Spook

One combined-arms urban fight here that is still in "draft" status, but best played by PBEM: Into Kurovitsy Just right-click on the link, choose "Save target as....", and that'll download the file. This is also at the CM Scenario Depot too if you wish to download from there instead.

Probably asking the obvious, but to Gordon, you then have winter uniform sets for at least the two primary opponents as to soon include with CMMOS?

This is not necessarily true. Cpt Kernow, it wasn't exactly the design intention of Battlefront for the CM game engine, as utilized in CMBB, to be "balanced" in absolute. It was designed to sufficiently model the HISTORICAL premise of tactical combat in the East Front, and how "balanced" that CMBB scenarios will be under this can depend on a host of variables and preconditions. I commend your choice of subject matter, Cpt K, and your diligence to "gather data" to make your case. Perhaps the sampling may yet be too small, but it would nominally suffice in my view. However, it still harbors a central fallacy. Your sample doesn't additionally break out as to the time periods (by historical year) were used in the played games. Were these mostly in a 1941 setting, or 1944, or whatever else? Consider by example Battlefront's stated application of Soviet C&C constraints in the early war years. In 1941-43, Soviet/Allied troops will rate one experience level lower in C&C response than for their actual experience. That is, until 1944, Soviet veteran troops will respond to commands as if they were regular instead. And this CAN be one such source of claims of overt pro-German/Axis bias by some CM gamers, at least those playing in the earlier East Front years of 1941-42. While this is indeed a generalized application of a relative "negative" applied to Soviet troops, it wasn't due to pro-German bias. It was due to the historical precedents that 1) the Soviet Army that was attacked in 1941 was in lump sum "less prepared" for war than the Germans, and 2) while the Soviets certainly learned and adapted, and then applied the adaptations with a vengeance, in general it seemed to take more than a small amount of time to do so, given the need to rebuild from earlier horrific losses. Another example of argued "pro-German bias" could be with the application of gunnery optics modifiers. German guns ON AVERAGE will have better optics than their opposition, but this wasn't done due to bias. It was done because historical research by Battlefront and supporting contributors were able to discern, since CMBO, how German optics could provide a relatively beneficial effect. For that matter, a variety of German optics types were discerned from the research. Battlefront further stated that an effort to seek out Soviet gunnery optics references still came up short. But pending new documentation that could be found, Battlefront didn't opt for a punitive application of negative optics abilities to the Soviets, as nothing could be found that the Soviets were CONSISTENTLY bad in turn on this score. They simply rate instead as "standard," as it would be for other Allied nations. Therefore, some CM gamers will grouse that Battlefront has fallen "knee-jerk" into the "pro-German camp"; which is not substantiated in any meaningful way, but it should be recognized as to be inevitable with some of the "whiners." But as been argued repeatedly over & over again on the BF forums, "balance" can still be achieved even in settings like 1941 or 1945. It is possible to achieve balance, or even an advantage, IF the gamer with the "underdog" force recognizes his force's capabilities AND limitations, and thus adapts his tactics accordingly. I will give example of a recent CMBB TCP/IP. It was set in 1943, German MECHANIZED ATTACK against a Soviet INFANTRY force (1000 pts). I played the Soviets. On face value, that reads like a situation where I was asking to get blown away. And I would have -- if I tried to engage with my opponent "his way." He used very sound tactics also, good application of covered approach routes and supressive area fire where he could. He was basically much better at being able to engage from farther away at direct fire with his tanks, APC's, and MG's. Instead, I made the focal effort to prevent from fighting the battle "his way." My troops dug in, had a few trenches, stayed in covered terrain, and were kept from firing until at close quarters. And they were kept together enough to provide mutual support where possible. My opponent gave me a rough time and bloodied my troops, but I still held the objectives and inflicted greater total losses on him by game's end. I could've deployed some units better, but my general engagement tactics still worked out for me to win. It isn't the responsibility of Battlefront to ensure that the CM engine always produces balanced games. That is impossible to do. Rather, it's Battlefront's task for the game engine to provide historical premises to the scenarios as best as possible. The final "balance" is then left to the gamers to make the most of their given situations in competition games like QB's. And it's hardly as if the Soviets don't have their own tactical cards to play. Who here has enjoyed having to come up against a full-up Soviet SMG squad? Or face vehicles like the KV's and T-34's in 1941, or IS-II's or SU-100's in the later years?

You cant use the CMBO blast and compare it with CMBB blast values because the general blast values in CMBB are higher than in CMBO. E.g. the same gun in CMBO has a lower blast value in CMBB.</font>

Checking back to CMBO, the "blast values" of the various mortars are as follows: US 81mm -- 18 German 81mm -- 19 British 3" -- 26 In CMBB, Soviet 82mm -- 26 Thus while the Soviet mortar rates over its German & US counterparts, the British unit seems comparable. It doesn't surprise me much of the Soviet 82mm mortar rating well. The Germans basically copied their 120mm mortar from captured Soviet 120mm types.

Use covered arcs, WITHOUT pre-assigning a target to the MG unit. If a multitude of enemy foot units tries to move through an MG unit's covered arc, the MG unit will typically apply one burst to one such enemy unit, and then shift its fire to the next. But if you have the MG unit "pre-target" one enemy unit during the orders phase, there is a greater chance then for your MG unit to "stick" at shooting only at that one unit. As for suppression in general, however, MG's are just one such tool for the job. Light mortars may not pack much blast value, but if grouped together to shell a likely enemy approach route, they can do well enough to at least pin down a few units.

HA. All those wrecks were knocked out in target practice by the guys below: From one table-top to the next.

Not that this is expected to change the nature of the discussion on bogging, merely offered for reference: (Copyright Bundesarchiv, National Archives, & Squadron/Signal) Now, it CAN be fairly recognized in these pics as that not all show conditions of "open" or "dry" ground. But it does indicate as that even a tank with relatively better "flotation" like the T-34 could have its bad days too. [ January 11, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

Kind of stirring the pot a bit, but this was fair to say, then I would want for certain vehicles like the Panther D, and others being more mechanically unreliable than some given "average," to have a heightened chance to "bog." Especially if run while in "fast move" command. No, I don't expect for such a thing to be done in CMBB. But later on, it would be good to consider......

SUPERB work, Andrew.

Fair enough, as Hitler had authoritative experience in doing the stupid and pointless.

True, which I noted in a different way on the previous page of this topic thread. However, it must be fairly recognized as that one source for such complaints of "too unpredictable" is that the CM game mechanics for the most part are "black-box." Players don't know what the stock probabilities are to a bog chance based on terrain and modified by weather conditions. Now, I do know that this is an intentional design decision as to keep CM players from "tabulating" all aspects of the game mechanics for gamey purposes. But if the players don't "see" how things are calculated, such as bogging or shot accuracy or small-arms fire effect or whatever, then it is inevitable for some CM gamers to query if the hidden calculations have "gotten it right" or at least "close enough." The question really shouldn't be, "Do tanks bog?" or "Do tanks bog in open ground?" Of course they can, and do, based on the scenario's environmental conditions. And this is well supported by historical precedent. I just looked over a Squadron/Signal reference book on the T-34 that had a passle of pictures showing mired T-34's. Rather, the question then should remain in this context: "Does bogging happen too often than should be expected from historical trends?" That can still be a fairly posed question, as again, CM players don't know what the specific bogging chances are. At present, I couldn't say that I see a problem, as it now stands with v1.01 (recognizing that the 1.01 patch DID address bogging chances to a degree, at least on open ground). I would have to first log in a LOT of hours on user-designed "test" scenarios, using environment and terrain as the variables, tabulate the results, and compare to likely obscure "bogging" data before I could say if it still SEEMED problematic. [ January 10, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

Did the scenario have a sound-mod included that made the troops cry out "Currahee" when they moved?[/QB]</font>

I vaguely recall the "monster" CMBO scenario that had units of the 101st Airborne going up mountainous-like terrain to take Hitler's vacation spot. Quite an epic game in the terrain and forces. As fate would have it, I am indeed considering a scenario or two as representative of the Southern front fighting as it approached the Balkans in 1944. Or, perhaps using partisans, some small-unit actions of Tito's guerillas could be attempted. It's a tricky matter, of course. mountainous terrain USUALLY implies less mobility or maneuver options, at least for vehicles. But still doable. While I never got around to playing the speciality "Kampfgruppe Peiper" CMBO scenarios that one CM gamer designed, I was impressed with what I saw in terrain layouts for the maps.

Like ASL? Your comment presumes, MikeyD, that Battlefront considers itself obliged to include everything asked for in the engine rewrite "wish list," which I consider as very doubtful. The discretion of the BF guys on what to include, and what to not bother with, seems fairly good so far.

From my earlier occasions of reading Dyer's commentary in the Dayton Daily News editorials, I would nominally rate him among the more clueless on military affairs, present-day or otherwise. Then again, other writers like Eric Alterman can be even more so. The one truth is that yes, modern-day military equipment can't be cranked out like it was in WWII, due to overall complexities in manufacturing and in the weapons systems themselves. But if the "balloon" went up in Europe with all-out conventional war, it would have been very unlikely for the two primary protagonists (the USSR and USA) to have the majority of their troops, weapons, or even air units "on the line" at the start of such a war. It then is a matter as to how "deep" the reserves are, how long it would take to deploy these, and other global committments for each side. Could all of the trained troops of both sides been run through in 2-3 weeks? Possible, especially if tactical nukes were being lobbed. Then again, it may instead had gone on for 2-3 months. But it'll always be in the realm of the speculative. True. But that never cramped the style of the designers of "Steel Beasts" as one such example. I will add that I don't quite think yet that the CM system would "scale" very well to modern-era combat in its present form. Unless SOP options could be worked in with greater detail a la TacOps, the range and lethality of certain weapons for CM's ground scale would probably require MUCH larger CM maps, or shorter turn intervals, or both.

Well, yes, this is true. In CMBO, it was a virtual certainty that: non-flaking penetration = KO'ed vehicle, regardless of the round size or type. I once popped a Panther with an anti-tank grenade as a flank shot. And while it never happened to me, I do remember the complaints in the CMBO forums on how "That %^%*ing M8 Greyhound took out my "cat" tank with a 37mm gun!!" And this complaint popped up more than a few times. Under the mechanics of CMBB, that shot with a 37mm is now far less likely to get a straight-up kill. But on the flip side, it's also opened up that bigger shots don't always get kills. Kind of like moving away from "binary" to fuzzy logic. I do like the evolution in the damage model, though. The gameplay trend of CMBB for me, however, has still been such that the probability of a flat-out vehicle kill does go up with gun potency. If the round is big enough and hits with enough energy, then one has to really REALLY lucky not to be affected. To me, the best fun is knocking out a killer tank with a Molotov. The bottle arcs up, you hear the clinking of broken glass, then IF it gets a "hit" or "hit on vulnerable top area," the tank then burns. Muwahahaha.

I may have missed it, but beyond this whole tank-bogging issue in CMBB (which I couldn't presently say is "broke" from my own limited experience), what else has been related in here as that "Luck has replaced skill in CMBB"? What of ordnance, small arms, and artillery fire? And results from same? Are these TOO "dicey" in nature also, as to preclude giving attention to proper tactical methods in the game? This game isn't supposed to be a tank derby alone. If the issue is excessive bogging, then CALL IT OUT as such. Otherwise, the notion that "Luck replaces skill in CMBB" calls far more in question with the game mechanics than just bogging probabilities.

Added note..... Both the AI and I do it all the time in GTA III. GREAT fun to play last year.

All fair questions, and to what level of abstraction is acceptable will not be resolved at this point in time, even IF Battlefront does want to pursue the matter. And yes, I expect that accounting for this (given that I am not constraining to bridge events but also cliffs, slopes, and ditches) can be addressed by hard-coding. Thus why I wouldn't expect a POSSIBLE solution to the issue until the future rewrite. So you watched a certain "Christmas" movie too, huh?

But what if a tank is KO'ed on the bridge? Wouldn't one want the option to have it pushed off by a comparable or larger vehicle with sufficient power? Granted, I don't expect for this issue to be addressed in CMBB. But any assertion that vehicles "falling" or "rolling" from bridges or other sudden height drops (like over a cliff) is beyond the scope of a future CM engine rewrite is premature at this time. In principle, it MIGHT be a straightforward matter to address; vehicles dropping or rolling would check for crew shock and vehicle bog/immobilization. After all, as it stands in CM now, certain conditions can exist as that a vehicle can bog/immobilize in ANY terrain save a paved road, thus being relatively "pervasive" in application. The event of a drop/roll IN THEORY seems as something that could be added in on the calculation side. Of course, some would also want to see the visual model too of a CM vehicle flipped over or sumfink after a drop/roll. From my end, this visual representation wouldn't be necessary. [ January 09, 2003, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Spook ]

Yes, Slappy, that's one such scenario where I had seen trenches in buildings applied in the scenario setup. However, does this translate to a cumulative effect of (trench + building) when the scenario starts? I don't see it, as whatever trenches exist in buildings during the setup phase (locked or otherwise) are "chopped out" with the game's start. My follow-on review of the CMBB manual says that buildings are amongst the "unsuitable terrain" for allowing trenches (pg. 62) So what then is the point of placing trenches in buildings per some default scenario setups??? :confused: Inquiring minds what to know.

No, it is very much in the scope of a CM scenario, and doesn't take more than 30 minutes for the crew & vehicle to be affected in some way. What is most likely the case here is that the CM engine can't yet assess the effect to a vehicle that makes a sudden vertical drop. Nor does it attempt to see if vehicles will "roll" like from going up a steep embankment or over a cliff. The latter case, IMO, would be more likely to occur than for vehicles going over a bridge. Perhaps the future rewrite can assess "shock" and "immobilization" (or at least bog) to a vehicle that experiences a vertical drop or is assessed to "roll." Then again, for heavier tanks, I wouldn't mind too much the ability of such to MOVE into and through smaller buildings, with the risk of generating building rubble and vehicle immobilization. PS: Greetings to Duke of Earl. I suspect from your sig that you are the self-same Duke at the Breakaway and GBRC forums. [ January 08, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

(bump)

On two different CMBB scenarios, I have seen the scenario default setup where trenches were placed INSIDE of large buildings, although a portion of the trench marker would run outside of the building. Now....if left this way, when the scenario starts, the trenches placed within the building disappear, but whatever portion is outside still remains in a "snipped" fashion. Perhaps this is cited in the CMBB manual or following patch readme's, but I haven't seen it so far. But anyway, does the CMBB engine still consider trenches in effect WITHIN a large building after the scenario starts, even if not seen graphically?