Infantry In CMBB

[The_Capt]

Well there is a difference between an assault and suicide...quite a few battles bare this out quite well too.

What you are seeing in CMBB is much more authentic in the offence. Hell arty still is dumbed down or you may just realize how little

"fun" real life can be. Shrapnel is like a 360 degree machine gun and everybody hits the dirt.

Infantry are very fragile in the offence. WWI taught us that lesson very well. They need to be used at the right place and time. In woods and cities where their close in forepower can be brought to bear. In the open the absolutely need support from tanks and arty.

CMBO was a game of super-infantry. It opened up interesting tactical options but so would giving your troops plasma lasers and ecto-suits. A lone platoon is very capable BUT is has to be employed properly.

Now in the defence, the jury is still out. One the one hand MGs are far more powerful so you can supress with firepower. I find that foxholes and cover are a bit weak as they should give the infantry less of a chance at suppression and definitely less of a chance to run. It is not perfenct but it si much better IMO.

Right now you have asked your infantry to cross open ground and take fire from a machine gun they probably can't even see..what would you do in the same situation?

An assault is when you bring so much fire down on an en that they can't fire back and that is the idea. If you can get that machine gun to duck you will carry it off but if you expect to rush it like in CMBO you are (and obviously have been) in for a surprise.

I do not think the game is less fun. in fact I think quite to opposite. Now I have to actually really plan how to use my infantry, rather than throw them at a problem. Tanks do more than just kill other tanks. And arty has come into it's own.

If BFC really wants to keep everyone happy, they probably should allow for a realism setting, not unlike flight simulators. But my guess this will take a lot of work and the benifit is probably quite small from a business point of view.

[Winterhawk]

In your previous post Capt you alluded to a test you performed - 2 MG Pillboxes vs. an Infantry company rushing at them across open terrain. 50% of the CMBO infantry made it across in 3 turns. While you never stated the parameters, it would appear from the fact that it took 3 minutes to get there that they probably had several hundred meters to run. I don't disagree that this is not a very realistic result.

CMplayer made an interesting observation when he said:

"So just taking that first patch of woods, or silencing that one machine gun is the accomplishment of the game for an infantry platoon."

While I completely agree with his statement, I don't agree that this is the fairest testament to reality, if in fact reality is the objective here. With odds like this, a dozen machine guns with a few boxes of ammo each and D-Day would have never happened.

Keep in mind that I never said anywhere that the infantry model in CMBO was perfect. But neither have I been convinced that it's any more or less perfect than it is in CMBB. To be honest, I think the balance lies somewhere between the two. A little less bullet-proof than CMBO, and a little more testosterone than CMBB.

[ October 12, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Winterhawk ]

[Peterk]

Hi Winterhawk,

I also am following this thread with interest. I have noticed that almost all of your criticisms about the infantry modeling are coming from the attackers' point of view. Now look at it from the other side. In CMBO, it was extremely difficult to set up a valid defense against all of those heroic half-squads that you miss so much. Perfect placement of machine guns and setting up of kill-zones really did not reward the defendder as they should have because the infantry was able to shrug much of it off via their incessant almost invulnerable runs towards the enemy.

Now at least the defender has a chance and perhaps even people will start playing things other than meeting engagements for ladder games.

I think your comment about "he who has the most firepower" wins was right on target...and it's arguably the way it should be. CMBB is more a game of suppression than a game of quick advances close assaults (anyone who has ever played Squad Leader also knows that suppression is the key to that game as well). Is it more fun? For me it is, but it's a personal impression. It definitely matches more closely, for the most part, descriptions of the real east front that you read in the history books than the CMBO engine would have been able to do.

[PiggDogg]

Hawk,

I my readings over the years (I'm 54, and I have certainly not read everything), I have read quite a few accounts of infantry (WWI, especially WWII, Korea, & Vietnam) in combat.

Except for the lucky situations, the infrequent grand charges, or the stories of those who received or received posthumously the Medal Of Honor, the Iron Cross, or such, the large majority of the time and usually (but not always) when a company of infantry comes under fire, many men go to ground, some men seek safety in cover (forward, laterally, or to the rear), and a few men go forward.

There are many and not infrequent cases where single or a few snipers have caused whole companies or large portions of a company to halt movement and seek cover. In many of these cases after the men have gone to ground, it would take the officers & especially the NCOs substantial time (1/4 to 1/2 hour or more) to get the men moving again.

In short, infantrymen (real human people of flesh & blood) in the open or realtive open do not lightly charge forward into fairly effective & heavy fire. In real life, one only gets one chance with one's only life. Seldomly, do real people want to squander their only life. Real people don't try to wear out the enemy machine guns with their chests. :eek:

The ground, crawling on one's belly, and getting to the nearest seemingly safe cover provides some protection and/or preceived protection for the infantry.

Indeed, I propose that even the US Army at Omaha beach fits into my premise. The US infantry was dropped off under effective long range MG fire (not the 75 yard range view in Saving Private Ryan which was over the shoulder of the German MG42 gunner from the foxhole into the opening LCVPs). At Omaha, the US infantry crawled or ran to cover behind obstacles or they ran to the seawall. In each of these cases, they sought cover.

Being quite well trained, reinforced, and equipped troops (in CMBB terms, probably greens [29th Div], regulars [1st Div], a very few vets [Rangers]) supported by effective destroyer HE support, these brave US fellows crawled, short sprinted, and slithered forward to near the well entrenched, not reinforced, and not well HE supported brave German fellows. Eventually, the preponderance of US numbers and HE overcame the Germans. In any case, there were few grand charges and much slithering. In all cases, there was much death, destruction, and maiming.

Remember, one can always find exceptions to my general premise. I am proposing and setting forth what happens most of the time. I might be wrong, but I am probably (but not for sure) right.

In short, in my opinion, CMBB represents infantry better than CMBO. Indeed, CMBB infantry may be (and probably is) less fun than CMBO infantry. However, CMBB reflects infantry reality better than CMBO.

Cheers, Richard

[akdavis]

"He who has the most firepower" yes, but more importantly "he who brings the most firepower to bear at the right time and place. I have lost against the AI on many occasions when I clearly had the advantage in firepower. Just having the firepower will not decide the battle, using tactics to employ it decisively will.

Is the basis for all these complaints simply that infantry now behaves differently from CMBO? I guess I wasn't that attached to how infantry worked in CMBO because I much prefer the new system.

A great example: I was playing a scenario where I was expected to seize a fortified hilltop with a company of German infantry. Advancing my men straight up the open face of the hill would have been suicide, no matter how much suppressive fire I laid down. The enemy was too well entrenched to be that effected by MGs and mortars. So I decide to leave my support in overwatch and take 2 of my platoons through the woods below the hill in an attempt to flank the fortifications. I'm not really expecting contact and have my squads moving in a rough line formation, with one platoon trailing the other. Then my first platoon walks right into a Russian ambush. They suffer 50-60% casualties almost immediately, and quickly break and fall back, but luckily the HQ holds, preventing a complete route. While the Russians are busy try to finish off first platoon, I swing the second platoon around their left flank and advance the 3 squads in line abreast right into them. In a matter of seconds, I do to the Russians what they just finished doing to my first platoon. Total route and pursuit a quarter way across the map follows before giving up the chase, all while suffering a single casualty. In each engagement, firepower was roughly equal, if not tilted somewhat towards the man-heavy Russian platoon. Tactics, not firepower decided the engagement, with poor tactics leading to the destruction of one of my platoons and good tactics leading to the route of a defending enemy.

As a side note, my decimated first platoon was able to rally and provide support for the advance up the hill. Likewise, a few of the Russian squads I thought I had routed off the map popped up in my rear just as I was reaching the crest of the hill with my assualt groups and proceeded to slaughter my Company HQ and light mortars.

All in all, it struck me as a bloody goddamn realistic little battle. Don't change a thing BF!

(except for more realistic sound spotting )

[Winterhawk]

Peterk:

In CMBO, it was extremely difficult to set up a valid defense against all of those heroic half-squads that you miss so much.

Not to blow my own horn, but I was actually quite successful at defence in CMBO. Although I must admit that my consistently stopping the infantry was a result of well placed artillery more than anything else. And nothing smaller than 105 mm either or it had little effect.

I do in fact remember one memorable battle where I was dug in on a hill. The enemy (company strength) advanced through light pockets of scattered trees. I rained 81 mm mortar shells at them constantly. Not only did it fail to slow them down, but it also caused precious few casualties. I suppose, after a little more reflection, perhaps they were a bit too resilient.

PiggDogg:

I agree with much of what you said. It only makes sense that when the shooting starts the first thing to do is hit the deck. CMBB infantry do this very well. CMBO infantry do not. It's what happens after that that, for me, the controversy begins. Where CMBO infantry are maybe a little too willing to keep moving, do you not find CMBB infantry a little too reluctant to do so?

Hmmm. I think I need to resign myself to a few more games. See just how many and how quickly they cover up. Monitor very closely their mental state, casualty rate and so forth - *grasps head in hands* - oh bother.

A major side effect to all of this however, and one already mentioned in this thread, is the ammo issue. It's going to be challenging indeed to keep an entire battalion combat effective over the course of a lengthy battle without having to fix bayonet's.

[Andrew H.]

I agree with most of what the Capt wrote in his last post: the infantry portion of CMBB is much more realistic and much more fun than infantry in CMBO.

To cross a smallish patch of open ground in CMBO with regular or better troops (say 100-150 meters), you just ran across it. Maybe you issued a Move command for the troops once they entered the treeline or whatever cover there was on the other side of the open. There was no need to suppress, no need to wait for for those slow MMGs to catch up. You just ran. And unless there was a hidden SMG platoon with an ambush marker set up at the point where you entered the cover, you were fine. Maybe you took a couple of casualties in the open, but it hardly affected your combat effectiveness at all. This even worked against entrenched MGs. Needless to say, this is extremely unrealistic; the tactical response to MGs in WWII involved combined arms, not the charge.

In CMBB, by contrast, I've often found myself very carefully planning how to cross open ground, even if I'm not sure that there are any enemy troops where I'm going.

I've found myself with two platoons huddled on the reverse slope of a hill behind a 100 meter open area trying to figure out how to cross it, and whether I have enough troops to do so. Finally I settle on a strategy - one platoon advances about 30 meters/turn; the other platoon is overwatch. It's a real nail-biter to watch my platoon inch forward, turn after turn, not knowing what's in the opposite woods. Occasionally a random enemy squad will fire on my men in the woods from some other location 250 meters away, briefly sending a squad to ground. Luckily no casualties, and they pick themselve up and continue the advance. Other units deal with the distant squad.

After three turns I enter the woods. Luckily, there were no troops there. I allow my lead platoon to rest (they're tiring, if not tired by now), and order the covering platoon across, more quickly, since I know there aren't any enemy troops around. By the time they are in the woods, my first platoon is recovered and we go through the woods in two tight formations, using the move to contact order.

The move described above was extremely involving, exciting, realistic, immersive...and I didn't even encounter any enemy troops.

It just doesn't get any better than that.

[zukkov]

wow, what a thread! i love it! all you guys seem to make such a great argument for your case, it just blows my mind. after every post i found myself agreeing with the poster. good point, i thought. then the next poster would have a good counter point, and i would agree with him. this thread should be put in the thread hall of fame!

ok, now that i've blown sunshine up your arses, i might as well post my 2 cents, though i can't really think of anything that adds a new view point to what's been said before. just that i totally agree that cmbb is far more realistic concerning infantry combat than cmbo was/is, and that for some it may not be as fun. but that's usually the case when it comes to adding complexity to a game. the things that worked in game 1 may no longer be effective in game 2, so now you begin a whole new learning curve. game 1 was more comfortable and now you've been taken out of that comfort zone. certainly it takes getting used to, and that often makes us complain that it isn't as fun(cuz we don't know what we're doing anymore!). on the flip side though, i do agree that ammo management is now a major concern, more so than cmbo, when it comes to using your forces in supression. awful tough to advance against a dug in enemy and still have enough ammo left to make it to the objective. no doubt, this is more realistic as well...

[PeterX]

Winterhawk posted:

But it's my opinion that the new infantry model has significantly reduced tactical possibilities, and that's a shame. Albeit there will always be variables and exceptions, it's too often now simply a matter of fire superiority. He who brings the most guns wins.

True. But maybe more realistic. Lately I've been playing armor vs armor QB scenarios against the AI. Always fewer than 1000 pts. Normally there's a lot more infantry than tanks. This is what I see:

1- One is reminded of air combat; the fighters duel for superiority and then the surviving bombers (the assaulting infantry) MAY get through. In the case of CM, the tank formations get at it nad IF the attacking armor prevails the grunts can move forward and, possibly overun the defenders. Sometimes, on the random settings, you'll; get Pz38s and the AI T34s. Then, there's no chance- it's over, IMO, especially if there's open terrain to cross. This is against the AI mind you.

2- It's essential to- patiently- move up your heavy weapon teams. Riding them up to the front on AFVs can be VERY risky.

3- Infantry goes to ground faster but is more resilient than in CMBO. But, as morale declines, making them advance into fire becomes noticeably harder. Aslo, smaller caliber artillery now commands respect and can really disrupt things.

4- The bug, acknowledged by BFC and soon to be fixed, where rocky terrain, steppe, brush, and wheat do not block LOS properly is having a huge, deleterious effect on attacking infantry. Advancing columns are much more exposed than they will be once version 1.01 comes out.

5- When you do finally succeed in carrying a position with infantry it's very rewarding, even exhilirating, because of ALL THE DAMN WORK you put into it.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Winterhawk:

So at the end of the day, for me, CMBB has lost something. It's lost its courage. It's lost some flexibility. It's lost some of its unpredictability. Is it more real? Again, maybe. It's my opinion, not my personal experience, that any soldier not willing to pick up his weapon, return fire and move forward while under fire himself has no business being a soldier in the first place. Countless historical engagements and the odd court martial here and there bare this out quite nicely thank you.

You've never been under fire, have you?

[PiggDogg]

Hawk, Bast, Peter, Zuk, Andrew, & Rest of You Guys,

It is so nice to have an intelligent and enlightening conversation without those flamers. Life is good.

Now that in CMBB, infantry (in my opinion) acts more like real life inf, but is less fun, the question is: how does one make attacking infantry work. Defending infantry is a comparatively smaller problem as long as they are well hidden away from direct HE and can get out of the way of indirect HE.

The answer is: support, support, support. One must find the enemy at small cost and then overpower and destroy the found enemy with firepower.

In CMBB, CMBO, & real life, the major part of one's firepower comes from HE (direct [AFVs & to a lesser extent, guns] and indirect [arty, preferably 105 & larger]).

Here follows some of my observations which is probably correct, but is not the only alternative. In all cases, with reasoned and logical exposition, I can be swayed. I am willing to learn.

In most circumstances (but not all), I feel that the better of the scouting alternatives to find the enemy is half squads. They may get chopped up, but hopefully they will cause the enemy to expose themselves. Once that occurs, from good cover, the supporting forces (the main force infantry, tanks with good HE, and arty) can overwhelm & destroy the enemy.

Ultimately, the proper use of direct fire HE (mostly from AFVs and which is the larger portion of one's firepower) should decide most battles.

Of course, winning the vehicle battle is the prerequisite for proper use of the direct fire AFV HE.

In short, the tank battle should decide most (but not all) CMBB battles. However, this is the same as in CMBO and real life. In CMBB, one must perform all of the conservative and intelligent tactics used in CMBO, but just more of those conservative and intelligent tactics.

Cheers, Richard

[TSword]

Winterhawk,

Today i had a 2-men Tankhunterteam which collected 48 kills !!!!!!!!!

It was great fun ! It was a night-battle in a town, they anihilated a whole platoon !

Inf is absolutely deadly now, much much more then in CMBO.

Greets

Daniel

[Peterk]

> In most circumstances (but not all), I feel

> that the better of the scouting alternatives to > find the enemy is half squads.

Have you had many half-squads vaporised 9this also pretty much never happened in CMBO) before you got any useful info? It's happened to me a few times and I've gone back to full-squads for scouting.

[PiggDogg]

Peter,

The disappearing half squads with no radio report on the enemy positions? Ouch.

Indeed, if full squads are required for scouting, then full squads shall be required. However, it shall be expensive and the price shall be paid. :eek:

Cheers, Richard

[walpurgis nacht]

No one has mentioned, and it is my only complaint about infantry in CMBB, that the time it takes to set up offensive infantry responsibly is far greater than in CMBO. I don't find myself running out of ammo, I find myself running out of the time to do it right!