Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Xenophon

Flaws with CMBO

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I am new to CMBO, only recently obtaining the game on budget price.

Great game visually but it has some annoying fundamental faults.

Firstly it has no indirect fire capability unless you use spotters. No problem with spotters but omitting indirect fire without them is unrealistic.

Secondly its force organisation is unsophisicated. There is no organisation for armoured forces, not even a troop! So you end up throwing a mish-mash of tanks and self-propelled artillery together in an amauterish way. I've tried to over-ride this by trying to remember the real composition of armoured units.

What annoys me is the game declares its military accuracy strongly throughout the manual yet falls short badly on the above two counts. Visually it is a real delight. However time should have been spent making the AI less ponderous and over-cautious. Perhaps a function whereby you can set the offensive - defensive levels of the sides is needed, ensuring the opposition moves its arse when it is obviously tactically imperative to do so, rather than milling around sight seeing.

Are these faults rectified in the follow-up versions? If they are I would probably buy them.

cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Xenophon:

Firstly it has no indirect fire capability unless you use spotters. No problem with spotters but omitting indirect fire without them is unrealistic.

I have been playing CM (starting with CMBO) for close to four years and I have used indirect fire often for infantry and on board mortars. For motars you can use platoon HQ's to spot for them. It was not included for the 105mm Artillery gun/25pound, etc. because of the short range of most maps is too short for it to be used in a realistic manner.

Secondly its force organisation is unsophisicated. There is no organisation for armoured forces, not even a troop! So you end up throwing a mish-mash of tanks and self-propelled artillery together in an amauterish way. I've tried to over-ride this by trying to remember the real composition of armoured units.

That was an issue with CMBO. In CMBB and CMAK armor can be bought singly or in platoons (troops).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make the AI less cautious? what are you looking for, a human wave?

With the armoured organisation, the maximum size CMBO is intended for is a reinforced battalion, with a typical battle being a company with some support, so having tanks in troop size formations was forseen as being quite rare.

In light of how people used the game, however, subsequent games have troop organisation. (although the British troops in CMAK can only get homogenous troops rather than the 1 in 4 Firefly)

As stated before, on map mortars can be fired indirectly if it under command of an HQ unit with line of sight to the target. On map guns cannot indirect fire as their minimum range on indirect is too long for most maps.

The new game engine (CMBO, CMBB and CMAK use the same basic engine) will probably feature bigger maps and possibly the ability to use guns and howitzers indirectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Xenophon:

Hi,

I am new to CMBO, only recently obtaining the game on budget price.

Great game visually but it has some annoying fundamental faults.

Firstly it has no indirect fire capability unless you use spotters. No problem with spotters but omitting indirect fire without them is unrealistic.

Secondly its force organisation is unsophisicated. There is no organisation for armoured forces, not even a troop! So you end up throwing a mish-mash of tanks and self-propelled artillery together in an amauterish way. I've tried to over-ride this by trying to remember the real composition of armoured units.

What annoys me is the game declares its military accuracy strongly throughout the manual yet falls short badly on the above two counts. Visually it is a real delight. However time should have been spent making the AI less ponderous and over-cautious. Perhaps a function whereby you can set the offensive - defensive levels of the sides is needed, ensuring the opposition moves its arse when it is obviously tactically imperative to do so, rather than milling around sight seeing.

Are these faults rectified in the follow-up versions? If they are I would probably buy them.

cheers.

I'd like to responde to the "fundamental flaws".

Spotters: obviously many weapons/guns are in theory capable of indirect fire. We didn't "forget" to put this into the game. The problem is a different one - since the all-seeing player would be able to determine targets with pinpoint accuracy that the normal battery/mortar/gun/tank wouldn't (without having a spotter), we've had to eliminate the ability to fire (on map) guns without line of sight. Same applies to firing through/behind smoke cover for example. Then there is also the problem with calculating correct ranges (minimum and maximum) for the various guns. In short, we've disabled this "feature" because it would have made the total simulation less realistic, not more. I am sure people will be able to come up with all sorts of alternative solutions, and we've heard some good ones in the past already, but I'm just explaining why things are the way they are.

Secondly, armored formations. Tanks, if they are organized in platoons or companies or groups, are not glued together. CM has been designed for a slightly lower scope than what it is often used for these days, and the emphasis has been put on infantry with individual tanks/vehicles in support. That's why CMBO has no formations, only individual guns/vehicles. The sequels CMBB and CMAK do allow to buy tanks in platoons.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure the guys at Battlefront rest easier knowing that.

I'm glad. I wouldn't want to upset this 'elite' group that you are part of. By the way your posting went up to 115.

I'm sure your very proud. You'll soon be up with the big boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Xenophon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm sure the guys at Battlefront rest easier knowing that.

I'm glad. I wouldn't want to upset this 'elite' group that you are part of. By the way your posting went up to 115.

I'm sure your very proud. You'll soon be up with the big boys. </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Xenophon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm sure the guys at Battlefront rest easier knowing that.

I'm glad. I wouldn't want to upset this 'elite' group that you are part of. By the way your posting went up to 115.

I'm sure your very proud. You'll soon be up with the big boys. </font>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't want to upset this 'elite' group that you are part of
I would really hope adults do not consider themselves elite because of the number of posts they have made. There is no heirarchy here, no matter what some would have you believe.

This is the first time I've read this thread since I posted in it last. My comment now does seem very sarcastic and "completely uncalled for" (thanks Pantherbait). I apologize for offending you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...