Has Luck Replaced Skill In CMBB?

[Col Deadmarsh]

The title to this thread might be a bit of an overstatement but the fact is, luck seems to play a more important part in CMBB due to the fact that tank bogging has become more prevalent than it was in CMBO. Frankly, I hate this new aspect of the game because CMBB becomes less like chess and more like craps.

If I'm a player who's adept at using tanks, my skill carried over from CMBO is now not as valuable because tanks (on maps which are anything less than heavy trees) aren't as reliable as they once were. I recently played a game where I had given orders to a heavy tank to crest a hill in the beginning of the game. Before it crested the hill, the tank bogged on dry, open ground on a slope. The tank never saw the enemy and was rendered useless for the rest of the game.

I'm guessng the tank threw a track--I mean, how else would it bog on dry ground? But if this isn't completely 100% accurate, is it worth sacrificing the skill of purchasing the right units and using those units effectively just to have a random luck factor decide whether or not your 200 point tank gets to see any action or not?

I'm guessing that by and large, the two factions of CMBB, the historical nuts and the QB/Ladder players, are at odds with this question. As a ladder player myself and someone who is much more eager to put my skills up against another, I'm not in favor of adding any more luck to this game than is currently involved.

I'd like to be able to set conditions to dry, order my tanks, and know that my skill will mostly decide whether or not I win the game against my opponent.

[Lindan]

Hi Colonel, do you play 1.01?

I had no problems with (unusual) bogging for quite a while now. Not more often then a PzIVe nailing my T34 with a "front turret partial penetration at weak spot" (don't ask) with the first shot.

[momishuli]

For my taste, the luck factor is optimal in the game. To me, the more things are random, the better. Also, if I remember correctly, after version 1.01, vehicle bog-down is less likely. Still, it should not be too hard to make vehicle break-downs an option in the game (there was such an option in Steel Panthers, i think).

[Dirtweasle]

Interesting...

I've noticed that apears that more German tanks are boggin down in CMBB than CMBO. Did'nt German tanks have more trouble v.s Russian tanks in reality? Can't say that I *know* but it's my impression that the Pz-III series had thinner / more narrow treads and less off road capabliites than say the T-34. I do wonder if there is too much bogging down.

As for luck... I think you make your own luck. You think that there is more randomness to the hit factors? I do not know. It would be good to know if the numbers involved from BFC /BTS have changed or how the "to hit factor" is modified by chance.

[Battlefront.com]

If I'm a player who's adept at using tanks, my skill carried over from CMBO is now not as valuable because tanks (on maps which are anything less than heavy trees) aren't as reliable as they once were.

I disagree with this statement unless you swap in the words "über tanks and lack of balanced force" for the word "tanks". And as with CMBO, CMBB is quite easy on tanks compared to historical reality. Tanks don't break down or malfunction during battle, for example. This was not uncommon. And complaining about it didn't do the battlefield commander any good

I'm guessing that by and large, the two factions of CMBB, the historical nuts and the QB/Ladder players, are at odds with this question.

No doubt The problem here is a fundamental one. Taking a sec here to describe the stereotypes of each:

Ladder Players - want as little variability in the game as possible. They have it fixed in their mind what works and what doesn't. If they insist on playing with King Tigers then they want all conditions of the game to favor them. If a situation comes up, realistic or simply game imposed, that prevents such a unit being used EXACTLY as they had planned, the Ladder Player complains instead of embarcing the challenge of doing things differently than they have before. When Lady Luck frowns upon them they want a patch to the code so that it won't happen to them again. In short, Ladder Players are highly inflexible and pretty much play for the sake of winning not for the sake of testing one's skills in a realistic environment. And above all, such a player refuses to understand that this inflexibility is what causes them to lose battles, not the game system, luck, or anything else.

Historical Player - want as much realism in their games as possible, which inevitably means extremely high degrees of variability of any number of factors. They do not want to play with the same force structure over and over again which means that they are far less likely to find themselves in a pickle when things like weather change. If one doesn't have King Tigers, one doesn't need to worry about them bogging. When luck or scenario conditions work against them they do not complain. They instead do what a real life commander would do and that is make the best of a bad situation. Because they do not take a highly consistant Cherry Picked force into every battle they are much more likely to turn a small run of bad luck around to victory. These folks play the game to be intellectually challenged in as historically rich an environment as possible. Winning or losing is not of a concern, but how they play the game. Although winning is always a plus

Of course these are extreme positions and few people fit the definitions exactly. Most people are some sort of combo of things with a leaning more torwads one than the other. Sometimes, perhaps, depending on their mood.

As a ladder player myself and someone who is much more eager to put my skills up against another, I'm not in favor of adding any more luck to this game than is currently involved.

We don't add or subtract luck. We add only realism. If that makes things more or less risky than a Ladder Player wants... tough noogies When it comes to the simulation aspects of CM arguments for change must be based on realism. Any other sort of argument is ignored as counter productive.

I kick it right back to you... if your plan for victory was wiped out by your KT bogging down in a bad spot, then your skills as a commander aren't very good. What I mean by that is that an inflexible commander with a nearly scripted means for winning is not as skillfull as someone who can create victories from whatever he is given to command in whatever situations happen to be present.

If I were a leader of nations I would want officers that could fight any battle and lose 20% of the time than officers that could fight only certain battles and lose 5% of the time.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasel,

As for luck... I think you make your own luck.

Well put! Think of it this way folks... the person who had all his money in Tech stocks two years ago made out like a bandit at the time. The person that had a very diversified portfolio didn't do as well. Now Tech stocks are often worth less than a roll of toilet paper. The guy who was into Tech stocks heavily is now in the poor house, while the guy with the diversifed investments is probably smartting but not catastrophically affected. Now... what caused the misfortune of a once high flyer? Luck? Not even a little bit.

You think that there is more randomness to the hit factors? I do not know. It would be good to know if the numbers involved from BFC /BTS have changed or how the "to hit factor" is modified by chance.

No, there really hasn't been any changes like this. We do not look at the game in terms of "luck" but rather realistic modeling. Luck is a byproduct.

Steve

[wbs]

Well, Colonel, I will take the "historical nuts" side and suggest that every battle plan is a good one until you have first contact with the enemy. It is a fact of life (and modeled somewhat in this game) that unexpected events do happen, and it could be said that one measure of your skill level is shown by how well you manage the occurrence of these unexpected events.

It's not surprising that you have more tanks bogging down in CMBB than in CMBO for several reasons:

1) The tanks portrayed in CMBB were, historically, mechanically inferior to those portrayed in CMBO, because:

a)They represented earlier generations of Tank Design

b)They were produced by Nations which were not as wealthy as those in CMBO, and therefore could not spend as much money on each tank that was produced

c) It seems that even back in WWII, the Western European nations (and the US) placed a higher premium on enabling crew survival in combat than did Eastern European nations. Thus the Western Nations chose to, as a matter of cultural policy, voluntarily spend the money needed in order to make their tanks more reliable (and therefore enhance the chances that the crew would survive in combat)

2) The terrain on the Eastern Front was rougher than it was on the Western Front (i.e. fewer roads and terraformed agricultural spaces for tanks to drive on). Since Western Europe was more populated, a tank on the western front had a more likely chance of fighting from a road or level farm field than a tank on the Eastern front, which was more likely to be on undeveloped terrain (more rocks/fallen logs,etc.)

3) The weather on the Eastern Front was worse than it was in the West (more snow and/or rain=more mud/damp ground=higher chance of bogging)

It could be said that a real test of one's skill level is how you manage all of these factors, and take the chance of their occurrence into account

[ January 09, 2003, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[argie]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If I were a leader of nations I would want officers that could fight any battle and lose 20% of the time than officers that could fight only certain battles and lose 5% of the time.

In the same scenario, I would want foreign affairs dudes that avoid any war for the time being

[Battlefront.com]

I actually thought of something else important in relation to Col's comment:

As a ladder player myself and someone who is much more eager to put my skills up against another, I'm not in favor of adding any more luck to this game than is currently involved.

As well as inflexible, Ladder Players have a VERY narrow definition of "skill". In my mind, and the mind of a real battlefield commander, "skill" is the ability to pull off a victory no matter what the situation is. In short, the worse the adversity thrust upon the player, the higher their level of skill needs to be in order to win. If a player routinely find himself losing "because of bad luck, bad weather, bad matchups of armor, etc" then I say quite boldy that that player needs to lower his opinion of his skills and start learning how to improve his ability to play the game. Getting rid of the things that challenge a player does not make him more skillfull.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Steve

Thanks for the prompt, informative, and well written reply.

I thought the thread might have been about the luck of penetration of AT rounds that inflict no damage. The new armour penetration model for smaller rounds means you can "feel" like you are getting lucky "a lot" with AT rounds that penetrate without result.

I don't think that is just luck, I am guessing it adds realism to the game BUT in the last 4 PBEM turns I have played in the past 24hrs I have had 3 frontal penetrations on my tanks in two seperate games that resulted in NO DAMAGE and I gotta tell ya I Feel LUCKY!

I am not so worried about the bogging thing. I just drove 4 Panthers through about 50 meters of Scattered tree's to attack Elvis where he LEAST expected it because he told me he figured I did not have the "balls " to risk bogging on a damp map in light snow through scattered trees. ALL four of them where issued move orders and it took 3-4 turns but they made it, I'm in a game in light snow (same one) with 6 Panthers and not one of them has bogged yet and I am not all that worried about staying on the roads.

This bogging this is a non-issue IMHO

BUT the armour penetration without damage 3 times in a row SURE FEELS lucky!

-tom w

[ January 09, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Bruno Weiss]

I'll put my two cents in here. Warfare, battles, campaigns, and most all combat engagements of any period in history, mechanized or not, have had an element of luck which on many occasions decided the conflict. Whether it was Napoleon and Hitler picking the worst winters on record to invade a country (X) many times the landmass size of their own (something in itself to ponder in the statement "luck is of your own making"), or whether we're talking about the success of the Trojan Horse. Was that luck, or was that skill?

Ah, the ole "Them Steelers didn't win, they was lucky!" Goes hand in hand with "We was robbed!"

Any good NFL coach will tell you, the bad call on the last play with no time left on the clock was not a result of bad luck, it was a result of the losing team, losing for the entire game and not just losing on the final call. Such a coach will then usually analyze their loss by pointing out they didn't block enough, they were not able to capitalize on the opponents mistakes, they made too many penalties of their own, and had they not played at such a low level, then they would not then have put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of that "bad" call. Which I think goes directly to what Steve is saying.

[ January 09, 2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[wbs]

Hey, Bruno--

The Colonel gave you a penny for your thoughts on this issue, and you put in your two cents worth, above.

What happened to the other penny?

[Bil Hardenberger]

In my experience tanks in CMBB tend to bog more when rushed.. IOW, when given fast orders cross country. When going at a slower pace my armor rarely gets bogged.

Where I have a problem is with the Shoot and Scoot command, where the initial move is Fast... I have had tanks bog down when using that command, that would not have if the speed had been Move on the first leg of the command.

Bil

[demoss]

I'm not sure if that's true, Bil. I remember reading some test results a while back (about a month?) that seemed to indicate that tanks can move FARTHER on average using Fast than using Move or Hunt before bogging to the point of immobilization. Anyone know what became of that, if anything?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger:

In my experience tanks in CMBB tend to bog more when rushed.. IOW, when given fast orders cross country. When going at a slower pace my armor rarely gets bogged.

Where I have a problem is with the Shoot and Scoot command, where the initial move is Fast... I have had tanks bog down when using that command, that would not have if the speed had been Move on the first leg of the command.

Bil

I agreed with both these points - I think Colonel_Deadmarsh is trying to race his tanks around too much.

I would also like to see "shoot and scoot" changed from Fast/Reverse to Hunt/Reverse.

[wbs]

From Soddball:

I would also like to see "shoot and scoot" changed from Fast/Reverse to Hunt/Reverse

Why not just use "Hunt/Reverse" anyway? That way you can have either option open: Use "shoot and Scoot" when you want "Fast/Reverse" and do "Hunt/Reverse" when you don't.

[Horus]

I would also like to see "shoot and scoot" changed from Fast/Reverse to Hunt/Reverse.

yes. or move/reverse . not sure but hunt is slower than move ?

[Green Hornet]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If I were a leader of nations I would want officers that could fight any battle and lose 20% of the time than officers that could fight only certain battles and lose 5% of the time.

Steve

Thats! the one I've been looking for.

Steve, you don't know me from Adam and I'm not a very prominent figure on this board, but I'd love to use that one in my sig unless you object for any reason.

If nothing else, to remind myself that losing in CM once in a while ( okay, for me, a lot ) is okay provided I work to make the best out of an adverse situation.

[Fionn]

I have to disagree with some points Steve made here:

"In my mind, and the mind of a real battlefield commander, "skill" is the ability to pull off a victory no matter what the situation is."

I would disagree. I would aver that skill is the ability to always fight well irrespective of the environmental conditions, terrain and force correlations. A player commanding a conscript infantry platoon may never be able to defeat an IS-2 Bn in open ground but detroying 3 or 4 IS-2s would be a phenomenal display of skill. Skill can be demonstrated without winning and to make winning a prerequisite for determining skill is highly flawed.

" In short, the worse the adversity thrust upon the player, the higher their level of skill needs to be in order to win."

Or acquit themselves well. There are simply some situations in which one cannot "win" according to conventional victory calculations.

This is one of the reasons I think the CMMC and similar campaigns provide a good barometer for skilled play as it is quite possible for a player to fail to achieve his stated objectives and lose ground whilst still playing a supremely skillfull game which all opponents and compatriots can recognise as demonstrating the very highest levels of skill.

" If a player routinely find himself losing "because of bad luck, bad weather, bad matchups of armor, etc" then I say quite boldy that that player needs to lower his opinion of his skills and start learning how to improve his ability to play the game. "

On this I would agree.

[bbaker]

With all due respect to Steve and the rest of the Battlefron staff, I think you're missing Deadmarsh's point. It isn't so much that he's inflexible, or only wants to fight a certain way, but that he's playing a *game* and as such wants it to respond in a way a game would. He probably looks at a game of CM:BB as a complicated form of chess.

Further, in the situation he describes he lost his tank and the large number of points it represents not because of a poor decision on his part - it isn't like he ordered fast movement over soft ground - but purely because of bad luck on his part.

The game has essentially decided, in this instance, to subtract a couple hundred points from one side's OOB.

Maybe it's realistic. But does realism always make for an enjoyable game? I've always thought of CM:BO and CM:BB as games, or are they more akin to simulators?

And, I hate to say this, because I'm going to draw flames and I have a great deal of respect for Battlefront and everything you guys have accomplished, but I find that description of Ladder Players (cherry-picking whiners) versus Historical Players (great guys!) to be fairly insulting.

I fall pretty much in between the two camps. When I'm playing the computer, heck, the more realism the better, but if I'm playing a human opponent -- well, that represents a good deal of time, I'm going to plan things out, look carefully at the map, and think about what I'm doing. The payoff for that is either watching my plan work or watching it fall part (and hopefully learning form my mistake). When the game then does something to my OOB egregious like Deadmarsh's example is it realistic? Sure. But does it make for a good game? For either side?

Part of the problem is that the battles fought in CM:BB are limited in scope, by which I mean that if both sides had a large number of units all of these things would even out, but if the battle is small how long a streak of bad luck does it take to put one player at a serious disadvantage?

Deadmarsh has been on these boards a long time and if he were charging that tank through scattered trees or rocky ground I doubt he'd complain (despite being a ladder player) but if you can't trust tanks on dry ground, well, are you saying you just shouldn't choose any?

I don't doubt that this has been addressed before, but is there a reason there isn't an options screen? look at any (decent) flight sim: you can adjust it from practically an arcade shooter to a sorta'/fairly realistic model of flight. Is this beyond the scope of the engine, and if so, could this be added to the engine rewrite? Wouldn't that put to rest these sort of arguments?

[SgtMuhammed]

First off thank you Steve for answering the question about vehicles breaking down before I even asked (is this guy good or what).

It seems to me that a lot of people who are complaining are working under a lot of false assumptions. Who says a tank can't find a way to bog itself on dry ground. I have seen tanks get themselves stuck in nearly every terrain and weather condition imaginable. Tanks are NOT the invulnerable , perfect off-road vehicles that they are often portrayed to be. They get stuck in ruts in roads. They get stuck in old foxholes. They get stuck in roadside drainage ditches, they get stuck in dried out puddles, they get stuck. Good commanders realize that this is a danger and plan accordingly.

Skill in commanding troops is not coming up with the perfect plan and putting together just the right force mix. Skill in command is being able to adapt to an ever changing environment. This means being able to adjust to your own forces as well as the enemy. So far all I have ever heard ladder players do is brag about their skill or complain about how the game is robbing them of it. Losing because one thing went wrong for you does not display skill but rather its opposite.

[wbs]

from bbaker:

Deadmarsh has been on these boards a long time and if he were charging that tank through scattered trees or rocky ground I doubt he'd complain (despite being a ladder player) but if you can't trust tanks on dry ground, well, are you saying you just shouldn't choose any?

No, but perhaps he should choose types of tanks that were more reliable, or at least of a later generation of tank design (i.e. have wider treads, and/or lower ground pressure rating, etc.) than the ones he has been choosing--if he is able to. These factors have likely been modeled into a lower chance of bogging for those tanks in CMBB

[Neutral Party]

I think it was Lee Trevino who said "the more I practice the luckier I get". I don't believe luck is generally a major factor in CMBB but if one piece of bad luck loses the game for someone then it indicates they made some bad choices somewhere down the line.

I also think there is a false distinction often made between "ladder" players and "historical" players. It is of course possible to be both. I think ladders and tournaments add a little extra spice to the game experience. Although I prefer to win it's no big deal if I don't. Actually some of my most fun games have been where I started with an almighty screw up and then have to try to claw my way back to a minor or even (God forbid) a tactical loss.

Joe

[bbaker]

Speaking of winning, NP, I see you're doing quite well in the Rugged Defense Tournament

And, well, we don't know what type of tank he was using, maybe he could have chosen a more reliable one. The point is still the same, though, if the chance that some misfortune like that will befall you is there, but smaller, the annoyance isn't gone, it's just not as frequent.

Anyway, the point I'm ultimately trying to make is that this is a great example of a feature that should respond to a toggle, slider, or somesuch. If the engine could support it, it's something that would make a valuable addition to the game. If it doesn't, as designers BF had to make a decision, and that's the way it is, though it would be nice if they were a little ... ah, let's say "nicer" to those who choose to play the game "the wrong way."

[Aaron]

Anytime you invest your victory in heavy tanks (or likewise Crack/Elite Infantry) you are, essentially, opting for a Big Win or Flaming Death descision. If your entire plan hinges on one unit, as it apparently did, then of course luck will play a bigger roll.

Aaron