those bugs/irrealistic things which ruin CMBN...

[Fredrock1957]

Its amazing after a 'few' games how the OP discovered all these problems, I have played a hundred games and not seen them all... Guess he read the threads before his first post bitch session, now that is irrealistic... Thanks Phil for all you do...

A couple of things I have discovered...

If I keep Squads split up in houses, a Team per floor or such, my casualties go way down... also you can hide one, run the other out of the house and then leave the hidden one for a ambush.

The point about Green vs Crack troops cannot be over-expressed in importance, I have taken scenarios during the testing process and without changing troop quantity just their experience, and the battle 'consistantly' takes on a different shape and feel, from the TacAI to the total outcome...

Some of the other 'irrealistic problems' are from lack of comprehending the full gamut of abilities one can perform within the game (I am learning new things all the time)...

Now, I also do get frustrated at many of the things that drive us all crazy, and yes things could be fixed for the better, Heck I am one of the select few who gets OOM errors all the time, but I have 8 games going, played about 100, and have created or designed well over 50 maps and scenarios, but as Wodin says, nothing else out there comes close to what this game does, and for me the enjoyment factor is off the charts...

[Moon]

My understanding of the system is as follows: infantry are too bunched up in the game. This has a little to do with the 8m action spot system, as well as just plain old playability. If you have a 12 man US squad, and each man is 5 meters from his nearest mate, you'd have a squad snaking over 50m of terrain. Toss a few companies down on the map and playability goes out the window.

When I was in the Army (in the 90s) a spacing of 5m between men would be considered a wide formation. 2m was much more common. See, it's not just a problem of playability in the game, but also command & control in the real world, with soldiers of one squad spread out that much.

Modern tactics are different, and squads are both smaller and have better communication (helmet mikes for one). This wasn't the case during WW2 (or actually, not at all until the recent conflicts), and therefore spacing back in those days was much tighter than it is now, and than you may expect.

I think CMBN has it *almost* right to be honest, in most circumstances. There is some bunching occasionally during moves and near chokepoints but it's easily corrected by the careful player.

Most of the bunching issues I have seen in save games and videos is not the game, but the player. Nothing prevents you to put down several squads almost on top of each other in the game. In real life, people would give you a funny look if you asked them to be within another soldiers breathing space

Next time you play, see if trying to do things in a more realistic manner from the get go (keep more space between units, keep vehicles further apart, don't ask vehicles to FAST down a narrow bridge etc.) doesn't work out just great for you in the game! A lot of "problems" I have seen reported with the game in the past really is down to asking your units to do unrealistic stuff.

Conyoys? Have you ever tried driving down a road at 40mph 2 meters behind the front guy? Yet many people expect this to work flawlessly in the game. That's just one example of many "frustrating" moments, which in reality have nothing to do with the game as such, but with either a wrong approach to how you play (doing something that you would never even think of in the real world), or with the fact that WWII warfare isn't perfect, doesn't give you all the info all the time, and that sh*t happens.

Martin

[Ranger33]

I have not had this issue. I've tested certain circumstances dealing with this and not seen any abnormal spotting issues. However, others have sworn that it should be impossible for their bazooka team to be spotted by a tank before their zook gets a round off.

I agree with most of what you said, however I would just like to point out that I have seen this on multiple occasions. At least 3-4 examples just off the top of my head. A couple of times the tank was even able to spot tank hunter teams in cover, in smoke, on the tank's flank, and blast them before they ever even spotted the tank. It's rather frustrating.

[Moon]

I agree with most of what you said, however I would just like to point out that I have seen this on multiple occasions. At least 3-4 examples just off the top of my head. A couple of times the tank was even able to spot tank hunter teams in cover, in smoke, on the tank's flank, and blast them before they ever even spotted the tank. It's rather frustrating.

"A couple of times" is perfectly realistic. "All the time" wouldn't be. But keep in mind that crews DO have vision ports and they are ACTIVELY looking for threats on the flanks. In smoke. In cover. It's what their nightmares are about.

CMBN simulates blind spots and fields of vision extremely well. It in fact tracks the crewmember's field of vision and his head movement through available vision slots. What you see is what you get. There was a post some while ago from Steve about a bug where some of the vision wasn't lined up correctly with the tank model that has more details about how the engine works, look it up if you're interested.

What people seem to forget is that "tanks are blind" does not simplify to "they don't see anything all the time". There are blind spots and there are spots that are being actively monitored even from a buttoned up tank. CMBN doesn't simply make a tank "blind' like many other games, but instead tracks this IN DETAIL. And blind as a tank can be, if a crewman happens to be looking at the right place at the right time, then yes, he'll spot a hidden infantry soldier in smoke. If it happens "a couple of times", then this is perfectly realistic.

[Thomm]

Poor Old Spike keeps adding to a huge thread with WW2 photos on the Gamesquad CM forum. Here are two examples showing infantry in action. Spacing looks CM-like.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Ranger33]

"A couple of times" is perfectly realistic. "All the time" wouldn't be. But keep in mind that crews DO have vision ports and they are ACTIVELY looking for threats on the flanks. In smoke. In cover. It's what their nightmares are about.

I'm fine with the tank spotting the infantry, it's the infantry not being able to see the 10 ft tall rumbling steel beast sitting in the middle of a road 50m away from them that I had a problem with.

[Wreck]

Most, if not all, buildings are impervious to small arms fire. The lethality issue is due to men bunching up in the windows.

I did a test of this last night. Summary: men hiding in buildings are practically immune to small arms fire.

I tested 9 German HMGs at ~235m against 9 American squads in buildings. The buildings I chose were "independent" ones, all of them two stories, and no two the same. The Americans have AI orders so that they don't do anything. All Americans are on the ground floor. Germans never saw any Americans; they were given orders to area fire at the ground floors of the one building they could see. Fire was maintained for 3 minutes.

In my first test, the Americans were "up" -- not hiding. They took 62 casualties, total, over 9 squads -- so almost 7 men per squad were hit! Ouch!

In my second test, the Americans were ordered to hide. They dispersed more. They took two casualties in one squad, and zero casualties in all other squads. Those two may be some kind of fluke -- perhaps a man was hit in the initial seconds before he had time to hide? (Buddy aid probably got the second man.) Or maybe he had popped up to spot and got unlucky. Didn't see, but in any case flamingknives is right. Hiding in buildings (at least on the ground floor) is really, really safe. Men are suppressed by fire, but not hit.

Incidentally, one other thing I discovered that is not that obvious is that area fire is per-floor, and that area fire on a second floor does not have any effect (except suppression) on men on the first floor even if they are "up". (I had to re-run the "up" test after I discovered this.)

[siffo998]

CMBN is the perfect example of a game which has been thinking only for graphics effects. No matter with realism or playability.

yes CMBN is truly the CRYSIS 2 of strategy gaming...

its even that hardware demanding that i can play it properly on my 6 year old laptop... !

seriously... their are some (fixable !) issues but they are not that big that i would stop playing this great game ! try a PBEM and you will see that CMBN really shines when it comes to the multiplayer part.

[A Canadian Cat]

Most, if not all, buildings are impervious to small arms fire. The lethality issue is due to men bunching up in the windows.

I did a test of this last night. Summary: men hiding in buildings are practically immune to small arms fire.

Thanks to flamingknives and Wreck for this information. I will be applying it to current and future games for sure. This is an example of why I read these forums. Dealing with buildings have been giving me fits and I hope your information will help.

Incidentally, one other thing I discovered that is not that obvious is that area fire is per-floor, and that area fire on a second floor does not have any effect (except suppression) on men on the first floor even if they are "up". (I had to re-run the "up" test after I discovered this.)

Yeah that is very important. One thing I am getting good at is clearing buildings. The fits come from my guys inside the buildings. Area fire by supporting units on upper floors is important. Before sending the assault squad in the door the supporting units have been blasting away at *all* floors for at least a turn (for un confirmed enemies) or longer (for confirmed enemies). OK OK with an 8 story church tower I usually cannot target all the floors so I'll try to hit ever second one and mix things up each turn but you get the idea.

[Moon]

I'm fine with the tank spotting the infantry, it's the infantry not being able to see the 10 ft tall rumbling steel beast sitting in the middle of a road 50m away from them that I had a problem with.

You may be seeing C&C in action, rather than spotting. Did you notice that sometimes soldiers will fire at an enemy you cannot see? That's because they're out of contact and you, the player (and the commander) only get the info with a delay. But the TacAI sees (and acts) independently of that.

[A Canadian Cat]

Ian posted some the answers but I feel I have to chime in because I don't quite agree with everything he says also.

What!!! unacceptable

Artillery in this game is modeled very well. It's lethality is exactly what it needs to be. My only beef is the reality of accuracy when requesting a "line" barrage. This just seems too easy to do IMO.

That is a good point. It does seem from the artillery discussions that things could be tweaked in terms of targeting and accuracy. I have no knowledge of that. What I do know is if your guys are under an artillery barrage it is a bad thing. In game and out.

I agree but BFC has stated that they are looking in to adding this. Nobody is sure if it's going to be in the Commonwealth module yet.

That would be awesome - it would make me so happy.

I guess I have to agree with this. I'm not a big fan of the action spot system but the enemy has the same issues, so it's not like it's a handicap.

True what you say about both sides suffering. I would really like to see some improvements here. Like GreenAsJade's (I think it was him) recent postings about wanting infantry especially AT teams look around corners more. Right now it seems you can either have your guys snug against the wall and able to see anything past the building. Or away from the building totally exposed. I would love to have the tube guy poke his head and weapon around the corner.

Almost every map I've played has been a bocage map where the longest possible engagement ranges have been maybe 500m but often much closer. I would expect one shot hits in many of these cases. I am not seeing to many one-shot one kills. I've had many cases where there are penetrations that did little to no damage and often do some damage or injure to crew.

Misses do happen. The more I think about this the more I think people are forgetting about the misses. Why just this morning I was playing a turn (in Carbide Carbide) and noticed a Sherman burning. So I looked to see who got the kill and found both my Stug and an At gun took shots. Replay showed two shots from each down range. Both missed high with their first round and found there mark with the second. The AT gun got the first hit but no idea which will get credit for the kill. This is in the 400 to 600m range. The Sherman was invisible behind bocage and came through an opening and suddenly appeared. It was moving at the time.

Perhaps the complaint will come from my opponent "No fair my Sherman never got to shoot" but hey they came zooming around the corner right into my pre determined kill zone for both AT assets. What happened is pretty much what I would expect.

PS. I know my opponent. He will not actually say that and he probably knew that tank would flush out something. I just hope they did not see wht hit them before they brewed up or else...

[Moon]

Incidentally, one other thing I discovered that is not that obvious is that area fire is per-floor, and that area fire on a second floor does not have any effect (except suppression) on men on the first floor even if they are "up". (I had to re-run the "up" test after I discovered this.)

Which makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

Generally, those players will fare best in CMBN that assume that things work that work in the real world, and vice versa. It's not perfect in all circumstances, but you will get the best game results if you play that way.

Move at high speed 2 meters behind another vehicle? Not a good idea.

Move at high speed through a narrow opening in the bocage? Not a good idea.

Run out into the open against an MG or ary barrage? Not a good idea.

Not shift positions for prolonged time once spotted by the enemy? Not a good idea (the enemy has arty spotters, too).

The list of such common sense things to do and things to don't (heh, I invented that right now!) is long, and applying it to the game, rather than looking for game specific solutions will work best more often than it does not.

[Ranger33]

You may be seeing C&C in action, rather than spotting. Did you notice that sometimes soldiers will fire at an enemy you cannot see? That's because they're out of contact and you, the player (and the commander) only get the info with a delay. But the TacAI sees (and acts) independently of that.

Really? I know sometimes they will shoot at "suspected" enemy positions, where I can't see anything. Didn't know that was directly related to C2. Learn something everyday.

[vbfg]

That explains some things from recent games. I shall now be paying more attention to what my little dudes are shooting at.

[necramonium]

What about a tank that can't push through a line of tiny bushes, and no, its not bocage...

Artillery can't hit a damn thing whenever i play, been shelling a german unit for minutes behind a bocage wall, they just sit there and get shelled and don't seem to be phased at all by it. And than my mortars are out of ammo.

The maps are far too small to flank, because if you wanna flank the MG nest in front of you, they always place a enemy team on the side you want to flank, and you can't flank anymore, because the map ends there, realistic my *ss.

[YankeeDog]

What about a tank that can't push through a line of tiny bushes, and no, its not bocage...

Artillery can't hit a damn thing whenever i play, been shelling a german unit for minutes behind a bocage wall, they just sit there and get shelled and don't seem to be phased at all by it. And than my mortars are out of ammo.

The maps are far too small to flank, because if you wanna flank the MG nest in front of you, they always place a enemy team on the side you want to flank, and you can't flank anymore, because the map ends there, realistic my *ss.

War is hell, my friend.

As an example of the effectiveness of German defenses despite weakness in numbers, the 5th Ranger battalion was halted in its advance inland by a single machine gun position hidden in a hedgerow. One platoon attempted to outflank the position, only to run into another machine gun position to the left of the first. A second platoon dispatched to take this new position ran into a third, and attempts to deal with this met with fire from a fourth position."

(This is from the Wikipedia article on the Omaha Beach landings, but it's a well known incident and not at all an uncommon situation)

[JC-CM]

Hello,

As I’m reading all messages following my post, I understand than my words are offensive for the developers, programmers and players who love the game.

I apologize for the tone and inflammatory words at this message. I got carried away and wrote things I didn't mean. My post was not intended to offend whoever, but rather intended to list some improvements I dream for CMBN.

Interest, realism and longevity of CMx1 prove that you make serious work and CMBN will have the same life without any doubt.

Of course, this game also offers good points and interesting ideas. But may be I was waiting too much of a new CM opus.

My problem is I can’t help comparing CMBN and CMx1 about playability, richness of informations given by the game (about type of terrain where a unit is, unit’s firing stats) or soldier’s behaviour.

But you are right. Those games are DIFFERENT and I have to disconnect them to understand and appreciate CMBN. Your posts convinced me than I must not give up with this game. On the contrary, I have to give it a chance.

About artillery, it is not easy to explain with words but here it is: I think the problem is not the power of destruction of mortar’s shell (I mean the blast and the consequences on soldiers near it).

Let’s consider a HQ who orders 1 mortar (just 1) to fire. Why this only firing mortar is able to produce so many impacts during one turn? I don’t know the delay between 2 shots with a real mortar but I can’t believe it can produce about 25 or 30 impacts during one turn!!! Let’s have a look to a barrage shooting with 1 mortar. We surprisingly see 2 or 3 shells falling at the same time on the target zone. That’s why artillery is so bloody in CMBN; because the number of impacts is not proportional with the number of mortars which make them. For example, if you consider CMx1, a mortar can shot about 6 or 8 shells during a turn, producing the same number of impacts. Number of impact = number of shot = adequacy with number of firing mortars.

Best regards.

[YankeeDog]

Let’s consider a HQ who orders 1 mortar (just 1) to fire. Why this only firing mortar is able to produce so many impacts during one turn? I don’t know the delay between 2 shots with a real mortar but I can’t believe it can produce about 25 or 30 impacts during one turn!!!

Gotta log of in a few minutes, but I thought I'd deal with this one specifically before I go.

Actually, as long as (a) the mortar is sited in, ( they have the ammo ready to go © have more or less a full, trained crew, light mortars can fire VERY quickly -- one round every 2-3 seconds is definitely possible. Do a quick search on Youtube for "60mm mortar"or "81mm mortar", and you'll find many clips of mortars doing exactly this.

eventually, the tube will heat up and the mortar will have to slow ROF, or stop entirely to cool off, but it takes several dozen rounds for this to happen.

[JC-CM]

Actually, as long as (a) the mortar is sited in, ( they have the ammo ready to go © have more or less a full, trained crew, light mortars can fire VERY quickly -- one round every 2-3 seconds is definitely possible. Do a quick search on Youtube for "60mm mortar"or "81mm mortar", and you'll find many clips of mortars doing exactly this.

I checked a few videos and you are right on this point. If the mortar and ammos are ready before firing, then it can fire very fast, althought it depends of the caliber and quality of the crew. A medium mortar will fire fewer shells than a light caliber per minute in the same conditions.

A documentation say than a trained crew is able to fire 20 or 25 shots per minute with a light caliber (60 or 81 mm)

I am very surprised on this velocity.

thanks for the information.

[MarkEzra]

Hello,

But you are right. Those games are DIFFERENT and I have to disconnect them to understand and appreciate CMBN. Your posts convinced me than I must not give up with this game. On the contrary, I have to give it a chance.

Best regards.

Well said. BFC is a company made up entirely of guys like us... wargamers. We are an opinionated, pedantic, and very demanding lot to be sure. Also we share the tendency to personalize criticism both given and received. Oh... and don't tell any us, "It's Just A Game"... That works us into a real frenzy.

Welcome to the forum

[c3k]

JC-CM, well spoken.

[DavidFields]

If someone has better data and can set up a test in game to prove that game deviates significantly from this data, they should put it forward. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to do this. All that is ever brought forward is:

1. It doesn't feel right. Change it to the way I think feels right. Lets have a forum poll about how it feels and if 5 people agree, it has to be changed.

2. X game did/does it this way.

3. On June 10, 1944 Sergeant Doe missed a Tiger at 500m! Tanks should be missing at 500m!

I think the ballistics are fine, as is the basic interaction between experience setting and these ballistics. I think error due to psychological factors could be increased, but obviously enters into very subjective territory.

This is incorrect. Stance can change dynamically based on movement type, threat and best observation position. Generally, soldiers not moving are more likely to be prone.

1. I am sympathetic to your concern. If we say PanzerBlitz, PanzerLeader, ASL, CC, and CM1 have mortars being one way, and you have data that makes them different in CM2, what are we complaining about? AH may have got it wrong in the 60's-70's, designed decades after WW2, and there could be an original error.

But do you have all data for all relevant issues? Have WW2 vets worked the game and said if felt like reality? I still have this sense of Modern Warfare projected backwards (linear targeting for artillery probably the most obvious issue). But I may be incredibly wrong.

If you told me that in CMBN a German company training mission (which we had in CM1) played out as it did in WW2, I would be more impressed. Put a scenario like that in. It will be good prep for JasonC looking at your East Front scenarios.

Is it a problem if people post their concerns without looking at previous threads? If they did look at previous threads, and then left without saying anything, would that be better? I think not. I think BFC is getting free feed-back in a way many companies need to pay for.

2. Soldiers not moving most likely to be prone? Not my experience with the Hard Knocks series. There is still the issue of how blind they are when prone, and what ""micro" cover they might have which is not seen in CMBN.

[necramonium]

War is hell, my friend.

(This is from the Wikipedia article on the Omaha Beach landings, but it's a well known incident and not at all an uncommon situation)

War might be hell, but a videogame should not be... This is probably one of the main reasons why this game has never really caught on with a big audience...

But i don't have much problems with user created maps i downloaded, the ones made by the developers are a absolute b*tch to finish.

[Sarge]

has anyone ever discussed why the elimination of building 'types' was dropped. by types i mean in CM1 they would be identified as light or heavy construction. with the associated protection from fire, and amount of HE required to destroy the different types.

maybe it is supposed to be apparent in the graphic? or maybe its been dropped because there really wouldn't be too much difference in damage accumulation?

but with the discussion of Inf in buildings being more susceptible unless they are hiding, i think being in a Stone building taking small arms fire would address some of the concerns.

yes?

[Pak40]

What about a tank that can't push through a line of tiny bushes, and no, its not bocage...

If a tank cannot get over "bushes" then it IS bocage. You're mistaken. As you should know there is high and low bocage. Low bocage is still not passable by tanks because it has an earthen wall.

Artillery can't hit a damn thing whenever i play, been shelling a german unit for minutes behind a bocage wall, they just sit there and get shelled and don't seem to be phased at all by it. And than my mortars are out of ammo.

Likely that unit that's been shelled behind the wall is dead and you don't even realize it. Artillery is quite accurate when you know how to spot correctly. On board mortars firing directly are even more accurate.

The maps are far too small to flank, because if you wanna flank the MG nest in front of you, they always place a enemy team on the side you want to flank, and you can't flank anymore, because the map ends there, realistic my *ss.

Flanking isn't always about going up the side of a map. In fact, our real life counterparts didn't have that luxury. You have to punch a hole in the bocage in front of you, two fields deep, then flank to either side.