Why are you Rushing, this is not StarCraft!!!

D

Darth Panzer

Guest
Are you the ZERG ( a StarCraft reference ), though I have not played that game in a thousand years. OK, to get back on topic.

I personally play a style that goes for Tactics and strategy and likes to take their time planning, studying the terrain, sending out scouts, probing the defences and then deciding on what kind of attack is needed against my Pbem opponent. I prefer a longer timed out game,( an hour, two or more ) where such tactics and play can evolve into a very strategic enjoyable battle for both.

This is also using very detailed terrain realistic maps and ( not maps that seem to have this flat one sided terrain, with a house and a single tree, an exaggeration, but you get the idea)

This why I like to find players that have the same mind set, playing CM with the same historical and tactical feel I think IMHO the game deserves.

But I also see that there are those that play for the Quick WIN, rush, rush and more rush. Hence the above mentioned ZERG reference. ( If you rushed in real combat to try to get that win, your forces would die)

My question is what play style do you enjoy, there is nothing wrong with either, I just want to find those that play the same way as I do.

Should there be a section for the more longer formed tactical players can meet and play?

Thoughts?
 
I'd be happy to rack up a game against you.

I've been playing a lot of smaller, shorter games recently, mostly because they are quicker to get to the point (so I can get more practice in, since my PBEM is terrible), but also because CM forces you to take on so many roles - it can be genuinely interesting to control a squad in this game, let alone the battalion commander, three company commanders, nine platoon commanders and twenty-seven squad leaders that a larger battle might easily ask you to do.

Having said that, I think CM *does* punish rushing. The only game types that really reward it (other than bad maps, which is always a problem) seem to be meeting engagements, and even in those cases the points for killing the enemy outweigh the objectives - ergo, you should be fighting the enemy, not the board.

Longer time limits are fine, but usually the game will be resolved within those limits in any case - CM more often than not has more than enough time to work with, since the actual decisive moments can be over pretty quickly.
 
Greetings

In general I prefer longer games on the offensive as, like you, I prefer to recce the terrain, develop a plan based on intel and develop that plan as my intel improves. However I do appreciate some scenarios where there is the need for a hasty attack where you just need to push faster than you'd like, so long as the scenario designer HAS decided this is the situation and warns you of it.

Unfortunately I find myself rushing attacks in 2 situations
1. Map means all yr troops are visible on setup or will be shortly after moving.
2. Scenario length is Soooooo short that with the supplied forces you have to rush just to acheive a reasonable victory.

In most scenarios I've played so far this hasn't been a major problem (though in 2 it was a problem for my opponent). I have seen a couple of scenarios where I as the attacker I felt for my opponent as the length of time from scenario start to actual contact was 15-25mins. OTOH I was getting scared of my own shadow in these games as I couldn't believe i hadn't found his main defensive line yet!!!

Defensive tactics are often more interesting as you mainly sit back and watch yr opponents first 10-20 turns to develop an impression of his forces and attack plan. It often becomes a question of timing on the defenders part i.e. when do you unveil yr defences and hit him, where do you rush reinforcements to , is that a feint. Is it time to counterattack yet. When defending an attacker who rushes your lines is a REAL pleasure as (unless they are playing a double bluff) it lets you decide on counter options pretty quickly. A counter attack often plays dividends (if timed correctly) as rushes often will go for a deep penetration and ignore flanks. Maneuver is your frind in this case.

Map design is all important though.
 
Hi Domfluff and Zinzan,

Thanks for commenting and I am glad to see others that think along the same lines of game play as I do, and I think many other players think this is well.

1) Long Times don't mean that you have to use that entire time, though it is nice to know you have a lot of time to do what needs to be done.

2) Map design is critical not only for the pure enjoyment of using all types of terrain, to try to apply your tactics. If the mod community spends so much time on the detail of Armor units, men, and even the terrain tiles, then the same should be said for finely crafted detailed maps that we fight on.

I appreciate your feedback.:)
 
Domfluff,

I am currently designing a map for CMRT, called The Toy Factory, should have it completed in the next few days and if you like we can Pbem and test it out. ?

The Toy Factory: The Toy Factory has been fought over for months now, situated in a key railroad access and surrounded by abandoned farm lands. Riddled with the scares of war, the land itself has been churned into a desolate no mans land. Both sides have retreated to regroup and plan again to meet within the destroyed Toy Factory.
 
Excellent post. I have been debating doing something similar. Be great to match similar playing styles.
 
In my latest DAR I have been rushing and the effects are clear to see.. I have been decimated. My reason for rushing in that battle was mainly due to the fact that I could see the defender sending his troops forward from the off to reinforce his front line... I figured the longer I delayed the more of a struggle I would have breaking through. Alas I have struggled anyway so nothing was gained at the end of the day.
 
The beauty of CM is it is really a "sandbox" game that can be used to simulate everything from a larger than battalion to a less than platoon size battle in any amount of historical detail that you care to use.

As for play styles, I can and do enjoy the full spectrum, from slow methodical battles with lots of recon and planning, to fast, hell-bent-for-leather battles that are essentially over in 15-20 turns. I do play more of the latter than the former, however.

I think the "gamiest" type of battles are Meeting Engagement quick battles on sparse maps with a single smallish VL in the middle of the map. Meeting Engagements are a lot more fun, IMO, with a well designed, interesting map with either multiple VLs or when most of the map is one big VL so the results are determined by casualties.
 
I am glad that we are having this conversation, I agree with a lot of what we are all saying and it seems that many do enjoy the longer form tactical battle as long as their opponent also enjoys it as well.

I am in not "in it to win it" and what I mean by that is that I care more about how I play on the battlefield, Tactics, using the units as intended, caring about what I would do if I was actually commanding these units, etc, then just selecting ALL and moving FAST towards a Victory.
 
@Darth Panzer Well, there we differ slightly, because I always play to win, not to simulate or recreate historical battles or tactics. Now CM, being what it is, often forces players like me to use "proper" tactics to win, which is good. :) We quickly learn that "zerg rushing" seldom wins and adapt our tactics to what actually works. ;-)
 
I'm not really sure it's even a style of play, so much as the sensible thing to do. (Again, with the caveat that the map can be the issue - crappy maps make for crappy games of CM, regardless of anything else).

Since Meeting Engagements are the only Quick Battle or scenario type that really reward rushing to the objective, meeting engagements victory locations have the lowest value for terrain objectives, and the highest value for killing units.

Since you only need one unit on the objective to deny it to the enemy, then charging full tilt into the objective isn't going to help any - CM will punish you for doing so, so you'll take more casualties and lose more points, and as long as you can contest the objective by the end of time, then no-ones getting the points for that either.

There are absolutely reasons to charge ahead sometimes and take the risk - sometimes occupying key terrain can be worth rushing forwards, but it's usually a really bad idea (or can be). The exception tends to be (again) bad map design - if you're in a meeting engagement and the only decent cover on the entire map is the victory location, then whomever gets there first has an advantage.

I think the VL's are something of a trap in CM, and I've been playing with them switched off recently - I suspect you're far better served by playing to defeat your opponent than you are by claiming ground, since if you beat your opponent you can have whatever ground you like
 
...and this is absolutely true. The whole point of playing simulationist games for me is to inspire reading and learning about the subject - I play the game, go away and read about the subject matter I was unfamiliar with, then come back with hopefully greater insight. It's a feedback loop, and it works equally well with wargames as it does with simulations of spacecraft design or anything else.

So, with that in mind, I find it's useful to learn and use historical tactics and doctrine. Recently my Commonwealth forces play has improved tremendously since I've been splitting squads into a three man Bren team and a six man manoeuvre section, as prescribed. This is clearly what the squads are designed to achieve, and it gives them tools and abilities far greater than the sum of their parts (i.e., minimising the Bren section, such that the manoeuvre element has the maximum flexibility, and can even make assault moves and the like).

...but, part of it is figuring things out for myself. Asking "what if"? and trying things in a different way. Seeing *why* American amoured infantry isn't quite as suited to Panzergrenadier tactics as an actual Panzergrenadier unit, and that Bazooka teams aren't quite the same thing as a modern US Javelin :)
 
The reason I mention "in it to win it", is of course the ultimate result is to win a victory, but winning that victory has it degrees of success for me. If I am battling another player who has tactically and skillfully engaged me and the battle has been hard fought and I loose, for me that is a victory. The pure enjoyment of that type of battle is what I am looking for.

I like what Domfluff mentions above, having VL's turned off are the way to go, as it gives each of you something to move towards and fight over, but also realizing that the terrain and other locations not specified as VL's can give you sometimes even better battles that you did not expect nor anticipate.
 
I certainly play to win combat mission games, but that's absolutely in the historical context. As a stupid example, Sherman fireflies currently have a bug that loses their tank commander (patch soon, hopefully) and Carrier platoons have lost their 2" mortars in CMBN. I certainly don't gain any satisfaction from my opponent not knowing that, and if I get the chance I'd certainly point it out to them, since it's a bug in the game, and exploiting it (somehow convincing them to take these buggy units using my dastardly mind powers, or something) isn't really the point of the game.

Likewise, lying to my opponent in chat and getting them to ceasefire isn't in the spirit of things, or (for example) guessing their PBEM password so I can get a look at their stuff. Exploits aren't fun for anyone involved.

Incidentally, the only house rule I currently think is a good idea is to prevent pre-planned artillery into the setup zone for Meeting engagements, and (I think) into the attacker's setup areas when you are on defense. I think everything else is fair game really, and covered neatly by the points and rarity rules. I'm open to change my mind on that point, but that seems a sensible thing to me.
 
I have tried to study every tactical WW2 book I could find over the years, so when I am in charge of a Battalion of tanks and infantry or a recon squad seeking out an enemy position, then I am going to play that way as it was intended from what I have learned and read from historical accounts and tactics.

And hoping that my opponent is trying and enjoying that same type of game play.
 
For me when it comes to pre-planned artillery, there is one agreed rule between both players and never do you target their set up zone under any circumstance. Also with artillery when I am playing , did I have it available to me at that time, do I have line of sight, are my FO's in position to use any available artillery, etc.
 
Domfluff said:
Incidentally, the only house rule I currently think is a good idea is to prevent pre-planned artillery into the setup zone for Meeting engagements, and (I think) into the attacker's setup areas when you are on defense. I think everything else is fair game really, and covered neatly by the points and rarity rules. I'm open to change my mind on that point, but that seems a sensible thing to me.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, though I dislike *any* pre-planned arty in meeting engagements, because.......it's a meeting engagement (surprise!). How could either side have pre-planned an artillery barrage?
 
My 2cents.....

Attacks/Assaults

Can become a no win scenario for the defender if the attacker has all the time in the world to recon, find enemy, call in fire support, destroy enemy and move on to next hot spot. Fun for the person on attack but might not be so much fun for the defender. Sometimes turning down the clock and forcing the attacker to rush (a wee bit) makes for a more interesting game.

Meeting Engagements

Agree 100% with @Meat Grinder. I'm becoming really fond of meeting engagement types of scenarios where the author creates an interesting balanced map and gives you initial forces and then more forces come in as reinforcements. Non historical of course but I find them a lot of fun to play and you can replay them as well.

Scenarios


My favourite thing to play! But balance is an issue for ladder hunters, but I'm not a ladder hunter. LOL But neither do I think playing a completely unbalanced scenario is fun either. So with my playing partners I like to play where one guy chooses what to play and the other guy gets to choose sides. Keeps things mostly fair and square.


Quick Battles

Hate'em. Never know what to buy or what map to play on. So I force myself to play these just for practice so I get better at it.


I like a variety of it all.

Cheers
 
Darth Panzer said:
For me when it comes to pre-planned artillery, there is one agreed rule between both players and never do you target their set up zone under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

Agreed......except in an assault/attack/probe battle since the defender usually gets the majority of the map as their setup zone. I think it is entirely reasonable to allow the attacker to pre-plan arty (even turn one barrages)....not to mention that most WW2 attacks were preceded by an arty barrage.

But this just serves to illustrate why it is important to talk to your opponent (especially a new opponent) prior to starting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom