Biggest shortcoming of CM system

[BlackVoid]

Too much control over troops and too much micro-management.

This leads to a puzzle game, where you must find that spot where you can see enemy troops (infantry) , but the enemy (guns and armor) cannot see you. Whoever is better at this 'puzzle' usually wins. Many games are decided on miniscule LOS issues. Troops fire through trees, through narrow places, etc.

Hope CMBB will be better in this respect, but this really turned me off in CMBO. (Although after about 150 games against humans.)

[M. Bates]

I agree with you.

One example is that when defending, I always put my infantry at the back and rear of houses and at the back of forests. This gives them a narrow LOS, and deprives the enemy of LOS until they are very near to my infantry, and then the enemy infantry gets chewed up.

Also there is all the emphasis on reverse slope defending. Once again the enemy has no LOS until at point-blank range.

It is possible to defend a large Heavy Building indefinitely by having two infantry squads on the bottom floor at the back of the building supported by a Platoon HQ on the top floor directly above them.

In a lot of PBEM games the first player to "stick their head above the parapet" and try to do something interesting with their tanks will end up with a lot of dead AFVs. For an AT gun, a line of Tall Trees is like an impenetrable brick wall to limit enemy LOS.

Another point is that success in CM is dictated more by an understanding of the CM game engine. Given the strange way in which squads cannot move directly from one house into its neighbour (instead having to walk outside and then back in again) it's easy to predict where the enemy will be forced into the open while advancing through a town or village.

[Gary T]

Also there is all the emphasis on reverse slope defending. Once again the enemy has no LOS until at point-blank range.

Er, this is a legitimate real world military tactic used since the time of Wellington. The no LOS until point blank range is its exact purpose. Not a 'gamey' tactic at all.

[Michael Dorosh]

All of that sounds like realistic military thinking - I mean, AT guns are SUPPOSED to stay hidden and be hard to spot, etc. Sounds like the system is working the way it is supposed to.

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by Gary T:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Also there is all the emphasis on reverse slope defending. Once again the enemy has no LOS until at point-blank range.

Er, this is a legitimate real world military tactic used since the time of Wellington. The no LOS until point blank range is its exact purpose. Not a 'gamey' tactic at all.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

Too much control over troops and too much micro-management.

This leads to a puzzle game, where you must find that spot where you can see enemy troops (infantry) , but the enemy (guns and armor) cannot see you. Whoever is better at this 'puzzle' usually wins. Many games are decided on miniscule LOS issues. Troops fire through trees, through narrow places, etc.

Hope CMBB will be better in this respect, but this really turned me off in CMBO. (Although after about 150 games against humans.)

ok lets see

Too much control over troops and too much micro-management.

Try this:

Play ONLY Green Troops

This leads to a puzzle game, where you must find that spot where you can see enemy troops (infantry) , but the enemy (guns and armor) cannot see you. Whoever is better at this 'puzzle' usually wins.

I thought thats what strategy and TATICS were all about! Is that not really the way it actually works in military combat?

I thought this thread was going to be about things like the fact that Absolute spotting means everybody know everything right away, or the fact that you can fire and get LOS directly through ALL vehicles (except those smoking and on fire) and through things like pillboxes and houses sometimes.

Those are some more obvious limitations.

-tom w

[Bullethead]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

It was an example used to support the argument that too much time in CM is spent depriving the enemy of LOS or trying to achieve LOS yourself.

Um, this is what happens in real life. It's been that way since the rifle replaced the musket. If you expose yourself on the battlefield, you die a lot. Most times, you see only a small percentage of the enemy force while they're alive. The rest are just muzzle flashes spurting from some piece of cover.

In CM tank battles tend to resemble cornered rats scurrying from cover to cover.

The only time in real life where this is not the case is when there is no cover to exploit, such as in the desert or the steppes.

Bottom line is, weapons are deadly things and real world tactics have evolved to avoid their fire as much as possible. Cover and concealment are 2 of the main things that the whole fight revolves around. Defenders try to position themselves in cover where attackers must cross open ground to reach them. If covered avenues of approach are unavoidable, defenders guard them, mine them, and/or register arty on them, so the attackers won't be able to use them. Meanwhile, attackers use whatever cover is available as positions for support weapons, as means to get assault forces close to the defenders without taking effective fire, and as safe avenues to outflank defensive positions.

Both attackers and defenders often find that natural cover and concealment is inadequate, so they make their own with smoke. Defenders fire smoke behind assault troops to mask their supporting weapons. Attackers fire smoke to allow their assault troops to cross open ground as safely as possible.

So basically, in real life, it's all about LOS. This is because most battlefield weapons are direct fire. Hell, even with arty, you have to know the enemy is there to call fire on him, which means you have to see him usually. So all that fire and movement stuff is totally LOS-dependent. If you can't see the enemy, you can't shoot him. If the enemy sees you, you can't move without getting shot.

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:I thought this thread was going to be about things like the fact that Absolute spotting means everybody know everything right away,

-tom w[/QB]

Absolute spotting is certainly a key point as well.

It only takes one bailed crewman to spot an advancing platoon for all enemy units up to an infinite distance away know exactly where that unit is.

Unfortunately relative spotting and proper house-to-house travelling won't be in the next CM.

[M Hofbauer]

BlackVoid and M.Bates,

if I understand you correctly then what you want is the user interface and orders menu of CM reduced to three buttons of general attitude of your whole force:

advance

hold

retreat

seriously, I find this quite silly. No one ever argued that chess was too much micromanaging. Its a game for god's sake, if it was supposed to be real then you'ld have to go down to level 1 view somewhere with a map and a radio set.

[Louie the Toad]

Dear M.Bates,

The Problem:

You stated:

In CM tank battles tend to resemble cornered rats scurrying from cover to cover.

Diagnosis:

In your ideal game, what would you have tanks do?

Once you answer that question, look at the scope of CMBO (which is tactical}; the terrain (which is generally hilly and wooded, and includes villages); the range at which battles take place (which is relatively close).

I could be wrong, but I surmise that your image of tank warfare and the reality of the Western European battlefield of CMBO do not coincide.

Now ask yourself, is this a faulty game or is my thinking about tank warfare in this particular theatre faulty?

Prescription:

Read: 'Anatomy of A Battle' by Macksey, for insight into the European Theatre at the tactical level.

Wait: for CMBB and CM Western Desert.

Dr. Toad

[KNac]

I think that all is a good thing that adds realism, and the pourpose of 3D engine is not only because it looks nicer but because of LOS, cover, etc. The problem for me is that all the micro-decision (squad management, search for cover, better LOS, ets) should be done by the AI. CM is a tactical wargame, where you comander of a battalion as much (more likely company comander) the coronels, captains, or even the lieutenants shouldn´t take care of those micro-decision, because that was decision of sargents and was a basic training in all armies and basic rules of combat.

So in conclussion the AI should be better programmed in incoming games (i hope CMBB has advanced in that aspect) to make those microdecisions. as well if in the future we get full represented squads or crews (i mean if a squad have 9 soldiers you see the 9 soldiers on the battlefield) program an AI management of the microdecision into the squad, movement into the squad, etc, ie where to position the LMG man and were to place two rifle man, etc)

i know it will be a lot of effort but as a tactical commander we cannot take care of each micro-decision (it is unrealistic!) because the game can be very long and less flexible.

[ March 24, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

[kipanderson]

M. Bates, hi,

I must confess I agree with those whom have pointed out that what you do not like sounds to me like the features that make CM so realistic. Including the way infantry in a heavy building tend to deal with attacking troops at close range. With the exception of always having to leave one building to enter another next door, all the features you mention add to the realism of the modelling, in my view.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. For me one of the great things about CM is that you play the role of the battalion, company and platoon commanders, but importantly also the AFV and squad leader. I do not normaly micro manage a lot, but like the fact that I can if I wish to.

[ March 24, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

Too much control over troops and too much micro-management.

True. Unavoiadable unless you really abstarct a game and make a command-game out of it. On a simple map with military symbols.

This leads to a puzzle game, where you must find that spot where you can see enemy troops (infantry) , but the enemy (guns and armor) cannot see you. Whoever is better at this 'puzzle' usually wins.

And what makes you believe that isn't this way in reality? Sounds entriely realistic to me.

Many games are decided on miniscule LOS issues. Troops fire through trees, through narrow places, etc.

Well, people want to shoot and not want to be shot at. It may be unfair, but hello, this is war.

Hope CMBB will be better in this respect, but this really turned me off in CMBO. (Although after about 150 games against humans.)

What do you want? That people always rush in the open?

[Mr. Johnson--]

What about the comment that someone made months ago, CMBO is just a tactical wargame with WW2 skins.

Change the bmps, and you've got a fantasy wargame, with diffrent types of war rhinos with large magical lasers, and infantry with their own smaller lasers, catapults that toss eggs filled with magical energy to dig out entrenched troops, and dragons with huge magical eggs that they drop where their dragonriders tell them too.

[JasonC]

Picking good locations is obviously highly important in real tactical combat. CM is right to show that as the case. But the fellow does have a point, when he laments the MM involved in tweaking the last 2-4 meters. When the effects of such tiny changes are large, the net result is simply to favor whoever spends more time on the tendious work involved in optimizing exact positions.

If that work were tactically interesting in itself - involving military principles like reverse slope or combined arms, etc - then that would be all fine. But when it is a matter of finding the one spot where a 20mm armored car can shoot through trees with the lowest hit chance for the enemy replies, it is somewhat silly. Not because it is wholly unrealitic, but because the scale is off.

It is a first person shooter's decision, made in reality by drivers, gunners, or junior NCOs. Again, if there were 2-3 such decisions that mattered, it would remain interesting. But when there are 500, and each can take a minute to do exactly right, the result is simply to favor the fellow with 8 hours to spend on a PBEM turn.

I don't think that the demand that the tac AI do it for you is reasonable, however. Such decisions should not be optimized, in more than a few key cases. Having everyone always get near optimum performance from a magically able tac AI would not be at all desirable. It would simply extend the unrealistic levels of coordination and gods-eye-view effects to more cases, which is a step in the wrong direction.

A better solution, in my opinion, is to play TCP, without the time available for such tweaking. Even without the timer on, you do not have anything like enough time for such monkey business. Oh, you can plan reverse slope deployments, and notice key locations - which is all good stuff, the stuff the game should be made from. But you can't sweat the last 4 meters of positioning.

The same result could be extended to PBEMs through a simple gentleman's agreement, provided each trusts the other to abide by it. Time your PBEM turns, allowing no more than 1 hour for set up and no more than 30 minutes to enter orders. (Often it won't take nearly that long anyway). Or less, if you both prefer a different feel in this regard.

Tournament chess games are timed. There is an old joke about untimed games. The old Viennese master is losing to young foreigner, with a forced 2 move mate on the board. The master looks at it patiently. The youngster loses it and yells at him to move, that it doesn't matter what he does, just make any move, the outcome will be the same. He ends with "why don't you move?" The master looks at him with a clever wink in his eye and replies, "If I move, I'll lose."

I would hardly call it the biggest problem with CM, though.

[Louie the Toad]

BlackVoid,

If you don't want to micro manage then don't do it!!!

CM gives you choices. Here are some:

1. For movement, select the Platoon Leader with a right click. All of his forces that are in command will move with him. So, let them. Don't make any fine adjustments.

2. For targeting, just move forces. Don't aim for them. Let the AI decide which targets to shoot at.

3. For less 'eye of god' and more fog of war, play at level 1. Be sure Full Fog of War is on.

4. Switch off all types of info that you should not be able to receive such as 'Detailed Armor Hits'.

Designing Toad

[Gen-x87H]

CM seems at times to be to linear. Once one side gets a small upper hand on manpower then it usually is just a matter of time before the opponent is finished. Unless the person with the small upper hand does something really stupid.

There rarely is a time when a squad will make some miraculous stand and hold off an entire platoon ect ect. This may have something to do with the way squads target. Being they apparently only target on other squad at when in reality the whole squad may be targeting other groups as they run across an open field.

Gen

[M. Bates]

I'm not trying to suggest that CM is a bad game, but no one can deny the unfairness in one inconsequential grunt spotting a tank, then all his comrades miles around know all about it.

Absolute spotting is one factor, but the other factor is that as someone has already said, in CM you are acting as the Platoon Commander all the way up to Battalion Commander. The inherent nature of a computer game like this is that in 10 seconds of game time between Sgt Becker spotting a Jumbo Sherman, suddenly General Hessler is cancelling the orders for Tigers to head East, and now they are moving West.

Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

CM seems at times to be to linear. Once one side gets a small upper hand on manpower then it usually is just a matter of time before the opponent is finished. Unless the person with the small upper hand does something really stupid.

There rarely is a time when a squad will make some miraculous stand and hold off an entire platoon ect ect

Gen

I think it's basically because Veteran US Squad encounters Regular SS Squad, the game engine does it's calculations, then inevitably the Regular squad comes off worst. There does seem to be a set predictability to many encounters and so it appears that no miraculous deeds take place.

Perhaps there is also the momentum of one side gaining the upper hand, and they not only have a slight territorial advantage but also a global morale advantage.

In conclusion the best way to play CM is with large maps and a large number of units. This gives both players plenty of options and room to move around the map, without both players getting fixated on half a dozen heavy buildings (and victory flag) in the middle of the map.

[Mud]

Would you rather that miracles were commonplace ?!

Fanaticism *does* happen; I once had an Ami rifle half-squad, out of any HQ (once the HQ itself got killed -- itself getting 10 confirmed) get 34 confirmed kills, all at very close range, without ever breaking despite being directly in the path of the enemy's main force. But it does not, and should not, happen very often.

As for biggest flaw, yes, I'd agree with absolute spotting. It distorts recon and makes masses much more coordinated than they should be, particularly when using off-board arty given their ability to target blind. Ouch, poor AT guns...

Vehicles being transparent to fire also bothers me. Infantry should be able to use vehicles for cover against small-arms fire, and vehicles shouldn't be able to shoot through each other unless it's rather powerful ammo through soda cans, and even if a round went all the way through somehow there'd be a lot of energy loss.

[M. Bates]

Perhaps CM needs more micro management options. Such as the ability to dig in whilst in woods. It's stupid that infantry who have been stationery in some woods for five turns are not better fortified than enemy infantry who blunder right into their position.

Infantry can enter a building from any angle. But what about doors and side windows? If two buildings are right next to each other then why is the option to go directly from one to another removed?

Also, why is infantry in open ground so hopelessly exposed to enemy fire? The only way that infantry are prevented from getting cut to bits is by having maps full of bumps, hills and mounds. That is not realistic. At the moment CM maps are either lots of impenetrable forest or billiard table-like expanses of freshly cut grass.

[MrSpkr]

Okay M.Bates, let me see if I got this straight --

First, you agreed there was TOO MUCH micromanagement and individual control over units.

Then, you jumped on board the (perfectly legitimate) argument regarding relative spotting.

Finally, you are now advocating more micromanagement controls for the units.

What exactly IS your complaint, anyway? And why the lack of consistency?

[Louie the Toad]

Excuse me! M.Bates

Your quote ! ?

At the moment CM maps are either lots of impenetrable forest or billiard table-like expanses of freshly cut grass.

What game are you really playing?

Smelling a joke ..... Toad.

[Redwolf]

The comment about the "better" squad always coming out better has something for it.

One the things that make CMBO different from other games is the fine-graded modeling of armor combat. Armor combat is a lot more dynamic and random than in games like -say- TacOps. TacOps has tank platoons as single markers (but can be splitted down to single tanks), and a simpler knockout model. Tank combat in the abstracted game is much more predictable. It is no wonder that a calculations-heavy player like me has a harder time in CMBO and frequently gets all his armor shot up, whereas that never happend in TacOS (so far). Getting into an armor fight with a superiour number of tanks makes almost certain local victory in TacOps, but by far not in CMBO, I had 7 tanks shot up by two.

However, I guess we have to live with the fact that the same benefit that armor had in CMBO cannot be easily applied to squads. The squad-internal abstraction is neccessary if you don't want to overwhelm the player with neccessary sub-squad commands. But CMBO gives some platoon-wide options, like that an infantry unit is much more vulnerable from the sides and hence you are truely rewarded for good placement of the squads in the platoon, although squad-to-squad combat is predictable.

Having said all that, I think there is one item in CMBO than makes even squad-to-squad combat a lot more less predictable than in TacOps, and that is morale. Morale is a composition of global morale, HQ bonus (if any) and previous events. When a squad goes under, I find it is frequently not from plain having all men shot. But from breaking, running and getting shot in the back. Or from getting supressed too early, losing fire superiority and getting slowly reduced. That can happen even to the much better equipped squad if morale is low.

I don't want to say CMBO is perfect, but the items in this thread appear not to be real problems, at least not avoidable ones given the CMBO game scale and technology.

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Mr. Johnson--:

What about the comment that someone made months ago, CMBO is just a tactical wargame with WW2 skins.

Change the bmps, and you've got a fantasy wargame, with diffrent types of war rhinos with large magical lasers, and infantry with their own smaller lasers, catapults that toss eggs filled with magical energy to dig out entrenched troops, and dragons with huge magical eggs that they drop where their dragonriders tell them too.

I never saw this comment but I would make the counter-argument that really ALL OTHER sci-fi, fantasy or what-if wargames are just WW2 wargames with different skins. And the reasonf for that is that WW2 had it all, a perfect combination of high-power death-dealing and man to man combat.

[Edited to add:]

What I mean is, WW2 was WELL BALANCED. Must have taken a lot of play-testing to get that war right

[ March 24, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[LeeW]

On the question of troops having to exit buildings to move from one to the other. This seems real to me unless you have time to blow a hole in the wall. I know that in our town on main street the buildings do not have doors between the different business. They sometimes have two brick walls seperating them! Now I would assume that would be common practice in Europe, but I don't know that for sure, never been there

lee