CMBB: Too "close" for comfort?

[GriffinCheng+]

(Author's note: This message is posted both on csipgw-h newsgroup and CMBB forum at battlefront.com. Please free to cross-post or redirect this to other locations one feels appropiate. The author takes no responsibility outside this post).

May be I am beating a dead horse.

I read here and there that CMBB engine (CMBO included?) does not fit well into Eastern Front combat situation for the engine cannot handle terrian large enough for "maneuver".

I find this is something I may miss one out (after paying over USD50.00).

I read very little (or lack there-of) about Eastern Front from the North African Desert is my main point of interest. I have no idea whether 9 sq. kilometers are too close for a "normal" or regular Eastern Front battles during WW2 to occur at something less than a battlion scale.

Rather than playing fanboy, I would rather write and ask.

And your enlightenments are most welcome.

Interesting side observations, I have yet to come across reading if similiar problems exists in SL/ASL which recreates a lot of interesting battles in similar scale. (Confession: I have SL and COI but find nobody to play with.) Moreover, I am not sure if intenese urban combat took place in Kharkov and Stalingard fit into this picture. Or is CMBB is best to stay with this scale alone? I see no comments yet on Stalingard Pack outside CMBB Forum. And, I have played Close Combat 1 and CC2-AB2F but not CC3, does this one have this problem too?

Don't get me wrong, I really want to hear unbiased comments. Playing the game and understanding more about military history can be 2 different things. I won't dump the game to eBay right out whatever, no thank you. I am having fun here. Thank you for reading and I am waitng to hear from your soon.

[Vanir Ausf B]

My reaction is "whaaaaa"???

Play a 2000 pt QB on a 2km x 4km map and tell me there is no room to maneuver. "Too close"? Use light trees and gentle slopes. You can get engagement ranges of over 2km with the right terrain. A non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Dirtweasle]

This post has reasoning simaler to that for the Stalingrad scenario pack. Which I downloaded last night aand am eager to start on.

Having said that, I like playing CMBB in the huge map scenarios more than the tight maps. That is just my personal feeling since I like to manuever around some. Other than that I'm not expert enough to know and will have to trust on our more groggy members to give a real answer.

[MikeyD]

Really really large maps are a waste for most scenarios involving dismounted infantry, and they're more than you'd need if they've got a lot of hilly wooded terrain -- Why bother with a 6km map if your LOS is always under 800m? I only play the occassional 'huge' map, frankly my processor's barely up to the task for huge battles. A MAX size map could be fun to play with the longest range guns or fluid armor-vs-armor situations on nearly-flat open terrain (but don't try walking your infantry company 4k to the front!), but that's only a small percentage of most scenario types.

[ December 10, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[JunoReactor]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

I read very little (or lack there-of) about Eastern Front from the North African Desert is my main point of interest.

I think the full weight of your question will get across much better if you expand on and clarify this statement.

[Grisha]

Given that in summer of 1944 two whole Soviet tank armies were successfully committed into a 12km breach through German defenses, having the ability to create an operation from the tactical level with a map 6km wide by 4km long in CMBB suggests more than adequate maneuvering room.

[MikeyD]

Also remember in the winter of '43 the German lines were stretched very very thin in places, with a couple Tigers often being rushed about to plug holes along the line. This could make for some exciting moments with a few units on a large map.

I have yet to talk to someone who's constructed a max-size map, max number of turn type of scenario. It might be fun... then again it might not.

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

It might be fun... then again it might not.

I'd go with the latter.

It's just micro-management to the extreme.

[rune]

Guys,

Try Fall Blau, max size map but mdeium amount of units. Historical battle and if all the feedback I am getting is correct, a lot of fun. Available at B&T [cue someone from there to post the web site, as I am at work]

Rune

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Boots and Tracks is here:

http://www.militarygameronline.com/boots_tracks/

[Pak40]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

I read here and there that CMBB engine (CMBO included?) does not fit well into Eastern Front combat situation for the engine cannot handle terrian large enough for "maneuver".

I find this is something I may miss one out (after paying over USD50.00).

This would only fall true where the terrain is completely flat and featureless AND if it were easy to hit a target over 2000 meters away. It's rarely practical to engage tanks over 2000 or 3000 meters away, especially early or mid war. And although much of Russia's terrain is typically depicted as "featureless steppes" and grassland, there's almost always slight undulations in topography that makes it possible for manuver. Let's not forget that there is a lot of terrain on the Eastern Front that is not "featureless steppes".

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

And, I have played Close Combat 1 and CC2-AB2F but not CC3, does this one have this problem too?

If you're really worried about manuvering on the Eastern Front then don't even bother with CC3. The maps are only slightly larger than CC2 which means maximum engagements will be about 400-500 meters typically. The steppe maps are basically pointless to play since there really no way to tactically manuver. However, some of the urban and hilly maps are quite nice. The game as a hole is very disapointing following CC2, a legendary realtime wargame. CC3's campaign and operation system is horrible and the gameplay itself is lopsided in favor of armor - don't even bother spending points on infantry, they just get cut down even if in a building.

[Hertston]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

I read here and there that CMBB engine (CMBO included?) does not fit well into Eastern Front combat situation for the engine cannot handle terrian large enough for "maneuver".

Can't see it... for the scale of forces involved, the engine and associated map sizes is fine, and not just for street battles (which aren't it's best feature). Sure, you can't usually move your whole force in some grandiose encirclement, but at the scale of the game this would have been virtually impossible anyway. The maps are plenty big enough for realistic tactical manoeuvering by platoon sized forces. You can always come up with situations where you could do with more room I suppose, but you have to accept there will always be game limitations (the same ones are there in Steel Panthers, Squad Battles, Close Combat, whatever). Daft reason to miss out on buying it if you ask me.

On street battles, and I may well get lynched for saying this, I don't think they are something CM does particularly well. I'll certainly try the Stalingrad pack when I have some time, but in general I find the limited capabilities of the CM engine to handle buildings very restrictive and frequently irritating. The "open field" stuff is much better IMHO - maybe a dedicated engine is necessary to create realistic urban fighting in this sort of game.

[Master Dullard aka flyingcursor]

I, on the other hand, really like the street battles in CMBO and CMBB. If the game scale was such that you controlled each individual soldier then it would be inadequate by far. But considering there is some representation going on it's great. After all many of us here had to use a LOT of stretching of imagination to make a little cardboard square into a battalion back in the olden days. This is infinitely better.

Forest battles are great too. I love it when the stillness of the wood is suddenly rent with gunfire as two opposing groups appear within meters of each other.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

[snips]Interesting side observations, I have yet to come across reading if similiar problems exists in SL/ASL which recreates a lot of interesting battles in similar scale.

The 3 x 3 km CM:BB map you refer to earlier would correspond to an ASL map 75 hexes on a side. I don't know if they monkeyed around with the maps moving from SL to ASL, but going by the size of the ones in my old copy of SL, that's the same sort of area as 15 map-boards.

All the best,

John.

[manchildstein (ii)]

people who say cmbb is 'too close' to represent the fighting in the 'east' are probably forgetting one thing; that cmbb is a tactical level game and not really operational level.

if cmbb claimed to be operational level i could see the veracity of such 'too close' criticism.

having said that, i believe that even as a tactical-level game, cmbb can be 'tweaked' into representing 'operational level' stuff fairly well...

as an earlier poster may have mentioned, a large operation on a 6k by 4k map is.. well, it's 'operational-level.' of course this entails a lot of micromanagement... perhaps 'too much' for some players.

myself, i don't mind micromanagement... because lots of units lead to great - astounding - 1-minute movies...

in cmbb i don't play operations (haven't yet anyway) but i do find that large maps can accomodate battles on the battalion level.

right now i'm working on a single battle which is 3k x 2k and has about 6000 points per side. so it is a way of doing an 'operational-level' action in a 'tactical game.'

there are over 2 battalions of soviet infantry, and around 50 or 60 soviet tanks... on the german side there is just a company of armored infantry (with 2 platoons of 'regimental' tanks)... and there is a battalion of tanks (4 companies of between 10 to 14 tanks)... as i mentioned... i don't mind the micromanagement because the movies are so incredible... oftentimes these 'huge' scenarios turn out to be be several smaller - but interrelated - battles...

if one wanted a truly operational-level game they would have to wait for panzerblitz, refined for the computer... that is to say that it would have tank platoons and infantry companies as single units... and the maps would be much larger, without the 'single buildings' we see in cmbb...

but is cmbb 'too close?' actually, i had once wondered about that myself but in practice don't find it to be the case... the 3k x 3k map limit for battles really adds to the possibilities of 'tactical' combat...

let's compare with the venerable squad leader... there you had a single board which was ostensibly 400 meters by '800' meters. so if we were to lay them out 4 x 4, we would have 1600 x 3200 meters... about the size of your 'average,' 'huge' cmbb mapboard.

only in cmbb you would probably have a lot more AFVs on that same map... so perhaps consider cmbb to be more 'operational' than the old sl/asl, but less so than the old panzerblitz...

[Keke]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Given that in summer of 1944 two whole Soviet tank armies were successfully committed into a 12km breach through German defenses, having the ability to create an operation from the tactical level with a map 6km wide by 4km long in CMBB suggests more than adequate maneuvering room.

Hear, Hear!

Usually there´s too few units per km in CMBO/CMBB battles compared to historical situations, so this "too close" claim is almost absurd.

[Conscript Bagger]

What's really funny is that PB allowed only three German infantry platoons in a 250m hex - in CM you can almost fit that size force into a single building. I know, "actual practice" vs. "maximum occupancy" and all, but still.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

people who say cmbb is 'too close' to represent the fighting in the 'east' are probably forgetting one thing; that cmbb is a tactical level game and not really operational level.

An excellent point.

No one fights a 'battle' at anything beyond 4 kilometers.

At that range and beyond, you manuever to find people to fight; generally at ranges far, far below 2 kilometers.

I'd be interested to read about how many tactical, or even 'operational' battles primarily involving infantry units, for example, took place beyond a couple of kilometers.

I mean, what do you want the game to model? An overland hike, or people actually shooting at each other?

GriffinCheng, what are you actually quoting?

Some daft idjit without any feel for a tactical (or even Operational game, modeled at the level of actual 'fighting', as opposed to moving into 'position' to fight)?

This whole thread is a bit vague on who's concerns are being addressed.

[GriffinCheng+]

In my defense, I was just asking how large, in terms of terrian distance covered, historically did battles in the Eastern Front usually covered, in CMBB terms and second -- in case the scenario/operation fails to portrait proper tactics "options" for the player, whether it is the limitation of CMBB engine or it is the problem of the scenario/operation design.

Clear/confusing enough?

I ask this question from a number of threads over csipgw-h newsgroup (not related in all means by that infamous ex-BFC forum member starting with the letter "G", not me, of course) about various observations on CMBB-size. I guess the posters there were suffering the problem Seanachai described.

I read books mostly on Med-front and well, many battles were over a klick.

I think I get my points clear.

And I get the answers, too.

Thank you all.

[ December 11, 2002, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: GriffinCheng+ ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Keke:

Usually there´s too few units per km in CMBO/CMBB battles compared to historical situations, so this "too close" claim is almost absurd.

Lets not forget the timeframe.

What would be the average PBEM QB lenght and size ? 20-30 mins with 2000pts force on a medium map ?

What would be a realistic length and size of a battle IRL ? 2 - 3 hours ? And the force would be anything from a reinforced company to a full battalion (and beyond).

Imagine a 60min 5000 pts QB PBEM on a large map.

I can envision somebody weened on SP getting a rash for having to play with the game with the kind of restrains imposed by the CM game engine.

[ December 11, 2002, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[GriffinCheng+]

Okay, time to bring the source:

Here are the threads:

this

and this

and also th is

( Edited this message for making this thread look better )

Hope to give you more insight of my (mis-asked) questions.

TIA.

[ December 11, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: GriffinCheng+ ]

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

No one fights a 'battle' at anything beyond 4 kilometers.

At that range and beyond, you manuever to find people to fight; generally at ranges far, far below 2 kilometers.

I'd be interested to read about how many tactical, or even 'operational' battles primarily involving infantry units, for example, took place beyond a couple of kilometers.

This is a little frightening-- first you make regular forays into the outerboards to make fun of them, which was often deserved and generally entertaining, but now you're venturing out and actually posting statements that start to make you sound like a grog.

Back in the pool with you, and no more grogliness.

The only other explanation is that you had company and left yourself logged into the board...

[GriffinCheng+]

As a "responsible" poster, there is a copule of follow-up at the thread over csipgw-h newsgroup and could be read online here, if you are still interested.

T4YKA.

[GriffinCheng+]

self-serving bump for some lengthy comments from the Usenet posts.

[Ben Galanti]

Just from reading those threads, it really sounds like they have a problem with the scenario design instead of the game itself. Now, this may be a very valid point that the shipped scenarios are "too close for comfort", but I don't think that is due to engine limitations. You can make (or of the game generate) a large, open, flat map fairly easily. One of the demo scenarios was a map like that.

While I'm not usually one for "if you don't like it, make scenarios your self" but that is somewhat the case here. Now, if that is not your thing, and there are not a lot of downloadable scenarios more to your liking, I can see how someone could be wary of spending their $50.

Ben