Weird stuff in CM. Why is CM great?

[Zimtstern]

I recently saw some videos about CM praising it highly for it realism and tactical gameplay so I gave it a shot. There I noticed some strange behaviour:

 

Spotting seems to be somewhat broken. Units more than once dont see things right in front of them even when others right next to them or in worse positions can see them.

Horrible marksmenship on all ranges. It almost seems like my units find it more important to get many shots close enough to the enemy than actually putting them in danger of getting hit. Especially on closest ranges this leads to spectacullar fireworks with slow conclusions looking more often than not really funny.

When units get suppressed their accurcy starts to drop greatly which isnt strange. Strange is that this goes even for mounted weapons which should be a stable firing platform and battle hardend troops which should have engrained that their own fire is their best protection.

Heavy suppression leads to cowering. Apparently CM simulates micro-terrain even when not shown which would explain why someone would cower in the open but again its strange why battle hardend troops would cower instead of merely ducking in cover and without appropiate cover return fire to protect themself.

Units can get pinned in situations where it doesnt make sense. If I have a covered line of retreat but cant move because of enemy fire something not right.

 

Can someone enlighten me whats the matter with that? For now I cannot see a realistic combat simulation but simply a game thats inspired by reality but artifically forces their ways of approach on you which are again inspired by reality but fails to let the game naturally conclude to them by trying to portray reality. Together with its aged game design but still very high pricing that could make you cry I dont see why this game is so praised.

[Davis06]

Good points.  Yeah, the suppression and cowering mechanics seem like they may not be entirely accurate.  I also am not completely satisfied with how 'to the death' many AI (both TAC-AI and Scenarios) will hold their ground instead of retreat or surrender en mass. 

However, the your marksmanship point may be more accurate than it would seem.  Numerous battlefield studies have confirmed how many rounds are expended per WIA and KIA, and it's A LOT.  It may stem also from the physiological reluctance to kill as is discussed in "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.  Not as much small arms combat has been about killing as it has been about driving the ENY away or compelling them to surrender.  I do not find the inaccuracy un-realistic b/c of these considerations.

I have this game as my choice of simulation to practice on b/c on the whole it still seems more closely realistic than all else so far.  When you do put your troops into a bad position you are punished extremely quickly and costly.  There's a weird mix of macro leading the bigger fight, then getting down into micro-management of each unit that teaches good lessons on terrain understanding, fire control measures, setting conditions for the battle, experiencing optics and engagement ranges that are closely approximate to the real thing.  I wish they could upgrade the TAC-AI to be better, but it also forces you to understand what each fireteam and squad leader should be thinking and communicating amongst the team.

What do you think?  Does any of this make sense, or still not quite what you're asking for?

[chuckdyke]

15 minutes ago, Davis06 said:

What do you think? 

Overdoing the macro side is part of the problem. You fight against the AI not a real battle. Example don't plot a LOF on a full contact unless there are two full contacts. Talking about LOF, your squad has full contact. You better split them, and you see out of three teams only one has the full contact. Experience is the best teacher and let the TacAI do its job and you won't be disappointed.  

Edited February 13, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Glubokii Boy]

On 10/14/2021 at 1:11 PM, Zimtstern said:

Together with its aged game design but still very high pricing that could make you cry I dont see why this game is so praised.

Combat mission has its flaws but what other tactical games handle these things better in your oppinion ?

I can think of NONE ...

[Redwolf]

31 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:

Combat mission has its flaws but what other tactical games handle these things better in your oppinion ?

I can think of NONE ...

TacOps4.

[Redwolf]

On 10/14/2021 at 7:11 AM, Zimtstern said:

Units can get pinned in situations where it doesnt make sense. If I have a covered line of retreat but cant move because of enemy fire something not right.

Yeah, this is bothering, especially with trenches. If you have a network of trenches reaching to the rear you can still not move in them under (outside) fire.

[chuckdyke]

Weird a 75 mm shell goes first through the engine block, crew and passengers' compartment before anybody is wounded or dead. The AI plans need some Standard Operations Procedure. Just waiting on the top of the hill. I am afraid once again it is like shooting cattle in the paddock. This has nothing to do with the person who designed the scenario, nothing but kudos to him or her. After 20 minutes funny things are happening, and the editor just can't deal with human attack plans. 

 

PS the Sherman spotted just fine, he was forewarned and had the tentative contact before he moved to contact (Hunt). 

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Vacillator]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

75 mm shell goes first through the engine block, crew and passengers' compartment before anybody is wounded or dead

It did however seem to raise their helmets off their heads just before they were vapourised? 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

It did however seem to raise their helmets off their heads just before they were vapourised? 

Who is writing the scripts for the animations? Something for physics class pressure comes out of their nose and ears. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Sgt.Squarehead]

15 hours ago, Davis06 said:

It may stem also from the physiological reluctance to kill as is discussed in "On Killing" by Dave Grossman.  Not as much small arms combat has been about killing as it has been about driving the ENY away or compelling them to surrender.  I do not find the inaccuracy un-realistic b/c of these considerations.

Good to see this point raised.

15 hours ago, Davis06 said:

I also am not completely satisfied with how 'to the death' many AI (both TAC-AI and Scenarios) will hold their ground instead of retreat or surrender en mass.

IMHO CM is one of the very few games that actually can do this.

However it requires deliberate intent in the scenario design process to achieve it.....I suspect that most scenarios are structured such that the enemy will put up a decent fight simply because the majority of casual gamers might find an enemy that regularly surrenders en-masse a bit dull.

But it can be done.

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead

[The_Capt]

Why is CM great?  Good question to be honest.  But maybe the question should be "why is CM great, for me?"  Clearly there is a gaming population out there that love the franchise or it would have gone out of business years ago.

CM has its quirks and every game is an abstraction so I guess it all comes down to what gaming experience the player is looking for, and enjoys.  Lotta wargames out there that span the old school hex based, turn based "chess with guns", to the RTS click-heavy affairs.  CM, and a few other titles, kind fall right in the middle of the spectrum [aside: been seeing comments on micro-management in CM, yeesh try playing Steel Divisions 2].  It has a mid-level pace (WEGO slowest, RT quickest), low-tactical level scale (Bn and below for the most part). 

The issues that get raised in CM, spotting and unit behaviour tend to get the most ink, when these come up the first question we ask ourselves in the back "is this a feature or a bug".   First off, players need to re-visit "what they think should happen".  Pre-conceived notions drive a lot of the negative feedback which is to be expected and frankly if a player really does not like enough of them then one has to ask if "CM is for you?"  That said, we have a lot of veterans in the back room -the last 20 years has provided plenty of them- so when we analyze combat behaviour we do have people who can carry it over to RL.  So when a player asks:

On 10/14/2021 at 7:11 AM, Zimtstern said:

Strange is that this goes even for mounted weapons which should be a stable firing platform and battle hardend troops which should have engrained that their own fire is their best protection.

I get the question but I can also tell that this person has never actually had effective fire pointed at them.  Green inexperienced troops may believe this and they do not live long enough to become "battle hardened".   An MG in a turret is an exposed position and once you start taking fire from multiple directions and incoming is bouncing off around you, battle hardened troops duck...fast.  Why?  Because at this point someone else's fire is all that will save you; veterans are veterans because they know when they are suppressed and know what to do.  There are times when you get off the X and shoot your way out and then there are times to get your head down and call for support, try very hard to avoid situations that lead to that first one.

CM has a lot of what I call "chaos features", at a micro level individual behaviour follows a set of standard rules but embedded in that is a level of chaos.  Units will cower at odd times, miss something right in front of them (trust me this happens in RL all the time) run away or not run away.  This chaos is the essence of tactical warfare. Atypical behaviour is the norm as combat is an atypical environment.  People crack, shock and fear have really strange effects.  It is that chaos that makes the game realistic.  I often say that many players do not want full "realism" because if they find the game frustrating at times now...

Why is CM great for me?  Well, I do enjoy the realistic tactical level but what always hooks me are the micro-dramas that pull one in.  That last Dragon missile, holding off that last T64, a crew, down to pistols, that hold out for just one more minute and that stupid APC that zigged when I told it to zag.  But every devotee to the brand probably has their own reason and hopefully the OP can find his/her own, if not, well then keep wargaming at least and thanks for trying.   

Edited February 14, 2022 by The_Capt

[Simcoe]

CM is great because it’s the closest you can get to seeing what actual combat looks like from the battalion on down. You could play Arma but then you have to deal with other people wait forever to get things organized. 
 

Combat Mission is kind of like a Van Gogh painting. If you look closely it’s just a bunch of dots that don’t make sense, and they don’t look very aesthetically pleasing but once you zoom out you start to see a cohesive picture. Once you accept the jank, it only gets better.

[BornGinger]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

CM has a lot of what I call "chaos features", at a micro level individual behaviour follows a set of standard rules but embedded in that is a level of chaos.  Units will cower at odd times, miss something right in front of them (trust me this happens in RL all the time) run away or not run away.

A long time ago I was playing an H2H game against buckycat,or what (s)he is called, and had almost a whole squad wiped out. The only survivor was cowering for a while and was now in a state of he equivalent of horrified. To my surprise he stood up and ran forward, stopped to shoot and ran forward again and stopped to shoot just to get killed.

I don't know whether him standing up and attacking the enemy was a point of soft factor bravery which goes on behind the curtains or whether it was a point of the "run for the hills but do it in the wrong direction".

But I agree whith what was said earlier about troops getting frightened a bit too easily, especially when small arms fire is shooting at a tank or other armoured vehicles.

[Commanderski]

 Some of the things you see if you look close enough are Medal of Honor, Iron Cross. Victoria Cross and Hero of Soviet Union actions. It's pretty amazing sometimes and can be pretty discouraging at times depending on which side of that action you're on.

[MikeyD]

Ah, another whinefest. I didn't get my invitation. I should have brought a cheese plate.

[Phantom Captain]

1 hour ago, Commanderski said:

 Some of the things you see if you look close enough are Medal of Honor, Iron Cross. Victoria Cross and Hero of Soviet Union actions. It's pretty amazing sometimes and can be pretty discouraging at times depending on which side of that action you're on.

This!  I think a lot of what makes CM so great is all the micro stories that happen over the course of a battle and how you really fill in the lines in your head on what's going on.  It can be more immersive than any other game I have ever played.  In a recent PBEM, this exact thing was occurring for both me and my opponent simultaneously as we did discuss it after the fact.  It was one of those moments where I had a Russian 3 man recon team start to tangle it up with a Ukrainian infantry team cresting a ridge and advancing.  My recon team opens up on them and took out a couple men.  The Ukrainians, in shock, begin to fire back and hit one of my team.  I displace back out of the building I am hiding in and take up a new position.  A minute later the Ukrainians again press forward only to engage with my team again, and we both take another casualty.  This little running gunfight went on for five minutes or so as the the two teams would displace and continue hunting each other. Both teams raging that the enemy had hit their teammates!  Eventually, my last surviving man, wounded even, made a dash back to safety and survived.

These little incidents and how they develop and play out really make CM different than anything else.  And having the ability to go back and watch each one minute of battle play out from so many different perspectives as many times as you want, game changer.  

Regardless of all the whinging (that has been going on forever, mind you) I am with @The_Capt in that for most of us, CM is great because of all of these little detail things that can't be found anywhere else.  There really is nothing else even remotely close in my opinion.  No other game creates the tension and nervousness as you wait for a PBEM turn to see how that last minute and your decisions played out!

Edited February 14, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

another whinefest

31 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

Regardless of all the whinging

I'm not sure this thread is a whinefest or even has that much whinging?  Most here love the game and perhaps are just reporting some of the oddities that happen now and then.  It's not a big thing, is it?  I imagine none of the above will stop any of us playing the game, certainly not me.

I'll now await the shooting down in flames ...

[Phantom Captain]

6 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

I'm not sure this thread is a whinefest or even has that much whinging?  Most here love the game and perhaps are just reporting some of the oddities that happen now and then.  It's not a big thing, is it?  I imagine none of the above will stop any of us playing the game, certainly not me.

I'll now await the shooting down in flames ...

Haha!  Not at all!  I just meant the general complaints that have been around forever about spotting and soldiers breaking, etc.  I am of the camp that feels that those who do complain about it are just doing it because they also love the game just as much and just want it to be better.  To me, I can always abstract weirdness in the game on those issues.

There is a reason we have such common phrases in usage as "C'est la guerre!"

Edited February 14, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[Vacillator]

I'm totally with you on that.  While there is always room for improvement, what we have is pretty good and only every now and again do we see something that raises an eyebrow.  The good things far outweigh any issues.  That's my opinion anyway.

Now bring on the improvements .

[Thewood1]

4 hours ago, Simcoe said:

You could play Arma but then you have to deal with other people wait forever to get things organized. 

Some people consider that a feature.

[Thewood1]

4 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Combat Mission is kind of like a Van Gogh painting. If you look closely it’s just a bunch of dots that don’t make sense, and they don’t look very aesthetically pleasing but once you zoom out you start to see a cohesive picture. Once you accept the jank, it only gets better.

This is one of the best descriptions of games like this.

[womble]

2 hours ago, Commanderski said:

 Some of the things you see if you look close enough are Medal of Honor, Iron Cross. Victoria Cross and Hero of Soviet Union actions. It's pretty amazing sometimes and can be pretty discouraging at times depending on which side of that action you're on.

Damn straight. I shan't forget (though the details will get fuzzier) the survivor of a german AT team (not Shreck) who had a couple of Greyhounds, a score of infantry and a machine gun to his name by the end of the fight. In one, one minute turn, he took out the MG and half his infantry kills, playing now-you-see-me-now-you-don't in and out of a hedgerow's gaps, with his MP40, grenades and demo charge...

[Vanir Ausf B]

22 hours ago, Redwolf said:

TacOps4.

Nah. TacOps is a pure weapons platform tactical simulator. Which is fine, but it doesn't even try to model the human factor.

[BFCElvis]

26 minutes ago, Phantom Captain said:

Haha!  Not at all!  I just meant the general complaints that have been around forever about spotting and soldiers breaking, etc.  I am of the camp that feels that those who do complain about it are just doing it because they also love the game just as much and just want it to be better.  To me, I can always abstract weirdness in the game on those issues.

There is a reason we have such common phrases in usage as "C'est la guerre!"

You hit the nail right on the head, at least for me. And @The_Capttouched on it as well. If a soldier doesn't spot a Sherman 100m away I think of it as heat of battle/fog of war. It doesn't take much of an imagination for me to think that in the confusion of battle soldiers don't see everything. I've had that attitude since CMBO. It's a feature, not a bug.

I also agree with @Vacillatorthat  this thread isn't a whinefest. Sometimes they highlight things that should be of legitimate concern. And, sometimes, the replies to comments like the first 2 posts might give them something to consider. A way to look at it that they hadn't considered before.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

This is a lotta sugar for nickel.

Especially from 3 months ago...