Wanting opponents please!

[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?