Loppari Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I'm so pissed off right now that I felt the urge to post to this forum. One of main reasons I like CMBO and CMBB is the REALISM. Today, I noticed the bitter truth about the operations, the fact how troops are layed down between battles. Why is the layouting made so, to be strict, stupid? With borders indicating allowed layout spots, every single one of tankhunters and other 'sneaky' troops that are behind enemy lines or flanking them has cover blown. I just can't figure a reason to this approach, totally mindless. The most simple way thinkable, having the new troops come from the border, would at least be realistic - and most importantly, not have the unrealistic effect of enemy suddenly realising position of every flanking troop. Thoughts? Comments? If there is earlier discussion about this, I would appreciate any links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Battaglia Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I'm sure there has been discussion about this before, but searching it out might be a bit complex and time consuming. I would just point out that one has to remember that there is typically a lot of time considered to have elapsed between battles in an operation, like a couple of hours and usually more. During this time troops out on the flanks might feel vulnerable and rejoin the main force, return for a meal and more ammo, be pushed out by a patrol not modeled by the operation, etc. In order to obtain a flanking position (and this can be done to some degree) you need to occupy the flank in force and not just with a few elements. Depending on the "no man's land" built in by the designer, the enemy may be forced to withdraw from the pocket in between battles anyway, so in this case you have achieved the goal of taking the real estate. You are correct, in operations the new setup areas are not always ideal, but from what I've seen of other games where troops begin 10 feet from the enemy in the following battles, I'll take this system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Originally posted by Loppari: I'm so pissed off right now that I felt the urge to post to this forum. One of main reasons I like CMBO and CMBB is the REALISM. Today, I noticed the bitter truth about the operations, the fact how troops are layed down between battles. Why is the layouting made so, to be strict, stupid? With borders indicating allowed layout spots, every single one of tankhunters and other 'sneaky' troops that are behind enemy lines or flanking them has cover blown. I just can't figure a reason to this approach, totally mindless. The most simple way thinkable, having the new troops come from the border, would at least be realistic - and most importantly, not have the unrealistic effect of enemy suddenly realising position of every flanking troop. Thoughts? Comments? If there is earlier discussion about this, I would appreciate any links.I will not argue that Ops are perfect by any stretch, but they are alot better in CMBB. Anyhow, excatly what better system could you come up with within the framework of CM as we know it. Keep in mind that it needs to work well in all cases. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabpub Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 I think he is speaking about the fact that in CMBB units can be isolated and locked into position. I was doing Derg. Roadblock and isolated some Russians in the woods. When the setup for the 2nd phase came up, there were these little areas in my setup zone where I was not allowed to setup. Obviously, this was where the 'locked' Russians were, so I was able to setup a little "greeting" for them. Now, this was vs AI, so he didn't care, but any human would be crying their eyes out... Now, as to the matter of how to handle this, I don't know. You could make it that the side with the isolated units in their setup zone would not "see" the areas where the isolated units are, but that could lead to some weird situations..on the other hand, the way it is now, they are as good as dead...which perhaps they should be after being cut off; this is for better minds (and more responsible ones) to look into. But, the way it is now, the isolated units might as well be firing of flares and rockets during the setup phase while screaming at the top of their lungs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loppari Posted October 30, 2002 Author Share Posted October 30, 2002 Yes, tabpub understood the point. The operation we were playing was the battle in Kharkov (or near it), can't remember the name from top of my head. The fact that so many games are even worse is not worth mentioning. We are talking about the best game in my opinion and strength of it is realism, which fails at this point. The reason why I'm even more dissappointed is that there would indeed be better ways to handle it. 1) The deployment zones don't need to be so specificly drawn, straighter lines will reduce the overall picture of enemy locations. 2) According to my knowledge, there was no such thing as "no man's land". Using areas that neither of players are allowed to setup gives more 'fog'. 3) Tiny units like team of two tankhunters really don't necessarily need that prohibited area around them. Let enemy deploy troops in there. If enemy DOES NOT deploy any troops there, fine - and he can't _know_ there wouldn't be anyone. If enemy DOES deploy unit near, but far enough to be realistic, fine again. It's alright that enemy is in the range when new battle begins but both of them still have plenty of time to react. Trickiest part of the thing is ofcourse what if enemy does deploy near or exactly on same spot? I don't like to say what would be the 'best' way but there would be at least some ways. Like 1) Predetermine the result of engagement, players are informed shortly results of the battle and rest of the units remain in the area - not necessarily JUST in the spot but near (There are ofcourse some more details to this approach). 2) Units do not appear suddenly on the spot but are approaching the spot instead (complicated proposal but has points). Finally, as an overall suggestion. Which would definately be better than the current one, is just to let reinforcements arrive along the sides of the map, where friendly troops are. Whole idea of units teleporting from place to place is ridiculous as there quite propably (like in our case) are still units in face to face combat with each other. Finally after final comment =) Totally different approach would be to have computer resolve forced fallback - damages to each side are distributes accordingly and new battle starts with sides deploying to their own sides with no man's land in the middle. But getting out of subject now. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolman Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 Strange things can happen in an operation. For example: one of my HQs got captured but i managed to free them. If you free troops they are unarmed. For the rest of the opreation (four battles) the HQ walked around unarmed. This can´t be realistic anyway !! Cheers ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts