My opinion of this game the prequal

[Cpt Kernow]

Is that Im looking for someone to swop it for GI combat.

Ha ha only joking. No seriously, this game is the pinnacle. Wats this about peeps saying I wont play it till the patch comes out. WHAT!!!.

It takes alot to draw me out of the deep depths of the lurk, from those depths I browse these pages many times a day, and to those that sob and whine about the new infantry model I come hither to say

ENOUGH!

I am tired and weary of your complaints. If you long for the old gamey ways of cmbo then just make all your men crack and elite and play QB. I find this calibre of troops can run headlong into machine gun fire withonly a small % hitting the dirt.

I think those that complain to much must insist on a certian style of play. I find my infantry behaves very well very realisticaly. Ok green and conscript troops break easy, but ok thats life aint it. Regular troops if given good covering fire and also enough of them are in the advance can cover good distances before hitting the deck. Crack and elite troops are incredibly hardy over medium distances. Am currently playing an op. Split a aquad of crak recon 43 troops, advanced them in open towards some biuldings to draw out there occupants. Even though these split squads came under direct fire from a machine gun they didnt get down to dine on mud. They did hit mud a bit later but unpanicked started to crawl backwards to nearest crater. All seemed good to me. After this I suppresed the MG with one of my own and sent over the whole platoon.

Cmon

Lets play.Lets not whine.

[KNac]

Well said.

However, I haven't readed CMBB forum for a while. Is BTS going to change something in the game because of all the whining???? (I hope we are not heading to that way) I mean this is realistic and fun, why should we change it?

I hope if something is changed is because it's boggus or can be done better, but not cause whine poo's

[HeadHunter]

I agree that there's no reason to whine or gripe, but it isn't fair to automatically categorize CMBO as "gamey". Maybe CMBB is more realistic (and I wouldn't mind seeing the Western Front with CMBB graphics and gameplay), but CMBO is still a great game. It's not illegal to play and enjoy both, ya know

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

Is that Im looking for someone to swop it for GI combat.

Ha ha only joking. No seriously, this game is the pinnacle. Wats this about peeps saying I wont play it till the patch comes out. WHAT!!!.

It takes alot to draw me out of the deep depths of the lurk, from those depths I browse these pages many times a day, and to those that sob and whine about the new infantry model I come hither to say

ENOUGH!

I am tired and weary of your complaints. If you long for the old gamey ways of cmbo then just make all your men crack and elite and play QB. I find this calibre of troops can run headlong into machine gun fire withonly a small % hitting the dirt.

I think those that complain to much must insist on a certian style of play. I find my infantry behaves very well very realisticaly. Ok green and conscript troops break easy, but ok thats life aint it. Regular troops if given good covering fire and also enough of them are in the advance can cover good distances before hitting the deck. Crack and elite troops are incredibly hardy over medium distances. Am currently playing an op. Split a aquad of crak recon 43 troops, advanced them in open towards some biuldings to draw out there occupants. Even though these split squads came under direct fire from a machine gun they didnt get down to dine on mud. They did hit mud a bit later but unpanicked started to crawl backwards to nearest crater. All seemed good to me. After this I suppresed the MG with one of my own and sent over the whole platoon.

Cmon

Lets play.Lets not whine.

So if I've understood your post correctly you use crack troops and find they do quite well? Or failing that you throw a mass of regulars at the problem? I suspect you missed the point of the comments from those who have criticised the infantry behaviour under fire. The "panic sneak mode" would be acceptable if the choice of destination was more sensible. The patch will address this issue, I believe, and the fact that BTS, who are noteworthy in their efforts to remain scrupulously accurate, are prepared to modify the behaviour of the AI routine must indicate that there is a modicum of validity in the observations and posts on the board. I am absolutely certain that they would not be swayed one iota by unfounded or unjustifiable complaints and whining.

Just my opinion you understand.

[Cpt Kernow]

NO

I ment that those not wishing to have to get to grips with the new infantry model should exclusively use crack/elite troops.I am happy to use whatever troops are under my command at any given time.

Whilst there is in my opinion a slight problem with the "panic sneak" mode, I hardly ever encounter it. However some go on as though the "panic sneak" mode makes up the entirity of thier CMBB gaming experience they whinge about it so much, even to the extent of stating that they will not play the game till the patch comes out. I can only suspect that these gamers have tactics that highlight the "panic sneak" mode problem and if they changed them they wouldnt encounter the problem so often.

I just dont have the problems with this game that some seem to constantly elude to.

[Cpt Kernow]

double post.

[ November 18, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

NO

I ment that those not wishing to have to get to grips with the new infantry model should exclusively use crack/elite troops.I am happy to use whatever troops are under my command at any given time.

Whilst there is in my opinion a slight problem with the "panic sneak" mode, I hardly ever encounter it. However some go on as though the "panic sneak" mode makes up the entirity of thier CMBB gaming experience they whinge about it so much, even to the extent of stating that they will not play the game till the patch comes out. I can only suspect that these gamers have tactics that highlight the "panic sneak" mode problem and if they changed them they wouldnt encounter the problem so often.

I just dont have the problems with this game that some seem to constantly elude to.

[Cpt Kernow]

Post deleted.

[ November 18, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

NO

I ment that those not wishing to have to get to grips with the new infantry model should exclusively use crack/elite troops.I am happy to use whatever troops are under my command at any given time.

Whilst there is in my opinion a slight problem with the "panic sneak" mode, I hardly ever encounter it. However some go on as though the "panic sneak" mode makes up the entirity of thier CMBB gaming experience they whinge about it so much, even to the extent of stating that they will not play the game till the patch comes out. I can only suspect that these gamers have tactics that highlight the "panic sneak" mode problem and if they changed them they wouldnt encounter the problem so often.

I just dont have the problems with this game that some seem to constantly elude to.

You may have a valid point there. I can only repeat that my experience is one of total frustration with regards to this problem and it seems to be for other players too. I've tried every combination that I can think of to get units to go the last few metres to the final waypoint and cover. I've tried setting up 3 squads of 4 with covered arcs and/or direct and area fire while one advanced. I've used HMG's likewise and 50mm mortars. I've used all of the above simultaneously. All of the above using veteran and crack units. I'd accept failure with worse units but it just feels wrong. I appreciate that "feels wrong" is hardy scientific but it does!

Any suggestions on tips or tricks I may have overlooked? Oh I used 81mm FO smoke support too to reduce the incoming fire. I guess you've been lucky and I've unlucky so far but it sure has taken the shine off a game that in all other respects is miles ahead of CMBO.

[Cpt Kernow]

what works for me is to make sure of two things they work in unison to help (not gaurentee) that some ( hardly never all) of your infantry arrives in cover.

2. Dont ever have just one squad advancing at a time. Make sure you have more than one squad on the advance.Try a minimum of two groups of two full platoons at slightly different places say left flank and mid to left flank ( I try to use the formula: for every three platoons two advance one covers). This gives then enemy multiple targets so some of your squads will get through.After this advance the other flank. If your troops are reg and below you must accept that some will break off the advance and hit mud. You are just trying to get the majority into position. Once they are they can poor fire on the enemy and those units that hit mud can maybe make the last few metres to cover.

2.Suppresion Suppresion Suppresion. Use your infantry to make up the numbers on the advance, but never never never advance till you have all your support weapons in place. Thats everything that can provide fire support. AFV,halftracks mg's mortars everything. Have every element in position to cover the advance of your squads.

Other tips would be dont advance till the time is right. If you have an afv unopposed, spend time blasting away at enemy positions. If you notice a weak lane of fire exploit it, or if not try and create one.

On each map there will be one or two maybe three critical points of advance, your whole strategy must be to manouvre all your assets to complete these advances.

I still get it wrong and see whole advance break down into chaos but I dont blame the engine, I blame war and myself for implementing a flawed plan. Advancing under fire aint supposed to be easy. The succesfull advance and its exucution has now become a (if not the) essential element to CMBB gameplay and this is one of the fundemental reasons I prefer it over CMBO.

[Doodlebug]

Good analysis. I tried moving troops simultaneously on opposite flanks to split the fire. Did seem to have beneficial effects. I would hate to be in the only squad ordered to advance when everyone else is holding back

I was talking about infantry actions only in my observations on the panic sneak mode problem. Drop the vehicles, AFV's and direct HE from the calculation and see if you get into trouble in an open environment. Perhaps the QB ratios of attacker v defender points simply don't allow the attacker to purchase enough fire support like they did in CMBO? I accept everything you say about hitting the ground when shot at and the possibility of losing squads broken but I can't accept the long distance panic sneak is realistic when safety is sometimes only metres away.

[Thermopylae]

Just a minor note, really..rifle squads are best now employed in attacks by fire..thus, that last 80-90m should only be attempted AFTER you win the firefight..of course SMGs, Pioneers, and other folks who are generally more effective in close combat need to get there. The solution to this suualyl involves moving along less thn direct routes using clumps of cover (i.e woods, buildings). Should you be lacking in the above, well, my guess is SMgs/etc would not do too well in that theater...

[Cpt Kernow]

If I drop the AFV vehicles and direct HE in an open environment I would definately get into a lot of trouble.So would a real life commander.

Thats why they invented tanks! Why was there stalemate in WW1. Infantry didnt like advancing through open terrain ( well there were alot of craters etc) into machine gun fire. The allies introduce the tank and make a massive advance in a single battle.

If I didnt have any tanks I would try to identify a flank that was independent of the middle and opposing flank (e.g. units in these flanks cant get LOS into this flank) and advance say 3/4 force down this flank. Use your advantage as the attacker which is mobility and greater flank security. This way you will be putting 3/4 of your force against aprox 1/3 of his. When you have rolled up this flank you can then advance to flank on your enemy and cover the advace of your remaining troops. Defenders rarely leave place to take advantage of your exposed flank and if they do they effectively become the attackers against your 1/4 force.

If your feeling clever you can attemtp a feint to pull his mobile assets away from your main assualt. A smoke barrage in an area you are otherwise going to ignore is a good way of doing this.

[Schoerner]

Cpt Kernow, i think you're missing the point.

You're talking about tactics and everything is right, but it doesn't affect the AI-decisions on the sneak-directions.

No one would never ever sneak 100m back where he came from, when life-saving cover is only a few meters away.

And no one would sneak torwards a HMG >30m away over open ground when cover is only a few meters away.

And what i also miss badly is, when the units start to sneak, they keep sneaking all the time instead of jumping up sometimes and running for their life torwards cover.

Have you ever seen units in CMBB under fire in bushes sneaking over 10m open ground torwards wood?

You call this realistically?

[Cpt Kernow]

I got onto the topic of tactics because I very rarely see this sneek thing that somepeople keep bringing up and pressumed that to triger sneak (bug)events one must be using certain (incorrect) tactics.This is how we got onto the topic of tactics. Most of the time my pinned units either crawl to the nearest (or at least near) cover or get up and finish there advance into cover. If they have broken well thats different. However when men break in combat they really really break so theres no accounting for there actions.

I seriously have just not encountered this sneak (bug) very much and I play cmbb loads so i find it hard to empathise with people who claim it ruins/impairs CMBB as it is outside of my exoerience.

[Schoerner]

Have you already played the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead?) scenario?

There you can see it very clearly.

Infantry has to advance over (almost) open terrain.

When the enemy fire starts, ~80% of the units go down and start sneaking (no matter if they were advancing, moving, assaulting or just waiting). Do some stay where they are? Depends on your luck. If 20% stay where they are when they come under fire, then you are quite lucky. Do some RUN torwards cover? No.

You can only hope that a few units stay where they are and shoot back, while the others start sneaking all the time torwards cover (or back again). Not a single unit will take the opportunity of a fire-pause to start auto-running (not to mention auto-advancing, auto-assaulting) - and they were only in an alarmed status - far away of panicking.

OK, after 2 minutes of sneaking this is another topic.

Let's take the mass-attack: i would expect it breaks down, when the troops are starting to panicking due to heavy losses but not when the first shots arrive.

And i played this scenario for testing three times and NEVER saw a unit jumpping up from sneaking and running torwards cover.

But i saw it often enough, that the sneaking-direction was directly torwards a HMG in a foxhole.

I also tried a mass-attack even with the whole company, while the second one just sits back for suppression fire. Guess what happens: the mass-attack lasts for a few seconds and then it turns into a sneak-attack although the units are still not panicked.

And even worse: many of the units for giving suppression fire don't even start to shoot, when the enemy is becoming visible (yes they had clear LOS and after the turn i had to target with most units manually).

And i don't guess this is because CM calculates and therefore avoids friendly fire on own units.

Don't get me wrong: i would have absolutely no problems with heavy losses due to MG-fire against Inf. on almost open ground and i would like it, when units are melting like snow in the sun when running torwards cover, but to see them melting away while ALWAYS auto-sneaking, i really hate in the meanwhile.

I want the intelligent good old CMBO move command back: the units were intelligent enough, to start running on their own while moving.

NOW, they start sneaking.

Great improvement.

[Cribtop Gamer]

The real trick is to never get to the point where you are pinned down in the first place. A pinned unit in the open was a dead unit according to everything I have read.

Quick tactics:

1) Do NOT try to cross open ground until you have won fire superiority and suppressed the enemy. How do you do this? Use a forward screening element. You should never be in a position where the main body of even one of your platoons is exposed to fire from hidden enemies. It WILL happen sometimes because your enemy will ambush you, but not very often if you play it right.

2) As someone said - do NOT try to finish an enemy by closing to hand to hand combat range. Work yourself into grenade range and open fire with more dudes than he's got. Use whatever cover there is and attack from more than one angle.

I am frustrated that BTS may dial down the realism too far to please those who are unsatisfied. This game's infantry model rules. I am just as frustrated as anyone when troops don't go to the nearest cover available, but that is the ONLY thing I would change. Really, unless I am on a totally open steppe, I almost guarantee I can take out an MG 42 with 2 squads of regular Russian infantry. Seriously, do it just like they did in that scene in SPR (except use cover better than they did). You will soon discover why infantry squads were needed to protect MG positions.

This wasn't supposed to be a flame or a rant, but really, if you are getting pinned you are moving through the open with too many men and/or trying to make an assault down to hand to hand range. Don't make these mistakes and move more slowly.

My only complaint is that often times CMBB scenarios have time limits designed for the over-robust infantry model of CMBO.

[Battlefront.com]

Cribtop Gamer,

I am frustrated that BTS may dial down the realism too far to please those who are unsatisfied.

Not to worry, watering down realism to please a minority of players has never and will never happen

The truth is that there is some room for tweaking, but we feel that the people who are expecting 1.01 to fix the "problems" they see with 1.00 will be disapointed. Nearly all of the people that have voiced concern/complaints thus far look like they are having problems because they are getting their troops into situations they never should get into in the first place.

In real life even a Green unit wouldn't get into the position that some gamer's order their guys into. Then they complain that the system is broken and not their tactics because "no real unit would ever do this or that". Our answer is "no real unit would ever let themselves get into such a situation to begin with, so how can you judge the realism of what CMBB does?"

This is akin to saying "I managed to get my Panther upside down and was frustrated that I couldn't swivel the hull around to face a threat. BTS got it wrong! Fix it or do somefink". Our response to such a complaint is to point out that one is not supposed to put a Panther upside down.

Steve

[White Phosphorus]

Troops only seem to sneak when they take a morale hit. I've seen plenty of troops fall to the ground, crawl forward, get up and continue running the second the firing let up. I've also seen troops that are ordered to move start running or advancing forward to get into fat cover.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Cribtop Gamer,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am frustrated that BTS may dial down the realism too far to please those who are unsatisfied.

Not to worry, watering down realism to please a minority of players has never and will never happen

The truth is that there is some room for tweaking, but we feel that the people who are expecting 1.01 to fix the "problems" they see with 1.00 will be disapointed. Nearly all of the people that have voiced concern/complaints thus far look like they are having problems because they are getting their troops into situations they never should get into in the first place.

In real life even a Green unit wouldn't get into the position that some gamer's order their guys into. Then they complain that the system is broken and not their tactics because "no real unit would ever do this or that". Our answer is "no real unit would ever let themselves get into such a situation to begin with, so how can you judge the realism of what CMBB does?"

This is akin to saying "I managed to get my Panther upside down and was frustrated that I couldn't swivel the hull around to face a threat. BTS got it wrong! Fix it or do somefink". Our response to such a complaint is to point out that one is not supposed to put a Panther upside down.

Steve</font>

[Col Deadmarsh]

Kernow, the people you're arguing with aren't even gonna listen to your points until you refer to their opinions as "opinions" and not "whining."

When you use the word "whining", you are simply saying that you can't handle the fact that others have an opinion.

[Battlefront.com]

Kernow, the people you're arguing with aren't even gonna listen to your points until you refer to their opinions as "opinions" and not "whining."

Honestly, I don't think it will make a difference. Some of said people don't appear to listen no matter what

And when an "opinion" is expressed that is reflecting upon realism, is shot down using said standard, is presented again (unaltered), is shot down again using realism as a standard, is presented again (with or without claims of realism), is shot down again, etc... one has to wonder where the line between "opinion" and "whining" is.

This topic has been covered SO many times, and there obviously is NO point bringing it up again. We are not going to hobble CMBB's realism to please a tiny minority of customers. So until someone can convince us that CMBB has it wrong from a realism standpoint... my "opinion" is that this particular subject should be dropped and not picked up again so we can all move on to more productive discussions.

<sigh>, unfortunately I think this will come up again and again, from time to time, just like "my Tiger was killed by a Sherman!! This game is broken!!" did for CMBO.

Steve

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Kernow, the people you're arguing with aren't even gonna listen to your points until you refer to their opinions as "opinions" and not "whining."

Honestly, I don't think it will make a difference. Some of said people don't appear to listen no matter what

And when an "opinion" is expressed that is reflecting upon realism, is shot down using said standard, is presented again (unaltered), is shot down again using realism as a standard, is presented again (with or without claims of realism), is shot down again, etc... one has to wonder where the line between "opinion" and "whining" is.

This topic has been covered SO many times, and there obviously is NO point bringing it up again. We are not going to hobble CMBB's realism to please a tiny minority of customers. So until someone can convince us that CMBB has it wrong from a realism standpoint... my "opinion" is that this particular subject should be dropped and not picked up again so we can all move on to more productive discussions.

<sigh>, unfortunately I think this will come up again and again, from time to time, just like "my Tiger was killed by a Sherman!! This game is broken!!" did for CMBO.

Steve</font>

[Cpt Kernow]

Colonel_Deadmarsh

I agree with what battlefront said in response to your post. (Hope you can feel the smugness eminating from your monitor as you read this.)

I can actually of course handle the fact that other people have an opinion. Thanks for the massively wild assumption about my charachter.

The difference between an opinion and a whine is about expression. If someone argues a point in a calm rational manner then that is an opinion if some one spews forth a rant in emotive unsubstantiated way this equals a whine. So far most (not all) complaints about the new infantry model are comprised of the latter.

If anything I dont think you can handle my opinion, otherwise you would have replied with a counter arguement (good) instead of a personal attack (not very good)

Anyway you got shot down for that one and now you should take it like a man.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

The difference between an opinion and a whine is about expression. If someone argues a point in a calm rational manner then that is an opinion if some one spews forth a rant in emotive unsubstantiated way this equals a whine. So far most (not all) complaints about the new infantry model are comprised of the latter.

If anything I dont think you can handle my opinion, otherwise you would have replied with a counter arguement (good) instead of a personal attack (not very good)

YOU are saying this?

I suggest you read your posts again, if you can't remember anymore.

Or did you answer the problems i described?

All you said was, this didn't happen to you before.

Oh, you're the master of tacticts.

But you didn't say, if this should EVER happen.

You come up with tactics, while we were talking about the AI.

You missed the topic completely and you think you have the right to attack us personally, due to our opinion.

I didn't receive not ONE single answer dealing with the infantry behaviour in the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead) scenario.

In this scenario infantry HAS to move over almost open terrain against two MG-positions.

So keep your childish tactics-suggestions, that everyone knows and LOOK what AI does.

And then call it realistically and start playing CC.

@Steve:

I can't understand, why you are ignoring the topic, too.

It's not a matter, if infantry should never come under heavy MG-fire in open terrain.

It's the question, WHAT will happen, WHEN it occurs.

At least i want to take the argument, suggesting that we whiners are playing a really bad tactics (and i'm not that childish to call the AI realistically, when i win; what sucks, sucks, no matter what the result of a battle is) and better tactics would prevent my men from being pinned down:

if MY tactics is already that bad, then please explain to me, what you call sneaking torwards MG-positions on open ground or sneaking 100m all the way back, when cover is only a few meters away!

Steve, i have the impression you are conciously ignoring the complaints and are hiding behind all the content customers.

IMO this isn't a good sign for the future.

[ November 19, 2002, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]