Gamey CMBO vs. Realistic CMBB

[aka_tom_w]

"redwolf

Member

Member # 3665

posted September 23, 2002 09:59 AM

I like it much better and probably wont touch CMBO ever again.

However, there is room for matters of taste. There are some people who really like the fast and robust infantry action of CMBO and the predictablity of armor penetration. The new MGs and the

more fuzzy armor penetration model, and the new movement point time penalities change this a lot.

Personally, I like the new combat much better and I am also convinced it is more realistic.

I won't even start on things like look, variety of commands, additional things to exploint (optics are huge!), vehicle morale and platoons, varienty of units, variety of terrain. "

I thought this comment deserved its own Thread

(Hope you don't mind, Rewolf )

I post this because it would be my guess (suspicion) that BFC would have liked to make CMBO play the way CMBB plays had they had the experience of doing one of these Combat Mission type games previously. BUT since they didn't we ended up with CMBO which could be considered the prototype with all its " fast and robust infantry action (snip) and the predictablity of armor penetration." I think there is more to it than that though. In CMBO there is more fun and what seems like more ACTION, maybe this is not a fair comment as I have only played the CMBB demo and nothing else.

My point is that CMBO may have atracted a larger "gamey" video game fan market share than expected because while it may lack the realism in real COMBAT that is seemingluy more accurate in CMBB, CMBO has a (seemingly) Higher FUN FACTOR beacuse it sort of plays FAST and there is more action and instant gratification RIGHT away. I think there is MUCH more to it than that. I was just trying to identify CMBO more mass market appeal, we should not forget the 3D environment was somewhat groundbreaking at the time for a wargame that WAS NOT RTS.

So I am commenting here, that CMBO may not have been the REAL CROWD (broader non-wargamer crowd) pleaser it turned out to be, had it come straight out of the gate all polished and finished and FEATURE laden like CMBB (Implying CMBO may have been sort of less fun in the game play dept.) I would guess that CMBB seems to be even more finely tuned to appeal to that narrow market segment of the REAL WARGAMER. This is sort of interesting because while that is a smaller market then the more popular Video game "gamer" market BFC seems VERY happy with the rate of sales so far... SO What the Hell do I know?? :cool:

Anyway, I am still sitting here waiting, so I and write these little mini-treatises on CMBO vs. CMBB, because I can't wait any longer for the damn thing to arrive at my HOUSE! :mad: grr.....

(There! I feel better already ! )

Thanks to all for all the comments and screen shots and gunnery range tests ! ALL very interesting!

Waiting like the rest of the board for CMBB!

-tom w

[ September 23, 2002, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Chad Harrison]

I dont know if I would go as far as saying that CMBO is gamey, but I would definatly say that CMBO is not nearly as realistic as CMBB. That comes as good news for some and bad news for others.

For me, it is by all means good news. I grew up with ASL and have been looking for a game as realistic since then! CMBB will be that game and more. Yet, there are those who get very frustrated by fighting against 'ghost' defenders and having your men run away from everything. I can see the point in them prefering CMBO where you could fun across open fields, and actually make it to the destination without a bunch of broken troops!

I dont know how feasible it would be, but I think it might be a good idea after the engine rewrite to have a 'realistic' and 'gamey' mode in ways. An option that works similar to the FOW settings. This way, a 12 year old kid could make it more like CMBO and be able to enjoy it. And the rest of us could enjoy it as it really is. I bring this up because I have been trying to convert my friends 14 year old son to CM, but its just too hard for him to understand and be able to play. He wants to play it, but its just to hard for him and that has turned him off to it. I dont know, its just an idea.

Chad Harrison

[aka_tom_w]

Ok, .... I meant CMBO was sort of "gamier" than CMBB.

I refer, for instance, to those German AA HT's ..

NOW those were GAMEY!, (and machine gun behaviour in CMBO) little things like that, now all polished up and tweaked and tested and those above mentioned behaviours are MUCH more realistic in CMBB.

That's sort of what I was refering to

-tom w

[Redwolf]

No problem with the quoting, just I cannot edit my stuff anymore

I think it is no question that the new model is more realistic. And some of the fast-paced action of CMBO is no longer possible.

However, there is nots of room for new high-speed action, namely:

Anyone tried Tankettes? Cheap, fast and with their MGs quite capable now.

T-34 is *fast*, and I mean fast.

Armored infantry as in riding halftracks becomes more attractive on the larger maps and by the fact that the MGs on the halftracks are finally good for something. They also don't die as fast from small round penetrations.

The Panzer Mk III is disaapointingly slow, though, as are the Russian light tanks.

For people who liked the robustness of the infantry in CMBO there might be slight chance to find some of that in CMBB vehicles. The less predictable penetration model and the low effect of small rounds means that a sufficiently large body of vehicles is pretty predictable under fire.

[Dowarisch]

Well personaly I love the new mg and small arms model. In CMBO it happened countless times that infantry groups hopped from house to house right under the noses of my Mg42 emplacements. This no longer happens, streetfighting and crossing open ground is a lot more realistic now.

And I agree, the T34 is damn fast.

[Barrold]

The more realistic aspects of CM:BB and the seemingly greater fragility of infantry in certain situations leads me to want to find out when and where the infantry comes into it's own superiority.

My presumption would be that fit, disciplined, experienced troops defending a heavy building is going to bring the laurels and praise that isn't present when a player is trying to shove a bunch of conscripts across an open field. This seems to be a no-brainer, but the question is to what level of difference will each situation bring to the commander.

I am aching to find out. The level of fun over realism or vice-versa is really going to be a function of personal taste and the type of scenario chosen. Personally, I did not notice any decrease in the fun from the sneak peaks, but rather I had the opposite experience. IMMO, action is action and it is the players reaction to what is happening to his troops that will determine how much fun they will perceive.

Rushing mg's may not be as much fun if gaining success from a less than realistic tactic is the criterion for fun, but solving the problem in more creative methods should be quite interesting to say the least.

The entire book of CM truisms is going to have to be re-evaluated and since this knowledge took two years to compile, the new system will provide a whole new arena of debate and experimentation. For me this is a big part of the fun gained from this community.

BDH

[edited for clarity]

[ September 23, 2002, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: barrold713 ]

[Dowarisch]

When it comes to infantry tactics you now have to see everything more from the platoon leader´s perspective instead of the bataillon commander´s. "Theres the enemy....rush him boys"...no longer works.

Small SPOILER

------------------

------------------

------------------

------------------

------------------

wait til you see a Soviet mpi squad in a streetfight, you will love that

[aka_tom_w]

in another thread some said the "grogs have taken over the asylum"

I think thats the way it should be

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

just a bump for fun

-tom w

[Terrapin]

I don't know if CMBB has any less "mass appeal" than CMBO. It has even more "eye-candy", the graphics and sounds are both better. Just watching the movies is fun.

In addition, users can make themselves more "powerful" versus the computer in the handicap system, etc., if they want an easier time of it.

Ultimately, what do you think the difference in "less gamey/more realist" between CMBB and CMBO is, in percentage terms? Maybe 20%? That's not a real huge hump to get over, particularly for those who bought the first game, and even for new players who may be interested in this kind of game. Certainly, I've never really played an infantry tactical simulator before(I've done only tanks), but I haven't had any issue with the "realism" issue.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

. Yet, there are those who get very frustrated by fighting against 'ghost' defenders and having your men run away from everything. I can see the point in them prefering CMBO where you could run across open fields, and actually make it to the destination without a bunch of broken troops!

I think CMBB requires one to rewrite one's personal book on tactics--that's a challenging process and I've done my share of moaning and groaning about it, but I feel like I'm starting to get the hang of the new rules, and in particular the new infantry model.

One thing that seems to be increasingly important for the infantry attacker is suppressive fire. This can be used, I'm finding, even on "ghost defenders"--on targets one can't actually see. E.g. let's say you're attacking a trench system and your spearhead units had drawn fire from distant 'sound contacts'. Your spearhead's losses have been light, but they're pinned down and you want to get them moving again. The key here is suppressive fire.

The sound contacts visible on your screen won't actually BE in the defender's trench but one can deduce that that's where the enemy is. So lay some MG fire right on the likeliest spot for the enemy unit (more than one MG if possible). With CMBB's more capable MG's, that fire really suppresses. If you've lost an earlier visual contact, lay some MG fire on the contact marker. You can also use light mortars and tank fire to suppress such defensive locations. With enough suppression, you can begin to move your infantry again and (till the arrival of shrecks, at least) can also push your tanks up pretty close to the trench.

Ultimately, if you've suppressed all known and presumed enemy defenders, the enemy must pop up with a new defender to respond to your attack, exposing yet another defensive location. There's a ripple effect going on now, as you successively expose defensive positions while working your way closer to the target. Note that this mode of attack requires the use of MGs and supporting squads. If you've got some tanks, they can enter the mix as well, both as super suppressors and as infantry killers. When put under enough pressure, the enemy infantry may break and run, exposing themselves to a quick death.

Ultimately, I'm finding this a highly realistic model--there's less slash and thrust in CMBB, but I think we're getting closer to the way WWII was actually fought. But it CAN be quite frustrating till one finds workable tactics.