Frustrating Learning Curve

[Holien]

To add to the other points, which I agree with completely, any unit that starts the battle Hiding gets a stealth bonus. This makes them even more difficult to spot.

Good point to remember when you start defending. Hide at start and do not even twitch until you are ready to open up.

Did not know this...

Will have to try it....

[YankeeDog]

Just because someone has extensive training and/or experience in Real World tactical combat, does not necessarily mean they have the tools to apply this knowledge to the game of CMBN. The game, like all games, has its own unique interface, and until a player really understands the game system and how to leverage it, the player won't be able to apply their tactical knowledge to the game effectively.

This is no different than other complex computer game genres. Would you expect a pro football coach to be able to pick up Madden NFL Football and after a few minutes fiddling with the controls, play it was well as some slacker who has played the game 10+ hours a week since the game came out? Of course not.

What about flight sims? My father is a very experienced private pilot, with thousands of hours flight time in various airframes. He tried Microsoft Flight Simulator once and could barely take off in a Cessna 152.

Now, I'm sure after a bit of time learning the interface, the pro football coach's background would give him a leg up playing Madden Football. Same goes for my father and Microsoft Flight Sim -- if he spent some time learning the interface, I'm sure he'd be very competent at the sim. As it happened, it didn't really interest him, probably because he had a real airplane he could go fly at an airport just down the road.

This isn't to say that it isn't worth examining what improvements could be made to CM's interface to make the game more intuitive and easy to learn how to play. But all games/sims have their own interface "language", and especially with games modeling something as complex as tactical ground combat, there's always going to be something of learning curve, even for people with a lot of knowledge/experience in the subject matter.

[PLM2]

Most new players coming from twitchy RTS or FPS games will attempt to play way too fast, and will find CM frustrating. You will need a longer attention span and will have to learn not to expect the instant gratification that most mainstream games are programmed for these days. In other words, learn to slow down and cope with losses.

One of the most frustrating things for me with CMBN is the time of scenarios. I didn't know you could go into the editor and edit time lengths. The campaigns are a serious pain when the time constraints aren't generous. 40 minutes isnt near enough to take a good defense on. I got through all the campaigns (eventually) but its obnoxious when you are forced to rush so much when you've ran into defense 3 times the magnitude you were briefed on. There should be some leeway in a situation like that, most players don't have the battle IQ of say Patton. And its far too easy to feel you're doing something wrong and that the game is broken when you are supposed to do so much in so little of a time. I can't even imagine how bad i'd have done if I didn't pause profusely during campaigns.

IMO, there should be extended scenario times if the player wants it, possibly for a slight loss in victory points. Or it could be extended for lower difficulty levels.

[YankeeDog]

One of the most frustrating things for me with CMBN is the time of scenarios. I didn't know you could go into the editor and edit time lengths. The campaigns are a serious pain when the time constraints aren't generous. 40 minutes isnt near enough to take a good defense on. I got through all the campaigns (eventually) but its obnoxious when you are forced to rush so much when you've ran into defense 3 times the magnitude you were briefed on. There should be some leeway in a situation like that, most players don't have the battle IQ of say Patton. And its far too easy to feel you're doing something wrong and that the game is broken when you are supposed to do so much in so little of a time. I can't even imagine how bad i'd have done if I didn't pause profusely during campaigns.

IMO, there should be extended scenario times if the player wants it, possibly for a slight loss in victory points. Or it could be extended for lower difficulty levels.

I think some sort of variable scenario ending is an interesting idea -- Finish in 40 minutes, get full points, but then start losing 5 points/ minute thereafter, until you call cease fire, or something like that. In general, I'm in favor of anything that makes point scoring less dependent on hard limits.

There are certainly scenarios where I think there is a design issue with the time allotted, but in general this is an exception for me and for most CM scenarios I don't personally find the time limits in to be too short. In fact, I think working with the time limit given is an inherent part of the challenge. Tactical combat does not take place in a vacuum and IRL, there might be very important reasons why Hill 102 has to be seized in an hour, or whatever.

One suggestion/criticsm I will make regarding this topic: I think less experienced players often fall into the trap of assuming that they should try to achieve all, or nearly all of a scenario's objectives. This often leads to rushing, spreading one's forces too thin and other mistakes.

Consider a hypothetical scenario with scoring conditions of Objective 1 - 150 pts., Objective 2 - 150 pts., Enemy casualties - up to 100 pts, and own casualties <15% - 100 pts. In a case like this I will often set a goal of attaining just one of the terrain objectives, keeping my own casualties under 15% an then causing as many enemy casualties as I can while achieving the first two goals. This may reduce my chances of gaining the "Total Victory", but it increases my chances of getting at least a Tactical Victory. And more often than not, if I seize the first objective with my forces in good order, I find I have at least some time left to mount a challenge for the second objective.

In short, if you try to shoot the moon, you shouldn't be surprised if you end up holding the Black Lady at the end...

[Erwin]

"Plus some people just arent good at computer games. thats all."

Yes, good point. I forgot that when playing games, it's usually the gamers who whip the milpros. The most successful players are invariably ones who have learned to game the game.

[Wreck]

The only issue that is disturbing that nobody picked up on is that the original poster is a RL tank CO, and doing things the way he was trained doesn't appear to work for him.

He said he was a real life tank crewman -- not an officer. And in any case, even if he was an officer, knowing how to run a tank platoon or company does not mean that much in terms of being able to command an infantry attack, which is what he is doing in the two scenarios in question.

[Moon]

In short, if you try to shoot the moon, you shouldn't be surprised if you end up holding the Black Lady at the end...

Don't shoot the Moon!

[Broadsword56]

I'd call the learning curve of CMBN high, but satisfying. Because if you take it slow and enjoy the ride, play the tutorial and early easier scenarios, you'll enjoy good results and a rewarding experience at each stage.

One thought: The learning curve is really only steep and frustrating if you think of CMBN as a game. Stop looking at the game and look at the WWII reality that this game is trying to simulate. So, as someone mentioned earlier, forget there's a time limit because your soldiers don't know the "clock" runs out at a given time. Instead of studying the game manual or looking for CMBN tips/tricks, I'd recommend just getting comfortable with the interface after the basic tutorials and then go straight to real-life WWII infantry manuals that are available online, for riflle platoons and rifle companies. Learn the basics of fire and movement and other sound tactics, then just try and apply them in CMBN.

The more you learn about the real-life history and what worked or what didn't work on the WWII Normandy battlefields, the better a CMBN player you're likely to become. And the side benefit to that is, you'll learn all sorts of interesting things and be a better person for it, even when you're not gaming!

[c3k]

Real life training vs. reality. They can be very different. I've posted this a long time ago, my hands are tired, so forgive me for perhaps too much brevity.

Creighton Abrams was the tank battalion commander who led Patton's charge up to Bastogne. He had a bunch of tanks shot out from under him. Eventually he became Chief of Staff of the Army. Chairman of the Joints? I forget. Whatever, he went to the top. The Abrams is named after him.

Anyhow, as a bigwig, he visited one of the US armored units in Germany. They wanted to impress him, so they had him ride along in the tank (M60?) with the best crew in the corps. (VII?) Now, how did they know they were the best? Simple, the got the best score on the test range.

So, there they are, 4 guys and the top dog. Bang! Hit, vrooom, stop, Bang, hit, vroom, etc., through the whole course. Abrams went ape. See, the course, and rankings, were based on long range gunnery and time to finish. So the crews would race from one firing position to the next and fire at the distant silhouettes.

Abrams told them to go back to the start line. He had them drive slowly along the course and imagine a Soviet anti-tank team was behind every bush, tree, shrub or ravine they approached. He had them hose EVERYTHING down with machinegun fire.

That's the difference between combat experience and training.

Just because you've been trained does NOT mean you've been trained correctly, or been trained to conduct the correct action.

My .02.

Ken

[ridethe415]

Dont use your tanks to scout. They'll report enemy contact by exploding.

+1 too true

[Michael Emrys]

It implies that WW2 ground combat is different from 2011 ground combat?

This is the same thought I had. The current version of the M1 Abrams has a lot of electronic goodies, such as thermal imaging, to enable the speedy acquisition and accurate fire on distant targets in a way that was virtually impossible during WW II. Comms are vastly improved. Tactics that are practical now would have gotten you killed then.

Michael

[Heliodorus]

Well my point in saying I was a tanker was simply to steer people away from having to ask me if I knew things like overwatch, hull down, etc. I was simply trying to distance myself from a first time tactical game player.

I found the first CM very tactically realistic, and so far I have no real problem with tactical realism in CM2. I'd prefer to stay out of the ruckus about the game as I have less than 20 hours with it so far, and it generally makes me happy (although I was using recon-by-exploding-tank, which is hard for a former tanker to see the results of...)

If I may get back to something I'm trying to learn, I'm really unclear, then, about the C2 roles of company (and higher) HQ types, their XOs (and support teams, and how those two differ), and how best to maximize my C2 effectiveness. That's a very new concept to this edition for me.

Elsewise, I shall take it slower, and break up squads. I think because I was used to the CM1 orders-delay, which is now gone, that I gave long complicated orders and tried not to deviate from them much (and I kept trying to slide my waypoints ever so slightly between turns, which is also gone since delay is gone, I guess).

Last question (for this post): I haven't opened the editor yet, but is it fairly simple to figure out how to update the times of the scenarios? As I learn the game, I'd rather slow it way down.

Thanks for all the helpful pointers.

[Wreck]

is it fairly simple to figure out how to update the times of the scenarios?

Yes.

Start scenario editor.

"Load". Select the scenario you want to change.

select "Data" button.

change "Length of Battle" -- it's an option menu

"Save".

[slysniper]

Hey, as a old Marine Sniper, which gave me the ability to take many training courses of my choice.

I have learned more about tactics playing these type of games than I ever did in my years of service in the real world.

So I do not think RL military exspearence is a

event in ones life that makes them a good tactical mastermind, it just helps to provide them with tools that they might grasp and use. Face it, it is a art and skill combined, along with having to emplement it within the limits of the game.

Everyone is not going to optain that, and for many it comes with lots of learning by hard knocks

[c3k]

Well my point in saying I was a tanker was simply to steer people away from having to ask me if I knew things like overwatch, hull down, etc. I was simply trying to distance myself from a first time tactical game player.

I found the first CM very tactically realistic, and so far I have no real problem with tactical realism in CM2. I'd prefer to stay out of the ruckus about the game as I have less than 20 hours with it so far, and it generally makes me happy (although I was using recon-by-exploding-tank, which is hard for a former tanker to see the results of...)

If I may get back to something I'm trying to learn, I'm really unclear, then, about the C2 roles of company (and higher) HQ types, their XOs (and support teams, and how those two differ), and how best to maximize my C2 effectiveness. That's a very new concept to this edition for me.

Elsewise, I shall take it slower, and break up squads. I think because I was used to the CM1 orders-delay, which is now gone, that I gave long complicated orders and tried not to deviate from them much (and I kept trying to slide my waypoints ever so slightly between turns, which is also gone since delay is gone, I guess).

Last question (for this post): I haven't opened the editor yet, but is it fairly simple to figure out how to update the times of the scenarios? As I learn the game, I'd rather slow it way down.

Thanks for all the helpful pointers.

C2: look at your unit's user interface. (Sorry, no time for pretty screenshots.) On the lower left side of the interface, the game shows the chain of command. If there are any red 'x's there, then that 's where the chain is broken. Under the suppression meter is the unit's immediate chain of command. For a squad, it's the platoon HQ. They need something there. A mouth, an eye, a small figure, a radio. Something. That shows HOW they're in command. An eye and mouth are best. Use the manual to see what I mean.

If it's in command, then other units can gain info from it. If it's out of command, then only you, the player, gain info from it.

XO? Well, that's a big forum topic. They seem to do best as medics. Do a search. Experiment with them. They may have some sort of command and control function. I haven't found it, yet, if they do.

Hope this helps.

Ken

[akd]

XOs will form a new HQ if the HQ unit is destroyed. Pretty useful when it happens.

[slysniper]

They may have some sort of command and control function. I haven't found it, yet, if they do.

They do, get your commander killed and then they take over. But since he is normally safe with most players keeping him out of danger, the XO is not likely going to be needed.

[Wodin]

I just want to say thank you to the OP. The tile to your thread is a perfect way to get a good response, unlike other threads in the past that can just get peoples backs up.

So thanks mate, ask as many questions as you want and keep practicing. Over on the CMSF forum is a tips and tactics thread with loads of great posts that are relevant to CMBN aswell. It helped me alot when I was learning CMSF.

I still find the game extremely challenging and there are some things that could be really useful that aren't there (more order choices like cover arc armour). Still there are tips that can help alleviate some issues.

Hope you get the hang of ti.

Enjoy.

[Heliodorus]

Okay, back to a C2 question.

I have a company of infantry.

2.Platoon has 4.squad (MMG) that is the only unit I have that can see any other unit.

4.Squad can see a Pak38 (there are no other targets or "?" on the map at all right now).

4.Squad is in C2 to the 2.Platoon HQ judging by the C2 icons of eyeball and shout (I think it's to that HQ, but it might not be), which is off in a house about 60m away.

Immediately adjacent to the 4.squad MMG unit is A.company HQ (to which 2.Platoon belongs).

The 4.squad shows a break in command as follows:

4.squad shows red to 2.Platoon HQ

4.squad shows red to A.company HQ

2.Platoon HQ shows red to A.company HQ

It would seem that the building that 2.Platoon HQ occupies is sufficient to block LOS to the A.Company HQ. I would take a screenshot, but when I lay down the contents into Paint it shows up as a black picture of my windows desktop, so there must be some catch to this.

Here is what I don't understand:

Why does the 4.squad show C2 with it's platoon HQ (by icon) but the chain-of-command section of the unit display shows a break to 2.platoon HQ?

How can 4.squad be in command if the display shows red X?

To a lesser extent, what is up between 4.squad and A.company HQ? Why is that chain-of-command red if literally the A.company HQ is adjacent to the 4.squad?

I would ask why A.company HQ can't see/shout at 2.platoon HQ, because it seems to me that if the 4.squad has shout and visibility to its platoon HQ, then the A.company should have the exact same shout and visibility issue, since they are literally right next to one another. (In this case, I think the 2.platoon HQ is too far into the building along the sight line that the A.company HQ traces, but the 4.squad traces almost the exact same LOS to the platoon HQ.)

It's weird.

[Erwin]

Unfortunately in Campaigns, if you lose a Platoon HQ, neither the XO nor the company CO will provide C2 in that or subsequent battles. Nor will the KIA Platoon HQ be replaced. So, if you are playing a campaign be warned...

[akd]

Okay, back to a C2 question.

I have a company of infantry.

2.Platoon has 4.squad (MMG) that is the only unit I have that can see any other unit.

4.Squad can see a Pak38 (there are no other targets or "?" on the map at all right now).

4.Squad is in C2 to the 2.Platoon HQ judging by the C2 icons of eyeball and shout (I think it's to that HQ, but it might not be), which is off in a house about 60m away.

Immediately adjacent to the 4.squad MMG unit is A.company HQ (to which 2.Platoon belongs).

The 4.squad shows a break in command as follows:

4.squad shows red to 2.Platoon HQ

4.squad shows red to A.company HQ

2.Platoon HQ shows red to A.company HQ

It would seem that the building that 2.Platoon HQ occupies is sufficient to block LOS to the A.Company HQ. I would take a screenshot, but when I lay down the contents into Paint it shows up as a black picture of my windows desktop, so there must be some catch to this.

Here is what I don't understand:

Why does the 4.squad show C2 with it's platoon HQ (by icon) but the chain-of-command section of the unit display shows a break to 2.platoon HQ?

How can 4.squad be in command if the display shows red X?

To a lesser extent, what is up between 4.squad and A.company HQ? Why is that chain-of-command red if literally the A.company HQ is adjacent to the 4.squad?

I would ask why A.company HQ can't see/shout at 2.platoon HQ, because it seems to me that if the 4.squad has shout and visibility to its platoon HQ, then the A.company should have the exact same shout and visibility issue, since they are literally right next to one another. (In this case, I think the 2.platoon HQ is too far into the building along the sight line that the A.company HQ traces, but the 4.squad traces almost the exact same LOS to the platoon HQ.)

It's weird.

Confusion results from misinterpretation of the chain of command display in the far lower left. This displays the status of the selected unit's normal chain of command. It is a chain, not a tree. It does not show the selected unit's link to each of the listed HQs, it shows the selected unit's link to its own HQ (first HQ in the list), that HQ's link to its superior HQ, and so own.

So in your above example, we can tell from the chain of command display that the selected squad is not in contact with its own HQ because of the red X next to the first HQ in the chain (Platoon HQ). We can also tell that the platoon HQ is out of contact with the Company HQ because the next link up is also red. You know immediately that to restore the normal chain of command, both the selected squad and the platoon HQ must be brought back into contact with their respective HQs.

However, your squad still shows "in command" status by voice/visual icons. This is because a unit that is out of contact with its own HQ can benefit from command by a superior HQ in its own chain of command, but only within voice/visual command range. Your squad is under temporary command from the adjacent Company HQ. Unfortunately, there is no visual indication of where this link comes from in the interface. You just have to know that if a selected unit shows a red X next to its immediate superior HQ (first in the chain of command display) but also shows "in command" icons that it must be under command from the nearest superior HQ.

[Mad Mike]

Confusion results from misinterpretation of the chain of command display in the far lower left. This displays the status of the selected unit's normal chain of command. It is a chain, not a tree. It does not show the selected unit's link to each of the listed HQs, it shows the selected unit's link to its own HQ (first HQ in the list), that HQ's link to its superior HQ, and so own.

So in your above example, we can tell from the chain of command display that the selected squad is not in contact with its own HQ because of the red X next to the first HQ in the chain (Platoon HQ). We can also tell that the platoon HQ is out of contact with the Company HQ because the next link up is also red. You know immediately that to restore the normal chain of command, both the selected squad and the platoon HQ must be brought back into contact with their respective HQs.

However, your squad still shows "in command" status by voice/visual icons. This is because a unit that is out of contact with its own HQ can benefit from command by a superior HQ in its own chain of command, but only within voice/visual command range. Your squad is under temporary command from the adjacent Company HQ. Unfortunately, there is no visual indication of where this link comes from in the interface. You just have to know that if a selected unit shows a red X next to its immediate superior HQ (first in the chain of command display) but also shows "in command" icons that it must be under command from the nearest superior HQ.

Good explanation, akd.

BFC could put this in the manual, if they ever going to update it (like they did for CMSF).

[c3k]

Deleted. Why? Because I tested it and I was wrong.

Ken

(Hmm, the test did not support my contention. Oops.)

[John1966]

Pleasantly Shaded Wood (cracked) and

A Delaying Action

SPOILER!

Only given this thread a bit of a glance so apologies if anyone has already mentioned this but I'd suggest trying some different scenarios. Those two are a funny pair as one the you've cracked is very easy (not to take anything away from the fact that you've beaten it) and the one you're getting frustrated with is, IIRC, an absolute beast. Totally unfair. It was ages ago I played it but when I got to the end and saw the German defences I remember thinking "how was I supposed to beat that?" Over the entire scenario I failed to spot most of the big AT guns. Those Shermans were just brewing up and there was nothing I could do about it. You have to commit them (or so you think) as crossing an open field with barbed wire when the scenario designer as cleverly placed a railroad track to prevent you from setting up a base of fire leaves you little other options. When I nailed the 88s at the front with a sneaky HQ unit calling in arty I thought I'd nailed it. Then it gets worse and worse. You don't even outnumber the defenders to any significant degree. And they have more AT guns than you have tanks. And I think an equal number of those are 88s (possibly more). I suspect it would be a frustrating bloodbath IRL. Seriously, leave it alone unless you're feeling masochistic. Certainly not one to learn the game with.

(I hope he's thinking of the right scenario - Ed)

[Heliodorus]

Confusion results from misinterpretation of the chain of command display in the far lower left. This displays the status of the selected unit's normal chain of command. It is a chain, not a tree. It does not show the selected unit's link to each of the listed HQs, it shows the selected unit's link to its own HQ (first HQ in the list), that HQ's link to its superior HQ, and so own.

So in your above example, we can tell from the chain of command display that the selected squad is not in contact with its own HQ because of the red X next to the first HQ in the chain (Platoon HQ). We can also tell that the platoon HQ is out of contact with the Company HQ because the next link up is also red. You know immediately that to restore the normal chain of command, both the selected squad and the platoon HQ must be brought back into contact with their respective HQs.

However, your squad still shows "in command" status by voice/visual icons. This is because a unit that is out of contact with its own HQ can benefit from command by a superior HQ in its own chain of command, but only within voice/visual command range. Your squad is under temporary command from the adjacent Company HQ. Unfortunately, there is no visual indication of where this link comes from in the interface. You just have to know that if a selected unit shows a red X next to its immediate superior HQ (first in the chain of command display) but also shows "in command" icons that it must be under command from the nearest superior HQ.

Perfectly clear explanation, and I've benefited greatly from it. Thank you very much.

That is sort of what I thought was happening; that 4.squad was actually in command via A.Company, irrespective of the problem between 4.squad and 2.platoon, and separately, 2.platoon and A.company. But I didn't want to assume.

This system of benefiting from your parent's parent is what I would have hoped for, actually (and seems very realistic given what I saw of warfare first-hand).

I'm not really sure overall what the benefit of C2 is in terms of spotting. I understand that when 1.squad sees a confirmed enemy for the first time, only he knows where it is. And I understand that he can pass up information to his chain of command (which can then be dispersed via the C2 chain to other friendly units). But from a practical sense, if you can't see it yourself, you can't shoot it (or call arty on it), so all of that tangential relaying of information would seem to me to be unhelpful: until you are in a spot to physically see a that unit's location, you can't shoot at it. If you can see the location, even if you can't confirm the enemy unit yourself (but someone else can), for game purposes, I can target the space and it will suppress and do damage. So I don't understand the advantage of passing on information about targets to other units that can't see them. What can units do if they learn about targets they can't see?

Finally (this round), does an HQ's leadership value help his subordinates (that are in the C2) with anything more than 'morale checks' for lack of a better term?

I'm thinking Advanced Squad Leader here, and wondering if the leadership ratings in CM have any parallels.