Has Luck Replaced Skill In CMBB?

[wbs]

People invest a lot of time in a PBEM game and to have one decided or influenced by one of these very, very low probability events can be frustrating. If an average user is acting in good faith and not doing something stupid, why randomly punish him?

For the simple reason that real life isn't always fair, and since CMBB imitates real life, it isn't always fair either

One thing that has only been mentioned in passing but has not really been discussed vis-a-vis "bogging" is the quality of the vehicle's crew.

It is my observation that in CMBB, you are much more likely to have a "conscript" or "green" crew than if you were playing CMBO, where you are more likely to get a crew that is rated "regular" or higher (at least in randomized games). I would think that this, too, would increase your chances of bogging (everything else being equal), doesn't it?

[ January 10, 2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[Battlefront.com]

wbs,

It is my observation that in CMBB, you are much more likely to have a "conscript" or "green" crew than if you were playing CMBO, where you are more likely to get a crew that is rated "regular" or higher (at least in randomized games). I would think that this, too, would increase your chances of bogging (everything else being equal), doesn't it?

Yes, it has a LOT to do with it. Crew experience influences both the chance of bogging and the chance of unbogging.

Now fellas... I just gotta point out here that this thread has strayed waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off the original topic. It would appear, to me, that the issue Colonel Deadmarsh brought up is not one that is shared by more than a couple coming at this from a similar angle (i.e. ladder or a more general game perspective). And because of that we quickly got sidetracked onto bogging, which doesn't have anything to do with "luck" any more/less than hundreds of other things.

At best it comes down to "perhaps bogging is too frequent" or "there should be a TURN OFF REALISM mode" provided for those who want more of an RTS game.

As for the question of bogging, like any componant piece of CM, a discussion about this from a realism perspective should probably find its way into its own thread. Although I think it probably won't go very far since it appears basically answered here.

As for having options to make the game unrealistic, this is not something we want to mess around with. Toning down "strategic" features like Fog Of War is different than toning down "tactical" features like bogging, gun inaccuracy, etc. We look forward to having more control over "strategic" elements in the new engine, and little to no influence over "tactical" elements. Understanding that we can't make everybody happy means understanding the need to keep the game focused so we don't make everybody unhappy (which is the usual result of such ventures).

Steve

P.S. If anybody wishes to pursue the original question further, please do. But I suggest starting with my last two posts on the previous page 'cause I'll just repost them until they are addressed

[notalex]

I hope this helps someone 'cause I hate to type and it is the second time I've done it, the first time I had it all done and edited, hit the *add reply* button and ...the board was down!....how does one save something like this....sheesh

It's happened to me, too -- either the board went down or my computer froze.

So, use Notepad (or the Mac/Linux equivalent) to write it out and then cut-and-paste into the UBB editor.

Ya big dummy.

[Knaust]

IMHO I think that this luck-skill controversial is essentially related to QB games. Although I have played a lot of them in CMBO, I found them very boring.

A good historical scenario is far more interesting than a QB game, and in the historical scenario luck is part of skill . :cool:

To compare the skill of players it would be great to have a list of scenario tested with the Nabla system...but this is only a dream.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by mididoctors:

Or if people could add handicap points.

Wait, they can already do that. Never mind.

yes but then the scenario is effectivily remodeled from the original one IE extra troops or more experience points......

play balanced is achieved by playing a DIFFERENT battle. not satisfactory IMHO

Boris

London[/QB]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Scipio,

Hitting target areas accurately with blind FOs is pure luck in CM. Whether or not your adjustment improves matters is again, pure luck. Based on my limited experience the odds are against an accurate arty strike with a blind FO. Beat the luck factor! Don't target blind.

Treeburst155 out.

Missunderstanding - I meant this idiot of FO must be blind, otherwise he would see that the shells come in wrong. But I was always speaking about targeting with LOS, for the inital target order and also for the correction order.

But well, if artillery targeting with LOS is influenced by luck, then I don't understand the reason, and I ask again - what is the sense of spotting rounds?

[Sardaukar]

I'd say that sometimes luck plays great role...both in game and in war. In a way I agree with Napoleon that general should aso be lucky .

Cheers,

M.S.

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Actually, the scenario designers can add handicap points... not the players. Players can only change force size or experience[/QB]

OOOPPPPPPSSSS!

Sorry I stand corrected..I was not aware of this

Then Scenario design needs adequate play testing...I still think points for victory flags and losses still crude...... but then again I have not realy encountered bad balance thru luck as a detrement to play anyway

Boris

london

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for having options to make the game unrealistic, this is not something we want to mess around with. Toning down "strategic" features like Fog Of War is different than toning down "tactical" features like bogging, gun inaccuracy, etc. We look forward to having more control over "strategic" elements in the new engine, and little to no influence over "tactical" elements. Understanding that we can't make everybody happy means understanding the need to keep the game focused so we don't make everybody unhappy (which is the usual result of such ventures).

then all the arguments will come down to semantics over what is strategic and what is not?

Focus.hmmmmmmmmmmmm

This player pref system is probably the way to go (personaly I think you should always play EFOW and level 1 view only with perhaps a non dynamic commanders terrain map)..It would be nice thou to be able to remodel certain tactical elements thou.... what if Russian optics where better? ..flexability is a quality of computers. Its just a question of how far you want to go in making the ultimate WW2 ground combat sim . Why compromise you have a captured audience of total grog nard-nerd-anoraks.....I have spent £100s(maybe close to £1000!) of pounds on Hex based sims ..hang on lets do a rough count on ASL...must be over£400 quid!!!!!..what the hell was I thinking!

what would I pay for an ultimate computer sim with open plug-in architecture and decent manual full of lovely tables and AFV lists...damm sight more than £65 thats for sure

Amazing how much passion a computer simulation can evoke..you would think it was important or something.

Personaly I have no problem with luck in CMBB..I wish alot of other thing where modeled but conceed his means a step up in the average power of home PC's (engine rewrite).

Perhaps a background in ASL with its myriad of luck elements has hardened me to bad luck

(heat of battle,snipers,duds.critical hits, excessive speed breakdown !!! remember that one!)

Boris

London

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by notalex:

Ya big dummy. [/QB]

This from an Edmontonian, the the home of western liberal lovers? I hope that David Anderson becomes the Mayor of the city of ice.....

At least someone read it and thanx for the tip btw.

KC

[jleslie]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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[/QB]

Steve, got any spare time? I'd like to hook you up at the US Army Armor School teaching new tank battalion commanders how to behave in the Pre-Command Course.

Go to any US Army tank battalion right now, and I guarantee you that nearly every tank (if not every tank) is running around with unrepaired faults. Granted, most of those are going to be minor stuff that doesn't affect the tank's ability to fight (dammit! my seat cushion has been on order for 6 months now!), but fact of the matter is that tanks are complicated machines and complicated machines break often. I can only imagine what it was like during WWII when the tank was still in it's infancy (relatively speaking..."Wow, look at these American tanks Gunther, they have Power Turrets...."). It's hard enough to get parts for an M1A1 in the year 2003, let alone a King Tiger in Russia in 1944...(damn Americans bombed the parts warehouse again...).

Anybody who's ever read anything about Kursk (most people here probably, including the original poster I'd bet) will remember that the new Panther, which was supposed to be the Anti-T34, barely made it out of the assembly areas due to maintenance problems. Talk about a commander relying on a piece of equipment as part of his plan for victory!

Jeff Leslie

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by jleslie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Steve, got any spare time? I'd like to hook you up at the US Army Armor School teaching new tank battalion commanders how to behave in the Pre-Command Course.

Go to any US Army tank battalion right now, and I guarantee you that nearly every tank (if not every tank) is running around with unrepaired faults. Granted, most of those are going to be minor stuff that doesn't affect the tank's ability to fight (dammit! my seat cushion has been on order for 6 months now!), but fact of the matter is that tanks are complicated machines and complicated machines break often. I can only imagine what it was like during WWII when the tank was still in it's infancy (relatively speaking..."Wow, look at these American tanks Gunther, they have Power Turrets...."). It's hard enough to get parts for an M1A1 in the year 2003, let alone a King Tiger in Russia in 1944...(damn Americans bombed the parts warehouse again...).

Anybody who's ever read anything about Kursk (most people here probably, including the original poster I'd bet) will remember that the new Panther, which was supposed to be the Anti-T34, barely made it out of the assembly areas due to maintenance problems. Talk about a commander relying on a piece of equipment as part of his plan for victory!

Jeff Leslie[/QB]</font>

[Spook]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I think this is VERY relevant post.

If you choose to open your mind to the possiblity that an immobolized tank could have got that way from EITHER a mechanical break down OR bogging until SO stuck it cannot drive out of the mess it got into, then the game probably has the chance, or percentage of immbolizations about right.

I do not really have ANY clue as to what "about right" should be, BUT since mechanical breakdowns (specifically) are NOT modeled (to the best of my Knoweldge) in the game engine then getting stuck (say %50 of the time ) and breaking down (after bogging say %50 of the time) could account for all immobolization stats in the game? And that seems reasonable to me.

Is that Fair to say?

:confused:

-tom w

Kind of stirring the pot a bit, but this was fair to say, then I would want for certain vehicles like the Panther D, and others being more mechanically unreliable than some given "average," to have a heightened chance to "bog." Especially if run while in "fast move" command.

No, I don't expect for such a thing to be done in CMBB. But later on, it would be good to consider......

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Spook:

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

I think this is VERY relevant post.

If you choose to open your mind to the possiblity that an immobolized tank could have got that way from EITHER a mechanical break down OR bogging until SO stuck it cannot drive out of the mess it got into, then the game probably has the chance, or percentage of immbolizations about right.

I do not really have ANY clue as to what "about right" should be, BUT since mechanical breakdowns (specifically) are NOT modeled (to the best of my Knoweldge) in the game engine then getting stuck (say %50 of the time ) and breaking down (after bogging say %50 of the time) could account for all immobolization stats in the game? And that seems reasonable to me.

Is that Fair to say?

:confused:

-tom w

Kind of stirring the pot a bit, but this was fair to say, then I would want for certain vehicles like the Panther D, and others being more mechanically unreliable than some given "average," to have a heightened chance to "bog." Especially if run while in "fast move" command.

No, I don't expect for such a thing to be done in CMBB. But later on, it would be good to consider......</font>

[walpurgis nacht]

Excuse the anachronism, but this thread title is utterly BOGUS. I think it would be more appropriate as, "Has skill replaced luck in CMBB?"

Your mind must be much more flexible in CMBB. If you spend all your points on 1 uber-tank, hoping to destroy all opposing armor with it, and that uber-tank bogs resulting in a loss for you, then you deserve to lose for approaching victory with such a myopic plan.

There is great skill in having the vision to see all the possibilies of the terrain you play upon in CMBB. The terrain is your guide, and to not be forced to use it appropriately means you must be playing another infantry-heavy game of CMBO, where it mattered far less.

I could write a paragraph for any aspect of CMBB to demonstrate why skill is actually more important in this game than CMBO, but I don't have all day.

I know from my own experience in learning CMBB coming out of CMBO, that it is very difficult to enjoy the newer engine when you are wired into the old. Especially if you were as fanatic about CMBO as I was! You know everything about the game, and you get the new one and NOTHING seems to work *right*. It is like learning to sh*t backwards learning the new system, but once you learn it, and learn it well, you will see CMBO for what it is, absolutly inferior in terms of the skill required.

[GRUMLIN]

I agree. I am finding in CMBB as a slowly inch forwards in terms of wins vs losses, that the more I assume that EVERYTHING is going to go wrong and plan accordingly, the better I do. So, If I have a defensive line I ASSUME its going to go down, and have a second line of defence or strongpoint just in case. Case in point - I am playing as defending germans and the sovs have flanked me. My AT gun LOS to that flank was blocked by a light building, so I stuck a couple of pioneers there to demolish it with expacks if that happened - and it did .

Likewise, in an attack I just won I ASSUMED each and every turn that my tanks were going to bog / get blown away, and thus planned accordingly. I won 67-33 . I even assume that smoke isnt going to land on time or on target by plotting infantry movement that uses cover as much as possible anyway - if it arrives, I straighten lines out and go for it...but if not i'm still OK. So yes, CMBB is making me more skilful....

Grum

[Battlefront.com]

jleslie,

Steve, got any spare time? I'd like to hook you up at the US Army Armor School teaching new tank battalion commanders how to behave in the Pre-Command Course.

Hehe... make me an offer

Go to any US Army tank battalion right now, and I guarantee you that nearly every tank (if not every tank) is running around with unrepaired faults.

I am not surprised to hear about this. I have heard oh so many 1st hand accounts of the condition of military vehicles that have come out of motorpools onto the civilian market. Yikes

As for your refference to the seat being broken, this was the case when I was a TC playing around in SIMNET down at Ft. Knox a couple months ago. The seat was stuck on low position so I has to stand up on it to see out the cupola. I got leg cramps at one point

I can only imagine what it was like during WWII when the tank was still in it's infancy (relatively speaking..."Wow, look at these American tanks Gunther, they have Power Turrets...."). It's hard enough to get parts for an M1A1 in the year 2003, let alone a King Tiger in Russia in 1944...(damn Americans bombed the parts warehouse again...).

This is quite correct. The perception is that the Germans laughed at the "inferior" American equipment. Reading memoirs I see the oposite. They feared it. Not beacuse American armor was superior, but because it didn't suck *and* existed in vastly larger numbers. What's the point of having the "best" tank if it has serious design limitations and breaks down all the time? Worse, what is the point of this AND not having enough to go around to meet the enemy's superior numbers?

Walpurgis Night

I know from my own experience in learning CMBB coming out of CMBO, that it is very difficult to enjoy the newer engine when you are wired into the old. Especially if you were as fanatic about CMBO as I was! You know everything about the game, and you get the new one and NOTHING seems to work *right*.

When CMBO's Beta Demo came out a lot of people had a hard time with getting it "*right*". Some people came into it expecting Steel Panthers, others Close Combat, a few Panthers on the Prowl. Obviously CMBO was different than all three, which meant they had to adjust or not bother trying. But I think the hardest were the SL/ASL guys because they, more than all the others, flet "their" game was as close to realistic as it could get. Therefore, CMBO should have played pretty much like ASL. Early tests (internally) with ASL sceanrios in CMBO Beta clearly showed that this was not the case

Ironically, in the end I think it was the SL/ASL guys that were more totally won over to the new experience than any other single group. The reason? Although they had the highest expectations compared to the others, they also had the highest degree of desire for realism. Once they found they could trust CMBO to be realistic the adjustment was apparently rather easy for them to make.

CMBB is, in some ways, a fundamental shift from CMBO. But it pales in comparison to the gulf between CMBO and Steel Panthers, Close Combat, Panthers on the Prowl, or SL/ASL. But yes, there is definitely "unlearning" that needs to be done when moving from CMBO to CMBB. Some won't want to do it, which is akin to someone not moving from Steel Panthers (for example) to CMBO for x, y, and z reasons. This was expected and understood by us well before hand. Change always leaves some behind.

The new engine is going to be a really interesting experience for everybody We fully expect that the vast bulk of CMBO/CMBB players will flock to it, even if initially they are unsure because the game will be a rather huge leap forward (more akin to SL/ASL to CMBO rather than CMBO to CMBB). The thing we expect is to have, in general, a wider audience. We have learned that we can make the most realistic and "cool" wargames ever *and* pull non-traditional players into the mix. If we think about this from the get go we can do it to an even greater extent. And no, that doesn't mean Powerups and Extra Lives

Steve

[Col Deadmarsh]

Steve, I'm wondering why there isn't more information to the player on how to avoid bogging, especially since it's been coded to reflect the Russian terrain (although you haven't actually said this, I'm assuming it because of tanks now bogging on dry terrain when they didn't in CMBO.)

So why all the dark secrets? I can't imagine that it could be taken advantage of in a gamey way so why not let us know...

I'm particulary interested in solutions to my old example where I had a heavy tank that I wanted to move from one side of a steep slope to another.

My Questions:

1. Should I have taken my heavy tank, reversed back down and "moved" in a straight path towards the new point?

2. Did my moving the tank "fast" across the steep slope result in a thrown track (since it was dry ground) and thus give me no chance to un-bog it?

3. What are the things I need to keep in mind to prevent bogging when moving tanks off-road (other than avoiding the givens like soft ground and scattered trees?

I have to say, I'm still upset by this new way of figuring out bogging in CMBB. It not only throws more luck into the equation when you make the choice to buy a tank, but it alters the tactics you use when you move that tank. For instance, no longer can we confidently move out tanks into some scattered trees on a normal, dry day to seek ambush cover. Now, you have to think twice about whether or not your tank might bog in those trees. A complete change of tactics, don't you think?

By the way, I'm still patiently waiting for a reply on why you guys decided to make this change (higher bogging/imobilization rate) in CMBB.

[Battlefront.com]

Colonel Deadmarsh,

So why all the dark secrets?

There are no more "secrets" here than in any other part of the game. I don't know why it is that you and a few others feel that bogging is some sort of exception to the rules. It is just like any other element in the game, including the player having imperfect/imprecise knowledge of exactly how it works. We would have had to release a 2000 page manual to explain everything in great detail equally.

I'm particulary interested in solutions to my old example where I had a heavy tank that I wanted to move from one side of a steep slope to another.

My standard answer:

I didn't see your game and therefore can only offer guesses. On top of that, people that focus on ONE incident, or even a couple, do not have the propper perspective in which to judge the feature or its impact on the game as a whole.

1. Should I have taken my heavy tank, reversed back down and "moved" in a straight path towards the new point?

I have no clue since I didn't see your game.

2. Did my moving the tank "fast" across the steep slope result in a thrown track (since it was dry ground) and thus give me no chance to un-bog it?

Most likely moving Fast had something to do with it. And no, unbogging is simply an unsophisticated chance taking into consideration ground conditions, the vehicle, and crew quality. There is no specific simulation of track throwing, pin breaking, roadwheel failure, getting stuck in a small ditch, etc.

3. What are the things I need to keep in mind to prevent bogging when moving tanks off-road (other than avoiding the givens like soft ground and scattered trees?

Not much. This is purely a function of the vehicle in question. The vehicles with high ground pressure are more likely to get stuck than ones with low ground pressure.

I have to say, I'm still upset by this new way of figuring out bogging in CMBB.

Why am I not surprised

It not only throws more luck into the equation when you make the choice to buy a tank, but it alters the tactics you use when you move that tank.

No, it throws in more reason to reconsider buying poor mobility vehicles when you choose which vehicles you buy. And tactics can be altered by any number of different environmental conditions. The choice of vehicle decides your tactical flexibilty. This is not just about bogging but about other things. Choosing a light AFV means less chance of bogging but greater chance of getting killed without doing squat. For example.

For instance, no longer can we confidently move out tanks into some scattered trees on a normal, dry day to seek ambush cover. Now, you have to think twice about whether or not your tank might bog in those trees. A complete change of tactics, don't you think?

I don't think twice. Then again I don't play with King Tigers

By the way, I'm still patiently waiting for a reply on why you guys decided to make this change (higher bogging/imobilization rate) in CMBB.

I dunno. Probably because we thought we were too generous with CMBO. We probably made the change a year and a half ago so I don't remember the specifics that went into it.

Steve

[Col Deadmarsh]

Steve, thanks for answering those questions. And for the record, it was a Ferdinand, not a KT. I just have one more question about my last game before I go...

Does driving laterally across a steep slope increase your chances of bogging more than driving straight up or down a slope?

By the way, since you mentioned that all bogging is abstract (no specific instances like thrown tracks), I'm lobbying for you to consider the idea of decreasing the immobilizations that occur from bogging and instead increase the time it takes for that tank to unbog. At least then, the player has a chance to use that tank later on in the battle instead of being out X number of points.

[manchildstein (ii)]

about the artillery thing...

i've seen a veteran 150mm FO call in fire, then the center of the barrage was behind the target by about 50 meters... the FO adjusted the fire forward (but only about 10 meters), but then the fire started falling off to the side by about 150 meters!... i then wondered if it has to do with LOS... the FO could see the original target, and the corrected target, but did not have LOS to the places where the fire actually fell... if this has something to do with the barrage accuracy, it appears as though only the ground-level los is taken into account and not the top height of the 'actual' explosions (which in this case i'm certain the FO would have been able to see)

now i'm not arguing whether this is realistic (i don't know), only that it's another thing which isn't the same as cmbo...

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

...Did my moving the tank "fast"...

think of moving (heavy) AFVs fast in cmbb like intensive fire in squad leader... only for emergency situations...

[MrSpkr]

Actually, if any changes are made to bogging, it ought to be a determination as to whether a particular track is thrown, inoperable, etc., and allow some minimum rotation using the unbroken tread.

Now if we REALLY want to discuss luck, look at my friendly fire thread. BTS please fix or do somefink!

Steve

[Spook]

Not that this is expected to change the nature of the discussion on bogging, merely offered for reference:

(Copyright Bundesarchiv, National Archives, & Squadron/Signal)

Now, it CAN be fairly recognized in these pics as that not all show conditions of "open" or "dry" ground. But it does indicate as that even a tank with relatively better "flotation" like the T-34 could have its bad days too.

[ January 11, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Mikser]

This reminds me that someone pointed out in another thread that Mean Maximum Pressure might be/is a more accurate way of quantifying mobility in cross-country terrain than Nominal Ground Pressure... Any thoughts on that?