Biggest shortcoming of CM system

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Johnson--:

[qb]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 [...]

</font>

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by 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?

I was agreeing more with his frustation about LOS.

I'd like to see more variance in terrain and more complex terrain.

Instead of relatively high, smooth hills there could be small ditches and isolated trees. At the moment buildings feel way too basic. Platoon HQs need to have a greater command radius in urban areas and artillery does not play an important enough role in CM.

It's not really good enough to say that CM is not designed to simulate certain aspects of warfare. Why give control over a unit of 8 men if they cannot be used properly. Why is it that the only form of man-made fortification is a very basic fox hole. At least trenches will make it into CM2.

Another point is that infantry cannot closely follow and work with friendly AFVs, as tank and halftracks are not "solid". This is really important. In CM it feels like infantry and AFVs are divorced from each other.

These are just a general bunch of suggestions/complaints.

[ March 24, 2002, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: M. Bates ]

[killmore]

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.

I agree somewhat. CM tends to become a chess game against humans. - But you can fix this. Just give them only 5 min to set up and 1 minute after every turn. Unfortunatly this leads to speed-clicking...

[Louie the Toad]

PanzerLeader is correct. Chronology proves it.

Name a Fantasy or Sci Fi wargame that came out prior to WWI, WWII, or Korea. NONE. Although I am not familiar with much Sci Fi or Fantasy, it would seem to me that if the game involved maneuver, attrition, direct and indirect fire it would simply be a copy of any warfare in the world's history.

A UNIQUE sci fi or fantasy wargame, one that did not copy the structure of conventional warfare, would be totally different and be a product of 'thinking out of the box' (a pun of sorts, here).

History repeating itself..... Toad

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

I was agreeing more with his frustation about LOS.

I'd like to see more variance in terrain and more complex terrain.

Instead of relatively high, smooth hills there could be small ditches and isolated trees.

Don't throw the Quickbattle generator in one pod with what a scenario designer can do.

At the moment buildings feel way too basic.

Yes, CMBB will have a mechanism to construct more complex blocks of big buildings.

Platoon HQs need to have a greater command radius in urban areas

And that is supposed to help realism ... how?

and artillery does not play an important enough role in CM.

You haven't played swamp or skelley lately, did you? Read some AARs at tournamenthouse.com, artillery is *the* item that turns games.

Comes in variants, either you get clobbered by lots of big and fast mortars, by 105mm VT everytime you step into the open, or by just plain big stuff.

Your comment is simply wrong.

Why is it that the only form of man-made fortification is a very basic fox hole. At least trenches will make it into CM2.

Symmetrical warfare is easier to simulate in a realistic way. Every new defensive item, including improved cover, things like premeasured distances for guns and tanks, needs to be balanced, and that usually needs playtesting. A lot of work. The same work invested into symmetrical items may give more bang for the bug for a majority of battles.

Another point is that infantry cannot closely follow and work with friendly AFVs, as tank and halftracks are not "solid". This is really important. In CM it feels like infantry and AFVs are divorced from each other.

True, this is a matter or work for the CPU and the programmer and has been announced to be on the TODO list for the next engine.

[ March 24, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Affentitten]

Originally posted by 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

You took the words right out of my mouth. Just because buildings have a common wall, doesn't mean they share a door. yes, it was common for troops in Western Europe to make their way up a line of houses from the inside, but it could take them hours of pick, shovel and demolition work to make their series of rat holes. Old European buildings aren't the flimsy brick veneer and plasterboard affairs of modern American and Australia. Especially in the rural areas.

You'd also be digging with the knowledge that their could be a squad of germans on the other side with an MG42 aimed at the spot in the wall where the dust was starting to trickle down.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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

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.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

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.

What makes you think that? I've spent a lot of time outdoors in many parts of North America, and the terrain there was plenty bumpy. Even where the ground was basically flat and cultivated, there were usually plenty of bumps and contours. I am not personally familiar with Western Europe, but I have little reason to believe, based on the photographs and topo maps I have studied, that the ground is much if any smoother there.

At the moment CM maps are either lots of impenetrable forest...

Really? I don't find it so, especially during the autumn and winter months.

...or billiard table-like expanses of freshly cut grass.

BTS (Steve) has gone on record on this board as stating that even open terrain is programmed to provide cover in proportion to such things as rocks, stumps, clumps of tall grass or brush, and undulations in the ground too small to show up in the graphic representation but still providing cover to troops who are taking cover.

I suspect that what you are griping about is the vulnerability of troops who are moving in the open, but that is realistic. They are upright, which makes them a much better target, and the fact that they are moving makes them far more conspicuous to the eye of the defenders.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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.

Perhaps as a TacOps player you already know, but the sake of those not familiar with that excellent game, this difference arises from the nature of the modern combat that TacOps depicts. In today's tank vs. tank combat, in ranges of less than two kilometers the first tank to get an accurate hit on the opposing vehicle is virtually certain to get a kill right then and there. Modern weapons are lethal.

The same duel was much more iffy during WW II, more so IMO even than CMBO depicts. I've read numerous accounts of tanks exchanging shots over the course of several volleys, and scoring hits, before one of them gets a fatal penetration. The only exceptions were likely in cases where the range was extremely short or the firing weapon completely overpowered the armor of the opposing tank, e.g. the 88mm vs. most armor prior to 1943.

Michael

[ March 24, 2002, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Shandorf]

My gawd... why does anyone even debate with M. Bates?

So far I have heard nothing new dicussed in this thread and on top of that all the bitching I have heard before over a year ago. Odds are... if people have a bitch about the game, and it is not legit, they just suck at CM and want to blame the game for thier lack of skill or will to improve at it.

Jeff

[KNac]

I would like to stick to the main topic.

as i have said before the problem is that there is too much micromanagement made by the human player, as you said, int the TCP/IP games (i haven´t played online but i imagine) it can eb solved by some rules (1 min to move troops by turn, etc) but i thing that this is more a temporal fix.

is a matter of which is trying to recreate the game. we all know that CM tries recreating tactical warfare. so basic training level decision and micro-decision are just not realistic. so i think the only final solution is programming the AI to take those micro-decisions.

i´m not saying that the AI must take care of all and be perfect. in fact the AI can be programmed to not be perfect. and you will still needing to order that a squad move there, or here, so it will not be a "advance, hold, retreat" game. one way to do that would be this: ie the player orders a squad to move X position, then when that order is processed by the game it creates a "action zone" that action zone can be of 2x2 or 4x4 meters (that would be the programmer decission), more or less depending on the unit type, vehicle, etc. what that "action zone" does is fixing unit position and/or state depending how better is for the squad (in this case). ie you order a squad to split of its platoon and move to a scattered trees area, searching for cover. when the order is proccesed a 2x2 meters "action zone" is created where you pointed the squad to move (being the center of the square where you pointed), when the squad arrives to its position the squad will evaluate his state within some conditions (LOS, cover, enemy presence, etc) and "fix" its position depending on those issues. I think thia is realistic and is a good abstraction of what a sargent will do, also this can be attached to moral and psychic status (a routed squad will not make the same as a normal squad) and experience if BTS thinks is ok.

finally, my .02 euros

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Shandorf:

My gawd... why does anyone even debate with M. Bates?

So far I have heard nothing new dicussed in this thread and on top of that all the bitching I have heard before over a year ago. Odds are... if people have a bitch about the game, and it is not legit, they just suck at CM and want to blame the game for thier lack of skill or will to improve at it.

Jeff

I agree.

Short rage ambushes kill people, unfair.

Exposing my troops without knowing enemy positions get me killed, unfair.

No superheros or to many superheros in CM, unfair. QB gives me boring samey terrain, unfair. CM is problematic because it forces me to take into consideration WWII dangers and tactics, No its not it’s a generic strat game masquerading as a section/veh/team level WWII game, unfair. Bhahahahah

[ March 24, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

I'd like to see more variance in terrain and more complex terrain.

Well, sure. So would I. But there are limitations imposed by the game engine which in turn is subject to limitations imposed by the players' computers. Remember, when CM:BO was being programmed, the fastest processors were running at about 200-300MHz and most computers had 96MB of RAM or less. One may reasonably expect considerable improvement after the engine rewrite.

Instead of relatively high, smooth hills there could be small ditches and isolated trees.

"Isolated trees"???? You're going to try to hide whole squads behind single trees??? Are we talking California sequoias here?

At the moment buildings feel way too basic.

Agreed, but see my comments above re technical limitations.

Platoon HQs need to have a greater command radius in urban areas...

I'd be interested in hearing how you justify this statement.

...and artillery does not play an important enough role in CM.

Strongly agree. I think this is being addressed, at least partially, in CM:BB.

A lot of work is needed on the MG model too.

Another point is that infantry cannot closely follow and work with friendly AFVs, as tank and halftracks are not "solid". This is really important. In CM it feels like infantry and AFVs are divorced from each other.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you referring to the fact that vehicles do not provide cover to personnel in CM? Or something else?

Michael

[Pak40]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

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

Too much? It's too little for my taste. I'm not saying there should be a lot more micro managment but I think CMBB will add the few commands that I think are needed.

If this is truly too much micro management then perhaps Risk or Axis & Allies would suit you better. CM is trying to achieve a certain level of realism in a squad level game; In other words, you're going to have micromanagement.

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.)

Sounds like military tactics to me. If you don't like military tactics, then why'd you buy the game?

BTW, its not just the 'puzzle' that decides who wins and looses. It's also about:

1) where to deploy

2) choosing the right men or machines for the right job

3) when to attack and when to defend

4) where to attack and where to defend

5) how to attack and how to defend

6) when to fire and when to stay hidden

7) luck

8) how and when to bluff

All of those emements combine equally to determine the winner/looser. When you think about it, it's really a beautiful game.

[russellmz]

Originally posted by 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.

you are being a little argumentative here. one big complaint about cm is that infantry running over open tiles are NOT exposed enough for mmg guns to cut them up. and the option to go from one heavy building to another was not "removed" it just was never put in. this was a game engine limitation that BTS probably could not fix until cmbb (although they use the same engine). annoying, but livable.

[Michael Emrys]

Couldn't you work around the building to building movement problem by leaving a tiny sliver of space between buildings? I've never tried this, so I wouldn't know if it works. Has anyone else? I know it might not look quite like what you are after, but if the minimum space is small enough it might not be noticeable.

Michael

[Tiger]

Excuse me! M.Bates

Your quote ! ?

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.

smells like *cough*wwiionline*cough*

Too much micromanagement? Perhaps they should remake CMBO to be more like a RTS game... just point and click.

(sarcasm)

-John

[ianc]

This sort of ties in with my pet peeve about CM I think, and that is that what you see on the map or through a unit's viewpoint is not necessarily what you get.

I mean by this that in real life if you were in a particular spot, you'd know that you couldn't see through some trees, and therefore it would be safe to move behind them.

In CM, you see trees, or a couple of bldgs, but you don't know whether or not they'll provide an LOS obstruction until you get behind them and use the LOS tool.

I realize that there are technical constraints behind this and that a WYSIWYG battlefield is probably not obtainable at this point.

Still, it irks though...

ianc

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ianc:

In CM, you see trees, or a couple of bldgs, but you don't know whether or not they'll provide an LOS obstruction until you get behind them and use the LOS tool.

And that is different from reality how?

[Priest]

Well well well, I was looking for a thread to post one of my "THE ROCK" answers to a totally lame thread.

(clears throat)

FINALLY PRIEST HAS COME BACK TO THE BTS FORUM (I was like gone a whole 22 hours!)

Today PRIEST has come to talk about VOID. You see the day you posted to the BTS forum about shortcomings in CMBO, you got down on your hands and knees and you prayed...........

(in a girlish voice)

VOID: God, I just posted a lame ass post onto the BTS Forum that is mainly there to incite a flame war, but everyone still thinks that absolutely I SUCK!

And at that point VOID you house started to shake, the heavens opened up, and God himself spoke to you and said this.......................

(In a booming voice)

GOD: Boyd?

VOID:But my name is VOI.....

GOD: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS! And you are right you do suck! Here is what you must do, you must go seek out the man who is simply BALD, you must find MADDMATT!

VOID: oh no not Maddma....

GOD: KNOW YOUR ROLE AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Then VOID as fear creeped up inside you, tears streamed down your face, and piss rolled down your leg, your house started to shake again, the clouds parted, and what sounded like MILLIONS

CMBO GROGS: AND MILLIONS

Shouted as one.......

JAMBRONI IF YOU SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLL THE PADLOCK COMING!

<CUE MUSIC-RAISE EYEBROW>

Now seriously,

Has anyone that has complained on this thread ever designed a piece of software destined for a myriad of users??? I know I have, and while it was not a game it is evident in the process of developing a program that certain users are not going to be happy about features that others rave about. If you think that you have too much control then do what TOAD says. And every tactical complaint you have mentioned simulates real tactics, so uhm why are you complaining? Jason while I agree with what you are saying, I do not do this and neither do any of those I play with so does not really affect me. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that it does not affect most others either as most do not do that. Even if they do it is for little gain IMHO. The only real complaint is the issue of "BORG" spotting but well this is a game (simulation actually!) and there are not 100 little users playing each squad, just one guy at his computer. From now on just play with post it notes on your screen around everywhere but where you BN CO is. Then as you run around you can see new and exciting areas of the battlefield. Although you probably want to scream pretty loud at the screen so the little guys inside can hear your orders. I mean really. Please go and find me a better game than CMBO for WWII tactical simulation. The only one you will find is called CMBB!

[ March 25, 2002, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: Priest ]

[Ozzy]

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.

Gen

Absolutely untrue. Until now I have found no other wargame which has such a realistic response on CO's skills and tactics as CM:BO.

When playing CM, one must keep in mind that this is not just a game like others. In most games of whatsoever type or category, there is always a certain strategy to win it. But CM is not strategy BUT tactic! That is an important difference, as it requires every CO to create a felxible battle plan, study the map, the objective and his disposals, choose ways of andvance or fields/lines of defense. Every "Microdecision" in the setup can have the decisive impact on the outcome. This is absolutely realistic.

We should also not forget the impact of leadership on troop morale and battle readiness. An intelligent, smart, couraged, brave and level-headed CO will think in many details, will train and prepare his men, and take care that all soldiers, riflemen, crews, NCOs and Officers will be well trained and motivated.

And here comes player's decision: he can be such a CO, thus making all those microdecisions, or he refuses to be and let his platoons advance, at Sneak speed if you like, without further control.

In every case, saying that more manpower (or let's say firepower) will sooner or later lead to success or even victory is not appropriate. I have seen battles where a German Kdr. with 2 Coys of inf., 4 PaK 75 and some Panzerschrecks and roadblocks has defeated 40 British Shermans, only by superior skill and tactic. And the British was not an amateur, he was quite carefull. The question is hence how one deploys his units, i.e. what type, quality, mixture of different unit types, which support, which location, which tactics (static/dynamic/flexible; attack along the entire front or concentration against presumably weak points in defense, flanking attacks, probing, faking, one or several lines of resistance, etc.). Thus, CM:BO provides players with an almost infinite bundle of options to choose from.

Hence, CM in my opinion is one of the most non-linear games of all

[Deadly Dave]

Isnt it interesting all these differant opinions about the GAME, the subtle aspects of how to move my troops to win the GAME, How the GAME can be improved and in the next GAME release how all the little bugs can be ironed out so that the GAME can resemble real life. Its a great GAME really and we even have a forum so that we can use our real life time to discuss the said GAME.

Actually what I like about the GAME is that when I win the GAME my real time emotions get a high and when I get serioulsy burned my real time emotions get annoyed and I decide that Im going to learn all I can so that I can pummel my opponant into the ground ( oops I mean screen) Because I just know Im not a loser and I know that if the stupid computer calculated the angles correctly and modelled my infantry the way it should be done and it took all the gamey unknowns out Im sure I would win because Im real good, in fact im awesome its just that the GAME isnt modelled perfectly and everyone I play is incredibly lucky .

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Don't throw the Quickbattle generator in one pod with what a scenario designer can do.

Show me a scenario designer who has created a ditch (plenty of ditches in Europe).

You haven't played swamp or skelley lately, did you? Read some AARs at tournamenthouse.com, artillery is *the* item that turns games.

Comes in variants, either you get clobbered by lots of big and fast mortars, by 105mm VT everytime you step into the open, or by just plain big stuff.

Your comment is simply wrong.

If artillery is so important... then why do both sides join the battle with fresh, rested troops that have suffered no casualties, not even a grazed knee??

Symmetrical warfare is easier to simulate in a realistic way. Every new defensive item, including improved cover, things like premeasured distances for guns and tanks, needs to be balanced, and that usually needs playtesting. A lot of work. The same work invested into symmetrical items may give more bang for the bug for a majority of battles.

Symmetrical warfare? More defensive items and options are needed. Often meeting engagements feel like re-enactments of Waterloo, 1815.

True, this is a matter or work for the CPU and the programmer and has been announced to be on the TODO list for the next engine.

Unfortunately if that's correct then "solid" vehicles will make it for the desert warfare of CM3 and not some of the urban fighting of CM2.

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

What makes you think that? I've spent a lot of time outdoors in many parts of North America, and the terrain there was plenty bumpy. Even where the ground was basically flat and cultivated, there were usually plenty of bumps and contours. I am not personally familiar with Western Europe, but I have little reason to believe, based on the photographs and topo maps I have studied, that the ground is much if any smoother there.

Europe is many shapes and sizes, but I have never seen undulating slopes, four times the height of a man, which fall away just as quickly. Battlefields shouldn't look like Teletubbie episodes. Now, this might be more of a problem with the QB system. A scenario designer could produce good results. I still suspect that CM hills are too broad, too frequent, too high and too smooth.

BTS (Steve) has gone on record on this board as stating that even open terrain is programmed to provide cover in proportion to such things as rocks, stumps, clumps of tall grass or brush, and undulations in the ground too small to show up in the graphic representation but still providing cover to troops who are taking cover.

Yes, but it is all abstracted and so the end result is clean LOS across all open ground for the enemy.

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by Bastables:

I agree.

Short rage ambushes kill people, unfair.

Exposing my troops without knowing enemy positions get me killed, unfair.

No superheros or to many superheros in CM, unfair. QB gives me boring samey terrain, unfair. CM is problematic because it forces me to take into consideration WWII dangers and tactics, No its not it’s a generic strat game masquerading as a section/veh/team level WWII game, unfair. Bhahahahah

I would not go that far, old chap.