Wanting opponents please!

[naughtkris]

>A. If I satisfied about how battle is going, I should not care about how many troops I have and how many time is left >(did not know about -5 min, thank you), I should care about how to use my advantage to get a higher final score.

It could be -5, but its random. I'm not sure I've ever seen past 5.

But it's not so much your score that important, its the degree of victory (draw, minor victor, major, etc). Should a game be recorded/scored for a ladder/tourney the exact score won't be recorded. So if you think pushing will decrease a Total victory to a minor victory, it may not be worth it.



>B. If risk to fare in worse situation - than I have on a current turn - is too high, I should toggle on the Ceasefire. I >should understand that my opponent/s is capable to use the Ceasefire and discussions as a trick, to get higher final >score for himself.

More or less. I've never actually had someone try and trick me into a cease-fire, but it is a possibility. Another reason to cease fire if neither side is willing to push from their position. If that's the case, ask for cease fire and start a new match.



>C. If I already understood that I have no more chances to win or hold positions in battle, I should use the Surrender to >not waste my time.

Pretty much. Like in our B vs R, i'm going to make you push me out if you want the victory zone points. Doing so though may cost you. This is another reason to get depth of defence.


>D. I should care only about what acts, moves, decisions will bring me a higher final score. And I should not care about >what opponent is thinking - about my decisions - and about what opponent is wants, after battle is started.

That all depends on who you are playing, and in what community. If you play individuals a lot, you can pick up on their play styles. Some are more brash, others really like to inch their way through the match. Some blot out the sky with constant arty.



>This rules are simple and logical, it is very good. Because I love simple and logical rules. I see only one drawback in >logic of this rules.

Just remember, rules are made to be broken. Somethings the hidden left hook will win you the match.

>Rational player should to use the Surrender never at all. Because opponent will get max score, and player get only VP's >for enemy losses. So rational player should fight to last soldier, to gain max possible VP's for enemy losses. To fix this >drawback game engine should have some reasons to rational player. Something like following: If player press the >Surrender, some of a troops of player (let's say 50%) will left a battlefield, other will be surrendered; opponent will get >core that not the max.

If it was a tournament or if honour was on the line, then yes, I'd refrain from using the 'Surrender' because I'll be putting a lot of thought and effort into my moves, and someone will really have to get up early to pin me to the mat that badly.

But, if someone is so good that they push me back into my deployment zone in a Tourney, and they are not interested in a Ceasefire, then sure, I'll surrender. They earned it.  Plus, I have time to start up a new match.

But again, points themselves don't matter, just the ratio, which leads to the Degree of Victory. (Total victory to Total defeat).








>Do not even hope that I will toggle on the CS in this one (B V R), muahahaha, at least for now.

3 turns to go, and how ever many negative rounds we get.










(>1). I did not expect at all. (in next sentence 'support' as "Art/Air support") My mind - during purchase of forces - was >thinking following: "The map is a town, support is not so important in town, so I do not need that support; forces are >tiny, support is quite expensive, so I have very small amount of money to buying that support; battle is short, calling a >support need a time, so I do not want that support; my opponent is probably thinking same way, he probably will did >not have that support, so I do not need AA-troops."

Excellent thought process.









>(3). My mind (lol, right now I found that write like that (flow of my thoughts) it is much more easier then make a >complex sentences, I will to write like that quite often from now, sorry if it looks strange or stupid, lol) - during purchase >of forces - was thinking following: "The map is a town, so I should have a lot of infantry. It is CW-era, so all infantry are >already mechanized. I have not a lot of money, so I want to buy a company of mechanized infantry. My opponent with >high probability will did have a some armor, so I need something for AT purposes. Tanks are multipurpose and good as >AT, so I want to force a company of mechanized infantry by platoon of tanks." Of course I understand that all this >M113's and BTR's it is (often and almost) thrown away money, and platoon (3 or 4) of tanks it is may be not a best >choice (maybe 2 tanks or 5 tanks is much better), but I love realism ('realism' here it is my vision of how it works in real >life, my knowledges about how it actually works in real life is pretty small). So I do not know what to choose: 'realism' >vs 'effectiveness'.* Therefore my question: "Do in RL combats, forces organized in their default formations (TO&E), or >they can be organized in as how conditions of combat required (infantry without APC's,  infantry of different types, mix >of not full formations, etc.l)"?


I also like to skew towards realism. I find it more fun. I need to think on my feet more.

I won't go into the 16 steps of battle, but;

So in real life, when planning an operation: Size (section, platoon, company); Commander's intent (and 1-up); type of operation (patrol, probe, defence, etc); Resources available.

Resources available: During war, the 'front line' typically has several layers (defence in depth). These people are doing the direct fighting (and being shelled). But that is only about 1/5 to 1/3 of your forces. Many will be Tooth to Tail support troops (clerks, cooks, supply techs, mechanics, staff officers, troops to make the staff officers comfortable, etc); but the rest are your reserves.

Reserves come in several types. There are your ready-to-go QRT types. This could be a single section, or an entire battalion. They are typically untouchable as they have a role. The rest of the reserves are going to be those who take turns swapping out with the guys on the front. Troop rotation wins battles.

So, getting back to your question- If you are an infantry company, and told to attack a given objective; Units have access to organic support units (mortars, AA, medics, mechanics, etc).  When you present your plan to your 1up (the next level of command), they will say yes or no to you requesting extra/special troops being attached to your command.
Sometimes, you'll need something that you don't have organically (tanks, air support, large arty), your 1up and 2up need to approve your plan, then request the listed support from other units (or different element for Air force).

You also have to consider that there are dozens of other people all with orders, and all wanting the same support units for their own upcoming engagements.





>(5). No, I meant other situation. I meant situation that was in "R V B" match. My mind - during that error - was thinking >following: "We (I your beautiful mind with you stupid Cupressus) already lost many M113s, also we lost almost all >infantry, so now we should to do following. As our enemy already lost one tank and as he have a lot of Shilkas, and a lot >of Hinds, and we did not saw other tanks, so he with high probability do not have more tanks, only some amount of >nfantry and a couple low-ammo Shilkas. And as all our Pattons (aces in sleeve) are fine (not destroyed) and as we still >have a reserved full platoon of infantry, so let we make next move. On a crossing of paved roads there are a couple of >not a bad buildings. This buildings are in the Zone. And our troops already feel themself good in this part of map. Our >enemy are weak here, he probably want to advance at different flank. If we will place our reserves there (those >buildings), so with help of our high-HE-ammo Pattons we will be able to finish that match at some kind of a draw." So I >maked smoke screen (through WP shells of Pattons) on paved road and rush my APCs with reserves to those buildings. >Everything was great: APCs have come to the buildings, riflemen dismount and place in the buildings; smoke screen was >good. But then your T-62 arrived from a corner and annihilated almost all my reserve platoon, shooting at the buildings. >Then I lost my Pattons in very stupid way. My mind - during this losses - was thinking following: "OMG! Cupressus you >are **, **, ** and **! How you ** ** are did lose all you tanks against this damned Shilkas and **ing RPG!". So it is >was my big errors. I do not have more chances now. I already press the Surrender.

So, aside from the surprise air raid;  I think you needed to push in and hold the position more. You have no depth of defence, so once you first line was pushed off, there wasn't a second. It also makes you static and allows the enemy to take the initiative.  Oh, and it was a t-64.








> - I assume you mean Combat Engineers, not like say, a software engineer.



>Of course, of course, I meant Combat Engineers. I will write about it right now. I always thought (I do not have >knowledge, just some my thoughts) that CEs it is support troops and they do not act in a hot phase of a combat. I >thought they act only before or after combat (neutralization of mines and IEDs, construction of bridges and trenches, >etc.). But in many wargames CEs (sappers, pioneers) it is some kind of a shockforces, they are stronger than regular >infantry especially at assaults. So a few years in my mind sit question: "WTF?"** I was try to find answer (a couple >years ago), but do not found usefull info. So I want to ask this question to you. How it works in RL, how I thought >initially or like in wargames?

So in real life, Combat Engineers are not infantry. They will be insulted if you suggest that to them.
CEs not only have to learned most of what infantry learn, but then a hell of a lot more.
CEs are extremely valuable because of all the training they have. I know movies like to show just any gi joe planting explosives to take out a bridge, but that's not really true. You would attach CEs to the infantry unit.
CE are also rare compared infantry.

But its not impossible for a non-infantry unit to be charged with defending or patrols. Military Police, CEs, Arty, are good examples of units that may need to do some hands-in fighting.

But if a company of CEs are the only troops you have in the area, then guess what, they are doing the mission (or most likely, defending off an attack)