You Can't Win 'Em All

[Der Kuenstler]

It has been said that for every home run Babe Ruth hit, he struck out twice. As in baseball, there are definite random factors in a Combat Mission quick battle, that virtually guarantee this: you can’t win them all.

1) Fog of war setup and movement: This is the main culprit. Neither player has complete information about what his opponent is bringing to the table or exactly where his units are located behind that setup line. It’s not like a chess match where you see the whole board and all of the pieces from the beginning. Sure, you can make educated guesses, but that’s all they are until the battle is engaged and you start to see something.

Let’s say I happen to have six stugs lined up pointing straight at where you decide to crest a hill with some T-34s - I look like a genius. What if, at random, you had decided to flank them around at an angle instead? Then I’m toast. You look great. But what if I had happened to have a few schreks and AT mines in those trees where you decided to flank? Then you look bad again. I have played several games where if I would have started my armor on one side of the map rather than the other, the whole tone and outcome of the battle would have changed.

I once caught a very good player with his pants down by ambushing him from the side with a lone Sherman. He lost, I think, three Pz IVs out of four in that skirmish by passing in front of me there. He didn’t expect a Sherman to be there, but the thing is I didn’t order it to be there -it was there because it bogged several turns ago and I could no longer move it. No skill - just random stuff happening.

2) Hit and damage chance: You’ve done everything right - you are hulldown, you hunted that AFV into position, you made sure it was unbuttoned, he’s got a vet crew, he’s in range - and your target line says he’s got a 33% hit chance. Now there’s nothing you can do but watch. You start firing at each other and either you’ll be lucky or he will. You could gun damage him the first shot, blow him up in flames the first shot, or miss three times in a row while he blows you up. Skill leaves the building at that point.

There is some chance in artillery and mortars, too. You could use up your whole mortar load trying to take out one gun or it could die the first shot. Artillery could do little or it could gun damage a few tanks and wreck halftracks. I realize you can still play the odds, but chance is always there.

3) Terrain: in a quick battle, there is always the chance that your opponent will get paved roads leading up to the flags while you have to run through scattered trees. Or he’ll get that nice wooded Butte overlooking all of your setup zone. There’s nothing you can do about that. You can control some of it when setting up the game but not all. Even imported maps have hidden dangers - I once set up for a battle in the mountains only to realize after the game started that I had two platoons stranded - they were surrounded by cliffs and couldn’t move the whole game.

4) Random Events: There is always a chance that your tanks can bog down and become immobile. Or set off a mine. Planes could wreck you or totally miss. Some things just happen out of your control that are built into the game.

5) Variable Endings: The game seems to decide this at random. I’ve played games I surely would have won instead of a draw if the game had given me 2 more minutes. Or games I would have won if the battles were two minutes shorter. Sometimes that kind of stuff just happens.

Do go into battle as prepared as you can be but don’t feel bad about losing - it happens. My theory is the more evenly matched two players are, the more luck will decide the outcome. There is no guaranteed win in a balanced CM battle - perhaps that’s what keeps us coming back. There is this random thing running amok around the battlefield that gives us all a rush. This beast called fortune who seems to take sides so often. Sometimes he helps you and sometimes he gets you, and there ain’t diddly you can do about it, no matter how long you’ve played or how good you are.

[RedDevil]

Aye Lady Luck is a fickle bitch :)

[RNL Tiger]

Yes! That element of chance is also what keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting for the outcome of a firefight because you don't know how the dice will roll. The most you can do is to try and put the odds on your side...

It also gives funny/unbelievable/cry moments such as when your opponent has two tank platoons that pass near water and do not bog and yet your tank is nowhere near water and bogs - mine just did!!! :-)

Que sera

[Combat Wombat]

It's a great point for newbies like me to take into account while beating their head against the desk top to the rythm of tanks blowing up .. but I agree with RNL Tiger that you are there to try to put the odds on your side .

So therefore I have to admit that my 'bad luck' can be related to my poor decisions and I shouldn't mix the up bad luck and bad decisions .. and remember the importance of the 'six P's' ? "Prior Planning Prevents P*ss Poor Performance ... " ...

such is life etc ..! :-)

[Der Kuenstler]

Yes - I agree totally - preparation will help you win MOST battles - luck favors the prepared. My point is even the best will lose occasionally - that's what makes the game exciting.

Sun Tzu said "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." In other words, be as prepared as you can be - don't make dumb mistakes - wait for your opponent to make them and take advantage. That will get you a win 8/10 times but not every time.

My favorite games combine both skill and luck. That's why I'm not into chess - it's all skill. I don't like the boardgame "Risk" because of all the lucky cards you can trade in and suddenly get more armies. Combat Mission has a good balance of both I think.

[kineas]

The ASL boardgame has a lot more luck factor, yet there are persons who have 80% or so win ratio. I don't know how they do that.

[Jobu88]

My favorite games combine both skill and luck. That's why I'm not into chess - it's all skill.

There's luck in chess, both good and bad. "oops, I saw the next move of that combination but not the following move, lucky for me it left his Queen exposed, I didnt even see that coming." I won a minor tournament in 1997 because my opponent took an incredibly, stupidly long time to make a simple move and missed his time control, losing the game. He could have made virtually any move to get to the first time control and then crushed me in the next ten moves. So there's some luck there.

I agree with your overall position though-- CM is a great balance between skill and luck.

[Ratzki]

You have to be good to be lucky and lucky to be good.

[The Coil]

My favorite games combine both skill and luck. That's why I'm not into chess - it's all skill.

There's luck in chess, both good and bad. "oops, I saw the next move of that combination but not the following move, lucky for me it left his Queen exposed, I didnt even see that coming." I won a minor tournament in 1997 because my opponent took an incredibly, stupidly long time to make a simple move and missed his time control, losing the game. He could have made virtually any move to get to the first time control and then crushed me in the next ten moves. So there's some luck there.

I agree with your overall position though-- CM is a great balance between skill and luck.

I would call what you're describing more as a failure of skill than "luck". I think DK was using luck in the sense of "random element outside the control of either player, even in theory", which is totally absent in chess. If your pawn had a one in 50 chance of killing his queen, that'd involve luck (and might make chess a whole lot more interesting, now that I think about it...).

It is interesting if you look at people's won/loss records in CM (this is what I do in my spare time...) - there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in who beats who. Player A may have a great record against player B, who has a great record against player C, who generally beats player A. That kind of thing. I wonder how much playing style figures in to the luck/skill mix as well. Some people seem to be great strategic players and are good in big games, some seem to be great tactical players and are better in small games, an so on...