aka_tom_w

It appeared to me you were basing your disagreement with my post upon semantics. This discussion between you and I really is getting pretty pointless now so I'll move on to discussions of cheese in a Monkeybutt thread if you want to let it go as well. </font>

Steve says: "The default 30 turn recomendation for QBs is just a number we plucked out of the air in CMBO. It worked fairly well, but I agree it should be bumpped up even though players can judge for themselves what it should be. I asked Charles to boost it to 40 for 1.02." read Steve's comments on v1.02 here Just thought I would update the rest of the board that may not be interested in following 11 pages of "debate" on CMBB Infantry Modeling posted for entertainment value only your milage may vary -tom w [ November 22, 2002, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Steve says: "The default 30 turn recomendation for QBs is just a number we plucked out of the air in CMBO. It worked fairly well, but I agree it should be bumpped up even though players can judge for themselves what it should be. I asked Charles to boost it to 40 for 1.02." read Steve's comments on v1.02 here Just thought I would update the rest of the board that may not be interested in following 11 pages of "debate" on CMBB Infantry Modeling posted for entertainment value only your milage may vary -tom w [ November 22, 2002, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK We agree I only played one game and it did feel different than v1.0 I agree... "my perception is that I was able to really *push* troops forward with advance orders and didn't have to concern myself with suppression fire as much as I had with v1.0. Also, it didn't seem that the troops were tiring as easily (which may partially explain the heightened panic threshold - as, I believe fatigue affects morale)" OK I too am curious and wonder if Steve is interested in answering your questions. -tom w [ November 22, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

um....mostly alot of ranting and bitching and complaining in the forum maybe?? I have only played one v1.01 game but at this point I'm not sure it is fair to conclude "It seems that there's a good bit more room for sloppy infantry tactics now." That was not my experience. I think there maybe a "little bit" more room for sloppy infantry tactics now, but the infantry model in v1.01 is still a radical paradigm shift AWAY from the way things used to work in CMBO :confused: Is it not? Is it fair to say the panic model in v1.01 is perhaps something of a crowd pleaser? (please don't all yell at me it was only a comment or an unsubstantiated suggestion ) -tom w

I rarely use covered arcs. When I do use them it is usually for an AT asset or to keep a turret directional. Specific situations only require their use. I may use the covered arc command maybe two or three times every other battle. I have played TCP/PBEM eighteen battles with CMBB to date (I have won sixteen of them). I have never once encountered a problem with my base of fire troops not engaging. Never once have I encountered the so called “Sneak-of-death” in a situation that wasn’t directly my fault. Trying a risky advance or some such error. I have had Green troops break and route sometimes taking many turns to rally if at all, depending on command status. I have found this very expectable behavior however. My suggestion to those still having troubles with “the system” would be to play veteran troops until they get the hang of the new system. Veterans while still prone to the behavior people are experiencing difficulty with (if handled poorly) are more forgiving.</font>

For the most part I think this is quite accurate. However, there is something to be said about the degree which an individual sees one or more "problems" as well as their perception of its impact. Steve</font>

Steve Said "I am trying as best I can to figure out why there are differences in outcomes. Tactics is the obvious place to look, not the game system. If everybody were getting poor results then it would almost certainly be the game system. " I am honestly trying to be part of the solution here so I hope my interest in this issue is not being mistaken for something other than curiousity and the interest in trying to solve a good puzzle or problem. I'm a Mac Techy guy and I try to figure out problems all day long and find appropriate solutions so I enjoy the challenge. so when steve says "If everybody were getting poor results then it would almost certainly be the game system." I would like to suggest we are ALL in fact seeing the same behaviour in the infantry model, and getting the same poor results (At least I would like to suggest we can all see the kind of behaviour that has been pointed out in this thread).For some folks, perhaps because this is SO radically different than Most other games and so different from CMBO, this could be a big challege, and for others, if they take the game too seriously (and perhaps are even more serious about winning competitively) this is a problem, and perhaps they are less than interested in exploring new ways to work around the problem or adapt to the new model. I say this because I think we are all seeing the same infantry behaviour, some think its ok and realistic, some think it could use a tweak like in the new patch, (I hope) and some may be suggesting it is unplayable and bordering on "unfixable". This is clearly and issue Steve is most interested in and he has been very kind to solicit our uncensored comments and experience with this issue. I am sure he the BFC staff have been down this road at least once with all their Beta testers. I would like to suggest that I think they are keen to have the game tested by veterans of small unit combat and that previous combat experience (collectively) amongst the beta test group may have helped give us this somewhat "brittle" infantry model. (just a guess here :confused: ) again: "If everybody were getting poor results then it would almost certainly be the game system." My point is that we are all getting the same results but some players can live with it, some players actually like it because they feel it is realistic and some players suggest it is actually so hard it is unplayable. I would suggest we are all playing the same game and seeing the same behaviour, its just we all have different reactions to it and perceptions of what the infantry model "should" be in our favourite wargame. I hope that this helps the discussion. -tom w [ November 21, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

1.0 release, just like you folks have. And even if I used 1.01 it shouldn't have mattered because we didn't make any changes that would affect targeting. Or at least none that I can think of. Steve</font>

Hi Steve Just curious... Are you testing that scenario with the new v1.01 patched version of CMBB now? -tom w

shhh!! some of us aren't finished downloading yet -tom w

Hi Tom, Three questions, for you to answer: So sounds like although difficult, you feel the game/battle played out in a reasonable manner in terms of being practical. Or do you feel the MG was excessively EFFECTIVE? Did you happen to experience your own Maxim MG's being stubborn about not voluntarily acquiring targets as well? If not, did you use covering arcs - as other posts suggested that using covering arcs improves spotting and target acquiring - personally I have not made big use of covering arcs. And did you note that your squads were routed or panicked without having taken significant casualties and after rather short lived exposure to MG fire? Not trying to corner you, just trying to clarify.[/QB]</font>

I would then have to guess that the OTHER non CDV patch for the rest of the known world will be forth coming VERY soon like today or tomorrow! -tom w

Martin (Moon) has hinted the patch should be here sometime this week. The CDV version of it seems to be out already. That could really impact the dicussion of this issue once we all get to try out the new patch !!! Thanks!! -tom w

I guess that would mean today or tomorrow? We can only hope -tom w

WARNING - further spoiling and spoilage I experienced the Maxim MGs not acquiring targets as well when playing that battle - both times I played it. Though I attributed it to strange things with LOS either by design or by accident - as visibility is limited due to weather but I was basically trying to rationalize what I was experiencing. In fact, that battle (DoVG - along with some similar experiences in other battles but on a smaller scale) is what made me come into these forums; because one factor has really been a thorn in my side. Being pinned, panicked, routed, etc by what appears to be largely ineffective machine guns (100 fire power rating at 100M shooting from 150m out) with veteran units (at least in DoVG they are) with few to no casualties. Yes I know the machine guns are effective at suppression, but the result was all my units (four platoons worth) panicked and routed within a turn by one MG - with the platoons and squads well spread out over about a 500m area - a large range to suppress in 60 seconds I would think. My usual style is a cautious advance clinging to cover, and leap-frog men - which usually works well enough for me. However I'm often running against the clock with my overly cautious play. I decided to attempt the blitz/storming approach on this battle against a certain nagging feeling that it would be foolish to attempt it but there were several other reasons why I did it: - The number of units was large enough I felt at least half my troops ought to cover the distance without being decimated (or rendered ineffective) and it appeared I had excellent cover with my Maxim MGs. also the default setup of the troops seems to suggest the approach - an impression that historically speaking the Russians won by sheer numbers - the human wave command (perhaps misunderstood by me) seemed to reinforce the above two points as I thought it was intended for just this sort of thing So answer this, is the above a sound tactic for this battle - can it be made to work and I just didn't work it well enough? Or is the above a sound tactic in terms of realism, but not the games current modeling? Another rationalization myself and my human opponent were considering was that maybe the Russians had some intrinsic penalty to morale or experience and this had to be taken into consideration. Load that battle, take the four closest platoons to the church in the center of the map and human wave or move them 150m to the cemetery area. Watch 1 machine gunner nearly hold back the lot of them. I'm not saying its necessarily a problem in the games modeling, I'm just adding my voice to the numbers who mentioned these factors. Whether the solution be further training material for us newb (well novice anyway) players, or tweaks to the modeling, or just accepting the change. I still play the game, though I find it more frustrating than CMBO but I am embracing the challenge.</font>

Rune- I don't have the save game file anymore but I can tell you that it happened repeatedly in the scenario "Defense of Verkniye-Golubaya" on the CD. (SPOILER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I was the Sovs and I kept the 2 Maxim platoons back in essentially their starting positions, made sure they all had LOS to the buildings in front where I figured the Germans would be. As I advanced my rifle platoons forward (admittedly clumsily-enough) and they came under fire from those buildings, I noticed turn after turn where the Maxims (in command, not Hidden, and not under any fire) displayed the following behaviors: 1) refused to acquire targets by themselves. I could target successfully some Germans but the AI rarely did. And I mean "rarely" - I was paying attention this time. 2) when I would specifically target a unit, and that unit's target became unspotted, that MG would not acquire another target that turn. 3) Area Fire worked just like it should in the game. No problems in evidence there. Now maybe I have unrealistic expectations regarding Exposure, LOS, range, and suppression, but Holy Hotcakes I am not interested in personally pulling the triggers on 8 Maxim MGs! Hope that helps a little. -dale</font>

I'm just wondering if this request for examples of this behaviour needs it own thread. More than a few folks have mentioned units in over watch positions not firing at valid targets shooting at their buddies out in the open but no one seems to have a save game file of this behaviour handy. Maybe we should put a call out for examples and save game files? -tom w

A boarder Wargamer focus might eb a good idea. THere was a name for the Avalon hill convention for wargameing where teams send players to complete in tournments. What was the name of that and is it still going on? something like "origins" or something? A wargamer convention where there could be tournements for both CMBB and CMBO would be very cool Maybe sometime next summer? Maybe some place more central to the US then Vega? (like right in the middle of the us? Maybe St Louis? (just a guess at a central location) OR maybe near some armour Museum like nearby Fort knox? just a few idea's -tom w

Great Post Gary! More folks like you, who have been around since the begining (note Member # 186 :eek: ) should speak up with their observations and experience with this issue in CMBB. -tom w [ November 20, 2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Michael- I read your whole post, never fear. But I must say that it is a mistake to assume that all currently-dissatisfied folks are simply "Sudden Strike" players. I consider myself a "veteran gamer", a serious gamer, a semi grog, well-informed, and a true devotee of CM:BO. And yet, CM:BB leaves me cold. If I am alone, or share limited company, then I agree that it's a version of "too bad, so sad" for me. But if I'm not then casual dismissal might be undeserved. Just a thought. -dale</font>

"quote: As a suggestion I think it might be a good idea for there to be a 'realism' toggle for the next CM engine. In the same way a flight sim such as IL-2 has different realism toggles..." I would suggest that in some small way the choice of unit experience (Green v. Elite) is a "little" like a realism toggle. you want troops that don't panic, just play will all Elite troops, SIMPLE Realism toggle OFF. Want more realistic behaviour play Green and Conscript troops Realism Toggle ON ! What more can you ask for? -tom w

I think that I have to admit I have spend more time reading about this CMBB Infantry Modeling issue in the multitude of threads on this forum than I have spend time playing CMBB to find out what is going on. I have been playing CMBB enough to understand the issue here. Is it possible that those that thing there is a BIG hairy unplayable game play issue here are happier or at least more content if they use Veteran Crack and Elite Infantry units??? :confused: It seems to me that CMBB "should" be much more playable to those folks that have had REALLY bad experience with Infantry units panicing and crawling to exhaustion when caught under fire in the open that if they only ever used Veteran and above units they might see the more the kind of behaviour they expect. I believe the game correctly models the way Conscript and Green units react to being shot at. In all the reading of all the threads on this issue I have not seen any other suggestions ( suggestions that do not includeing try to code memory to units that is currently impossible with this game engine) that are not already on the Next BIG Patch List that will address this issue. Does anyone have more CMBB Game experience with Crack and Elite Inf units and do they react to fire and being caught in the open the way you would expect them to??? If so then DON'T play with green or conscript units and NEVER let them get shot at while moving in the open as we now know they panic easily. Some things will be addressed in the next GREAT patch, for all those things that aren't "fixed" in the next patch why not try testing out the Crack and Elite infantry units and see if they don't live up to your expectations. I think you will find the game WAY more playable if you try to use Vet Crack and Elite infantry units, especially if they are German and expecially if they are taking on Russian Green and Conscript units? Does that help?? :confused: Now bring on the damn patch so this discusion can continue after we all get our hands on the new tweaks to the infantry model !!! -tom w

Please try to stay focused on being positive and constructive. We should all take note that the V1.1 (v 1.01?) patch has NOT been released and for all we know they are still testing it and tweaking it. Maybe some of the ideas and suggestions from this thread could directly impact the changes in the next patch?? Some of the issues mentioned in this thread are on the "will be tweaked" list they have previously released in the "things fixed in the next patch" list. We should all understand that there is only so much they can do when there are clear limitations in the game engine like the fact that units CANNOT (at this time) have any memory, this means certian things to certain people here. In my own personal opinion CMBB does indeed present new challenges. It is more challenging to play and you could see that in the demo scenario's where all the infantry units that came underfire in the open immediatly hit the dirt. This surprised many people as it is very different from CMBO. If you think CMBB is bad can't we agree that the way MGs and HMGs are modeled in CMBO is WORSE :confused: ?? I am VERY glad CMBB is selling well and I hope the first patch will be so well received it will help sales (I'm not sure how, but I am trying to be optimistic) I really like the fact that infantry units go to ground when fired upon in the open, this WAY better than running with some degree of impunity through HMG fire because they were "too hard to hit because they were running thus providing cover" No doubt about it CMBO is more like a video game and it did have more instant gratification and it did have a larger fun factor because it moved faster BUT I have come to love those cover arcs and I REALLY enjoy the fact that SUPRESSION in CMBB actually MEANS something to the effective execution of your tactical plan on the battlefield. I like CMBB, I like the new challenge it presents and I am very confident that it can be tweaked, (with in the limits of the current game engine) to be more realistic and more fun to play than it is now. If we stay positive and constructive here maybe we can all have some small impact on the next patch. Can we come to some agreement and consensus as to what exactly is a change to the code that would make the game MORE realistic. I doubt anything will be added changed or deleted simply for the sake or making the game more fun or appeasing the complainers so lets stick to Steve's original request and focus on positive ways to discuss this issue. And lets not forget Steve seems to have a sense of humour about this: "For example, Human Wave was not just put into the game because it sounds cool, Assault and Advance were not created just to make the menu longer, and Run was not robbed of its invincible characteristics because we think it is fun to screw with people's heads.The array of orders in CMBB are there for reasons. Like tools, each order has its +/- sides and optimal uses. Trying to use a hammer to unscrew something will not produce good results, no matter what." Steve THANKS Steve!! -tom w [ November 19, 2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]