My opinion of this game the prequal

[Andreas]

I have made a habit out of not responding to Herr Schoerner's posts, but I will make an exception here, as the designer of the 'Bridgeheads' scenario.

SPOILERS

For those who have not read the briefing - the scenario is actually historical, minus the map. It is based on a small action in XXXXVIII. AK (Gebirgs) (can't remember whether it was 1st or 4th Gebirgsdivision). The historical outcome was that the German platoon with two HMGs in support slaughtered the Soviet attackers, estimated at battalion strength. This scenario is not intended to be a balanced affair - if it says differently in the briefing, that is a mistake on my part.

I initially designed it not for the CD, but for myself, to test whether this historical situation can be recreated in CMBB. It can, the scenario shows that quite clearly, and that was as far as I wanted to go. It was then felt that it would make a good addition to the CD, and there were the 6k of space needed on the CD, and so it went on.

So, to use 'The Bridgeheads' to argue about MG and the reactions to being under fire is not really a sound argument, since the scenario is loaded against the Soviets from the start.

I am not sure if this answers the questions raised here, but I thought I should provide the information about the intent, to enable the discussion to take account of it.

[Schoerner]

@Andreas:

Maybe you should have read the older posts, then you would have known, that it's NOT a matter of balance, it's a matter of the AIs behaviour.

Or should the game be sold with the hint:

"Do only play well balanced battles! Do not move infantry over open terrain, especially when MGs are close, else the game will behave erratically. This isn't a bug, this is a learning feature for better tactics"?

:mad:

[Massattack]

It seems some players are finding out the hard way WHAT happens, WHEN unsupported infantry try to advance over open ground towards MG positions. In real life and in CMBB you are on a loser, which is why I like CMBB so much. To blame the game engine for bankrupt tactics is indefensible. To accuse the makers of ignoring the problem and hiding behind "contented" customers is plain untrue. Does the infantry model need tweaking to improve sneaking towards nearest cover, and stopping the dance of death of routed and broken troops? Yes, in my opinion, along with improvements in relative spotting etc. This game is not perfect, but none of its present flaws will stop me enjoying a game that is streets ahead of anything else out there in this genre.

Regards

Massattack

[Martin Rapier]

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

I've played this one a few times now, and I found that simply leaving the few Russian sections with LMGs on the ridgeline for fire support and making liberal use of 'move to contact' & then 'advance'/'assault' for everyone else worked fine. A few sections were shot down (well, plenty more where they came from;) and the rest advanced over the open ground firing from the hip then cleared the Germans out in short order with grenades etc. No sneak of death at all as far as I could see.

The worst situation for this so far was one of the new SL conversions 'The Capture of Balta' where a couple of German platoons had a terrible time covering the enormous expanses of open ground. It was mainly a matter of keeping an eye on the sections which started sneaking and getting them to hide or whatever to recover though. The AI behaviour does not seem overly extreme, however it does remind me of early implementations of 'run to cover' in the old HPS game 'Tigers on the Prowl' and I'll be interested to see what difference the patch makes.

Cheers

Martin

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Massattack:

It seems some players are finding out the hard way WHAT happens, WHEN unsupported infantry try to advance over open ground towards MG positions. In real life and in CMBB you are on a loser, which is why I like CMBB so much. To blame the game engine for bankrupt tactics is indefensible. To accuse the makers of ignoring the problem and hiding behind "contented" customers is plain untrue. Does the infantry model need tweaking to improve sneaking towards nearest cover, and stopping the dance of death of routed and broken troops? Yes, in my opinion, along with improvements in relative spotting etc. This game is not perfect, but none of its present flaws will stop me enjoying a game that is streets ahead of anything else out there in this genre.

Regards

Massattack

Thank goodness. Someone who read the earlier posts and understood the issue. NOT. This is not about tactics bankrupt or otherwise. It's about the very thing you agreed with. The improvement of the infantry model with regards to cover and sneak behaviour.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Massattack:

[QB]In real life and in CMBB you are on a loser, which is why I like CMBB so much. To blame the game engine for bankrupt tactics is indefensible.

In real life?

Oh, then please explain to me, why you lose badly, if you don't check every turn and correct the AI when in AUTO-SUICIDE-SNEAK-MODE, but when changing it, things usually go better?

It's new to me, that in real life units are making sneak-suicide, when under fire.

And in this scenario you see, that it is necessary all the time to correct the AI and there's no realistic behaviour of units under fire in bushes or open ground.

Bankrupt tactics?

Did you play The Bridgeheads?

Just for clarification:

in the first game i lost with a minor defeat.

The second was a draw.

The third a minor vic.

Why the improvement?

Did i change my tactics?

No.

Always the same: some advancing, while others usually with MGs giving suppression fire (if they at all started shoting - ok - manually adjusted) and just stupidly checking EVERY TURN for auto-sneak-modes and changing them.

Is anyone praising/defending CMBB's inf-unit-behaviour here, capable of reading FIRST?

What are the complaints about?

What are the answers about?

In CMBO it was very rare that you needed to adjust AI's auto-movements.

In CMBB, i have at least to check for it all the time - once you forget to check a unit, next turn under heavy fire, it could happen it will sneak out of cover and make auto-suicide.

Great realistical improvement.

[ November 19, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Thin Red Line]

Ordered by an incompetent CO to advance under MG fire without appropriate covering fire, one would probably be paralysed by fear, unable to move, criying in terror and trying to disappear underground. Standing up and running for cover, even for a short 15m run, requires immense courage, presence of mind and cold nerves.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

Ordered by an incompetent CO to advance under MG fire without appropriate covering fire, one would probably be paralysed by fear, unable to move, criying in terror and trying to disappear underground.

Is this state of units shown in CMBB?

Yes.

Have my troops been in this condition?

No.

I already described what happened.

Standing up and running for cover, even for a short 15m run, requires immense courage, presence of mind and cold nerves.

And how much courage is necessary to sneak torwards a HMG position over open ground while cover is so close?

And how much courage is necessary to sneak 100m back while cover is very close?

Reading the posts helps, before answering.

[Schoerner]

double post

[ November 19, 2002, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

Ordered by an incompetent CO to advance under MG fire without appropriate covering fire, one would probably be paralysed by fear, unable to move, criying in terror and trying to disappear underground. Standing up and running for cover, even for a short 15m run, requires immense courage, presence of mind and cold nerves.

I do not agree entirely with your assessment. There is a phenonema of the "collapse forward" into cover. Broken troops can retreat forward into cover and then stay there. If no one comes along to either relieve them, rescue them or rally them then they are easily mopped up by the enemy. It is sometimes easier for broken men to blindly run forward into the unknown if the unknown offers an alternative to the bullet swept ground behind them that they have already experienced and that has broken their spirits.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Massattack:

It seems some players are finding out the hard way WHAT happens, WHEN unsupported infantry try to advance over open ground towards MG positions. In real life and in CMBB you are on a loser, which is why I like CMBB so much. To blame the game engine for bankrupt tactics is indefensible.

The game engine is at least in error with the heavy weapons which have to move. They can be put out of the game by the opponent player at will, in unrealistic ways.

Your bashing of other people here may be your hobby, but BFC already announced they correct the threshold of automatically giving order to units against the player's will, so I guess you'll be pretty alone very soon.

You are just another whiner-whiner and from your postings it appears you never even considered the fine differences between the squads and heavier weapons. The game engine tries to treat them equal wit regards to panic and auto-sneak, but they are not equal with regards to other behaviour and that doesn't work.

Yes, in my opinion, along with improvements in relative spotting etc.

So what do you propose about the relative spotting?

This game is not perfect, but none of its present flaws will stop me enjoying a game that is streets ahead of anything else out there in this genre.

Exactly. So don't stop whiner-whining when you only bothered to look at the complains at an extremley shallowish level and take some of the real whiners as representative for people who actually want to improve the realism of the game.

[Engel]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The historical outcome was that the German platoon with two HMGs in support slaughtered the Soviet attackers,

This shows how differently two people can play the game; I found that I was able to to slaughter the enemy AI regardless of which side I took myself. OTOH, I had first played it as the Germans (winning 100% to 0%), so I knew about the two MG's, and altered tactics accordingly and won around 80% to 20% as the Soviets.

[Massattack]

Sorry Doodlebug if I have completely misunderstood the problem(I think not!).It seems to me that some players are getting hung up on the reactions of pinned/broken/routed troops to the point of not wanting to play the game because the autosneak feature is frustrating them so much.

That it would cause such a level of frustration to some players would suggest to me that those players should look to their tactics, rather than OVERconcentrating on an admittedly flawed part of the game. The overall improvement in the CMBB infantry model has lead to a considerable improvement in gameplay over CMBO.To stop play while awaiting improvements in the patch makes me wonder do those players get any satisfaction out of any games at all. Autosneak is a problem, but get it in perpective for !%&** sake!

Regards

Massattack

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Massattack:

Sorry Doodlebug if I have completely misunderstood the problem(I think not!).It seems to me that some players are getting hung up on the reactions of pinned/broken/routed troops to the point of not wanting to play the game because the autosneak feature is frustrating them so much.

That it would cause such a level of frustration to some players would suggest to me that those players should look to their tactics, rather than OVERconcentrating on an admittedly flawed part of the game. The overall improvement in the CMBB infantry model has lead to a considerable improvement in gameplay over CMBO.To stop play while awaiting improvements in the patch makes me wonder do those players get any satisfaction out of any games at all. Autosneak is a problem, but get it in perpective for !%&** sake!

Regards

Massattack

Perhaps you have a point. But for the sake of discussion what if the flawed part of the game really is trashing the game for people. I don't have a problem with the reaction of pinned/broken or routed men. In fact I think on the whole I've seen some extraordinarily good movement sequences by squads advancing under fire. I've seem them apparently speed up when under no fire,slow down to return fire, hit the dirt and crawl a way, then be pinned down and get up and resume the advance as fire slackened. I'll even accept that panicked troops sometimes do bizzarre and, to us, ridiculous things. My problem lies in the panic sneak mode that has real difficulties in doing anything other than retrace it's path. There are circumstances surely when continuing 10 m into cover is more appropriate than 100m of sneaking backwards? BTS are going to look at cover recognition IIRC and I remain hopeful that this will solve the problem.

[Thin Red Line]

Schroener,

I carefully read that thread before answering it.

Especially the following :

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

Of course I didn't want to upset you, i'm sorry if i did, i was just giving my point of view about infantry behaviour under fire, which is, IMHO, fairly modelled by CMBB, because i think that under fire, sneaking gives a higher (but maybe false) safety feeling than running.

But of course i maybe totally wrong (i've never been into a true battle after all), it was a suggestion, and maybe the infantry reaction is completly flawed in the game.

I also agree that infantry shouldn't leave cover when shot at, and i'm confident it will be tweaked by the patch.

Doodlebug, i think the 'collapse forward' behaviour is sometimes realistic too, but i've observed it in cmbb already, if i remember well.

Cheers

Nicolas

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Massattack:

[QB]that those players should look to their tactics, rather than OVERconcentrating on an admittedly flawed part of the game.

Do YOU decide, how much someone is repelled by unrealistically behaviour of units?

The overall improvement in the CMBB infantry model has lead to a considerable improvement in gameplay over CMBO.

And does this solve the things which got worse?

To stop play while awaiting improvements in the patch makes me wonder do those players get any satisfaction out of any games at all.

It's not a question if you can understand people's frustration.

It's a matter of FACTS, that units are under certain conditions behaving really unrealistically.

The conclusions people take, is their problem, not your's.

Autosneak is a problem,

At least you've found the topic we were talking about.

Congratulation!

but get it in perpective for !%&** sake!

Exactly this fan-attitude can lead to wrong-decisions of a company's management.

MY beloved game isn't allowed to become criticized!

Nothing is perfect, but look at hte beautiful graphics!

Bull****.

CM is about WWII battlefield-simulation.

If infantry units are sneaking over open terrain torwards MG positions, while overriding commands torwards nearest cover or other erratic things, this is not a tiny, this is a MAJOR problem for a tactical battlefield simulation.

And have you ever thought about it, that some people are complaining more than others about this topic, because they want to see realism as main target again over CMBB's unnecessary goodies (compared to CMBO)?

[ November 19, 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Schoerner:

I have played the Bridgehead scenario (only once from the Soviet side) and won. Actually the Germans surrendered shortly before the game ended. I don't know how I did it because it was one of my first CMBB games ever, but I remember having used "move to contact" for the majority of my troops on turn 1. Those troops did not auto-sneak, but rather stop and shoot it out, which was probably the best thing they could do.

I don't really understand why you complain about your troops starting to sneak forward. I mean, the only available cover is forward. And sneaking troops are certainly less vulnerable than moving or advancing troops. Of course, if you try to have all your troops advancing without leaving any behind to provide cover fire, your sneaking troops won't put out any firepower. But what did you expect? I'd rather have my men move with minimum exposure (sneak) until the enemy is supressed. And I can always change the waypoints back to advance once I feel confident that the enemy is sufficiently suppressed.

Dschugaschwili

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I also agree that infantry shouldn't leave cover when shot at, and i'm confident it will be tweaked by the patch.

Your last post comes back to the topic of this thread.

I don't understand why it is that difficult for most people to focus on the problem.

If i didn't miss a reply of BTS (and i'm reading them very carefully, 'cause i'm one of those customers who had stopped playing CMBB, due to the sneak-directions), this will NOT be solved in the patch.

The thresholds or trigger-levels will be adjusted.

Also Steve's replys in this thread are showing this.

But not the problem of completely unrealistically auto-sneak DIRECTIONS.

Maybe the problem will become reduced a lot, due to the higher thresholds and the higher concealment of brushes - we will see.

But i'm quite surprised about BTS statements, comparing "My Tiger was killed by a Sherman" with complaints about the auto-sneak-directions where Infantry overrides user commands torwards next cover, without being panicked and instead sneaking over open ground directly torwards hostile positions.

Doodlebug, i think the 'collapse forward' behaviour is sometimes realistic too, but i've observed it in cmbb already, if i remember well.

And how often does 'collapse forward' appear, compared to suicide-sneak?

How often does it happen that units leave sneak-mode and jump up agian and rush forward, especially when the life-saving cover is close?

If suicide-sneak would happen from time to time, it would be OK. One squad going crazy.

But if this is the usual behaviour, and running torwards the very close cover never happens, then i call it what it is: UNREALISTICALLY.

No one of you defending bad behaviour of AI is helping BTS in any way.

In the long terms this even is bad for the further development of the game.

[ November 19, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Cpt Kernow]

Firstly.

Schonoer and Doodlebug.

I started this post so dont tell me what the topic isOK.

You are the ones in misunderstanding.

To help you understand what this post is supposed to be about let me spell it out in simple steps.

1. Some people seem very very hung up on the sneak behaviour of their troops. (Correct me if Im wrong Schonoer)

2. I have not witnessed this problem a great deal, it has in no way has interfered with my enjoyment of this game.

3.Therefore I preposed that those experiencing this problem to the point where they become obssesed with it must be using faulty tactics.

4. Therefore I discuss the issue of tactics.

Conclussion.

This thread is primarily about tactics and the supposition that fualty tactics are making some frustrated with this game.

OK

Do you understand that?

Also Schoener please show me where I attacked you personally.

redwolf

I suggest you refer to battlefronts comments on page 1 of this thread.

[Thin Red Line]

* Note to self : don't interfere in threads because it is bad for further game developments

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

Schoerner:

I have played the Bridgehead scenario (only once from the Soviet side) and won. Actually the Germans surrendered shortly before the game ended. I don't know how I did it because it was one of my first CMBB games ever, but I remember having used "move to contact" for the majority of my troops on turn 1. Those troops did not auto-sneak, but rather stop and shoot it out, which was probably the best thing they could do.

I don't really understand why you complain about your troops starting to sneak forward. I mean, the only available cover is forward. And sneaking troops are certainly less vulnerable than moving or advancing troops. Of course, if you try to have all your troops advancing without leaving any behind to provide cover fire, your sneaking troops won't put out any firepower. But what did you expect? I'd rather have my men move with minimum exposure (sneak) until the enemy is supressed. And I can always change the waypoints back to advance once I feel confident that the enemy is sufficiently suppressed.

Dschugaschwili

Did you read my post, where i described that i even used a whole company for supressive fire?

They were not moving when the enemy appeared. The other company was moving forwards.

The second one was just standing and waiting for the enemy to appear to give suppression fire.

Half of the company for supression started to sneak, while only a quarter shot back. The other quarter just stood there waiting and doing nothing.

The whole advancing-company got down into sneak mode, while ~1/4 choosed directions directly torwards the enemy's positions.

Giving explicit fire-orders lasted for a few seconds - in the next minute, only 3-5 units kept firing, while the others preferred to start sneaking again. And at this moment if i remember correctly i had 2 (TWO!) panicked/routed units.

~50% were in normal or alarmed condition.

Under these circumstances, the infantry attack in this scenario is a die-game and i can't remember that i ever had this feeling about random in CMBO.

[ November 19, 2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Bruno Weiss]

AWITE! FREEZE! Nobody move... This is a thread-jacking. Remain seated and think of somefink off topic, and no one gets hurt.

[Doodlebug]

Cap'n.

Have you actually gone back and read your first post? You opened it up by complaining about whiners.

Enough. Wasn't it?

You then decided because you hadn't experienced a problem that those who had must be at fault because they played a certain way. That's one heck of a big jump to make isn't it? You even opened by including " My opinion" in the post title. There's no mention of tactics at all. By adopting an upfront position like that you were bound to get people who didn't agree with you replying. This post has covered a good deal of ground since there and I can only say the I think that your comment that

"....the supposition that fualty tactics are making some frustrated with this game."

has to be wrong.

If that was the case why are BTS tweaking the model in the patch? The fact that they are prepared to tweak things indicates there is something amiss. Even you must agree that if things were perfect then they wouldn't tweak anything would they?

The truth lies somewhere in the middle ground but it is certainly not all down to faulty tactics.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

AWITE! FREEZE! Nobody move... This is a thread-jacking. Remain seated and think of somefink off topic, and no one gets hurt.

Ha Ha Ha. LOL.

It took me so long to type my answer that you dropped right in without me noticing.

"Take anything you want Mister. Just don't hurt me. Here. Take my incontinence tablets. After the shock it's too late anyway"

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Cpt Kernow:

[QB]Firstly.

Schonoer and Doodlebug.

First you should write my name correct or otherwise, with your comments i have to assume, you cannot read.

I started this post so dont tell me what the topic isOK.

LOL

This is sounding like from a child crying:

THIS IS MY THREAD!

I want to flame people complaining about CMBB!

I LOVE THIS GAME AND EVERYONE COMPLAINING HAS NO CLUE ABOUT TACTICS!

Say, how old are you?

1. Some people seem very very hung up on the sneak behaviour of their troops. (Correct me if Im wrong Schonoer)

Is there something wrong with the sneak-behaviour?

If everything's fine, why will the trigger-levels be adjusted in the patch?

2. I have not witnessed this problem a great deal, it has in no way has interfered with my enjoyment of this game.

AGAIN: if YOU haven't witnessed it, this doesn't mean that other people also haven't witnessed it, ok?

And if other people have witnessed it, this doesn't automatically mean, their tactics have been wrong, ok?

SNEAKING over open ground torwards enemy's positions, overriding user commands when cover is close is what it is: UNREALISTICALLY.

And it's not a question if you've seen it before, ok?

3.Therefore I preposed that those experiencing this problem to the point where they become obssesed with it must be using faulty tactics.

And what if i tell you, that you have no clue about tactics and movements under fire, and therefore you don't recognize it?

4. Therefore I discuss the issue of tactics.

And this changes the AI's tendency to sneak i.e. torwards hostile HMG positions?

This thread is primarily about tactics and the supposition that fualty tactics are making some frustrated with this game.

Because either you're a child closing it's eyes or a liar.

If you want to tell us, that you haven't discovered completely strange and unrealistically sneak-directions, 'cause your tactics are that good, then PLEASE, subscribe to the Blitzladder and show us, that PAK Paule is a beginner.

Also Schoener please show me where I attacked you personally.

You were flaming PEOPLE complaining about certain aspects of CMBB.

You can't understand this and can't understand that and it's all because they have bad tactics.

We were talking about the PROGRAM.

Difference recognized?

No? Doesn't matter.

[ November 19, 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]