My valuation of CMBN

[johanr]

I need to play CM again I feel, but I need to unload some grievances I have about CMBN before I feel I can give CM a new chance.

CMBN has a great game engine, I think, but too many missions dissapointed me. I felt the time for completing many missions were so short that there were no time for delicacies, like outflanking defenders. Also there were sometimes that the initial set up zone or the zone where reinforcments come to got under fire immediately, which I have very little tolerance for.

Some missions were great though and was satisfying to play.

[Solicitor]

Also there were sometimes that the initial set up zone or the zone where reinforcments come to got under fire immediately, which I have very little tolerance for.

Historically the step-off line for an attack frequently was under enemy fire. WWII reality.

[johanr]

Historically the step-off line for an attack frequently was under enemy fire. WWII reality.

Good information, now I can appreciate that part of the game because it was a reality.

[sburke]

Good information, now I can appreciate that part of the game because it was a reality.

LOL way too positive! I still cringe regardless of knowing the reality watching my guys get pummeled from the start. I guess though it is no different than doing the Omaha beach landing, but at least you start KNOWING you are in for a bloodbath. My first time playing school of hardknocks was tough. All seemed to be rolling along fine and then...

[YankeeDog]

LOL. Yeah, I think there was a bit of sarcasm intended there.

Realism aside, I am generally not a fan of scenarios that force you to deploy your forces within direct LOS of the enemy. Setup zones are inherently an abstraction, and it seems very odd to me to camp my forces out in full view of the enemy.

With this said, I think it's fair game for the scenario designer to include areas within the setup zone that might be under enemy observation and fire, as long as the player has other options for a more covered deployment elsewhere in the setup zone. Part of tactics is choosing an intelligent setup, and if you start your forces camped out on top of a bare ridgeline, or at the head of a long, straight section of road with LOS deep into the enemy held areas of the map, you shouldn't be surprised if they get hit by artillery in the early going.

[Pak40]

CMBN has a great game engine, I think, but too many missions dissapointed me. I felt the time for completing many missions were so short that there were no time for delicacies, like outflanking defenders.

The vast majority of battles that I've played, including ones in campaigns, have had ample time to complete the objectives. This includes probing, shifting forces, artillery missions, and the main attack. It was a learning process for me, but I got better at troop management the more I played. I admit, it is sometimes a close call if you're playing WeGo. Playing in Real Time will let you move your units quicker but it's a trade off because you lose the ability to rewind.

I hate to bring up that dreaded "R" word again, but it was a reality that many units could not completed their mission in the time that it was expected.

Also there were sometimes that the initial set up zone or the zone where reinforcments come to got under fire immediately, which I have very little tolerance for.

This is annoying but I've only had 1 or 2 instances of this that I can recall. Unless the scenario designer is trying to simulate an ambush situation then this should not happen.

[johanr]

LOL. Yeah, I think there was a bit of sarcasm intended there.

That which you are commenting on popped up in my mind when I wrote, but I thought, "appreciate as in 'appreciate the challenge of getting troops to a safer spot'". I see that it could be interpreted the way you pointed out. English is not my first language, perhaps that has something to do with how I expressed myself.

Regarding the set time, in some missions in "R" a rapidly completed mission is vital, like when you want to encircle an enemy division before they get out or to keep up the preassure on retreating forces to prevent them from reorganizing. That is a challenge I guess I could enjoy if the circumstances were mentioned in the mission briefing.

[altipueri]

@johanr

Your English is excellent. Gold star - go to the top of the class.

Your comments on missions starting with you under fire before you do anything are something I agree with.

The nearest I had to this was in 1982 in Rio de Janeiro - sharing an apartment with an ex-US Marine. He kicked open my bedroom door early in the morning, threw his old army boots at my head and shouted "Put these on Altipueri, and walk south. You're at war!"

[sburke]

That which you are commenting on popped up in my mind when I wrote, but I thought, "appreciate as in 'appreciate the challenge of getting troops to a safer spot'". I see that it could be interpreted the way you pointed out. English is not my first language, perhaps that has something to do with how I expressed myself.

Regarding the set time, in some missions in "R" a rapidly completed mission is vital, like when you want to encircle an enemy division before they get out or to keep up the preassure on retreating forces to prevent them from reorganizing. That is a challenge I guess I could enjoy if the circumstances were mentioned in the mission briefing.

Don't sweat it. There is a lot of sarcasm on this forum, we come to expect it.

Well we certainly don't have to experience every worst case scenario in every battle, but mentioning it in the briefing kind of prepares you for something the designer may want you unprepared for. Having it once in a while in a scenario can be interesting even enjoyable if the challenge created makes for a good game, but it isn't something I'd want to go through a lot. As it is the variety of stuff out there is pretty nice and folks are cranking out new material pretty quick. I was away for about 16 days and got home to I think 19 downloads between mods and scenarios.

[Fat Dave]

Ha! I like this story Altipueri. All elaboration appreciated.

[altipueri]

Ha! I like this story Altipueri. All elaboration appreciated.

He, being a diligent hard worker, had got up early and heard the radio news about the Argentine invasion of the Falklands; and he decided that I should go and liberate them before anybody else got the chance!

[johanr]

The nearest I had to this was in 1982 in Rio de Janeiro - sharing an apartment with an ex-US Marine. He kicked open my bedroom door early in the morning, threw his old army boots at my head and shouted "Put these on Altipueri, and walk south. You're at war!"

I too like that story.

[Cymru]

I have no problem with my troops being spotted immediately, as long as this is made clear in the briefing. In most real life cases, a commander will have a very good idea of which locations can be seen by the enemy, and can make the necessary adjustments. Ideally there could be another overlay color in the set-up region to reflect this.

[CM1fan]

I need to play CM again I feel, but I need to unload some grievances I have about CMBN before I feel I can give CM a new chance.

CMBN has a great game engine, I think, but too many missions dissapointed me. I felt the time for completing many missions were so short that there were no time for delicacies, like outflanking defenders. Also there were sometimes that the initial set up zone or the zone where reinforcments come to got under fire immediately, which I have very little tolerance for.

Some missions were great though and was satisfying to play.

It may seem that missions are too short to accomplish the required objectives, but the time clock doesn't stop at 0:00. The clock just turns red and starts to count up. I haven't seen a scenario end because time ran out. My opponents and I normally agree on a cease fire or one side's surrender when there seemed no point in continuing.

[womble]

It may seem that missions are too short to accomplish the required objectives, but the time clock doesn't stop at 0:00. The clock just turns red and starts to count up. I haven't seen a scenario end because time ran out. My opponents and I normally agree on a cease fire or one side's surrender when there seemed no point in continuing.

This is only true, AIUI, if the scenario has a variable endpoint. IIRC, the designer can set a limit on how long the variable time can possibly be. This is to discourage gamey VL rushing, where you dash everything for the "flag" in the dying minutes in order to have something contesting it at 00:00; if there's the possiblitiy of the opposition having another 5-10 minutes to kill off your "forlorn hope", it's not so possible to exploit the game's boundaries.