SFJaykey

I'm a little surprised that I'm the only one who feels this defense is outright gamey. Perhaps I misunderstand the situation. I still have limited experience vs human opponents (12 games?) so I hope the community will help clarify what's considered "fair." My impression from nevermind's post was that the defender had spent the lion's share of his point allocation on large-bore artillery, for the purpose of either splattering the attacker when he attempts to occupy the VLs, or else deterring him from occupying them at all. Being familiar only with the point values of units in CMBB, I figured that the defender would not be able to afford a substantial counterattacking force along with all that arty. If he does have a counterattacking force and his plan is to eventually offer battle for a majority of VLs, then I could see this tactic as a "legitimate" reverse-slope defense. But upon first reading I concluded, perhaps improperly, that the defender's plan was simply to hunker down on a few rearward VLs, and either A) deny the attacker the points from the forward VLs by deterring him from placing units on them, or splatter the VLs with artillery and win the game by casualty points. In case A, by game's end the attacker might have swarmed all around the forward VLs and be pressing against the defender's map edge, but not be awarded points for the VLs he had passed by. This defensive tactic would seem to exploit the limitations of the game engine and scoring system, and amount to an effort to win the game on points without ever attempting to accomplish the assigned "mission" of holding the flags. Isn't that the definition, more or less, of "gamey?" Where am I mistaken: in my understanding of the tactical situation, or in my notions of what's "fair?" [ May 15, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

What about trucks? Too slow? If you do use the kubelwagens I'd go light on the sharpies, as they seem to have some special abilities that may overmodel MC troops.

Actually a couple of us did mention the out-of-command issue earlier, but I guess that was overshadowed by the hilarious antics of Fritz & Friend. I agree that LOS was probably the major issue allowing the T-34 to approach undetected. Not only is there a significant rise about 50% out in the arc, as mentioned, but there also looks to be a small crest a few meters from the schreck, near the edge of the trees. If the schreck was hiding behind the crest and the tank approached through the depression in the outer part of the arc, he probably never saw it. Which raises the question: should he have gotten a sound contact, and pivoted to face it? Methinks a shreck team hearing a T-34 clattering towards them would be pointed in the right general direction and ready to nail him as soon as he came into LOS. Re: looking into the sun, I've asked about that before and thought it wasn't modeled. - Matt

Yes I'm sure. Along with a lot of other things that can't be properly recreated in a game with limited context and a duration of around 30 minutes. Gamey.

Cool! I am about to start the second battle in the Magnuszew (sic) Bridgehead operation, PBEM! The Goring division is going to look good ! And by cool I mean totally sweet.

So basically, we would have the option of ordering: "Lay down some suppressing fire on that house, but stay sharp and nail anybody who advances into the field." OK, might be useful, but seems to tread along the fine line of micro-management that some have complained about. As I said before, turns are only a minute long, seems like it takes a good chunk of that just to issue the above order.

Enjoying this exchange and sorry to interrupt, but I have to say this describes me pretty much to a "T", except you left out the pot belly. Don't know a Grossdeutschland from a gross dutchman (or at least I didn't before visiting Dorosh's site). And I love the realism in CMBB! I think the best way to make at least some of the "funseekers" happy while maintaining realism is to tweak some of the orders and TacAI SOPs to make the game easier to play, more intuitive, more an aid to the player rather than the cause of frustration (like the "cover panic" and "AFV cower" SOPs). By easier to play I mean accomplishing the same task while issuing fewer orders, setting fewer waypoints. "Hunt," "Shoot & Scoot", "Advance" etc are all orders that combine a set of instructions to your troops...these orders and others in that vein make it easier to play with less micro-management and should be a focus of future adjustments. IMHO.

Since interest in my "Tweaks that would add fun" thread was, um, limited, I thought I'd try this idea here, since I do think it'd be helpful in the desert environment: I'd like to see an "Advance" order that was useful for advancing troops some distance (perhaps 100-200 meters) while under light, long range fire. The current "Advance" is too tiring for that situation. We have Move to Contact, but most often I don't want my units to stop upon contact, but rather use sub-tile-scale cover and press on to their destination. The tweaked "Advance" would include a small morale boost and be faster and less tiring than the current one (but still slightly slower and more tiring than "Move"). The tradeoff would be less outgoing fire: that'd be the role of a tweaked "Assault" command. Adjusting "Advance" in this way would help counter the paralyzing effects of defensive MGs, which may or may not be overmodeled. It would allow players to bring up reserves by setting a single waypoint, rather than several as the player tries to use cover while not tiring his units excessively. With this command available, "Move to Contact" would become more like a "fast sneak." To reflect this, units under "M2C" could move just a little slower than when ordered to "Move," but gain increased spotting ability and better use of cover. But no morale bonus or outgoing fire. Perhaps "Move" for vehicles should be paced to match movement rates of the tweaked "Advance" and "M2C," since that's when I'd expect it'd be most used. Also, or perhaps alternately, change what happens when "Move to Contact" is not the last waypoint in a unit's order sequence. Right now, when I order "M2C," then "Advance," if my infantry make contact before reaching the first waypoint they stop. Changing this so that the contact triggered the "Advance" would also help in bringing troops forward under light fire. These two changes would be especially useful in open country like the steppe, or desert. Tweak "Assault" to be somewhere in between where "Advance" and "Assault" are now, in terms of speed, fatigue, and outgoing fire. Change the name of "Move" for infantry to "March;" isn't that a little more descriptive of what the units are doing? Truth is I'd like to see these changes in CMBB 1.03 but fear that train may have already left the station.

And very well, too. On my short list of "must have mods;" belated thanks for the effort. I second your other requests, especially the shacks...but I love terrain mods even more than vehicles. The current Su-76 isn't terrible but it does seem to stick out somehow, must be the shading. - Matt

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the vehicle size is set to substantially larger than life. Perhaps the tank snuck in unseen via the low area in the outer part of your arc, hidden by the low crest? Also it looks like your schreck is out of command, which hurts both spotting and accuracy.

I know what you're talking about, it's frustrated me too, but I think you're asking the AI to make a big judgement. It will already shift fire to units that pop out of cover close enough to be a threat. Cancelling my Area Fire order to directly target enemies that pop up at a distance is taking too much control from me, I feel. After all the turns are only 1 minute long, units on average will "pop out" in the middle of the turn, and I can retarget in 30 seconds or so. Now, what really gets me about area fire is the rapid rate, and some units blowing close to their entire ammo loads in one turn. The tweak I'd most like to see in Area Fire would be the addition of a slow ROF option.

OK, in my post to the "bring back the fun" thread I said certain tweaks could be made to make the friendly TacAI more of a help to the player, rather than a source of frustration. Thought I'd start a new thread with the specifics. Please weigh in with comments and other suggestions...as long as they are "tweaks" that could be realistically hoped for in CMBB1.03 and/or CMAK, and not major changes more appropriate for a CMX2 thread. Adjust the "Advance" and "Assault" orders. Right now they are too much alike. I'd like to see an "Advance" order that was useful for advancing troops some distance (perhaps 100-200 meters) while under light, long range fire. The current "Advance" is too tiring for that situation. We have Move to Contact, but most often I don't want my units to stop upon contact, but rather pick up speed and use available cover en route to their destination. The new "Advance" would include a small morale boost and be faster and less tiring than the current one (but still slower and more tiring than "Move"). An adjusted "Advance" would help counter the paralyzing effects of defensive MGs, which some feel are over-modeled. It would allow players to bring up reserves by setting a single waypoint, rather than several as the player tries to use cover while not tiring his units excessively. Also, or perhaps alternately, change what happens when "Move to Contact" is not the last waypoint in a unit's order sequence. Right now, if I order "M2C," then "Advance," if my infantry make contact before reaching the first waypoint they stop. Changing this so that the contact triggered the "Advance" would also help in bringing troops forward under light fire. These two changes would be especially useful in open country like the steppe, or desert. Tweak "Assault" to be somewhere in between where "Advance" and "Assault" are now, in terms of speed, fatigue, and outgoing fire. Change the name of "Move" for infantry to "March;" isn't that a little more descriptive of what the units are doing? In "Shoot&Scoot," insert a pause at the firing position long enough to fire one round before reversing. Make units that are executing "Seek Hulldown" travel Fast, or at some intermediate speed, rather than at the "Move" rate. They are seeking cover, right? Wouldn't they want to get into that cover ASAP? An automatic "Follow Road" addition to the vehicle pathfinding routine. If a vehicle starts on a road, or a waypoint is placed on a road, and the next waypoint is also on a road, it follows the most direct all-road route to the waypoint. Another nice addition which might go beyond a "tweak" would be a "Follow Vehicle" order to keep convoys organized; given to each vehicle after the lead unit, it would link the convoy together like a chain and prevent much micro-management of traffic jams. Change the AFV "Cowering" and infantry "Cover Panic" routines, to give the player more control....JasonC has posted heavily on these and for the most part I agree with his suggestions. One point I would add re: the AFV cower SOP is that facing of both AFVs should be considered. This would simulate the TC's judgement of who is likely to get the first shot. BTW, I'm starting to feel a little guilty about generating so much traffic on similar topics...my excuse is that with the "final" version of CMBB looming I feel this may be our last chance as players to have input on these matters for quite a while, and want to make the most of it. I'll be quiet now. For a while. [ May 14, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Well I've never played CMBO, but I think I have an idea of what Stephen is talking about. Perhaps his desires, and those of the people in the "CMAK wishlist" thread who are asking for group orders, and those who would like a command game, might be best satisfied with a different game altogether. One that was _not_ attempting to depict behavior at the squad level, but at the platoon, with turns representing more time...kind of like the difference (for you others who are old enough to remember cardboard gamepieces) between Squad Leader and Panzerblitz. I might like to play such a game myself, as long as the action played out with as much detail as in CM, that is: the movements and actions of each squad and vehicle are depicted. After playing CM I don't think I could ever go back to watching abstract symbols representing my units, except at the strategic level. A platoon-level game with 3 or 5 minute turns would make larger battles much more manageable, allow small battles to be played with less "effort," and allow more to be accomplished in a single game (like Stephen's bridge crossing/town assault example), without sacrificing too much realism. If the AI can be upgraded to handle the squads adequately, such a game would be a lot of fun to play. Perhaps in CMX2 a toggle could be installed for "Command level" or somesuch. I've read that the X2 engine is supposed to be "modular;" maybe that means that the graphics and combat algorithms etc could be easily used with either command structure. Or maybe it would be an entirely different game. In any case, as far as CM, for me the realism is the foundation of the "fun." I agree that certain orders and the "cower" SOPs could be tweaked to make the friendly TacAI more of an aid to the player than a hindrance. But in general I think BFC is on the right path with the CM series and while I don't need to be bothering with bootlaces or zippers, I don't want to see any realism lost in future editions.

Nippy's request for a light bridge is a good one. I'd wager that _most_ rural bridges couldn't handle a KT. A tweak in the automatic unbuttoning would be welcome even in CMBB 1.03. My TCs too often unbutton just as they drive near nice infantry/sharpie cover, usually (it seems) early in a turn so they have a good chance of getting nailed before I can correct it.

If one of the monster's heads spots an enemy unit, the other automatically sees it too. Borg spotting at its worst; so unrealistic. BFC fix or somefink!

Have the Russian ATGs been done yet? In summer 'flage, not whitewash. And is it possible to mod the generic "Tank?" and "Light Armor?" etc units that appear before a unit is fully id'd? The defaults really stand out. - Matt

Well I was trying to make reasonable requests, like tweaks in the Seek Hulldown and S&S orders. And your suggestions of new infantry moves has given me another idea: new animations of the Advance and Assault moves. Why not have the 3 figures in the squad alternate between running and stopping to fire or lob grenades? For Advance two would be running, one firing, for Assault one running, two firing. Would make those moves less abstract, more realistic I think. Dust will be a big addition I think, and hopefully will be kicked up not just by vehicles but by shells too, maybe even (briefly) by MG bursts hitting the ground (and dust devils on windy days ). And I hope we get a new Superheavy Building or Wall tile to simulate ruins and places like the monastery on Cassino. - Matt [ May 13, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Without a moon, but clear skies, I have walked long distances over rough desert terrain lit only by starlight, and neither stubbed a toe nor gotten lost [at least not too often ] And the light of a full moon is almost like daylight on the light desert terrain. But you're right too, of course: with overcast blocking moon and starlight it can be black as pitch. So I'd like to see Night+overcast simulate the kinds of conditions you're referring to, but allow the Night+clear setting to simulate bright moonlight, with its silvery light and black shadows. (And BTW, if you've sent me a turn and are waiting for a reply, know that I am not sitting on our PBEM game: I am posting from work, and the machine here doesn't have the oomph to run a large CMBB game.) - Matt [ May 12, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

CMBB is already an awesome game, but in the spirit of "there is always room for improvement:" Has anybody else besides me camped in the desert? "Night" battles should be quite a bit brighter, with better visibility, to simulate moonlight. If you want real murk you could select Night + overcast or fog. I'd like to see "Seek Hulldown" changed so that units move Fast to the hulldown position. I mean, they are looking for cover, right? Shouldn't they want to be exposed for the least amount of time? MikeyD: might this satisfy your desire for a "Fast Recon" order or somesuch? I'd like to see Shoot & Scoot tweaked so that units pause at the firing position long enough to fire a round, rather than paying the penalty for firing while in motion. And yes, get the AI to use these orders more! Also, change the "Cover Panic" SOP to something like what JasonC has suggested - in open desert terrain I can imagine ridiculous "Sneaks" of 100s of meters. (I'd like to see this change in CMBB 1.03, also.) Aerial recon could be encompassed by my previously stated desire for a pre-battle intelligence report. I don't think aerial recon would often be passed down to ground units within the time frame of the game....they didn't have real-time communications, did they? If in-game recon is to be included, I'd suggest handling it as text and/or audio intelligence bulletins, which would recreate the way commanders received recon IRL better than direct input into the spotting system. Rear echelon units would be great for certain scenarios, as would the big oily smoke plumes and delayed vehicle "brew ups" requested already. Roiling sandstorms, utilizing the new game's ability to portray dust clouds, might replace the "Fog" condition. Random dust devils for pure eye candy. 400mm naval arty fire missions, yeah!!! Modelling of the effect on spotting and gunnery of looking into the Sun would be great...and not just in the desert. Multiplayer would be awesome, but I think we've been told that will have to wait for CMX2. Likewise AI control of some friendly forces, and an IFF element in FOW, neither of which would make much sense w/o a multiplayer option. Returning to the command system, as I've said in other threads I'd like to be able to use "Pause" for fire orders. And have a slow rate of fire for support weapons, and perhaps arc or drag-box targeting for area fire, rather than area fire directed at a point. And of course harem girls. I'm told Captain Wacky already has a mod in the works... - Matt

If, indeed, following the road is the most advantageous form of travelling then the pathfinding algorithm will put the waypoints on the road automatically. If you find that this is not the case then maybe the cross-country speeds have to be reduced?! Also, the pathfinding may take into account exposure to known threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of road-travelling. Regards, Thomm </font>

I could see using MOVE for AFVs against infantry only, good suggestion. But if there is any chance they will face an enemy AFV or ATG that turn, I think they are far batter off HUNTing, or else move FAST for half a turn, to a place from where they can splatter the soft targets, then move FAST again next turn. Under MOVE orders they seem to pay a high price in gunnery, but are still too easy to hit, much easier (it seems to me) than when moving FAST. What kind of success have others had with S&S? Are vehicles supposed to pause at the firing position, long enough loose one round? Mine seem to, rarely, but usually reverse immediately. Could this be tweaked in v1.03 or CMAK? - Matt

I agree with "88mm" that driving on roads, or trying to, is more difficult than it should be in CM. I am playing a PBEM right now with a lot of winding mountain roads, and spend most of my Orders phases "driving." A "Follow Road" command would be very welcome, along with some kind of "Follow Vehicle" feature, perhaps automatic, so that convoys don't get all stacked up. No idea how tough these would be to code but figure it doesn't hurt to ask. - Matt

******POSSIBLE SPOILER***** Ahhh, I think someone is playing "Death Ride of the 424th!" One of the more frustrating scenarios I played when I first got the game. I checked out several scenario briefings and when I got to that one said: "Cool! I get 20 KTs! Let's Go!" Minutes later I was gazing on piles of burning steel. :mad: I think that might have been the game that convinced me to check out the Forums for some tips... Anyway now older and wiser, I can tell you there are so many IS-2s in that scenario (if that's the one you're playing), that you might have killed the one IS-2 with your first or second shot, but didn't know it because of the Death Clock...meanwhile another one nailed you. Or maybe your penetrations hit non-vital areas. Unlucky, but those are the fortunes of war. - Matt [ May 11, 2003, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but after playing several dozen games of CMBB (zero CMBO) I never use MOVE for armor anymore, with one exception: AFVs with high ground pressure over questionable terrain. MOVE _seems_ to have a lower chance of bogging for the same distance covered than FAST. Otherwise, either HUNT or FAST always seem to get better results: either you are willing to stand and slug it out, or if not you want to get into the next patch of cover pronto! A few other comments on points you raised....please keep in mind I am not the most experienced on this board: SHOOT & SCOOT is like MOVE + REVERSE. I like the notion of it but it doesn't seem to work as well as it should. For one thing, my AFVs don't like to pause at the firing point, but reverse immediately, so their shots are taken while the AFV is in motion which hurts accuracy. Sometimes it is the right command but I more often use PAUSE + HUNT and try to time my AFV's emergence from cover so it will get a shot or two off before end of turn, and I can reverse at the start of next turn. Riskier than S&S, but offers a better chance of scoring. COVER ARC and ARMOR for AFVs are great commands that I use heavily. Two situations where they are vital for AFVs is for assault guns like the Stug, and when driving tanks on town maps and in other heavy cover situations. I almost always set a narrow arc for my AGs, after losing too many of them as they rotated, soooo slooowwwllyyy, to engage enemies on the flank, exposing their own vulnerable sides to enemy guns. And turreted tanks moving in and out of cover, amongst buildings for example are more effective if you set an arc centered where you expect the enemy to be: the turret rotates to face the arc, so when you gain LOS you are already lined up for the shot. Big help in getting the first shot off...if you guessed right on enemy location. That's all I have really strong opinions on....have fun figuring out the rest! - Matt [ May 11, 2003, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

Just to add: For this mission I try to locate the mortar with LOS and target the gun directly, rather than area fire with an HQ spotting. Seems to produce a better chance of actually hitting and knocking out the gun itself, rather than suppressing the crew. - Matt