Doodlebug

That eagle is outstanding. It'll almost be a pity for my Reds to seize the objectives from now on.

Did you type jihad because you couldn't spell mujaha...mujadin...mujhah...afghan

Good point. Wasn't the old rule of thumb that you needed two or three to one odds to attack? At the moment in QB's it three to two. Should we be increasing the default settings somewhat?

Steve. I only probably gained a different view as a direct result of you coming out with that well explained explanation of how some of the cogs fit together. Frankly a lot of the posts up to that point were never going to be seen as anything but inflamatory/defamatory by the FFG or BBG. I appreciate you taking the trouble to start this post and then taking time out to comment on the various topics regularly. I respect you for that. Imagine, people, how different this discussion would be if CDV were involved. ( Sound of silence. Tumbleweed blows by)

I have been critical of the infantry model in several of the posts discussing the subject so I can speak as someone who is definitely not pro CMBB. Steve gave a very good insight into some of the mechanics of what goes on. Abbott quoted above gave the simplest reason why not to try certain things. Schoerner ties things together nicely "....tactics has NO influence on DoD. Either the player controls the units or the TacAI takes the control over them. But tactics influences how often it occurs." Get troops into bad situations and you hand over control to the AI subroutines. I am actively reassessing my play style to see whether a rethink will reduce my problems. I hope to be able to report positvely very soon.

Can you give the keynote speech?

Thank you Cap'n. Some subtle points in there. Some (the majority) I thought I was doing anyway. The bits I'm not I'll try. Appreciate the response.

I'll be too busy at the trade stands

That is remarkable. Thanks. I can see that shot on the front cover of Signal now.

Trade stands with young lovelies draped over the latest mods.MMMMMmmmmmmm.

I hate to say it but that's true. Doesn't make for much of a game in some situations if the QB terrain has been unkind though. You say run or advance? I thought running was pretty much a no-no under fire and you should use advance?

OK. Understood that. But what happens when you run out of clumps? It's the advance across the open I have trouble with. What when the next cover is a full turn (or more) away? And no, I won't accept the supression, suppression, suppression line. I normally have 50-75% of my troops doing that when the lead elements advance. I normally wait till the troops are rested before going. What am I missing?

Steve, Thank you for taking the trouble to read through my post. I would still like to see the AI capable of making the analysis of the relative merits of remaining still or sneaking forward or backward to cover when panicked. I suspect judging on the comments you made with regards to the difficulties of assessing walls and the like that it's not for this Game but for a future re-write. On that basis I will say no more on this and wish you well in continuing the good work already put into the game.

Hi Cap'n. Just to clarify you've seen panicked troops sneak forward into cover? If you have then my argument falls as I haven't and my whole experience is based on the "turn tails and go all the way back" situation. Thanks.

I'd go for that interpretation. If they sit there and get chewed then it at least gives me a turn or two( depending on quality) to organise a command bonus or two, some additional covering fire and a relief effort. As it is now they get chewed up and too tired to run away.

Wow. That's one heck of a piece of analysis. Hightlight the common ground, the model, discount it as the problem because it is a common factor and highlight the other variables where the problem has to lie. Neat and very, very difficult to answer without the sort of detailed coding that only BTS has access to. A neat trick also to basically intimate that bad experience equals bad tactician. That'll silence a good few folks. "When did you stop beating your wife?" Damned if you do or damned if you don't. I for one do not fall into the FFG nor frankly into the BBG. Instead I prefer to claim the middle ground for a third group, the Congenitally Confused Group. As a member of the CCG I genuinely seek an informed debate with regards to this hotly debated subject. To hightlight the crux of the issue I've lifted the relevant section in your opening statement. 1. Panic - that CMBB's infantry is unrealistically susceptible to enemy fire and is utterly "useless". March units into fire, they break, then they run away. So much for offensive tactics! 2. Sneak - CMBB's infantry is too likely to use the SNEAK function when coming under fire. Instead of shrugging off the enemy fire or doing something else "intelligent", the unit reverts to Sneak and attempts to get to cover too often. Cover either already ordered to or new cover that the TacAI designates. Sometimes this cover is not in the "right" direction or propper for the current situation. 3. Exhausted - CMBB's infantry is too easily tired out, either through normal orders and conditions or as a result of Sneak behavior mentioned above. Allow me to put forward my perspective on these points in turn. 1. Is panic wrong? No. I think it's pitched about right. I do not believe I have seen a single case of unjustifiable panic in the games I have played. 2. Do units revert to sneak orders too readily? If one talks of unpanicked units no - unhesitatingly no. I have watched units do the right thing under fire, hit the dirt sneak a little and then proceed with their orders after a delay. It may be the same turn or the following turn but it does appear to work. But if one then talks of panicked troops then I say yes. I have yet to see a panicked unit do anything other than sneak. 3. Do units become exhausted too quickly? Again I'll say no. If I have any modicum of control over the orders given to the units I can anticipate the current build up of fatigue and plan accordingly. It's rather a different story when it's an AI generated sneak but even that I could accept as it stands now. To be honest therefore you can see that individually I have only a small "problem" with the model (problem is probably too strong a word but I can't think of an alternative at this moment). I would say that it's perhaps a little disingenuous to try and raise thes three issues as if they were isolated elements. If I were to say 1. Socialising. 2. Alcohol. 3. Cars. Individually all perfectly correct. But to then say "a night out socialising with lots of alcohol and then a long drive home" and you have a situation where three individually ok elements unite to produce a very unhappy whole. Put 1. with 2. and you inevitably get 3. They are interconnected and need to be considered so. There is one point that I think has been overlooked in your summing up. That is the recognition of the "best" cover by a unit when hit by panic. I have never experienced it but I believe that units do not to accept hedges or walls as cover (correct anyone?) and will believe themselves to be in open ground. To watch units retrace lengthy sneak paths when tantalisingly close to what is otherwise perfect safe cover is confusing. I would accept squads sneaking to the rear if occasionally they sneaked forward. I've yet to see that occur but perhaps someone from the FFG can correct me from their experiences. Can anyone out there shed any light on whether sneak is the default response to panic? Also can BTS comment on the position vis a vis cover recognition. That to a large degree is the heart of the issue at least for me. There I've said my piece and hope that is seen as a constructive middle ground take on the situation. I desperately want to understand what's the score and even more desperate to play the game without the usual sense of annoyance and bewilderment. Thank you for reading a rather lengthy piece. I hope it encourages a little positive feedback from both sides of the debate. CCG (Sitting nervously in No-Mans Land)

Hi Cap'n. You are right of course to refer back to the comments by BTS particularily the quote you pulled out. I have tried very hard to hope that it doesn't really mean what it says But alas as you point out it probably is not good news for players who want or expect radical changes. I don't want radical changes. I would settle for a clarification on this panic sneak thing. If I played CMBB like CMBO I would expect to get bad results. So I don't. No more running with masses of men at objectives because you know they weren't going to get hit by the MG's effectively. I have honestly tried setting up fire bases to cover the next planned move forward. I've set up covered arcs with MG's. But there always comes a point that you have to advance into open ground. I send a couple of squads( perhaps on opposite flanks to split fire) on advance orders and they either make it or they don't and panic. I have seen squads broken and routed later but never immediately. I'd settle for my panicked squads staying still or sneaking or running or any combination of the above but not always sneaking. I have yet to see anything but sneak. Is this a default response can anyone tell me? I'm refering to good quality troops in my battles vets and better. I haven't tried worse stuff yet because I figure the results could only be worse. So I suppose it boils down to just a few questions for me. 1. Do panicked units do something other than sneak? 2. Is sneak the default result of panic? 3. And lastly I do not claim to be infallible. If it is my tactics what am I doing wrong? I would rather play this game than not. I'm just baffled by this one aspect.

I think the problem is not one of unpanicked units. If it's unpanicked you can get in and change orders. If the new orders are good ones then the unit will obey them and hopefully survive. If you give bad orders then the unit will not obey them or suffer losses because of them. The problem is the panicked unit which you cannot order to do anything. I think a wider variety of responses and cover destinations is the answer to the uncontrolable panic sneak. Incidentally I value your input as a Beta tester. You probably have more insight into the game than most people. And yes the game even as it stands is better in most areas than CMBO.

Thank you Martin. That's very useful info. Already it throws some light on the expected reactions of units under fire. Now can anyone elaborate whether there are details with regards as to what should happen if the unit is getting in to a panicked situation?

Ha Ha Ha. LOL. It took me so long to type my answer that you dropped right in without me noticing. "Take anything you want Mister. Just don't hurt me. Here. Take my incontinence tablets. After the shock it's too late anyway"

Cap'n. Have you actually gone back and read your first post? You opened it up by complaining about whiners. Enough. Wasn't it? You then decided because you hadn't experienced a problem that those who had must be at fault because they played a certain way. That's one heck of a big jump to make isn't it? You even opened by including " My opinion" in the post title. There's no mention of tactics at all. By adopting an upfront position like that you were bound to get people who didn't agree with you replying. This post has covered a good deal of ground since there and I can only say the I think that your comment that "....the supposition that fualty tactics are making some frustrated with this game." has to be wrong. If that was the case why are BTS tweaking the model in the patch? The fact that they are prepared to tweak things indicates there is something amiss. Even you must agree that if things were perfect then they wouldn't tweak anything would they? The truth lies somewhere in the middle ground but it is certainly not all down to faulty tactics.

Perhaps you have a point. But for the sake of discussion what if the flawed part of the game really is trashing the game for people. I don't have a problem with the reaction of pinned/broken or routed men. In fact I think on the whole I've seen some extraordinarily good movement sequences by squads advancing under fire. I've seem them apparently speed up when under no fire,slow down to return fire, hit the dirt and crawl a way, then be pinned down and get up and resume the advance as fire slackened. I'll even accept that panicked troops sometimes do bizzarre and, to us, ridiculous things. My problem lies in the panic sneak mode that has real difficulties in doing anything other than retrace it's path. There are circumstances surely when continuing 10 m into cover is more appropriate than 100m of sneaking backwards? BTS are going to look at cover recognition IIRC and I remain hopeful that this will solve the problem.

I do not agree entirely with your assessment. There is a phenonema of the "collapse forward" into cover. Broken troops can retreat forward into cover and then stay there. If no one comes along to either relieve them, rescue them or rally them then they are easily mopped up by the enemy. It is sometimes easier for broken men to blindly run forward into the unknown if the unknown offers an alternative to the bullet swept ground behind them that they have already experienced and that has broken their spirits.

Thank goodness. Someone who read the earlier posts and understood the issue. NOT. This is not about tactics bankrupt or otherwise. It's about the very thing you agreed with. The improvement of the infantry model with regards to cover and sneak behaviour.