CMBB Question regarding tactics

[Mannheim Tanker]

Two years ago, Steve wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The difference in tactical AI would be much more pronounced in games taking place in early war battles (Poland, France, North Africa) before the Allies learned how to fight the Germans by, essentially, copying them. The Eastern Front is even more diversified, with BOTH sides changing tactics year after year. That is going to be a real challenge to design and code for sure!<hr></blockquote>

This is from http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000024

Since I know that BTS is really busy working on CMBB, I thought I'd ask the community this. Will there be changes in tactics as mentioned in the link above (2 years ago!)?

TIA

[ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]</p>

[WWB]

The short answer is that the Germans developed tactical tank/infantry/arty coordination years before everyone else. By 1944 (ie CMBO), the western allies (at least) had developed a similar level of coordination, meaning TAC AIs could be similar. The long answers should be along any second now.

WWB

[Schrullenhaft]

From CMBO to CMBB there will be quite a few changes with C&C and vehicular morale. The lack of radios for Soviet AFVs in the early part of the war, different spotting capability in a buttoned status depending on cupola vision, etc. I'm not sure if some of these factors will change as the war progresses, but I'd guess that a T-34/85 will more likely have a radio than a BT-7, etc. So there will be some definite modelling of the shortcomings for both sides.

The level of experience will also limit the types of commands and how well they're performed (i.e. - Conscripts can 'Human Wave', while more experienced troops can 'Assault') - to a stronger degree than what is modelled in CMBO.

Most tactics however are left to the player, who will have to adjust his play depending on the limitations of his force. There won't be any hard-coded nationality qualifiers for any characteristics or behavior, so no hard-coded differences between early-war Soviets and late-war Soviets. The closest representation of a 'national modifier' is the modelling of systems in place (communication, artillery delay, etc.).

[The Commissar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

The short answer is that the Germans developed tactical tank/infantry/arty coordination years before everyone else. By 1944 (ie CMBO), the western allies (at least) had developed a similar level of coordination, meaning TAC AIs could be similar. The long answers should be along any second now.

WWB<hr></blockquote>

Interestingly enough, while the Germans have been traditionally labeled as the first country to use such tank/inf/arty strategies, the Soviets were actually the first ones to use them in Manchuria. Too bad they seem to have forgotten them 2 years later.

[Porajkl]

You speak about the game that will come out in about 4 months. And you speak about tactics in that game?!? How? Isn't that a bit odddddd? Nobody knows how the game will be played... Like all previews from magazines... All based on presumptions... Is it really worth the time ?

[Mannheim Tanker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Porajkl:

You speak about the game that will come out in about 4 months. And you speak about tactics in that game?!? How? Isn't that a bit odddddd? Nobody knows how the game will be played... Like all previews from magazines... All based on presumptions... Is it really worth the time ?<hr></blockquote>

I think you are a bit confused. I was referring to BTS introducing Nationality modifiers in some way to the TacAI.

And yes - it is worth the time, so go roll your eyes at someone else.

[Vanir Ausf B]

My guess would be NO. More recently BTS has come out strongly against nationality modifiers. Also, coding up a seperate TacAI for different nations and at different perionds in the war would be a huge undertaking (as Steve noted in his post).

That is an interesting quote, however. My guess is that his view has changed over the last 2 years, but it would be interesting to get a comment from the sourse. Unfortunately I think Steve has used up his alloted weekly forum time in the "chicken-wire on British tanks" thread.

Am I the only one counting down the minutes until Tero shows up?

[benpark]

This seems to be a bit of the chicken and the egg (or is it the other way round...?) problem. It seems a foregone conclusion that tactical strategy will have to utilize whatever tools available, and also be shaped by those tools (or lack of them). A "nationality" modification seems unnecessary.

[Sergei]

Well, I surely do hope that a T-34/76 or Tiger I won't use the same behaviour model in 1941/42 as it uses in 1945. Because of technological advancement, the early war state-of-art designs are cheap catches to late war weaponry. If you know what I mean, nudge nudge.

Hmm, when were T-34M41's pulled from service? I'm sure someone here knows.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wwb_99:

The short answer is that the Germans developed tactical tank/infantry/arty coordination years before everyone else. By 1944 (ie CMBO), the western allies (at least) had developed a similar level of coordination, meaning TAC AIs could be similar. The long answers should be along any second now.

<hr></blockquote>

Sorry that is BS.

In fact, the Soviet Union was implementing the same new doctrine as the Germans, even faster and with better tanks to support it (T-34, generally less fuel usage, Christie suspension etc.). The Soviets lost badly in 1941 because of other reasons.

BTW, the most important new point was the coordination of mobile forces with air. And it is partly armoured mechanized forces, not "tank and infantry".

[Mannheim Tanker]

Again, I think many of you are mistaken in your interpretation of the question (e.g. Benpark). I'm not referring to the tactics that will be used by the player. What I'm referring to was discussed eons ago on this board, so maybe some of the other ol' farts out there that remember it can help me out. I believe the answer has already been given (no national modifiers), but here's the question again just in case...

What I'm referring to is differences in the TacAI. For instance, will orders be acted upon differently due to differences in the command and control systems in place, of doctrinal changes. For example, will Soviet infantry exhibit less initiative than German units? If you have a Soviet unit sitting quietly in the woods, would it react differently (without your express orders) to an enemy unit passing by than a German unit (all else being equal, such as unit quality, etc)?

[Schrullenhaft]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>For example, will Soviet infantry exhibit less initiative than German units? If you have a Soviet unit sitting quietly in the woods, would it react differently (without your express orders) to an enemy unit passing by than a German unit (all else being equal, such as unit quality, etc)?<hr></blockquote>

No, I don't think that there'll be any differences between units of different nations with the same quality. If all other factors are the same, I believe that the 'initiative' will remain the same. I think that the only way to change unit behavior/initiative is to modify the unit quality/fitness. This is where the differences will be modelled, not on any sort of national basis - even for the Tac/Strat AI. Man-for-man, if the qualities are the same, then generally they'll perform the same. It then comes down to the scenario/op designer to use the appropriate quality units to simulate the actions of troops at a particular point in the war.

The modelling of equipment and systems/procedures will be a significant differentiator between the antagonists. This will have an effect on both computer and human players since these effects will be modelled in the TacAI - as they are now to a certain extent in CMBO - where for example a PzIII will most likely retreat when confronted by a KV-I due to recognizing it as an extremely formidable opponent, etc.

I think the original quote by Steve above would be more appropriately termed towards the StratAI which makes the larger decisions on the initial deployment of units and something of an overall strategy for the engagement. Will the StratAI be modified for different years of the war and for different opponents ? Most likely not. Some elements of the StratAI have or will be improved, but nothing representing year-to-year doctrinal changes and differences between the opponents.

[Gen-x87H]

The Soviets lost badly in 1941 because of other reasons."

I am reading a book on Barbarossa.

Soviets were in the middle of a reorganization to make it more mechanized when the Germans attacked. Stalin was hoping the Germans would attack in the Spring of 1942. He knew it was coming. I dont really understand why Stalin put so many ridiculous orders on the table. Like they have to be under attack for 4 hours before they can even defend themselves ect........

By the time old Stalin decided that maybe it was time to actually defend the motherland the Soviet front forces were basically in total disarray and did not know what to do. And then couple this with his purges that demoralized the Soviet Army. It appeared that alot of the commanders in the field would not report the true severity of the situation to Moscow out of fear of thier head.

It was a whole bloody mess. We can be thankful Hitler as usual interfered with the front causing many divisions to head south when Moscow was ripe for the picking.

Gen

[The Commissar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Sorry that is BS.

In fact, the Soviet Union was implementing the same new doctrine as the Germans, even faster and with better tanks to support it (T-34, generally less fuel usage, Christie suspension etc.). The Soviets lost badly in 1941 because of other reasons.

<hr></blockquote>

Ahem, redwolf. Find someone else to berrate for his errors! I was here first!

[The Commissar]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

It was a whole bloody mess. We can be thankful Hitler as usual interfered with the front causing many divisions to head south when Moscow was ripe for the picking.

Gen<hr></blockquote>

Due to the lack of anything else to do...I'll pick on this.

The last time someone took Moscow, a certain general named Kutusov said something that I believe applied to WW2, or in fact, any war.

"Moscow is not Russia."

Kutusov willingly abandoned Moscow, bid his time, let his army rebuild and rest, and when Napoleon ran out of patience (and supplies), Kutusov was ready for him.

I always though that if Hitler didn't mess this particular order up, the taking of Moscow wouldn't be as groundbreaking as everyone seems to believe. Moscow, despite having capital status, is still only a city. So Stalin and the staff would have to move their HQ to another town. And didn't Leningrad hold against German siege for months on end? What makes Moscow different (if anything, the people would fight even harder to defend it.)?

Yep, bored, looking for contrasting opinions.