CMBB axis superiority disproven.

[Guest Mike]

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 I'm writing a scenatio where the Sov's have 20 T34's and a couple of KV's in October 1941, many of them veteran and elite, and the Germans need toilet paper.

So there ya go - now the game has a bias for Soviet Superiority and al is right with the world!

(jeez - how on earth does Scenario design equate to a game bias????......I blame RTS and FPS, and not enough time making up Airfix modes and playing on the kitchen table!!)

[Spook]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

Grisha

I was only trying to illustrate that the game engine was balanced as some have suggested it isnt.

Most of those QB's will have been ME ComArms.

Kernwo.

This is not necessarily true.

Cpt Kernow, it wasn't exactly the design intention of Battlefront for the CM game engine, as utilized in CMBB, to be "balanced" in absolute. It was designed to sufficiently model the HISTORICAL premise of tactical combat in the East Front, and how "balanced" that CMBB scenarios will be under this can depend on a host of variables and preconditions.

I commend your choice of subject matter, Cpt K, and your diligence to "gather data" to make your case. Perhaps the sampling may yet be too small, but it would nominally suffice in my view.

However, it still harbors a central fallacy. Your sample doesn't additionally break out as to the time periods (by historical year) were used in the played games. Were these mostly in a 1941 setting, or 1944, or whatever else?

Consider by example Battlefront's stated application of Soviet C&C constraints in the early war years. In 1941-43, Soviet/Allied troops will rate one experience level lower in C&C response than for their actual experience. That is, until 1944, Soviet veteran troops will respond to commands as if they were regular instead.

And this CAN be one such source of claims of overt pro-German/Axis bias by some CM gamers, at least those playing in the earlier East Front years of 1941-42.

While this is indeed a generalized application of a relative "negative" applied to Soviet troops, it wasn't due to pro-German bias. It was due to the historical precedents that 1) the Soviet Army that was attacked in 1941 was in lump sum "less prepared" for war than the Germans, and 2) while the Soviets certainly learned and adapted, and then applied the adaptations with a vengeance, in general it seemed to take more than a small amount of time to do so, given the need to rebuild from earlier horrific losses.

Another example of argued "pro-German bias" could be with the application of gunnery optics modifiers. German guns ON AVERAGE will have better optics than their opposition, but this wasn't done due to bias. It was done because historical research by Battlefront and supporting contributors were able to discern, since CMBO, how German optics could provide a relatively beneficial effect. For that matter, a variety of German optics types were discerned from the research. Battlefront further stated that an effort to seek out Soviet gunnery optics references still came up short. But pending new documentation that could be found, Battlefront didn't opt for a punitive application of negative optics abilities to the Soviets, as nothing could be found that the Soviets were CONSISTENTLY bad in turn on this score. They simply rate instead as "standard," as it would be for other Allied nations.

Therefore, some CM gamers will grouse that Battlefront has fallen "knee-jerk" into the "pro-German camp"; which is not substantiated in any meaningful way, but it should be recognized as to be inevitable with some of the "whiners."

But as been argued repeatedly over & over again on the BF forums, "balance" can still be achieved even in settings like 1941 or 1945. It is possible to achieve balance, or even an advantage, IF the gamer with the "underdog" force recognizes his force's capabilities AND limitations, and thus adapts his tactics accordingly.

I will give example of a recent CMBB TCP/IP. It was set in 1943, German MECHANIZED ATTACK against a Soviet INFANTRY force (1000 pts). I played the Soviets. On face value, that reads like a situation where I was asking to get blown away.

And I would have -- if I tried to engage with my opponent "his way." He used very sound tactics also, good application of covered approach routes and supressive area fire where he could. He was basically much better at being able to engage from farther away at direct fire with his tanks, APC's, and MG's.

Instead, I made the focal effort to prevent from fighting the battle "his way." My troops dug in, had a few trenches, stayed in covered terrain, and were kept from firing until at close quarters. And they were kept together enough to provide mutual support where possible.

My opponent gave me a rough time and bloodied my troops, but I still held the objectives and inflicted greater total losses on him by game's end. I could've deployed some units better, but my general engagement tactics still worked out for me to win.

It isn't the responsibility of Battlefront to ensure that the CM engine always produces balanced games. That is impossible to do. Rather, it's Battlefront's task for the game engine to provide historical premises to the scenarios as best as possible. The final "balance" is then left to the gamers to make the most of their given situations in competition games like QB's.

And it's hardly as if the Soviets don't have their own tactical cards to play. Who here has enjoyed having to come up against a full-up Soviet SMG squad? Or face vehicles like the KV's and T-34's in 1941, or IS-II's or SU-100's in the later years?

[Cpt Kernow]

It will be impossible to know what year the QB's refered to were played. However I believe it is customary on the blitz ladder to set the year to random, so that no player can cherry pick a year when ons force is in the ascendency. Therefore we can presume a "random" spread of years across the 133 QB's.

Whilst perhaps a few more battles say to bring the total to 200 (I will post again when the figure reaches this) would make things more conclusive, I think the figures suggest a balancing in the cost of units.

The point I think these figures illustrate is this:

Purchased forces of equal value are resulting in balanced fights

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

... you have to ask yourself "what does veteran status represent".

when i choose units in cmbb, the experience level represents their 'anticipated performance' in a scenario, rather than "where they've already been or what they've already done"...

...for example there was that interesting discussion about how green troops were hystorically more willing to take risks than 'veteran' troops...

so when i purchase 'crack' units in an hystorical representation, they may very well have been 'green' in the actual battle, but their 'real life' performance warrants their being represented by 'crack' in cmbb...

until we have a multi-tiered experience rating - say one which covers training, actual experience, willingness to take risks ('gun-shyness'), etc., we have to tweak the cmbb system as it stands to get the 'results' we want...

of course the existence of 'fanatical' ratings and 'fit or unfit' helps us in cmbb... in tailoring the troops to perform the way we 'want them to...'

but nonetheless there is that school of thought about cmbb in which 'conscript to elite' are just labels to be used in trying to emulate a certain 'performance level'...

i'm wondering something about soviet success on the ladders... is any of it due to the cheap 25mm AA, 45mm AT, or 76mm regimental artillery (76.2 L/17)... ?

[MikeyD]

I'm amused by 'assumed German superiority', especially when my first mental picture when I think of the Eastern Front is of the German's panicky scramble all the way from the suburbs of Moscow to downtown Berlin with the Russians nipping at their heels all the way. Not exactly a fitting image for the Nazi propaganda newsreels.

[ January 13, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

Purchased forces of equal value are resulting in balanced fights

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you believe this.

Points values are there to reflect fightign ability to be sure, but they do not take into account an awful lot of things.

Eg 81mm mortar observers can be pretty useful - but might's well be paniced crews if the enemy is all tanks.

Even within "combined arms" force picks you can make some of your opponents picks quiet useless - APC half-tracks are not much use if you're faced with a lot of 20mm cannon, but are great if your opponent has bought lots of walking infantry.

the concept that equal points means a fair game is one closely held by many gamers - but it really only applies where the capabilities of all possible choices are actually quite closely matched and the points reflect the capability within that match.

Eg an equal points armour-only game would be reasonable match if the points reflected the armour-capabilities of all teh troopsinvolved.

similarly with a no-armour game if all the points reflected only the non-armour capabilities of the troops involved.

Start adding armour to infantry, airpower and artillery and points values become highly dependant on what it is your opponent has chosen!

[Cpt Kernow]

Jesus

there are some pedantic bastiches on this forum.

Mike

I am not living in cloud cukoo land.

Look at the stats I have posted on the first page.

Yes they are not yet conclusive. But at 133 QB (And I am talking about QB's) they paint a picture. That picture is of a balanced spread of victories between to the sides with a slight bias towards the Allies.

Therefore it is fair to assume that in QB where both combatants have the same amount of purchase points both sides have an equal chance of winning.

This is of course before the units are purchased so talking about what units people buy is totaly irrelevant to this discusion

If this still leaves room for confusion, I am saying that when I agree to play you in a 2000 point ME QB and you can choose the side (But not the year, as all QB reported in stats had yrs set to random) at this point things are equal, one does not gain an advantage by either choosing Axis or Allies. Of course once one begins to buy units both luck and skill begin to reflect on the manner and things are far from unequal.

I was just trying to say that one does not gain an advantage by choosing Axis in QB's as the stats show.

Cheers for the unwarranted aggression.

Kernow.

[ January 13, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[Dirtweasle]

Just wondering if there is a good "balanced rules" guldline simaler to Fionn's balanced rules for CMBO?

I do not play too many PBEM games other than with my small group of regulars, but I remember how nice it was to fall back on Fionn's rules when I initially got involve with playing CMBO PBEM.

Is anyone developing or are there balanced force rules for CMBB?

[Spook]

I in turn understand what you are trying to say, Cpt Kernow, but when you wrote:

Purchased forces of equal value are resulting in balanced fights

this was not stated properly. If all things are left random in a QB ME of equal points, even letting the computer choose the forces, then there's no guarantee of a "balanced fight." The only equalizing constraint is of points, but a fully random-generated map and randomly selected forces may still produce an unbalanced game when played between two gamers of fairly equal skill.

On that matter, how can it be guaranteed that balanced fights will result, under equal-point ME's, if one player has much greater skill at playing CM? It can't be.

However, in your follow-up:

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

I was just trying to say that one does not gain an advantage by choosing Axis in QB's as the stats show.

Now this is stating it better, and I concur in general, though the scenario timeframe can qualify. Some CM gamers may claim that Battlefront intended to apply arbitrary biases, either pro-German or anti-Soviet (or both), without some historical basis. But such a claim of bias is completely unsubstantiated to me. And your statistical sample certainly doesn't disprove my own view.

Some CMBB gamers will always complain and cry "foul." So be it. But I doubt that they represent the majority of CMBB gamers. Heck, from my end, my own preference is Soviets regardless of timeframe. There's no real rationale to it, it's just my own "bias."

[Crazy]

It was done because historical research by Battlefront and supporting contributors were able to discern, since CMBO, how German optics could provide a relatively beneficial effect. For that matter, a variety of German optics types were discerned from the research. Battlefront further stated that an effort to seek out Soviet gunnery optics references still came up short.

There did they search? on yahoo? It doesn't take too much to contack experts in Russia thought inet (www.armor.kiev.ua for excample),they can provide with that information (there are alot of other places and people who know about whose thing just because it is their jobs).It couldn't be SHORT.

Do you guys really believe that russian did'n have veteran soldiers/crews/pilots by the begginig of war? (by mid/late there were plenty)Germans fought in Europe before attacking Soviet Union right:D ? They got their expirience, and what russian slept this time? What do you know about "Халхин-Гол"? Another thing that german attack was perfectly planed and prepared, and german e..e..e spec.forces have arrived before the attack descised and cut off communications or just "took out" russian officers (in many places).In Ukraine was a pro-fashist community, whitch members with the beggining of Barbarrosa simply attacked soviet officers in cities.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

Jesus

there are some pedantic bastiches on this forum.

Mike

I am not living in cloud cukoo land.

Look at the stats I have posted on the first page.

Yes they are not yet conclusive. But at 133 QB (And I am talking about QB's) they paint a picture. That picture is of a balanced spread of victories between to the sides with a slight bias towards the Allies.

Therefore it is fair to assume that in QB where both combatants have the same amount of purchase points both sides have an equal chance of winning..

which is also nonsense!

You do not have enough information about the parameters from a simple count of games won and lost to make any conclusions at all from this "sample".

WHO won the games that weer won - ie how good were teh players? How good were their opponents?

You can't base it upon currentranks and assume that opponents and players were close together either because new players start at eth bottom and if they work their way to teh top then they play a range of abilities.

How many of them were ME's vs attack/fdefend games? There'a an asumption that they aer all or mostly ME's but that's not the same as evidence. Even a small number of different game types can change things if the game system is not balanced.

If you and I play 200 games and one of us wins 150 times vs the other one 50 times then does that mean the game is biased?

Cheers for the unwarranted aggression.

Oh stop being such a cry baby - if you're going to make statements then eitehr be prepared to defend them against honest criticism r go somewher eelse.

No-one has been agressive towards you at all - grow up!

[WWB]

Originally posted by Crazy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It was done because historical research by Battlefront and supporting contributors were able to discern, since CMBO, how German optics could provide a relatively beneficial effect. For that matter, a variety of German optics types were discerned from the research. Battlefront further stated that an effort to seek out Soviet gunnery optics references still came up short.

There did they search? on yahoo? It doesn't take too much to contack experts in Russia thought inet (www.armor.kiev.ua for excample),they can provide with that information (there are alot of other places and people who know about whose thing just because it is their jobs).It couldn't be SHORT.

Do you guys really believe that russian did'n have veteran soldiers/crews/pilots by the begginig of war? (by mid/late there were plenty)Germans fought in Europe before attacking Soviet Union right:D ? They got their expirience, and what russian slept this time? What do you know about "Халхин-Гол"? Another thing that german attack was perfectly planed and prepared, and german e..e..e spec.forces have arrived before the attack descised and cut off communications or just "took out" russian officers (in many places).In Ukraine was a pro-fashist community, whitch members with the beggining of Barbarrosa simply attacked soviet officers in cities.</font>

[Sarge Saunders]

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.

I know the bundled scenario in question here and people who may be confused should realize this is a KING Tiger. It is (nearly) impossible to KO the Crack King Tiger with the forces given if the axis player has even a clue. Also, I might add, this scenario sports about 30 bazillion axis halftracks and trucks in April 1945. Uhmmmm, regardless of anything else that is not very historical IMHO.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Crazy:

There did they search? on yahoo? It doesn't take too much to contack experts in Russia thought inet (www.armor.kiev.ua for excample),they can provide with that information (there are alot of other places and people who know about whose thing just because it is their jobs).It couldn't be SHORT.

Battlefront, in prior posts running over two years, indicated its desire to resolve just what exactly the Soviets used for gunnery optics on a CONSISTENT basis. Perhaps they found a good number of references in this search, only that these couldn't provide the desired and VERIFIABLE technical information. Not being a BF rep, however, I can only speculate.

But if you wish to search it out, and provide information to BF on your results, by all means go ahead and do so. The BF guys aren't particular about who sends information to them, in fact IIRC some outsiders like "rexford" provided some useful technical info that was applied in CMBB unique from the earlier CMBO.

Do you guys really believe that russian did'n have veteran soldiers/crews/pilots by the begginig of war? (by mid/late there were plenty)Germans fought in Europe before attacking Soviet Union right

I never asserted as that the Soviet Army of 1941, at least that facing the Germans on the frontier, didn't have ANY "veteran" soldiers. But would you assert in turn as that all across the East Front, when Barbarossa started, the Soviet soldier was fully comparable in training, experience, and proven tactics to his German counterparts, all the way down to squad level? Especially given the earlier "flux" of the Soviet officer corps prior to the war?

I can recognize that some select Soviet units here and there in 1941 put up a good fight, giving as good as they got or even better. But when taking the ENTIRE frontal results for the period June-Sept '41, an argument made as that the Soviets were fully equal ON AVERAGE in tactical abilities in that same time is rather daunting to prove.

[Crazy]

Spook i never sayd that all Soviet forses there equal to german in combat expirience,yes they suffered grate losses, they desperatly needed men, casualties were inormous.But they had their elite too, by the begining and with continuing of war their numbers started to grow.

Reason: even in late years of war in scenarious if you encounter KT it'll be at least regular.But elite crews would not abbandon their tank just because Soviet attack started, russians encounted many abandont Panther (i don't believe it that they broke and crews desided not to take chance), with field doc. on it. And what i see for soviets ...(except for some scenarious/battles) if they get a regular or veteran tank (1 of 4)it's grate.

[Crazy]

[Cpt Kernow]

MIKE

If you read through my posts Ive allready answered those questions, and cant be bothered to repeat myself for the sake of your immature kneejerk rant. I would tell tou to grow up but it seems more important that you get a life.

Ok actually I will repeat myself.

%90+ of games at least will have been QB ME of equal points as these are what ladder players at the Blitz play.

The abilities of the players will vary across both sides, given the number of games played this is what is called a statistical reality. I could never prove the relative skills of the players, I have no idea who the players where in each individiual battle, but it can be SAFELY ASSUMED that over the 138 games there was not a trend for better or stronger players to allways take the ALLIED side as this would constitute a massive fluke.

As I have said repeatedly 138 games is not a large enough sample for definite conclusions but is enough to speak of a strong trend.

That trend is that at the outset of a QB ME one does not gain an advantage from choosing to play AXIS.

Can you tell me if you disagree with that basic premise. If you do please support statistics of your own to create an arguement rather than just ranting against mine.

[ January 14, 2003, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[rune]

Historical forces = actual forces involved. Like it or not, they had them.

Sources: Thomas Jentz, Nafziger, Russian Battlefield, History of the 501st Panzer. Etc Etc Etc.

Sorry all these sources got it wrong. Oh yeah, the battle happened in 1944 not 1945, was at a railhead where the units were being resupplied, and the zillion tanks/halftracks is a whopping 13 HTs and no trucks. Also the report of 6 HTs being destroyed in AARs from the battle has to be wrong. Not to mention the Russian tanks are a mix from Veteran to conscript. Try playing the scenario before bashing it.

Rune

[ January 14, 2003, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Of course a lot of the variables could be gotten rid of if the AI could play itself.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Sgtgoody:

Of course a lot of the variables could be gotten rid of if the AI could play itself.

That wouldn't tell you much, because the AI doesn't know how to use units to their full effectiveness. For example, when was the last time you saw the AI use a HQ unit to spot for an on-board mortar?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have noticed a very bizarre trend over on the Rugged Defense ladder. Looking at the last 40 QBs finished, we see:

Axis Wins: 7

Allied Wins: 27

Draws: 6

Much too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions, but very strange nonetheless.

[SgtMuhammed]

It would, though, give you two opponents of exactly the same skill. With that it would be easy to design nominally balanced scenarios and run them to detect build in bias.

[rune]

A lot of coding only to help with MEs. No thanks, rather have human testers that try different things that help you balance out better.

Why only with MEs? Becuase the AI cannot handle the attack well, all it would prove is the AI is better at the defense.

Rune

[SgtMuhammed]

I'm not saying it should be done I'm just stating what you would need to form a contol group since everyone is getting bent out of shape about the posted results.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by rune:

Historical forces = actual forces involved. Like it or not, they had them.

Sources: Thomas Jentz, Nafziger, Russian Battlefield, History of the 501st Panzer. Etc Etc Etc.

Sorry all these sources got it wrong. Oh yeah, the battle happened in 1944 not 1945, was at a railhead where the units were being resupplied, and the zillion tanks/halftracks is a whopping 13 HTs and no trucks. Also the report of 6 HTs being destroyed in AARs from the battle has to be wrong. Not to mention the Russian tanks are a mix from Veteran to conscript. Try playing the scenario before bashing it.

Rune

**SPOILER***

Hi Rune, Sorry about the confusion but speaking for myself, I was not thinking of one of your scenarios. The description of a crack KT vs. T34/85s made me think of Marxdorf which is not one of yours. Mad Bull and I played that a while back and it left a bad taste for me....

What is the name of the one you wrote with a KT? I'll be sure and play the german side when it comes up!

Cheers,

Sarge