CMBB: Too "close" for comfort?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by GriffinCheng+:

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

I am not particularly impressed with those comments. Combat on the vast plains of Russia... Hmmm, if you have a look at the pictures on my site, you see there was nothing vast empty and flat about northern russia, or the baltics. The same goes for the area around Rhzev with its deep forests, or around Orel. The 'vast and flat' plains were actually cut through with balkas, steep ravines that afforded cover for movement and laager, and a lot of combat centered on clearing these.

Sounds to me as if Mr. Kurtz needs to brush up a bit on his geography. Russia is not a vast billiard table.

[WWB]

Originally posted by 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

I have tried making nice, combined arms, wide open steppe type battles. They really were boring affairs to play. Troops getting supressed by MGs at 700m. Long range shootouts between tanks with lots of pings & misses. Till everyone ran out of ammo with little change in position. I try and avoid making boring battles.

WWB

[demoss]

Somebody mentioned Fall Blau as a good counterexample (haven't tried it yet), and I'd like to point out Into the Void as well. There's plenty of long line of sight, even with the big hill on the middle-left of the map (from the German perspective, as that's how it's intended to be played - vs AI).

It's also a damn fine scenario.

Von Lauchert is probably also a good demonstration of what they're looking for, but IMO it's more a demonstration than a playing scenario.

The point is that it's not the game per se that is not living up to some people's expectations, it's the scenarios. I'd also suggest, as others have, that it's the historical reality as well that's not living up to their expectations... it bears repeating that Russia is not a billiard table. Parts of it look pretty darn flat from high up in the air, but even then you can see real (often small, but still important) terrain features.

[MikeyD]

The one 'tiny' scenario I got into the CD has been criticized (if criticized is the right word) for having too LARGE a map for the forces deployed! So sometimes you just can't win. You have march distances to contend with and LOS issues. I've played several 'maneuver' battles and they're mostly just tedious travelling. Some of the CD scenarios may have maps that feel too small but I suspect if you doubled the size of the maps most of the action would STILL take place in the original small area.

[ December 12, 2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Ben Galanti]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

I have tried making nice, combined arms, wide open steppe type battles. They really were boring affairs to play. Troops getting supressed by MGs at 700m. Long range shootouts between tanks with lots of pings & misses. Till everyone ran out of ammo with little change in position. I try and avoid making boring battles.

WWB

Heh, I meant to mention something about this. I thought that the reason that a lot of the scenarios were not as the usenet poster described was that they wouldn't be much fun. Whether they would be more historically accurate is a question best left up to some one much better versed in the history then I, but I can see how they would be boring...

Ben