Michael Dorosh Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I've noticed that operations designers still feel the need to have entire battalions and lots of armour. Not sure why this is, buy my first operation design won't even run on my computer, so maybe I'm guilty too. I must say, though, after taking a second stab at it, and creating an operation with just two companies per side - I like the new front line creation - seems a lot more like the "perimeter drawing" phase of the ASL historical modules. Has anyone else played operations enough to make some observations? Do they work better in CMBB? It appears like it on the face of it - with the other introduction of flags and the static type, also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I have only played one operation so far, I am still working on all the scenarios. However, with even playing just one, I like the new subtle changes. I cant really say that this or that was better, but I liked the new ways that the battle lines are drawn. I really look forward to playing the static battles. I see a lot of potential there. Chad BTW, if you even need a play tester Michael, just drop me a line. I love testing battles for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Overall, I really like the operations changes, BUT I think the front line determination could use some tweaking. In more than one assault operation, I've been attacking and have been given control of an area BEHIND a sizable enemy force without ever actually occupying it or kicking them out of their current location. Worse yet, this is made obvious by a "hole" in my setup area. I'd really like to see a tweak such that the attacker doesn't get control of what are really enemy rear areas like that. The potental importance of flanking maneuvers is still disproportionately large. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to do this, my flankers just didn't make it into the fight on one side because it took too long to get there (at least in the one I'm currently playing, Naataoja). But I don't feel bad about that being gamey, because the briefing told me to probe until reinforced. And besides, on the other flank, some butt was kicked by the timely arrival of a flanking platoon. And, for what it's worth, I haven't seen a vehicle yet (not counting wooden bunkers - which are mentioned in the briefing, so no spoiler here!), nor do I expect to see more than a few based on the terrain so far, which has TONS of marsh. For all I know, there could be some out there that the AI hasn't managed to bring into the fight for one reason or another. I certainly know that it has some forces inside my lines that I've never seen. I suspect the operations size you mention has something to do with wanting to reduce the brittleness of the operation. Take, say, Mobile Defense - it's an interesting operation (and NOT that big), but a couple lucky shots on the right targets early could easily mean the difference between a major victory and a total defeat, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 I've played 'Dergatschi(sp?) Roadblock' and 'Mobile Defense'. Based on those experiences I do think they have tweaked operations. I started avoiding Ops with CMBO due to bizarre situations that seemed to come up between battles frequently. Some of this may be bias due to the overall improvement in CMBB. One thing that appears to be worse than CMBO is the weird weather combinations. It's a stretch to envision a solid frozen river completely thawed in one day. Also the rain during frozen conditions seemed improbable. But when the trees sprouted leaves and turned a beautiful green by noon I really knew something was not right in rusky-ville. And the river was still frozen at that point. This was all in one day mind you. Ren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 yes, I would prefer if the designer could set the weather for each battle - or at least limit the range of probablity. For example, I wanted to do an operation based on Wilkowischken in Aug 44 - the battle started out in fog, which lifted by late morning. There is no way to guarantee that in CMBB, you can set fog initially, then take your chances. If historically there was fog in the morning, and clear in the afternoon with air cover playing a large role - you have no way to recreate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark2 Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 In my opinion the operations are much better than in CMBO mainly due to the flags and new frontline options. My only gripe is when the designer sets up minimal no mans land (NML). To me this basically negates the whole effect of the new static option as NML is so small that very few units are ever padlocked and your whole force can basically be moved arround (totally unrealistically) between battles. In my first Static operation with CMBB (i've only played one) I found at the start of the 2nd battle about 8 tanks less than 80m from my front lines. My guys must have been deaf not to have heared them comming in. It made for an interesting fight but the next battle you obviously took this into consideration durring set-up and it was a turkey shoot. My understanding of no mans land is that all units in the designated NML will be padlocked therefore not allowing whole loads of fresh units to suddenly appear 80m from your frontline undetected and vice versa(durring the day in Russia!)and for units engaged in firefights not to suddenly appear on the opposite side of the map. Anyway I hope that is the way it works. My tip (if the above is indeed true)is to make NML reasonably large, which will be much more realistic and make reinforcements have to be moved into the area and not just suddenly appear there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Renaud: Also the rain during frozen conditions seemed improbable.Actually that can happen. It happens here in Minnesota ocasionally in the spring time. The result is usually a super-dense fog. But it never happens in the -30 centigrade weather that frozen conditions represents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by demoss: Overall, I really like the operations changes, BUT I think the front line determination could use some tweaking. In more than one assault operation, I've been attacking and have been given control of an area BEHIND a sizable enemy force without ever actually occupying it or kicking them out of their current location.I agree - while playtesting a city operation recently, I ended a battle in possession of a multi-tile factory/heavy building VL. In the setup for the next battle, all my troops were shifted about 20m forward, so that two companies of men were padlocked in the street! No man's land was set to 80m, so they started the battle in the open, with no ammo or reinforcements, well within range of enemy small arms... I think the padlocking surrounded troops concept is great, but they shouldn't be forced forward into unfavorable terrain and then padlocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Originally posted by Aardvark2: In my opinion the operations are much better than in CMBO mainly due to the flags and new frontline options. My only gripe is when the designer sets up minimal no mans land (NML). To me this basically negates the whole effect of the new static option as NML is so small that very few units are ever padlocked and your whole force can basically be moved arround (totally unrealistically) between battles. In my first Static operation with CMBB (i've only played one) I found at the start of the 2nd battle about 8 tanks less than 80m from my front lines. My guys must have been deaf not to have heared them comming in. It made for an interesting fight but the next battle you obviously took this into consideration durring set-up and it was a turkey shoot. My understanding of no mans land is that all units in the designated NML will be padlocked therefore not allowing whole loads of fresh units to suddenly appear 80m from your frontline undetected and vice versa(durring the day in Russia!)and for units engaged in firefights not to suddenly appear on the opposite side of the map. Anyway I hope that is the way it works. My tip (if the above is indeed true)is to make NML reasonably large, which will be much more realistic and make reinforcements have to be moved into the area and not just suddenly appear there.The problem with this is that troops still get moved back/forward and the reward for small flanking manuvers is too high. I should probably have set the Dergratschi Roadblock NML a bit higher, but then agian you generally get urban combat where 0m is quite appropriate. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark2 Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 Possible Spoiler................... Regarding the above post I haven't unfortunately played that operation yet - but I will. The one I have played was "Macgnusen Bridgehead" or something to that effect where the terrain was rural and flat. Why are troops shifted forward and back, I thought they would all be padlocked within NML – pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts