Jump to content

CMBB axis superiority disproven.


Recommended Posts

I have posted these figures elsewhere, but I have condensed them as some said it was not a large enough sample.

I think 133 Games is a enough to make some general conclusions. I only wanted to post these because several posters (especialy at the blitz) seem to be whinging that there is an AXIS bias in CMBB and the Allies are immpossible to win with.

Anyway the stats:

Total CMBB QB reported to blitz ladder = 133.

Total Allies wins = 63.

Total Axis wins = 50.

Draws= 20

Allies win % = 47.00%

Axis win % = 38.00%

Draws % = 15.00%

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

I have posted these figures elsewhere, but I have condensed them as some said it was not a large enough sample.

I think 133 Games is a enough to make some general conclusions. I only wanted to post these because several posters (especialy at the blitz) seem to be whinging that there is an AXIS bias in CMBB and the Allies are immpossible to win with.

Anyway the stats:

Total CMBB QB reported to blitz ladder = 133.

Total Allies wins = 63.

Total Axis wins = 50.

Draws= 20

Allies win % = 47.00%

Axis win % = 38.00%

Draws % = 15.00%

Err, the Allies did win the war, yes it was a hard fight....I'm wondering why the guys at the blitz(?) are complaining also. It would appear that the game modeling is pretty much dead-on?

KC

Link to post
Share on other sites

The axis superiority is displayed with the scenarios which are bundled with cmbb. Some designers are dumb enough to add a crack KT and 5 green T-34s in an open field and call the scenario historical. The QBs, on the other hand, have the best equipment bought by the players on both sides, leaving only their skills to fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

I have posted these figures elsewhere, but I have condensed them as some said it was not a large enough sample.

I think 133 Games is a enough to make some general conclusions. I only wanted to post these because several posters (especialy at the blitz) seem to be whinging that there is an AXIS bias in CMBB and the Allies are immpossible to win with.

Anyway the stats:

Total CMBB QB reported to blitz ladder = 133.

Total Allies wins = 63.

Total Axis wins = 50.

Draws= 20

Allies win % = 47.00%

Axis win % = 38.00%

Draws % = 15.00%

This is fascinating! Has anyone thought of breaking down the victories as a function of the OOB or year?

I'm curious to see if, for example, the allies win more in infantry-heavy QBs and lose in armor-heavy QBs...etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kirill S.:

The axis superiority is displayed with the scenarios which are bundled with cmbb. Some designers are dumb enough to add a crack KT and 5 green T-34s in an open field and call the scenario historical. The QBs, on the other hand, have the best equipment bought by the players on both sides, leaving only their skills to fight.

--------------------------------

Well, You are unjust for designers - they did very well, yet I must confirm there are some annoying things:

1)Maybe I am wrong, bur as far as I know towards the end of the war germans tended to crew their heavy tanks with inexperienced crews to compensate their lack of skill. Therefore it was much more common to meet green KT crew than veteran.

2) Designers fail to acknowledge that apart form several famous commanders german cracks died in 43 and 43 as best german pilots did.

The same goes for infantry. In 1945 apart from several units it was hard to find all- veteran company. Anyway where are those green replacements?

3)Idealizing german equippement by increasing level of experience. In "tiger-tiger: scenario near Leningrad russian face veteran tigers. And where those crews achieved veteran status? - they were just learning capabilities of their vehicles!

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd have to know a quite a bit more about the battles. For instacne; Were the same players playing which side over and over again, were the same players playing attacker.

Treeburst and others made some great posts mayvbe several months ago durring a thread dicussing a tourney and the scoring system they were going to use if you want to do some research on this BBS.

I'm not saying the Axis or the Reds have or do not have superiority, just that you can't make the case with any certainty at all just on these numbers alone. Let's say I play somone better than me 133 times. Lets also assume I'd win a few games because of the map, or other things not skill dirven. Now if I played the Reds only a third of the time, what do the numbers prove? See what I'm getting at?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All Im saying is that the figures would undermine the arguement made by many that the Axis are easier to win with.

The following assumptions can be made about those stats.

1. The vast majority (90%+) Are likely to be ME.

2. The relative differences in skill and experience for each side involved in each game will vary greatly.

All in all I think 133 games played with it very very very unlikely for a trend for stronger Allied players to have opposed Weaker Axis players resulting in the following

Allies win % = 47.00%

Axis win % = 38.00%

Draws % = 15.00%

Makes it clear that things are in fact pretty even.

[ January 11, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Axis armor is superior from mid '42 on. Axis AT guns are superior from beginning to end. However, with standard rarity, the superiority of their equipment is available in limited quantity, and so is of limited value.

The only way one Panther is surely better than a few T-34/85s, is if a rookie is playing against another rookie. I'll take 3 T-34/85s against 1 Panther anyday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by tigger:

...The only way one Panther is surely better than a few T-34/85s, is if a rookie is playing against another rookie...

Hmm, would you care to try a PBEM game?

Late '43, South, Farms, Modest Hills, medium trees, Armored forces, Meeting Engagement on a huge map? Limit Armor to T-34s and Panthers. You can be the Reds. Please use lkerry3@qwest.net to send the set up, or dicuss terms further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your memory is different from mine.

I don't remember any thread where forum regulars would ever claimed an Axis superiority except for narrow timeframes.

On the contrary, there had at least been three large threads pointing out cool stuff the Soviets have, in more subtle areas than penetration and tin thickness - like fast armor with good going in difficult ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I remember plenty of posts claiming that it was immpossible to win as soviets. Bitching was mostly focused on superiority of german optics and slowness of Alied artilery.

However I think what these figures prove is that battlefront has it prety spot on and QB's and scenarios involving similar points on both sides should be failry balanced.

[ January 13, 2003, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kirill S.:

The axis superiority is displayed with the scenarios which are bundled with cmbb. Some designers are dumb enough to add a crack KT and 5 green T-34s in an open field and call the scenario historical. The QBs, on the other hand, have the best equipment bought by the players on both sides, leaving only their skills to fight.

It may be hard for you to understand, but thats what historical means. I really apologize for the forces in WWII who fought each other without keeping in mind the proper point/force matchups that are so very dear to the ladder whiners 60 years later.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

1)Maybe I am wrong, bur as far as I know towards the end of the war germans tended to crew their heavy tanks with inexperienced crews to compensate their lack of skill. Therefore it was much more common to meet green KT crew than veteran.

Yes you are wrong. Towards the end of the war, the Germans had more tank crews than they had tanks. Generally, every unit tended to put the most experienced crews in the remaining tanks, while the less experienced crews got a chance to try life as an infantryman. There are of cource exceptions to this rule, and there are variations depending on what unit we are talking about, or even what tank type. But generally, you should expect to meet veteran crews when you are facing King Tigers.

2) Designers fail to acknowledge that apart form several famous commanders german cracks died in 43 and 43 as best german pilots did.

The same goes for infantry. In 1945 apart from several units it was hard to find all- veteran company. Anyway where are those green replacements?

Sources sources sources....

Where do you get this from? Frankly this looks like you are just trying to reason your way to that conclusion. Combat is dangerous, therefore the longer you are in combat, the greater the risk of getting killed...

Actually, my impression is that it is the complete opposite. If you look at the German aces, you will note that the top scorers just kept on flying and surviving despite horrible horrible odds. Men like Galland, Rudel and Hartmann flew right up to the very end. There are others, both famous and relatively unknown pilots who survived the entire war. Generally when we are talking about air combat, the aces tended to survive because they knew what they were doing, or more importantly, they knew when to get the he** out of Dodge.

The same can be said regarding the tank commanders. Carius and Barkmann would be the best examples of this.

Your statement of infantry displays another important aspect of infantry combat. The ideal unit would combine experienced NCOs and officers with young, raw and fanatical soldiers (like 12th SS). The decisive aspect of infantry combat is the NCO. If a platoon has a couple of experienced NCOs, it doesnt really matter what the level of experience is on the soldiers (as long as the NCOs stay alive that is).

To answer your question. In the veteran company, the green replacements are baked into the squad. The Germans tried to avoid situations like "ok, we just recieved replacements to our company, lets put them all in 3rd platoon." Instead the replacements were spread out among the various platoons and squads in the company. To simulate this in CMBB you dont make the entire squad green, not as long as the NCO is veteran. But this is a completely different subject that has been talked about alot (and will be talked about alot when the new engine comes along)

3)Idealizing german equippement by increasing level of experience. In "tiger-tiger: scenario near Leningrad russian face veteran tigers. And where those crews achieved veteran status? - they were just learning capabilities of their vehicles!

Here you have to ask yourself "what does veteran status represent". Whether you realize it or not, knowing the nuts and bolts in the tank is only one aspect of that, and it is a relatively minor one. What matters is whether the crew has worked together for a long time, if they are "cool" under fire, if they do what they are supposed to do, led by a good leader etc. If you take a tank crew as an example, and take a look at what made the crew "regular" or "crack" you will note that "the ability to dismantle the coaxial MG" or "knowledge of where spare parts are located" comes at the bottom of the list. "Knowing what the other crew members are doing" "loader and radio operator scanning for targets as much as they can", "trust in eachother" comes at the top. I would rather take a crew that had been together for 3 years in a Pz38t and put them in a Tiger after two weeks of training, than I would take a crew that had worked in Tigers for 3 years but only been working together for two weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About Tiger Tiger--The first batch of Tiger crews was handpicked from already veteran stug and panzer drivers. They should be at least veteran.

As for designers having an Axis bias, I must say that is wrong. I recreate the battle as best as my sources can describe and my CM design skills can craft. I often find interesting battles that I skip doing because they would not be so interesting to play. Not to mention 5 green T34s should be able to take out a tiger without too many losses.

WWB

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can read about T34-85 tank aces knocking out columns of King Tigers as well as the more commonly told ace King Tigers knocking out columns of T34s. I don't think the scale of CMBB can support Eastern Front generalizations. At CMBB battle scale one can easily dominate a situation with a couple high-power units. If a stray artillery round cancels out one side's local advantage the other side finds itself in the dominant position. The presumed superority of the Tiger I over the IS-2 doesn't mean much if the game's only IS-2 takes out the game's only Tiger I with the first shot. At this scale 'game balance' often oscillates like a see-saw.

[ January 13, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed the crews were hand picked and used for the initial trial of the Tiger. Matter of fact, they had training LONG before being deployed at Leningrad. Tigers continued to host the most experienced crews, both for it and the King Tiger. The newer crews usually got a newer tank, ie a new Panther or Panzer IV before a veteran crew got a replacement. The situtation in Tiger Tiger is exactly how the unit was.

Historical to me, means the map is right, the forces are right, and the situation is right. If you don't like it, imagine how the real crews felt. I had some experts help me with the research in tiger tiger, and they are listed in the scenario under the thanks.

Reminds me of the person who complained that PZ38(t) NEVER were with Panzer IVs, and Blitzkrieg was not historical. A gentlemen names Sharp along with another guy named Nafziger both published books that say different.

Rune

Link to post
Share on other sites

While replying on another thread. To show you how much research I typically do, the scenario Panzers in Finland which only a few people have to test, has been researched with 4 books, and a lot of help from people here on the board. Over a month of research alone, NOT counting makig the battle. Tiger Tiger took longer. Tiger Tiger, Royal Opponent, von Lauchert are battles with the ACTUAL forces. Panzers in Finland will also be. I made these for the people who want to see if they could do better then the historical outcome, or to teach why or how something developed. Seldom were battles balanced, as Lindan so correctly points out. It is why i make a wide variety of battles, sizes, types, fictional, historical, semi-historical.

Oh yes, complaining about the forces in a fictional scenario is a waste of time. It is why it is marked FICTIONAL. It is as silly as arguing that historical scenarios should be more balanced.

Rune

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kernow,

I'm assuming that a lot of those games used for your statistic are QBs. The problem with QBs is that unlike the western allies and Germans, the Soviets were not a military force that put great emphasis in versatility or initiative for the conduct of their offensive operations. Hence, a scenario that forces the Soviets to 'wing it' is not adhering to established Soviet military art. Certainly there were times for initiative in the Red Army, but that was mainly with mobile groups during exploitation, or at higher levels of command in general.

Soviet offensive operations were based on an extensive plan starting at the Front/Army level, then working its way down the chain of command in sequential order. To greatly facilitate these operations, two other operations were generally conducted alongside the actual operational planning: reconnaissance/intelligence and deception. Rather than explain what these entailed (something I've done more times than I care to recall on this forum actually), I'll just explain the tactical effects of these operations. A good intelligence operation could identify anywhere from 50-70% of German defenses on the main attack sector throughout the entire main defensive belt. An effective deception operation would insure high tactical densities for Soviet troops in the main attack sector, anywhere from 3:1 to 16:1 odds depending on the year.

One can certainly play with the effectiveness of the intelligence and deception operations to allow for various levels of Soviet effectiveness in scenarios. For example, an average Soviet offensive operation in 1943 might be with 40% of German defenses identified on the map (via labels), and no more than 3:1 numerical superiority (in points, possibly).

Any QB in CMBB where the Soviets are the attackers should be with Armored, Mechanized, or at the very least, Combined Arms. Soviet infantry simply did not go about conducting their own offensive operations without being part of a larger operational plan - at least at army level, with army assets. Of course, there are exceptions, like exploiting cavalry forces in the German rear, or infantry advancing following a successful exploitaion, but in these cases German defenses should be limited to depict the fluid nature of such situations.

While your statistics show a favorable trend for the Soviets (or at least a comparable one), I wonder how many of those QBs were done through the use of massive numbers alone without the proper use of combined arms or planned artillery. Such depictions are fine for the desperate times of 1941, but verge on parody from 1942, on.

Basically, if you want to accurately depict a major Soviet assault in CMBB, it has to be a designed scenario by designers who are well informed in Red Army operations. There really is no other option if the emphasis is historical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were certainly plenty of local attacks carried out purely by infantry. Pure tank attacks from the soviets also occurred at a local level. Pure tank battles happened after the Soviet infantry was stripped off.

I think scenario designs are biased AGAINST depicting the pure arms attacks that the Soviets launched. Combined arms are certainly a more optimal approach, it's just didn't work out that way all the time.

Now at the beginning of an operation combined arms were certainly the goal, but as a battle progressed that did not always continue to be the case.

[ January 13, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...