sanman Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Having followed a number of treads from IMC1947 I realize that there are a number a very experienced CMBO players giving good advice and opinions on CMBO, it’s tactics and the war in Europe in general :cool: . Since I am interested in playing (and designing) huge operations and using CMBO to it’s limit I am wondering why there is so little interest in these types of scenarios. I would think it would allow players, especially the more experienced ones, to test their skills and tactics in a new way. Is it because they are more complicated and take more time both per turn and scenario? Or maybe people just like winning at something they are good at. There have been a couple brave souls who are testing my scenarios with me and I think they would agree that they are more difficult than QB or scenarios under 5000 point. These are good players but there is a learning curve especially if you have not played large or huge operations much. You have all the problems of a large battle which must be fought within the context of a huge operation. Also you have to control and coordinate large forces of armor, infantry and artillery plus reinforcements and reserves. Maybe this is to much for people whose main experience is playing smaller op.’s? Whatever the reason I would like to know because these scenarios are REALLY hard to design and test. I am just finishing a huge battle (16,000 plus points per side, 75 turns, ME) but it will be my last if there is no interest. I am not complaining just want to know :confused: . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfedoroff Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I always thought bigger was better until my old Dell (840mhz) had to chunk through the replay video. When it takes longer to crunch the move than to make it, we've gone to far. But if I had a more powerful machine, I might look you up. Sincerely, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Well sanman I am certainly not experienced so you probably aren't even talking to me but thought I'd express my opinion anyway. Hope you don't mind? I believe most people enjoy the game but have time limits due to jobs, family etc and might just not want to get involved in something that could become to involved and time consuming at one setting. Also I think Kenfedorff is correct in that it could be very difficult for a lot of the machines out there. I know I wouldn't be able to handle it with my 750 processor and 32 video card. I have enough with just 5000 points. It's a shame really because I would love to play something like that commanding all those forces and stuff but just too much for me and my present machine. I do hope there's enough guys out there however that would so you can continue doing what you enjoy - creating them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Well I never call anything less then 5000 points a fight more a skirmish. And until recently I had a very crude campaign CMBB going wich had forces costing 19.000+ a side (I started at 6.000 in 1941 but by 1944 things got better and more expensive) I enjoyed these battles greatly because I could pull out all the stops, tremendous bombardments, large tank formations and multiple infantry waves. The grandiousity was great. I was really getting my jollies. But this was at a price. You get lazy. You tend to rely on firepower and perecentages rather then cunning and carefull planning. And with such massive battles you are prone to loosing track of many a unit. It was very satisfying if not very skillful. But upon reaching june 1944 I switched the German force I was commanding to CMBO and I roughly divided my force by 6 or even less, and chronolgically played all battles and operations with this force (replacing the regular axis force included) I was able to micro manage every little thing, laid my battle plans carefully, eyed the terrain for ages and plotted every move carefully and on playing the turn saw everything wich takes places, not missing a single soldiers death. I found this too very satisfying. I must say for military skill I very much like the small battles best. It's so much better if losing that Firefly means you are all out of Fireflies rather then that you should take more care with those that remain. You just care more for the units you have, much more depends on each individual unit. And tactics go up a notch, too. But I find battles with 500 points a bit restrictive though. 1000 points is pretty much a minimum for me. But every now and then I crave for the big battles. The blunt violence and the sheer scale of fighting is too good to resist. So please by all means create huge battles, I for one will enjoy them greatly. *Blut und Ehre was a real bastard but I did eek out a total victory, not bad for 4 crack Tigers, an elite Jagdpanther and a regular StuH42, a green Sturmkompanie and a 120mm FO. Gloat, gloat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanman Posted April 25, 2003 Author Share Posted April 25, 2003 Ok that makes sense. Computers without enough power to handle the larger games . I really try to make the operations so that only a portion of the forces are in battle at the same time. Some are operations are better than others. Reinforcements come at later battles to replace the causalties which are usally heavy. For what it is worth the biggest PBEM file I have had so far is 780KB with most below 500kb. I would think 750 processor would not have a problem, the ram might be though. 128mb would be good, but I really don't know. What I need is people to try the scenarios against the AI with different computers to find out what works. Maybe I should try a poll to find out what type of computers people are using. I far as playing the games, It takes a little longer but the games are more interesting and challenging. It does take commitment over a long time. If you average 1 move a day a 120 move game would take 3 months. It is like playing 5 25 turn games with the same person. There are many good qualities that make it worth while. The game is more realistic. It ebbs and flows and changes. The maps are huge and allow manuvers. You encounter many different types of forces and weapons in the same operation. Time limits work differently, Battles are part of a operation so you have time to develope plans. It is also much more violent when the large forces collide. There are just so many more possiblities. Anyway maybe some of you could download the operations from the scenariodepot.com (HELLS HOLE & HEllS LAKE) and let me know how they work on your computers. I would love some feedback to find out how they work so I can make them better or stop making them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanman Posted April 25, 2003 Author Share Posted April 25, 2003 Tweety thanks for the support . I try to design operations where you will be down to very little forces by the end of a battle so every squad counts.. In a current operation I am playing PBEM we are at the end of our second battle (of 5), He has loss most of his forces a I am down to my last tank and a few very beat up squads trying to push him back as far as possible before he ( and I) gets a large reinforcement just before a night battle. I hope you will try one my operations and let me know what you think. I would love to play one with you as you have experience with huge operations and could probably teach me a thing or two. I can be reached at sanman@maui.net 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Sanman I do prefer monster operations, the bigger the better (if it includes allowed time also). My machine is all rubber. It's just that I am one of those semi-retarded people who are unable to enjoy anything but historically accurate operations So, dive deep in research and gimme such a one, and I'll play it anytime. Regards Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by sanman: [snips] Since I am interested in playing (and designing) huge operations and using CMBO to it’s limit I am wondering why there is so little interest in these types of scenarios. I would think it would allow players, especially the more experienced ones, to test their skills and tactics in a new way. Is it because they are more complicated and take more time both per turn and scenario? Or maybe people just like winning at something they are good at. Speaking for myself, I don't play competition wargames, but there are other good reasons for objecting to extremely large games. The "new way" they test a players skills is to turn him into a combination of clerk, micromanager and Mr. Memory instead of a tactician. Most people I know would prefer to play at being tactician. Real armies require soldiers to think two levels up and two levels down; nobody expects a single person to give specific instructions, every minute, to every section or vehicle in a brigade-sized force. CM provides no means of giving orders to commands above platoon level; it therefore seems silly to me for a single player to attempt to command anything much larger than a full-strength battalion at a time, and a company would be more comfortable. A well-designed CM operation might be an excellent way of giving the context and motivation for a series of interesting company-level fights, and large maps give scope for maneouvre, but wrestling with cumbersome masses of troops is not my idea of fun. If you want to pretend to be a brigade or division commander, then ISTM that you should deal in the same currency as brigade and division commanders, neither of whom worry about individual vehicles or sections except on very special occasions. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Sanman when I get home tonight I will d/l the game just to see how my machine handles it and will let you know. Least I could do. Later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McAuliffe Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I am a fan of big historical scenarios and Ops., but admit that my poor PIII 450 Mhz is not completely up to the task. However what bothers me the most, is the micro-management of the units. I have been begging BFC since the beginning to expand the variety of group movement orders. This would allow turns to be processed more quickly in battalion size scenarios or Ops. Click a group of units > highlight a leader > plot his itinerary and the other units of the designated group would move, walk, to the initial start position of the leader and follow in his footsteps. At the end of the command you could choose then the option "deploy" or "column" I hate the repetitive plotting of waypoints for all units in a platoon or even a company. IMHO, I consider it even as unacceptable in a COMPUTER game...You know why computers were invented, don't you? Even in MS you can use macro's to avoid repetitive tasks. It would make big scenarios and Ops much more fun and it would allow to focus on the decisions and render the action-part more prominent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanman Posted April 25, 2003 Author Share Posted April 25, 2003 Thanks for all the interesting comments . When I design a game I try give the players a reason for the operation, something to fight for besides flags. So far I have found that missions in semi historical setting work best(Capture a V2 rocket hideout, 5th Panzer Army HQ, etc.). I would really like to do Historical missions but they are just to much work to get them right, I just don’t have that kind of time(I have to work for a living) . Also missions are easier to make fair scenarios for 2 person play. Although CMBO has many things that could be fixed to make it a better game (some of it was taken care of in CMBB), it is still the strongest strategic simulation out there. The best thing about CM is it allows you to put yourself in the shoes of everyone from the squad leader to the operation commander in one operation. You can see how they relate to each other (“for the want of a nail the battle was lost’). I will admit that it is harder to do that, that’s the idea. These are some of the most complex and difficult scenarios you will find and not everyone’s cup of tea. In my missions you will never usually have more than a battalion of infantry to command at one time. In the beginning you will have a large force with plenty of ammo and artillery. Reinforcements come in the middle of the operation and reserves come if your getting your butt kicked so it ain't over till it's over. Because of the size of the map you are usually fighting around three separate company or less battles that are very different from each other but also affect each other and the game. Usually there are a lot of casualties because the forces are fairly evenly matched. The out come depends on your skill, good large scale and small scale tactics, luck, and being persistent. These scenarios will also give you a good game against the AI (add 25% to the enemy if your real good) which is a good way to learn operation tactics. Thanks ICM 1947 for the help. If people who down load and play scenarios from the Scenario Depot would review them (constructively) it would really help all the designers :cool: . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Well sanman I d/l'ed it and gave it a whirl and it actually runs pretty good. Just a tiny tiny bit jerky but I think very playable unless it would get worse. Do you think that it would get worse or is this the most taxing it would get? It sure looks interesting though. I am tempted to try it against the AI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanman Posted April 26, 2003 Author Share Posted April 26, 2003 Icm 1947 To be honest I really don’t know if it will get worst. I know things like smoke really use up the ram. And you really need lots of smoke to succeed from the allied side. Try playing against the AI and take the axis side, the AI is not always smart enough to use a lot of smoke. Please let me know how it goes, your computer type, speed and ram. You can email me at sanman@maui.net or review it at the scenariodepot.com so others will know if they can play it on their computer. Mahalo Sanman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Ok sanman I think I'm going to try it and will post my review as you asked when done. Course that may be 6 months from now. PS: No way am I playing those stinking Huns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 "Mahalo"? A place where Mexicans succumbed to a massive US assault in the American-Mexican war, involving among others a famous trapper named Daniel de Cucaracha? Regards Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanman Posted April 26, 2003 Author Share Posted April 26, 2003 Dandelion, Mahalo means thank you in Hawaiian which is were I'm from :cool: . Good luck attacking those Huns Imc1947, Read the briefings as there is some good advice in them and don't give up if it gets bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobin Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 Originally posted by sanman: There have been a couple brave souls who are testing my scenarios. Being one of the brave souls i have to agree with Sanman that this is one big learning curve. The intial setup took me ages and i still got it wrong. Having not played much above 2000 points this can blow you away. I agree it is easy to lose units, and on many turns i have forgotten to issue orders, which normally results in their demise. I can understand peoples reluctance to have a go at these large operations, as i had some misgivings at first. I would suggest to those of you that have not tried them "give em a go". Having said that i can understand this will not be to everyone's liking. BTW we are approaching the end of the second battle and my global morale is nearly into single figures, need i say more. Red [ April 28, 2003, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Redrobin ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanman Posted April 28, 2003 Author Share Posted April 28, 2003 Redrobin was the first to play one of my operations with me and I learned a lot from him about PBEM play, both with this operation and in general . Like real battle things go wrong (troops don’t get orders) and it can be the small mistakes that come back to haunt you. Luck is also important, Redrobin had some bad luck in the tank duels in the first battle. I hope this goes to the next battle were I can see how he fights at night with a fresh battalion, armor, artillery and a few battles of experience :eek: ....It ain’t over till it’s over. Sanman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.