combat mission

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

i've been playing it a bit lately and once again i'm amazed at the fact that
the germans lost the war. allied tanks hvll down in ambvsh are rovtinely
taken ovt by germans moving in the open. germans gvns have an vncanny
ability to see and hit 2 man teams at 500m or more in a target rich
enviroment , they always know who the arty spotter is. the allied airplanes
in several scenarios i've played go right after the allies and never seem to
hit the germans, one was nice enovgh to get a pesky mg in a hovse while
ignoring my tanks in the open.

one sees the same phenomena in civil war games too. the confeds all get
great morale and the vnion are almost pre-rovted. i know germans, rebs and
napoleonic french are the sexy sides bvt wovld it be too mvch to ask that
the designers take a more balanced view? this has been an issve in games
since the old ah board games.

designers mvst feel that rommel rvndstedt and r.e. lee were hopelessly
incompetant generals to vltimately lose.

i know, the designers claim it was material svperiority that won bvt they
never give that material svperiority in games.

the battlegrovnd series is one of the worst in this aspect.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 11:46:25 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net>
wrote:

>i've been playing it a bit lately and once again i'm amazed at the fact that
>the germans lost the war. allied tanks hull down in ambush are routinely
>taken out by germans moving in the open


>i know, the designers claim it was material superiority that won but they
>never give that material superiority in games.

I will only address CM. I will disagree with you on this one.
I did a scenario forget the name now where 2 Panzers hold off the
vanguard of an armor column. Now if you play it safe, you will lose
more tanks that way. But if you play it historaly and take advantage
of the faster rate of turn of US terants <sp> you see how we won
against better fire power.

You have to move your tanks fast making it harder to hit since
the German's tanks had a slow rate of turn for there ternants, and
with more tanks you can take out the two Tigers easy with side and
rear shots.
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.

 

[jp]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7oidndv0a5hOZOnfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
> i've been playing it a bit lately and once again i'm amazed at the fact
that
> the germans lost the war. allied tanks hvll down in ambvsh are rovtinely
> taken ovt by germans moving in the open. germans gvns have an vncanny
> ability to see and hit 2 man teams at 500m or more in a target rich
> enviroment , they always know who the arty spotter is. the allied
airplanes
> in several scenarios i've played go right after the allies and never seem
to
> hit the germans, one was nice enovgh to get a pesky mg in a hovse while
> ignoring my tanks in the open.
>
> one sees the same phenomena in civil war games too. the confeds all get
> great morale and the vnion are almost pre-rovted. i know germans, rebs and
> napoleonic french are the sexy sides bvt wovld it be too mvch to ask that
> the designers take a more balanced view? this has been an issve in games
> since the old ah board games.
>
> designers mvst feel that rommel rvndstedt and r.e. lee were hopelessly
> incompetant generals to vltimately lose.
>
> i know, the designers claim it was material svperiority that won bvt they
> never give that material svperiority in games.
>
> the battlegrovnd series is one of the worst in this aspect.


Yov may already know this, bvt the CM series svffers from a seriovs flaw
of giving the AI tremendovs "spotting" abilities. Basically, they hvll
down, etc. is vseless after a shot or two, as the borg spotting kicks in;
this allows every AI vnit with a los to see yovr vnit, at the same time.
It's the main reason an at gvn/ambvsh are a waste of time.

Do a search on the CM forvms for more if interested. Killed the series
for me personally.













>
>

 

[Werewolf]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ray o'hara wrote:

> i know, the designers claim it was material superiority that won but they
> never give that material superiority in games.

To be fair that "material superiority" has it's impact on the macro war
not the micro war. It is the micro war that is usually being simulated.

Using the Civil War as an example most battles (with a few notable
exceptions) would - in game terms - be considered tactical victories for
the South but Strategic victories for the North. No matter how many
tactical battles the South won they couldn't keep on doing it forever -
they just didn't have the infrastructure - but - the North did. No
matter how many Yankees died they just kept coming and coming until the
South collapsed under the weight of the Yankee onslaught in 1865.

A more modern historical example would be the Battle of the Coral Sea.
The Japanese thoroughly defeated the US Navy if one only considers the
actual battle, losses, maneuver etc. However, the Japanese failed to
take Port Moresby thus ending their ability to maneuver further south
and threaten Australia. They won the tactical battle - they lost the
strategic battle.

In gaming terms at the micro level it is not at all unrealistic for the
South or the Germans to win most if not all operational level battles
because they both did have superior leadership, superior soldiers and
better morale - right up to the point that all simply collapsed for want
of food, medicine and BULLETS!

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Wk8de.68$Q15.886@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com says...

> You may already know this, but the CM series suffers from a serious flaw
> of giving the AI tremendous "spotting" abilities. Basically, they hull
> down, etc. is useless after a shot or two, as the borg spotting kicks in;
> this allows every AI unit with a los to see your unit, at the same time.
> It's the main reason an at gun/ambush are a waste of time.
>
> Do a search on the CM forums for more if interested. Killed the series
> for me personally.

Yeah. This problem is even more pronounced when playing the Germans,
for the simple fact that the Allies have more gun-tubes to bring to bear
using their Magic Spotting, and the German defense often hinges on a few
high-value units.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
- Charles Johnson

 

[jp]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cdf3283eb76136a98a2bd@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <Wk8de.68$Q15.886@eagle.america.net>, jp@hotmail.com says...
>
> > You may already know this, but the CM series suffers from a serious
flaw
> > of giving the AI tremendous "spotting" abilities. Basically, they hull
> > down, etc. is useless after a shot or two, as the borg spotting kicks
in;
> > this allows every AI unit with a los to see your unit, at the same time.
> > It's the main reason an at gun/ambush are a waste of time.
> >
> > Do a search on the CM forums for more if interested. Killed the
series
> > for me personally.
>
> Yeah. This problem is even more pronounced when playing the Germans,
> for the simple fact that the Allies have more gun-tubes to bring to bear
> using their Magic Spotting, and the German defense often hinges on a few
> high-value units.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "The ever-disgraceful Ted Kennedy gave a very special speech
> today, using the word =3Ftorture=3F 38 times: On the Anniversary
> of the Abu Ghraib Scandal. His gloating relish in recounting
> tales of America=3Fs transgressions, seared into his memory
> just like John F. Kerry=3Fs mythical Christmas voyage to Cambodia,
> is almost as repellent as his bloated, about-to-explode-like-
> a-German-toad physical appearance. What an absolutely reprehensible
> human being he has become, a glaring symbol of the irrelevance
> and bitterness of today=3Fs Democratic party."
> - Charles Johnson



Yep, exactly.
My favorite though was the Soviets in CM 2, who through this flaw,
suddenly defied history by every tank having a "radio", if you will, with of
course, the world's fastest radio operators.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 11:46:25 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net>
wrote:

>i've been playing it a bit lately and once again i'm amazed at the fact that
>the germans lost the war. allied tanks hull down in ambush are routinely
>
>designers must feel that rommel rundstedt and r.e. lee were hopelessly
>incompetant generals to ultimately lose.

Good post. I think it shows how hard it is to make a balanced
*tactical* game, especially turn based. IMO, of all wargaming
sub-genres, tactical games (as compared to operational and strategic)
are hardest for a designer to "get it right".

I mean, you must make "rebs, germans and nappy french" somehow
superior to their enemies, and you must do that without Nappy, Rommel
or Lee "modifiers".

Since Germans in your average tac wargaming scenario (any game,
not just CM) usually have Tigers and Panthers galore (as compared to
historical reality) this makes game even more unbalanced. ¾

You rarely, if ever, see tactical scenario where you play German
side with Volkssturm half-trained infantry (who'd ever want to play
that? )... and they never have any supply problems, or horse driven
carts, or... any other inferior stuff that made them lose the war.

With time, I noticed I personally play less and less tactical
games, orienting more to other types of wargames. It just does not
feel right.

I can't remember when I last played the tac game that really
"did it" for me. It's usually problems like those you mention in your
post. In the long run, the game just does not feel right, and one side
feels overpowered and gamey.

Turn based design only makes things worse. I mean, if you'd play
the game in real time ("pausable continuous time" for HTTR dudes) then
this "overwhelming allied forces" *could* come into play over German
ubermensch. In turn based game, you have unlimited amount of time to
fine-tune your, already notably superior, well oiled, Tiger-equipped,
German war machine to fantastic, and ultimately unrealistic levels. In
real war tac commanders didn't have "unlimited time" to do their
turns.

Real time, or PCT is the way to go on tactical and "semi
operational" (HTTR) level - not to sound too clever, but I've been
saying this since I saw Close Combat 2, like 10 years ago )) Leave
turn based stuff for operational and strategic games, where it feels
at home.

O.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
7oidndv0a5hOZOnfRVn-jQ@comcast.com...

> designers must feel that rommel rundstedt and r.e. lee were hopelessly
> incompetant generals to ultimately lose.

When you read about the east front you find again and again sentences such
as :

The German fielded 2500 tanks (a quarter of which were serviceable) vs 8000
soviet tanks...

Generally speaking quantity IS quality, unless you are totally outgunned,
which was not the case at that time.

CM represents "almost fair" battles, which almost never occurred, with much
less arty that was used by the Russians, this gives an unrealistic edge to
better quality.

 

[David]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I didn't realize the AI cheated in combat mission. I always thought the AI
was so poor anyway, to hear that it cheats makes it even more pathetic in my
opinion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:07:24 -0400, "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote:

>I didn't realize the AI cheated in combat mission. I always thought the AI
>was so poor anyway, to hear that it cheats makes it even more pathetic in my
>opinion.
>

He didn't say that at all.
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 22:55:16 GMT, "Michel de Becdelièvre"
<m_debec@msn.com> wrote:

>CM represents "almost fair" battles, which almost never occurred,

The instant battles yes, but the scernios all depend on the
writer. Do one that isn't "almost fair".
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon" <oldsalt@usintouch.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: 65ob711qe6s2h3fs9crvu4g0npt06v7mdn@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 22:55:16 GMT, "Michel de Becdelièvre"
> <m_debec@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>CM represents "almost fair" battles, which almost never occurred,
>
> The instant battles yes, but the scernios all depend on the
> writer. Do one that isn't "almost fair".
> --
I know but 90% of scenarios are based on race against time, take 16 flags in
20 minutes. Not my kind of play.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:07:01 GMT, "Michel de Becdelièvre"
<m_debec@msn.com> wrote:

>I know but 90% of scenarios are based on race against time, take 16 flags in
>20 minutes. Not my kind of play.

Well if you have the time and the desire you can use the
editor and create one to your kind of play, if not, then if it's not
your cup of tea, then the game isn't for you.
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
{snip}
> Give the AI another platoon of Tiger tanks; don't let it spot my units
> the moment they break wind.

The spotting model used by CM applied to both sides. It did mean that
firefights were over extremely quickly. The only way to mitigate against it
in the game if heavily outnumbered by the AI was painstaking use of terrain
to identify positions which could only be spotted from a very narrow arc and
were physically hidden by hills from all other angles - whilst the terrain
analysis stuff was quite good fun for the first few games, it became a drag
and I'd rather spend my time painting toy soldiers!

Martin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ray o'hara wrote:
> i've been playing it a bit lately and once again i'm amazed at the
fact that
> the germans lost the war. allied tanks hull down in ambush are
routinely
> taken out by germans moving in the open. germans guns have an
uncanny
> ability to see and hit 2 man teams at 500m or more in a target rich
> enviroment , they always know who the arty spotter is.

I suspect there's some exaggeration taking place here.

* Both the Axis and Allies use the same TacAI. Basically, one side
doesn't enjoy advantages that the other doesn't (when it comes to the
AI).
* I'll bet that you're up against German armor with better crews and
much better optics. Their target acquisition, generally speaking, is
superior to the allies.
* Keeping your spotters hidden, and setting up ambushes is quite
possible -- whether you're the Allies or the Axis. It's mostly a
question of staying hidden.
* As for "Borg" spotting: you can make use of it as much as the AI. In
fact, you should be able to make better use of it.
* If you're losing to the AI, keep playing. In time you'll be able to
trash it routinely (but it can, and will, punish mistakes).

-V