Identical forces in CMBB? anyone have the final word?

[Black Five]

Does anyone have the final word about whether or not we will be able to fight battles with identical units on both sides?

Hell, from a gamers perspective I would hope we can mix and match units from all sides. That would be a great tool bag from which to build an army.

Obviously this would need to be optional so that people can enjoy CM as a historical game or a tactical simulator.

Thanks in advance.

[Schrullenhaft]

From previous statements made by BTS/BFC - I'd say no. As far as I'm aware there hasn't been any attempts to code this up so that both sides could be the same.

Despite appearing as a simple request, this is much harder and time consuming to accomplish with the current engine than many people imagine. From what I've interpreted from previous statements on this subject it didn't interest BTS/BFC enough to commit the time to coding this up; despite the clamor for such a feature from ladder players, etc.

Of course BTS/BFC will probably be the only respondent you'll want to hear this from since you want an 'official' statement on this feature.

[Panzer Leader]

Multiple final words have been released and they are all "NO!"

[Black Five]

I hope you are both wrong. The coding issue seems odd. If you can add units to the game why no add units with identical characteristics to both sides.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Black Five:

I hope you are both wrong. The coding issue seems odd. If you can add units to the game why no add units with identical characteristics to both sides.

I bet this is safe to write:

Ident. unit Coding effort > BTS interest in feature.

Percieved Ident. unit player interest < percieved interest in other requested features.

BTS interest in "other requested features" > BTS interest in in Ident. feature.

If all of the above is true, and I think it is, it's perfectly reasonable for BTS to leave the feature out, even if the "coding effort" is small.

[Michael Dorosh]

But it IS a feature to a degree - captured vehicles (some, not all) will be in the game. So you can probably outfit a whole German tank company with T-34s and slug it out with a Russian T-34 company.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

... Mathematics snipped ...If all of the above is true, and I think it is, it's perfectly reasonable for BTS to leave the feature out, even if the "coding effort" is small.

LOL.

But, I think there is a small work around which may make B5 happy; some captured equipment will be able to be used/selected/purchased, so if you are really all fired up about an even match, you could probably set something up where both sides have T34s, and everyone is running around with the same small arms. Give both sides access to a mortar FO of ~80mm, and hey presto - mirrored forces.

Unless I missed the mark on use of captured equipment. In which case you're screwed...

Regards

JonS

[Michael Emrys]

Black Five, in addition to the other points made above, there is another you need to ponder. Charles and Steve originally set out to make a game (or series of games if you prefer) that are as historically authentic as possible. That's what they want to do and that's what they have set out to do.

They show no apparent interest in pursuing the illusory goal of trying to please every taste under the sun. If you happen to like what they have produced, you are cordially invited to purchase their wares. If not, good luck and godspeed. Hope you find what you are looking for...somewhere else.

As it happens, and you can plainly see by the number of enthusiastic posts to this board, quite a goodly number of people like the way BTS does things just fine. Suggestions for added features are welcome, as long as they are compatible with the goals of BTS' mission statement. Suggestions that try to lead the game down some other avenue just to please this or that gamer's idea of what he may like tend to go directly into the circular file.

Have fun.

Michael

[Pacestick]

I cannot help wondering if an axis T34 would be identical in ability with a Guards T34 taking into account the changes to command and morale as it affects vehicles. Anyone know?

[Olle Petersson]

Using the current CMBO features and the East front historical development I see no problem why it should be impossible to make such a battle with a pre designed scenario.

Hungary switched sides during the war, so setting up a Hungarian force for one side, and then change the date to pick the same Hungarian force for the other side, should be a possibility.

(Just as you now can use the "early" and "late" stuff in the same scenario, although they're normally not available at the same date.)

Cheers

Olle

[Schrullenhaft]

I believe that it would be possible to play a 'time-warp' scenario where the belligerants are the same. This will be primarily true of Romania, but I'm not sure about Hungary & Finland. Finland may only be 'Allied' for a very short period of time (long enough to get the Germans out of Lapland). As for the Hungarians I'm not sure what forces they may have actually fielded against the Germans. One problem with this 'workaround' though is that the TO&E will be different since the units will come from different time frames (the Russians impounded a significant amount of the Romanian armor when they switched over).

I assume what is really wanted here is the ability to pit a force of any composition in a QB and not be limited to time frames or particular belligerants. This isn't possible since it would take an inordinate amount of time to equip each side with the complete TO&E of all other nations (which would have to be the most likely method to accomplish this with the current engine). This can be utterly confusing for playing an historical scenario. It might be possible to have a 'TO&E switch' so that only the actual TO&E for that particular country would be displayed to alleviate this problem. However the current engine is much more complex to modify than many people assume here. The data structures just don't allow for such wholesale changes without A LOT of manhours.

Anyway, as it has been pointed out already, BTS/BFC have decided not to invest the time to do this. While a lot of competitive players would enjoy the capability of an exactly even match up (TO&E-wise at least), its been judged by BTS/BFC that it isn't worth the investment in time to cater to this particular style of play. That's not to say that the request for this feature is totally worthless, but it just isn't worthwhile for BTS considering the huge impact it has on completing the game (and the numerous changes that would be required to support such a feature). When the engine is redesigned the data structures will be modified to make it easier to add and modify units. At that point a 'same-side' option may be viable.

Oh... and if the Captured T-34 is put up against a Soviet T-34 of the same model and experience, it should be an even fight. I'm not sure what changes the Germans made to any of the captured T-34's they had (SS Pz Div 'Das Reich' being one of the foremost users of captured T-34's). Assuming that they didn't make any changes to the cupola, optics, radio or gun, then it should be the same. There should be no inherent Soviet weakness in maning a tank with the exact same features.

[ June 19, 2002, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Schrullenhaft ]

[Foreigner]

Actually Hungary was probably the ONLY European German ally to "go down fighting" and NOT switch sides. All the other Axis partners at one point or another surrendered to the Allies before Germany fell, and most (can't vouch for all) declared war on Germany or fought German troops (if for a short time).

Indeed Horty (Hungary's leader at the time) considered surrendering as the war was winding down, so Hitler sent Otto Scorzeny (hope the spelling's right) first to kidnap Horty's son, then Horty himself. This prevented Hungary for getting out of the war earlier. Indeed, the battles around Budapest in 1945 were probably comparable in fierceness (if not scale) to that of Berlin. Even in May 1945, after Berlin had fallen, IIRC there was still some fighting going on in Czechoslovakia and Hungary - but Czechoslovakia was consider an occupied country, not an Axis ally.

[Black Five]

Michael-

I am surprised that you use the term gamer in a negative sense. Especially given the following from the About Us page:

"Our goal is to serve gamers, rebuild our community, and breathe some life back into a hobby whose followers are still here in sizable numbers but have been tossed aside by the Industry."

It is going to be very hard to rebuild a community if the Grogs and "If it's not historical it's not worth doing," types rule the battlefield.

My suggestion comes from a player who owned a VR arcade any has a great deal of knowledge for what people like to play and for what sells.

If BTS chooses not to include such a feature then they are limiting their appeal and the replay value of their game.

It is a question of whether BTS is more concerned with Grogs or making wargames that all wargamers want to play. Think about it, do you know anyone that played ASL strictly by the rules? Not including tourney play of course ? Everyone I ever played always had "house rules" of some kind.

Even though CMBO is the best tactical level game I have played it could be better. Why not allow wargamers adjust the game to suit their style of play? This increases the appeal and will bring more gamers to BTS.

Your thoughts please.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Black Five:

Your thoughts please.[/QB]

Count my vote for 'Tis being a totally irrelevant feature.'

As long as most historical situations are covered with realistic units, rules and formulas, I will be happy.

[Panzer Leader]

Black Five:

As Schrullenhaft said in his second post, it is not so much about 'limiting playability' as it is about 'implementing those thing required for an accurate simulation'. I believe in a post, or a few posts, or really ALL posts where Steve (of BFC) covers this and related 'non-historical' subjects, he states that the PRIORITY for their company is to base their wargames off realism and history. While your question is not historical, though it could be considered so in an 'alternate' sort of way, it therefore takes a lesser position than other more sought after improvements.

I wish I could point out the exact post, I believe it was where a player wanted to design a "German civil-war" scenario between Wermacht and SS, that Steve said that he is not, by nature, opposed to the idea, but that there were far more important improvements to make to the game system, before this one could or would be implemented.

None who have responded so far speak for the company, and each or any of us could be wrong, but I think BFC are pretty clear on these issues, at least what I've outlined above. Hope that helps!

[Tarquelne]

I am surprised that you use the term gamer in a negative sense.

<snip>

Your thoughts?

I'm suprised you thought he used the term in a negative sense.

Sorry to be abrupt, but

[Pacestick]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

Oh... and if the Captured T-34 is put up against a Soviet T-34 of the same model and experience, it should be an even fight. I'm not sure what changes the Germans made to any of the captured T-34's they had (SS Pz Div 'Das Reich' being one of the foremost users of captured T-34's). Assuming that they didn't make any changes to the cupola, optics, radio or gun, then it should be the same. There should be no inherent Soviet weakness in maning a tank with the exact same features.[/QB]

Agreed, same vehicle, same ammo and optics should equall same capability. I am not sure whether vehicles are going to be under command in CMBB in the same way inf is now with CMBO. What i was actually asking would command modifiers that HQs may or may not have effect vehicles under their command radius in the same way that they now influence inf squads under their command eg. an inf squad under command of a HQ with a plus two combat rating is supposed to fight more effectively than the same squad under a HQ with no combat modifier. Will the same apply to tanks in CMBB. Does anyone know?

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But it IS a feature to a degree - captured vehicles (some, not all) will be in the game. So you can probably outfit a whole German tank company with T-34s and slug it out with a Russian T-34 company.

I don't have my tank books available, but didn't the Germans modify captured tanks before using them. I am sure I've seen T-34s with German style cupolas on them. If this is modeled, you still don't get an even fight. Also, I thought I read somewhere that the Germans either modified the 76mm gun or its ammunition so that it out performed the same gun in Soviet hands

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Hungary switched sides during the war, so setting up a Hungarian force for one side, and then change the date to pick the same Hungarian force for the other side, should be a possibility.

(Just as you now can use the "early" and "late" stuff in the same scenario, although they're normally not available at the same date.)

Er... no they didn't. They went down with Germany.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:

This will be primarily true of Romania, ...

Sorry! My misstake.

Of course I meant Rumania and not Hungary.

Cheers

Olle

[karch]

Originally posted by Black Five:

It is a question of whether BTS is more concerned with Grogs or making wargames that all wargamers want to play.............

You are leaving out something there. What about the time to code the game to do what you want? From descriptions of the game, it sounds like it would double the coding in the game. Every vehicle and troop would have to be coded into the game twice with twice the TOE etc.

I seem to recall BFI said each unit was coded as AXIS or ALLIED and to have a unit on both sides, it would have to be coded into the game twice. It's not just a switch you can toggle for Allied or Axis.

To say they leaving it out ONLY because the GROGS (which they themselves are) don't want it, is not entirely correct.

They have said numerous times that the most important thing to do is make the game mechaincs and unit TOE as accurate as possible. After that, other "toys" or "bells and whistles" can be added. Looking at the length of time it is taking them to complete this HUGE game, do you really want the game set back 2-6 months for them to add this? From what I understand it is a MASSIVE undertaking to do what you want because of the way the game is designed. It just can't be done easily, so it probably won't be done at all.

Would you rather them put weeks of development into axis v axis play, or whole movie playback? I'd much rather see the whole movie playback somehow. (but that's a topic for a different discussion)

I don't think you realize how hard it is for them to do what you want and think they are just dismissing it out of hand because they don't care for the idea (which may also be true).

[Le Tondu]

Yeah, we ALL want the game yesterday.

No interest in this happening? Are you guys crazy?? Has political correctness taken hold here too?

BTS has told us that the US Army AND the US Marines have both expressed interest in there being 'same forces' that oppose each other.

Can anyone say money?? Doesn't BTS want it?

Does anyone in thier right mind, think for one second that this feature won't cause more copies of CMBB to be bought? Can we say "government contract?"

The rewards for putting this in weighed against the amount of work to put it in is overwhelmingly in favor of the rewards, IMHO. The efforts to ignore it are astounding.

IMO (and with all due respect), the lack of this idea in the game will be evidence of nothing less than BTS shooting themselves in the foot.

[Panzer Leader]

Le Tondu you're being a bit dramatic, don't you think? BFS has survived (and done very well) for this long without 'government contracts', right? Who says they even want them, or that they could ever have a chance in the big game market where three companies rule the software like Czars of old?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

BTS has told us that the US Army AND the US Marines have both expressed interest in there being 'same forces' that oppose each other.

Are you sure of this? I'm curious what the US Army would want with such a feature being that CM doesn not model modern units. It seems to me that TacOps would be far more oppropriate for this until BTS gets around to making a modern warfare CM.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

BTS has told us that the US Army AND the US Marines have both expressed interest in there being 'same forces' that oppose each other.

So tell us, why would professional military organizations (well the Marines anyway) want something that models such a completely unrealistic thing? Football in German uniforms?