I'm playing/played so far four CMFI QBs. All were Meeting Engagements. One thing i noticed is the objective areas are always closer for the german player rather than being in the middle as one might expect.
I wonder if that's a compensation for the slight german inferiority?
Lol, Yes the german Inferiority.....ROFL
(10-09-2012, 06:19 AM)raz_atoth Wrote: [ -> ]I'm playing/played so far four CMFI QBs. All were Meeting Engagements. One thing i noticed is the objective areas are always closer for the german player rather than being in the middle as one might expect.
I wonder if that's a compensation for the slight german inferiority?
You can play that QB Map 111 that has no objectives other than killing each other or the QB 175, that one is huge with 4 objectives, all the other maps are crap. :-)
(10-09-2012, 07:37 AM)CaptPoobar Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, Yes the german Inferiority.....ROFL
A Sherman costs in a Qb about 200 pts. A Pz IV costs about 250 pts. In a medium Qb,assuming both players spent all their points on armor,the american player can afford 11 Shermans. The german player on the other hand can purchase only 9 Pz IV. All things being equal i would expect 11 Shermans to thrash 9 Pz IV in most cases.
So,i would say the germans-are in CMFI-slightly disadvantaged,don't you agree?
Umm...only if you had in the rules of the games no tigers....The tigers are impervious in this game and if you had 25 x 75mm shermans i would quite hapily take 3 tigers. The only thing that will take those tigers out is the priest with a heat round in which you would need to operate them like a wolf pack on 1 tiger. They are hardly tank killers but are the only thing that will work. So if u said the german are inferior i would have to disagree as the few games i have played of CMFI my oponent has always had a tiger or 2 and must say i havae as well.
I though,by now,the 'no tigers' unless otherwise agreed rule, is as obvious as no arty fire on the setup zones? :) I'd say a player using Tigers has 90% chances of winning the game right from the start and this isn't exactly fair. In any case,i haven't purchased Tigers in the games i played with the axis,nor did i encountered them as allied.
About those victory point locations. Must you orient so much towards them rather then the enemy? Is it not possible to do damage to your opponent and then orient towards vps? Is Combat Mission really the kind of game where everything needs to be exactly fair in order to be fun? I think of the vps more as guides to were the fighting will be than anything else. Just my thoughts, let me here yours.
(10-10-2012, 05:41 AM)Salvofire Wrote: [ -> ]About those victory point locations. Must you orient so much towards them rather then the enemy? Is it not possible to do damage to your opponent and then orient towards vps? Is Combat Mission really the kind of game where everything needs to be exactly fair in order to be fun? I think of the vps more as guides to were the fighting will be than anything else. Just my thoughts, let me here yours.
I think the answer is in your question, You refer to victory point locations and they are just that. For holding these locations you are rewarded points that might win your meeting engagement. In that sense, they are indeed important. What Raz was saying was that there is an imbalance in most meeting engagement maps and he is quite correct in making that statement. If a victory point location is just meters away from somoene's setup zone, that person could occupy it fairly quickly (perhaps having time to deploy guns in favourite positions etc.) and play a defensive game where as the opponent would have to cross a fair distance before getting to the same location, his game would naturally become more of a attacking game.
I however think it has nothing to do with compensating for inferior Germans.
I think the developer just could not be bothered delaying the release of the game over something like that. BN has certainly a greater variety of maps if I am correct in saying this.
Well..i don't know if the cause really was the rush to get the product out. I'm more inclined to believe it's a deliberate decision. I'm not exactly familiar with the editor but i'd assume placing objectives in the middle of the map is just as easy as placing it anywhere else. So far,i played/i'm playing about 6 CMFI QBs and all had the setup zones closer to the axis zone than expected. I'd assume,if we were to blame the possible delay on the release date,the objectives would have been more randomly placed. Some of it in the center,some of it closer to the axis,others closer to the allies,but not all with the zones closer to the axis.
Let's take this into consideration. Leaving Tigers aside,the allies have the upper hand when it comes to armor. The allies have the upper hand in arty (the 60mm mortar is almost as effective as the german 81mm one,but it costs significantly less and the rounds are delivered faster). The allies have the upper hand regarding the infantry's AT assets. The GIs have bazookas,the krauts don't have panzershreks nor panzerfausts.
All in one i believe it was a deliberate decision to move the objectives closer to the german side in order to account for the small but clear advantage the allies have in CMFI. That it somehow defies the purpose of a meeting engagement,i guess that;s another story.
(10-09-2012, 06:29 PM)CaptPoobar Wrote: [ -> ]Umm...only if you had in the rules of the games no tigers....The tigers are impervious in this game and if you had 25 x 75mm shermans i would quite hapily take 3 tigers. The only thing that will take those tigers out is the priest with a heat round in which you would need to operate them like a wolf pack on 1 tiger. They are hardly tank killers but are the only thing that will work. So if u said the german are inferior i would have to disagree as the few games i have played of CMFI my oponent has always had a tiger or 2 and must say i havae as well.
Challenge accepted, I will take 25 shermans and you get 3 tigers for a ladder match.ok?