Infantry firepower in CM1 and CM2

[Krautman]

I do not own CMBN as I plan to stick with CMBB for the time being. However, I have a question to those of you who played both CM1 (I mean CMBO, CMBB and CMAK) and CMBN.

In CM1, infantry firepower was highly abstracted in form of a firepower value for the entire squad. In CM2/CMBN, there is a much lower degree of abstraction in that, to my knowlegde, each shooter is simulated individually. Does CMBN infantry nevertheless behave similarly to CMAK infantry?

For instance: If an American and a German rifle squad encounter in CMBN, are the result similar to what would happen in CMAK?

The reason I ask is that I really like the way squads were represented in CM1. I wonder whether this representation was one which got credible results despite the high degree of abstraction, and CMBN seems to enable a good comparison.

Thanks in andvance

K.

[stikkypixie]

Can't say for sure. I my experience the infantry combat of CMBB is more like working out a spreadsheet, while in CMBN it has a more natural feel to it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101836

[Sublime]

I think its WAAY better. Much more realistic. Individual soldiers are represented. This makes the battlefield look way more real. And it plays out a lot more realistically. And when theres an attack gone wrong, you see the bodies to really prove it.

As far as infantry firepower - Its way better - it matters who gets hit, sometimes you get lucky and kill the mg42 gunner in a german squad, and they're half neutered until one of his buddies can grab and reman the mg. things like that.

[MarkEzra]

...The reason I ask is that I really like the way squads were represented in CM1. I wonder whether this representation was one which got credible results despite the high degree of abstraction, and CMBN seems to enable a good comparison.

Thanks in andvance

K.

Comparison between the two games is often fruitless. They are actually so different in concept. CMBB (and for me CMAK) is a brilliant game and does a great job of abstracting combat. It has definitely met most wargamers understanding and sense of combat. So yes, I believe CMBB, provides credible combat resolution.

Where CMBB/AK is under the hood, CMBN is more of a simulation game. Bullets are all individually tracked, each soldier on the battlefield plays his roll and adds or subtracts to combat effectiveness to his unit. From my gaming experience CMBN is a far more intense (and often painful) experience to play. The cost of a successful assault on that enemy machine gun nest is clearly understood by the trail of dead and wounded. A failed combat maneuver clearly identifies my weaknesses as a commander and forces me to be far more prudent and thoughtful. That is to say: to learn. By this I mean: Use good Recon, mask movement by smoke or overwatch fires, pin and flank...ect. You know, straight out of the military manual. The most unforgiving game I've ever played. Also the most rewarding.

[Sergei]

Comparisons of the games to each other is quite pointless because both of them are just games, what you should be doing is compare both of them to reality and see how close they get to the target.

I find the CMx2 modelling to come closer, especially when there are multiple enemies in sight. In CMx1 a unit could only target one enemy unit at a time, which even led some people to dividing their squads to teams so that while one team is absorbing all the fire, the other is unharmed. In CMx2 this doesn't work because each man picks their targets autonomously. If John is firing at enemies on the left but Joe can't see them because of a tree in the way, then he will pick a different target on the right. And if Jack has the Bazooka and a Panzer comes to sight, he will take a crack at that Panzer while the others keep firing on the infantry.

On the other hand CMx1 gameplay is much quicker because you don't have to worry so much about the individual squad mates and their deployment. In larger scenarios simplicity is a definite plus.

[Felix_45]

By this I mean: Use good Recon, mask movement by smoke or overwatch fires, pin and flank...ect. You know, straight out of the military manual. The most unforgiving game I've ever played. Also the most rewarding.

Thumbs up for that. CMBN still has a lot of things to sort out, but this is well said. I have finished all my BB/AK pbem games and now just play BN.

To the original poster, I suggest that you try out the demo and see for yourself:D

[Sublime]

I love all the original Cmx1 games. But theyre definitely retired in my mind. Like Sergei said, little details such as individual soldiers shooting at things, with perhaps the AT man engaging a tank make it so much more realistic, flexible, etc. The 1:1 soldier represenation makes suspension of disbelief so much easier. I also honestly think that it'll make some of the crossover crowd (not grogs, but people who like military history but usually would play... sudden strike etc) easier to understand this game and appeal to them. When I used to introduce CMx1 to people I'd have to start explaining abstractions before I even hit go. Even at the most basic level I'd have the explain how the soldiers were abstracted. Its just a turnoff to 'normal people'

[slysniper]

To your question, I feel the answer to your question as to if they act similarly is Simply NO.

In the CMx1 format, If you have a squad with a bunch of sub machine guns, and you are in close range to a enemy squad. You can gareentee you will create quick and deadly results. Because the game functions on math and that very high firepower number you would have in that situation. The results is almost not in question. I have seen fire power numbers near 400 points in such a situation where a normal squad might only be high 100's

In CMBN, fire power has a factor and if you play your units well, will get the same results. But as many comment, Many other things have factors between the two squads fighting each other, that can create factors that are natural but can be frustrating using the advantage you might feel you have in a squads composition.

Back to my first example, In cmbn, that squad with all the sub machine guns should do well in battles under 50 meters. Normally pinning the enemy quickly if kills are not being made. But maybe the enemy squad gets a few good grenades tosses at the start of the battle. You thus might see you team with all that fire power laying on the ground either dead or unresponsive, just waiting to be discovered and killed.

So if you do not like having the chances of unexspected results. Stay with the game that plays on math adverages.

But if you want something a little more realistic and more uncontrollable, than its time to get into cmbn

[Erwin]

The main advantage of CM1 is that one can easily play on comparatively (to CM2) huge maps with Regiments of units in maneuver combat in which armor is emphasized and inf is a supporting arm. (So, almost the complete opposite of CMBN.)