I could not get my ATGMs to fire the actual rockets. It was a complete failure of coordination which would lead to the sacking of the commanding officer.



> ...When ever it comes time to save a file, if click three times, the game freezes up and crashes...

>>My advice: do not click it three times. I am not an expert, but I think that to click it one time is quite enough, lol. In >>overall, sad that the CMCW is so buggy, it is most interesting Combat Mission game as for me.

I don't mean, three clicks on the "ok" box, I mean, just three clicks of the mouse, anywhere. I was sat up and my mouse slid down and clicked, boom, turn gone, had to redo.



>> So what kind of work around would you like to try for games 3 and 4?

>As I said, I am quitting out of them. I think my technical problem may appear again. I think I have seen threads where >players have encountered bugs in only certain scenarios or maps; I do not know if that is my case. I will try to make >some tests on this map later.


Understood. Since you are the one with the technical issues, I'll let you take lead on what game parameters we use.

[Cupressus]

> So, when planning, I had to assume you had defence in depth (foolish not to assume).

I had good reasons to set up my forces in this manner. I do not want to describe them now, as my ideas about how to defend here are linked to my ideas about how to attack here, and I think we will be able to finish this Double Mirror Match at some point in the future.


>  The Grad was meant to be a slow but constant thumping around your back line limit your ability to reinforce.

For this purpose, I think it was not a bad choice. The Grad covers a large area and has a very appropriate amount of ammunition to fire during the entire short battle (30–35 min).


> (a) I forgot that you could start on my side of the river. Luckily, that wasn't a huge problem here.

I just had scout teams there to create the illusion of defense. And of course they were not "suicide scouts", I planned to save them. Your forces were advancing very fast, so only a couple scouts were able to cross the river back, but even they were killed in the back by some well-aimed shooter (it was pretty long range).


> (b) I meant to, but forgot to buy real anti-air, and not just a few darn redeyes (as bad as a blowpipe).

I think those "light" Mi-24s are way too cheap. I think the opposite side cannot adequately counter them. I think big disbalance here. I think the best tactics against those helicopters are just hiding and hoping for low casualties or trying to keep troops close to enemy troops. I think your Redeyes were very effective in this battle. I think they fired six missiles. I am sure a quarter (2/8) of my helicopters were "knocked out". During my tests, I think that I did not see such good results.


> © I didn't take a tank, because the chance of cheap ATGMs poking out of every window was too much a risk.

I agree, not a smartest tactic. But I think for you it should be fine; my ATGMs are not a big deal, as "you can suppress every building with your MG™." Oh wait, it is a different battle; you did not have your Brdms's here.**


> Understood. Since you are the one with the technical issues, I'll let you take lead on what game parameters we use.

Understood.


Learned from the match:
1. "I should avoid usage of poor quality soldiers in the front line (close to the enemy)." In long-range firefights, Greens are doing fine ("B vs R"). In close-range firefights, Greens are horrable (139 surrenderers, sick lol, in "R vs B").
2. "I should care more about morale state of my soldiers." Soft Factors are more valuable than I initially thought. Morale state is critically important. Broken is almost the same as KIA.
3. "I should make an adjustment in my comprehension of how my opponent will act." In all four battles, the opponent moved his forces much faster than in my vision of how the enemy forces will move.
4. "I should make my tactical decisions more quickly." I wait and watch too long. In "R vs B", I had a chance to save my left flank, but I waited too long.
5, 6, 7, etc. I already blabbed too much about my tactical preferences, vision of realism, etc. During preparation, I thought: you probably already know what units I will have and how I will use them. It is bad. So I am shutting up.

I forgot to say. In this match, I made my tests of "mid-turn saving stuff". The logic of regular PBEM is complete (clear) for me. PBEM++ is not. I think that (enough, I already wrote enough stupid things). In overall, PBEM++ is too complex. PBEM is much simpler and, therefore, should be much more stable (in many aspects). I made an adjustment in my preferences. From now on, I prefer usual PBEM.

My apologies for such a long preparation to the new match (Teeny-Tiny ME B vs R). During planning, I started to have some doubts about my knowledge of some mechanics. So I was making many tests of morale, suppression, suppression in building, how to demolish building effectively, etc. Cheating is not involved; I did not play on this map with AI or myself, just a few quick tests. In overall, I do not know how well I prepared for this new match. But my honest word, the battle will be brutal, lol.


(**). It is a joke. I do not think that you are not smart and etc. In overall, I finished writing my jokes here. In my situation, it is inappropriate behavior. Same with usage of French, it is even more inappropriate. Last joke: As you chose Blue side for yourself and as I spot some correlation in the results of all our battles, I want to say: Good luck to you, dude. In this new match, you will need it very much, muahahaha.** <- (recursion, lol)

[naughtkris]

>> So, when planning, I had to assume you had defence in depth (foolish not to assume).

>I had good reasons to set up my forces in this manner. I do not want to describe them now, as my ideas about how >to defend here are linked to my ideas about how to attack here, and I think we will be able to finish this Double >Mirror Match at some point in the future.

So what I mean is, when planning, there are certain basics I should plan for. I don't know if the OPFOR will actually do any of that, but not planning for it can lead to a lot of dead pixeltrupen and even more emails back to the home servers. The second part of the plan is having several COAs (course of action) to do when the plan actually makes contact with the enemy.

I'm sure you had your reasons for placing your troops where you did.






>> (b) I meant to, but forgot to buy real anti-air, and not just a few darn redeyes (as bad as a blowpipe).

>I think those "light" Mi-24s are way too cheap. I think the opposite side cannot adequately counter them. I think big >disbalance here. I think the best tactics against those helicopters are just hiding and hoping for low casualties or >trying to keep troops close to enemy troops. I think your Redeyes were very effective in this battle. I think they fired >six missiles. I am sure a quarter (2/8) of my helicopters were "knocked out". During my tests, I think that I did not >see such good results.

Odd that the Helo's were Knocked Out. I didn't get the normal msg of "aircraft destroyed". Do you mean they were just scared off, and had to be resent on mission? I do agree that the price is a little low. It's made worse that each purchase is for two helos. In larger matches, its not as effective; there is more ground to cover and there is a larger percentage of AA that can strike outside of the airpower attack zone.



>Learned from the match:
>1. "I should avoid usage of poor quality soldiers in the front line (close to the enemy)." In long-range firefights, >Greens are doing fine ("B vs R"). In close-range firefights, Greens are horrable (139 surrenderers, sick lol, in "R vs >B").

Agreed. Unmotivated conscripts should be kept to the back lines; like holding rear victory zones or protecting a less likely vector of attack (such as ATGMs covering an open field). But yes, 139 is by far my record on captures (I think 40 or so was my last max).


>2. "I should care more about morale state of my soldiers." Soft Factors are more valuable than I initially thought. >Morale state is critically important. Broken is almost the same as KIA.

Yes, broken troops are at best, used to defend final points, but attacking with them is a real desperate measure (though I've had to do it, and been successful).

>3. "I should make an adjustment in my comprehension of how my opponent will act." In all four battles, the >opponent moved his forces much faster than in my vision of how the enemy forces will move.

I suspect that's more of just gaining experience with a human player opposed to the AI.
But having said that- Speed, Aggression and Surprise are what's needed during an assault.

>4. "I should make my tactical decisions more quickly." I wait and watch too long. In "R vs B", I had a chance to save >my left flank, but I waited too long.

We all second guess ourselves, but that's why coming up with COAs before hand, you can activate the plan without self doubt over if you should change the first plan.


>5, 6, 7, etc. I already blabbed too much about my tactical preferences, vision of realism, etc. During preparation, I >thought: you probably already know what units I will have and how I will use them. It is bad. So I am shutting up.

It's all good.  

For instance, with out current Meat Grinder match, I'm just having fun with the firefights. I fully expect you to win, so I hope you don't mind me playing around a little. Soviet RPGs give a huge advantage in these close quarter city fights. Its why NATO doctrine focuses heavily on combined arms, training, and technology. Having said that, I don't think the game simulates the back blast of the RPGs nearly as well as it should. I would not want to be in the same enclosed space as all those RPGs being fired, specially with so many people in the same room. The over pressure from the back blast is terrible. It can also easily start fires if that is just someones living room. Having a fire start in the same room you are pinned with a firefight in, that's a bad day. But in the game, its just a tiny bit of suppression for ten or twenty seconds.



>I forgot to say. In this match, I made my tests of "mid-turn saving stuff". The logic of regular PBEM is complete >(clear) for me. PBEM++ is not. I think that (enough, I already wrote enough stupid things). In overall, PBEM++ is >too complex. PBEM is much simpler and, therefore, should be much more stable (in many aspects). I made an >adjustment in my preferences. From now on, I prefer usual PBEM.

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow. I much prefer PBEM++ because the email lets me know when a turn is ready; and I don't have to worry about manually moving turn files around from dropbox to game inbox, etc. When you have several matches across several CM titles, it can get confusing, or at least tedious.




>My apologies for such a long preparation to the new match (Teeny-Tiny ME B vs R). During planning, I started to >have some doubts about my knowledge of some mechanics. So I was making many tests of morale, suppression, >suppression in building, how to demolish building effectively, etc. Cheating is not involved; I did not play on this map >with AI or myself, just a few quick tests. In overall, I do not know how well I prepared for this new match. But my >honest word, the battle will be brutal, lol.

Its totally fine if you look at the map before hand, or run a test against the AI. I don't mind. I just don't do it myself, because I like the surprise. I don't consider that type of stuff cheating.

But while you will win the battle, it's going to be a meat grinder.



>(**). It is a joke. I do not think that you are not smart and etc. In overall, I finished writing my jokes here. In my >situation, it is inappropriate behavior. Same with usage of French, it is even more inappropriate. Last joke: As you >chose Blue side for yourself and as I spot some correlation in the results of all our battles, I want to say: Good luck >to you, dude. In this new match, you will need it very much, muahahaha.** <- (recursion, lol)

I do agree, I'll need a lot of luck in this battle.
If you have some of your technical issues solved, perhaps we could move on to a Medium sized match? Or finish the mirror match? Or both?

[Cupressus]

> Odd that the Helo's were Knocked Out. I didn't get the normal msg of "aircraft destroyed". Do you mean they were just scared off, and had to be resent on mission? I do agree that the price is a little low. It's made worse that each purchase is for two helos. In larger matches, its not as effective; there is more ground to cover and there is a larger percentage of AA that can strike outside of the airpower attack zone.

No, I am pretty sure that the two helicopters were destroyed. Probably your "Vehicle Hit Description Text" was switched off (Alt+H hotkey).


> For instance, with out current Meat Grinder match, I'm just having fun with the firefights. I fully expect you to win, so I hope you don't mind me playing around a little. Soviet RPGs give a huge advantage in these close quarter city fights. Its why NATO doctrine focuses heavily on combined arms, training, and technology. Having said that, I don't think the game simulates the back blast of the RPGs nearly as well as it should. I would not want to be in the same enclosed space as all those RPGs being fired, specially with so many people in the same room. The over pressure from the back blast is terrible. It can also easily start fires if that is just  someones living room. Having a fire start in the same room you are pinned with a firefight in, that's a bad day. But in the game, its just a tiny bit of suppression for ten or twenty seconds.

Of course, we can play as long as you want. I am sure that I will win this battle, but who knows.


> I do agree, I'll need a lot of luck in this battle. If you have some of your technical issues solved, perhaps we could move on to a Medium sized match? Or finish the mirror match? Or both?

What do you think about mirroring the current battle? If you agree, I am ready to begin.

[naughtkris]

I'll double check my settings for Vehicle Hits.

The mirror is up!
Password is 'blitz'

You have my word I will not take any Airpower for this match (though feel free to take some AASPGs if you just like the fire power).

[Cupressus]

> I'll double check my settings for Vehicle Hits.

No, single check is quite enough. "Alt+H" hotkey it is toggle (on-off-on-off). So double check will lead you to initial state.


> The mirror is up!
Password is 'blitz'

Thank you! Challenge already accepted.

Funny thing: I finally received "PBEM++ Server Warning" email from Slitherine. I do not think that this letter is a big deal. But anyway, I do not know what "rules" are here (in forum and in overall), but for me, your practice of publishing simple passwords in public places looks very strange. So, Hey Chris, Can you do me a favour and next time transmits the password via Private Message system. Or you can make password like some sort of puzzle. For example: Password is "(name of my 1st Battalion leader in the other (already finished (lol)) battle)."


> You have my word I will not take any Airpower for this match (though feel free to take some AASPGs if you just like the fire power).

No, my message about "too cheap Hinds" was advice (like "dude, do not buy M163s"), not request (like "please do not buy Mi-24s"). So take as much airpower as you would like.