The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[Battlefront.com]

As many of you know there has been a rather common string of postings debating CMBB's infantry modeling. Either vs. CMBO or vs. historical realism. The debate has ceased being that for the most part, and it even gets a bit heated at times. This (LONG!) post is designed to help reframe the "debate" so that it can either die a natural death or be transformed back into an intellectual discussion of differing points of view.

There appears to be three "issues" being brought up (over and over and over again ). They are:

1. Panic - that CMBB's infantry is unrealistically susceptible to enemy fire and is utterly "useless". March units into fire, they break, then they run away. So much for offensive tactics!

2. Sneak - CMBB's infantry is too likely to use the SNEAK function when coming under fire. Instead of shrugging off the enemy fire or doing something else "intelligent", the unit reverts to Sneak and attempts to get to cover too often. Cover either already ordered to or new cover that the TacAI designates. Sometimes this cover is not in the "right" direction or propper for the current situation.

3. Exhausted - CMBB's infantry is too easily tired out, either through normal orders and conditions or as a result of Sneak behavior mentioned above.

We have engaged, actively, in this "debate" a dozen times or more. Our position has not changed at all during this "debate", and that is the game is working well but some people's tactics/expectations aren't. Our position has always been, and continues to be, that the game is not at fault here but instead some player's lack of skill (for lack of a better term) in handling infantry in a more realistic setting than CMBO provided. Real life soldiers, historians, and general gamers have clearly demonstrated that if realistic tactics are used none of these three issues are significant problems. Or at least UNREALISTICALLY significant problems True, there is some room for tweaking some behavior, true some of the behavior can not be tweaked with the current engine, but the game functions correctly and realistically to the degree one can expect such behavior from a computer simulation. In short, "it ain't perfect but it is darned near too it"

Yet every day some new thread pops up to rehash this all over again. So hopefully I can put more focus on the debate itself rather than the rhetoric surrounding it.

---

First of all, one thing to keep in mind is that there are not two unified camps facing off here. As is usually the case, there tends to be a "pro" and a "con" side, but with variable degrees of agreement or disagreement within each. There have also been charges of "whining" and "counter-whining" made by both sides. Personally, I do see quite a bit of "whining", which I define as someone who makes a weak case, gets shot down in a well informed debate, and yet continues to harp on his issues. Often getting more and more extreme, insulting, and irrational in the process. The opposing side gets frustrated and engages in complaining about the seemingly never ending "debate". This is not productive behavior.

Much of the "whining" has come from what I would call Blatantly Busted Group. Sorry, but I think the record clearly shows this. In any case, these folks think the game is BROKEN. Not in need of a tweak, but fundamentally busted to the point of being unplayable. In short it means that the problems are so large that the game CAN NOT BE PLAYED or CAN NOT BE PLAYED REALISTICALLY. This is about a strong a claim as can possibly be made, and it is just the sort of claim someone makes when they feel nobody is listening to them (i.e. scream louder ). Such people have completely and utterly ruled out the possibility that they are wrong. The only possibility is that CMBB is f'd up.

On the other extreme side are people that I would call the Functions Flawlessly Group. For them the game functions without any problems worthy of note and they experience none of the frustrations, unrealistic behavior, and piss poor end results that the Blatantly Busted Group does. As far as they are concerned, we (BTS) should make no changes what so ever.

Then of course there are lots of people somewhere inbetween. From my unscientific accounting I would say the majority of people on this Forum fall more into the Functions Flawlessly Group than the opposite side. However, many note that some small tweaks would be beneficial, even if not critical. But by and large, there is no fire in the theater. Just some guy sparking up a joint

Now how can this be? How can it be that one side thinks the game is SO HORRIBLY FLAWED that it is unplayable, and the other extreme side says they don't see even the tiniest problem? The answer to this question is the heart of the "debate". Understanding this means understanding the whole enchilada.

---

The Functions Flawlessly Group guys do not see the problems noted by the Blatantly Busted Group because they don't experience them in the game to the extent that the other camp does. I don't mean "don't see because they are blind" but rather they do not experience them because they play the game differently so that these negative behaviors only come about occasionally when the player admittedly "screws up".

In fact, when comparing apples to apples scenarios (like the Bridgehead scenario) they show results that are completely opposite from each other. One side claims Scenario X shows how totally and utterly unplayable the game is, the other side then explains how they had no problems with the same scenario and therefore the game isn't broken at all.

Now... we know that the game is the same for both sets of people, right? So we can rule out the actual code as a variable. Since the scenario is the same, or at least similar situations are encountered in other scenarios/QBs, we can (for the most part) rule that out as a variable. This leaves only two possible reasons to explain how there can be such diametrically opposed viewpoints:

1. Tactics

2. Expectations

3. Understanding the Orders

From the various debates it is clear that this is exactly what is at issue here. The Functions Flawlessly Group continually points out that using certain tactics, which are supported by training manuals and historical examples, will yield favorable results. Not using such tactics will lead to disaster, which is also something that is backed up by historical accounts and training manuals. I have seen many people who were solidly in the Blatantly Busted Group switch sides to the Functions Flawlessly Group once they employed these new tactics. This further proves that Tactics is the #1 issue here.

Expectations is another thing we have seen much debate over. Specifically, what the average soldier could could hope to accomplish in a real battlefield situation of a given nature. There have been detailed debates about this and all have been seen, time and time again, real life infantry soldiers (some with combat experience) come down solidly in support of the way CMBB works. Therefore it is CLEAR that some people have unreasonable and unrealistic expectations for what the average soldier could do in a given space of time in a given situation. We are partly to blame for this because CMBO had some short comings that people have gotten used to and assumed to be "correct". The end result here is, in our opinion, a solid voice of support from the guys who have really done this for a living and a continued line of opposition from those who have not. When in doubt, assume that the vets know what they are talking about

Understanding the Orders is also very important. Some people have apparently refused to learn how and when to use the new CMBB orders. Instead they want to use the old MOVE and RUN commands from CMBO. Since the orders were all changed around to fit the new CMBB system, obviously not changing with the times will spell disaster. For example, Human Wave was not just put into the game because it sounds cool, Assault and Advance were not created just to make the menu longer, and Run was not robbed of its invincible characteristics because we think it is fun to screw with people's heads. The array of orders in CMBB are there for reasons. Like tools, each order has its +/- sides and optimal uses. Trying to use a hammer to unscrew something will not produce good results, no matter what.

---

Our conclusion is that there is nothing "broken" about CMBB's infantry modeling or the TacAI's behavior. Sure, there are some small things that we found needed a tweak or two, and those tweaks will be in the 1.01 patch. But it will not fundamentally alter the way the game plays, only curb some of the excesses that any abstracted simulation system can produce at times. So those of you claiming the game is "broken" should probably just give up. The game isn't changing because it isn't "broken". And therefore, continually starting up threads can be seen as nothing short of "whining" *unless* new evidence is brought to the discussion. Like any good legal system, there is a limit to the number of appeals that can be made. Short of a new perspective, this debate is over and decided. The few (and I stress the number is very small) that can NOT accept this need to understand that they had a fair hearing and lost.

For anybody reading this who thinks "gosh, I am still having problems getting my guys to do what I want them to" all I have to say is... listen to the countless posts of advice on tactics that are being made here each and every day. If you are a decent player, and embrace the concept that learning is not something to be scoffed at, you *can* see improvements in your gameplay. We have seen countless cases of this happening already, so we know it is possible

Thanks for making it this far in this long message Let's just cut through the BS arguments and focus on tactics. The former is not going to solve anything, which is why the latter is so very important. Correct and realistic tactics is what CMBB is all about, so they are obviously important to get right.

Steve

[Hans]

To put it bluntly

Great game and keep up the good work!

[MasterGoodale]

Damn, I could barely slide my sullen, bloodshot eyes from left to right to read that long-ass post. But now that we have made it clear this is a GREAT game all I have to say is COME AND GET SOME MAGGOTS!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Gpig]

BACK INTO YOUR WAFFLE!!!

[Harv]

Seanachai, is that you masquerading as BFC? I even took off my shoes and couldn't count all the words in there

[MasterGoodale]

Originally posted by Gpig:

BACK INTO YOUR WAFFLE!!!

(MG Slithers away. . .)

[jgdpzr]

Steve,

HMMM, so is it safe to say your opinion on the matter boils down to GIGO?

BTW, tried that Corsendonk Monk's Ale per your recommendation...tasty! Gotta love those tiny Belgian bubbles. I also saw a dunkel heifeweizen (sic.) on the coming up list at Rich's. I'll toast one for you and Charles.

[Warren Peace]

Hi Steve:

I liked your analysis. It is clear to me that most of the people will be happy with just a bit of tweaking.

For my part, I think infantry hitting the deck when shot at seems fine. Even sneaking to cover seems reasonable, so long as the cover is not TOO FAR AWAY. If it is too far then the units should just stay where they are! I don't think units popping up and running in the open for long distances is terribly realistic. I also think the sneak command does acrue fatigue too rapidly, but I guess that will be tweaked in the upcoming patch.

In summary, Infantry works ok, but units should have higher liklihood of just staying pinned rather than moving.

Warren

[Panzer Leader]

I'd be curious to know what is *tweak-worthy* and what is not.

For example, while I love the new orders menu and the infantry handling in general, the few things I've noticd that ring a little less-than-true are as follows.

Sneak Speed/Tiresomeness: I have a panzerschreck at one side of a one-tile woods. There are enemy troops around (100s of meters off) and I realize an enemy tank will pass alongside the *OTHER* side of my wood. So, I choose sneak to gt him over there and be ready for the enemy. Now, it's 25 meters (IIRC) 75 feet, and sneaking, the schreck takes 2-3 turns, still isn't there, the enemy is gone, and my schreck is tired.

I forgot about a HMG one time, who snuck out of his foxhole after a barrage. I finally discovered him 3-5 turns later RIGHT NEXT(!) to his foxhole and exhausted, wasted for the rest of the battle. He made it, maybe 10 meters.

Also, my last pet peeve (and these are ALL minor, mind you -I'm having great fun and would never go back to CMBO) is the 'Advance' move. It seems like troops are trained to use advance while in contact with the enemy, any time they move. I think 5 or more turns of Advance before tiring would be more appropriate. Afer all, when I was in BASIC, I don't remember being authorized a 3 minute rest after every 2 minute advance.

Being as advance is a combination of sprints, sneaks, pauses, and moves, it seems troops would spend a few seconds caching their breaths before each sprint, so 5 minute advances don't seem to much to me, but like I said, I don't know everything, and am already worried about getting lambasted for consorting with whiners!

Just my 2 cents.

[Cpt Kernow]

post deleted by me the usefull idiot.

Steve its all going to plan, soon no one will be able to complain about the infantry model without also implying that they are an inferior tactitian.

P.S.

KJHKHOIOIJJSHO OIPUOPJS

(Decode as instructed)

Cpt Kernow

The usefull idiot.

[ November 19, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[MasterGoodale]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Being as advance is a combination of sprints, sneaks, pauses, and moves, it seems troops would spend a few seconds caching their breaths before each sprint, . . .

Wow dude!! They have computerized lungs now that can cache!!?? Awesome!!!

[Abbott]

I can live with a couple tweaks. I am pleased you are not changing the infantry model to much. Great job and thank you for the BEST game out there!

[Schoerner]

Steve, first let me say that i appreciate to give "whiners" like me the possibility to explain their point of view.

Yes, i WAS one of those who stopped playing CMBB.

But as you said in the closed thread, and as it seems you are still believing, not because CMBB is unplayable. Or while the infantry model sucks.

I stopped playing (in the meanwhile i'm playing again, due to the promised tweaks in the upcoming patch, and have finished ~15 scenarios) only because i can't stand a CERTAIN aspect (and this does NOT imply, that i think the game in general is unrealistically):

the directions of auto-sneak

Although you said this was answered many times, i can't find a post, where following behaviour is explained:

A unit in open terrain, or almost open terrain gets under fire.

The AI switches into auto-sneak and it can happen (quite often), that the target location of the auto-sneak is at a hostile unit's position 40m away, the route is over open terrain, while cover is only 10m away.

1. this doesn't only happen to panicked units

2. this doesn't mean this happens all the time to me (but i found it that annoying, to see units making suicide without being panicked, that i even stopped playing CMBB; usually i'm a player who's mostly taking care of the units - much more than gaining time-advantage; then it's even more frustrating if you care that much about your units, always knowing timing aspect will become critical and then losing whole squads only because of AI-misbehaviour)

I also noticed in scenario Cremetary Hill, that a unit in bushes was auto-sneaking over open terrain torwards wood. While on the open terrain and being NOT under fire it kept sneaking instead of jumping up and running as fast as possible.

Do you call this realistically?

And BTW: it was always my opinion, that CMBB is a wonderful game, but therefore such missbehaviour is even more important. And this was the reason why i had stopped playing - not more, not less.

Schoerner

[ November 19, 2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[PeterX]

Warren Peace:

For my part, I think infantry hitting the deck when shot at seems fine. Even sneaking to cover seems reasonable, so long as the cover is not TOO FAR AWAY. If it is too far then the units should just stay where they are!

Hmmm. Of course you could lasso the sneaking troops in question and issue a HIDE order. They'll be harder to hit. There's no reason a unit has to sneaking towards a distant refuge turn after turn unless you let them.

[Battlefront.com]

JgdPzr,

Glad you took the plunge and enjoyed it

Panzer Leader,

Sneak Speed/Tiresomeness: I have a panzerschreck at one side of a one-tile woods. There are enemy troops around (100s of meters off) and I realize an enemy tank will pass alongside the *OTHER* side of my wood. So, I choose sneak to gt him over there and be ready for the enemy. Now, it's 25 meters (IIRC) 75 feet, and sneaking, the schreck takes 2-3 turns, still isn't there, the enemy is gone, and my schreck is tired.

Hehe... all I got to say is "tough luck!" Seriously, the PS is a horibly cumbersome and heavy piece of equipment to be sneaking around with in woods. If anything, CMBB is too generous with both time and condition depletion. The best advice is to use Move to Contact or just Move until you feel you can't risk it any longer, then switch to Sneak. And of course, hope the enemy doesn't do something idiotic like move during the process

I forgot about a HMG one time, who snuck out of his foxhole after a barrage. I finally discovered him 3-5 turns later RIGHT NEXT(!) to his foxhole and exhausted, wasted for the rest of the battle. He made it, maybe 10 meters.

This is something that hopefully will be fixed in 1.01. We did some specific tweaks to heavy weapons units so that they are less likely to move when under fire and in decent cover.

Being as advance is a combination of sprints, sneaks, pauses, and moves, it seems troops would spend a few seconds caching their breaths before each sprint, so 5 minute advances don't seem to much to me, but like I said, I don't know everything, and am already worried about getting lambasted for consorting with whiners!

Not to worry. You posted observations and questions which show that you are clearly interested in seeing if you might be doing something wrong or misunderstanding things. That is great stuff and a pleasure to answer.

The Advance command is, as you say, quick bursts of speed and short durations of "rest". But you the player are still required to use this command smartly. By that I mean you have to take into consideration the terrain because the terrain, unit's starting physical condition, Fitness rating, etc. all are important things to keep in mind.

The most important thing about the order itself is to put in your own rest period. In other words, Advance from point A to B, then let the unit hang out there for a bit, then go from B to C, hang out there a bit, then go from C to D. Going directly from A to D might take less time, but the tradeoff is physical condition state. Used correctly and with a good unit, you can use Advance successfully for longer than 5 minutes. Your unit might not be fresh as a sunny Summer morning when it gets there, but it will be decent enough shape to get done what needs to be done.

Steve

[Spook]

Ah hah!! So Steve has come out with his own topic to take a contentious CMBB issue head-on. Excellent, sir.

Let's start off......

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As many of you know there has been a rather common string of postings debating CMBB's infantry modeling. Either vs. CMBO or vs. historical realism. The debate has ceased being that for the most part, and it even gets a bit heated at times. This (LONG!) post is designed to help reframe the "debate" so that it can either die a natural death or be transformed back into an intellectual discussion of differing points of view.

I wouldn't put odds on the former, Steve. As long as new CM gamers come into the fold (or truant CMBO vets to CMBB), the issue will likely stay around as long as the PERCEPTION remains of sumfink being "busted."

Now to the three issues, where I will reverse the order on one....

2. Sneak - CMBB's infantry is too likely to use the SNEAK function when coming under fire. Instead of shrugging off the enemy fire or doing something else "intelligent", the unit reverts to Sneak and attempts to get to cover too often. Cover either already ordered to or new cover that the TacAI designates. Sometimes this cover is not in the "right" direction or propper for the current situation.

IMO, while sneaking is certainly applied on an increased level than experienced in CMBO, I don't presently fault its execution or its overall level of occurence.

3. Exhausted - CMBB's infantry is too easily tired out, either through normal orders and conditions or as a result of Sneak behavior mentioned above.

To an "infantry grog," the central frame of reference could well be as to how "loaded" the infantry in a CM scenario are presumed to be in terms of field kit. But those who pursue the "tires too easily" argument can resort to a real-life test. Strap on some equipment like a backpack or other sundries, carry something simulating some small arms with the hands, and go to an unused football or soccer field. (Of course, this doesn't also test sloping effects.) And then run, drop down, get up, run, drop down, get up, and keep doing so while measuring distance and time before becoming tired or even more exhausted. It's something as that most any CM gamer can test out in their locality, concerning their perception of troops "tiring too easily."

1. Panic - that CMBB's infantry is unrealistically susceptible to enemy fire and is utterly "useless". March units into fire, they break, then they run away. So much for offensive tactics!

Well, here's where there's inevitably going to be more contention or subjective thinking as to what can or can't be done by troops under fire.

What you have to allow upfront, Steve, is that by representing infantrymen as squads or half-squads, an element of abstraction is inescapable. I don't think as that anyone here claims that any one soldier or group of soldiers is 100% impervious to some "negative" reaction to being fired on. But the thing here is that the CM system, contrary to something like the CC/GIC series, is not trying to represent individual soldiers.

So the debate is better framed if what happens to SQUAD-level units in CMBB seems to follow fairly consistent, historic, and realistic trends of actual squad-level units.

At present, in all honesty, I'm not altogether certain as that CMBB "has it right or wrong" to some noteworthy level. But that's presently my unsubstantiated perception, which I must also state as a disclaimer. I will note that troops with higher experience levels, and with better leaders in terms of morale, have been seen by me in CMBB to still be willing to press forward in the face of enemy small arms fire, yes, even MG's. So I am definitely a part of the "in-between" camp in this regard.

And per your note, central to any continuing debate on this matter should be an earnest study by CMBB gamers on how they are applying their tactics and the new movement commands.

Concerning the matter of squads "panicking too easily," I do have an alternate suggestion for you to consider for the future CM engine, if you are so inclined to hear it from me later.

Great topic, though. Perhaps now you've institutionalized the acronyms "FFG" and "BBG."

[Agua]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[T]hose tweaks ... will not fundamentally alter the way the game plays

Thank you. Personally, I love the new infantry model. I hope any changes made are very, very minor. The CMBB infantry model works beautifully, you just can't ask the troops to do too much.

[Battlefront.com]

Schoerner,

Do you call this realistically?

I can't say without seeing the exact turn playback and, perhaps, the turns before. What I think most people fail to understand is that there are SO MANY factors involved that telling us "I had a unit in open terrain that went here isntead of there" is absolutely useless information to us. There are too many possible reasons why this or that may or may not have happened. Without seeing such a thing in person, there is no way I can speculate as to what is or is not happening.

What I can say is that the TacAI is not perfect. It never will be. It is, however, improved over CMBO to some extent. What I am saying here is that there is only so much we can do to mimic human behavior correctly. As long as the TacAI's behavior is generally correct then that is probably as good as we can make it.

And BTW: it was always my opinion, that CMBB is a wonderful game, but therefore such missbehaviour is even more important. And this was the reason why i had stopped playing - not more, not less.

Thank you for the clarification, but I would still maintain that if this problem you are seeing is so serious as to make you stop playing the game... you probably will not find the 1.01 patch much of an improvement. Therefore you might as well wish to start examining your tactics more closely. My feeling is that if you are finding this problem too frequently that means you are asking too much of your units and putting them into situations which are more prone to seeing this "flaw" than other people's tactics.

Steve

[murpes]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Flawlessly Group continually points out that using certain tactics, which are supported by training manuals and historical examples, will yield favorable results. Not using such tactics will lead to disaster, which is also something that is backed up by historical accounts and training manuals. I have seen many people who

I have neither training manuals nor a historical education.

[Tarquelne]

So, I choose sneak to gt him over there and be ready for the enemy. Now, it's 25 meters (IIRC) 75 feet, and sneaking, the schreck takes 2-3 turns, still isn't there, the enemy is gone, and my schreck is tired.

It take it that Sneak was too slow, even though it was very stealthy and took good advantage of cover, but Move would have been faster than needed, and you would have liked _more_ cover and stealth?

Sneak and Move seem to be on two extremes of the "stealth" scale - with sneak maximally stealthy and Move more a "walk quietly and carefully" sort of thing. I think it'd be nice if there were some sort of slider in the interface, with the current Sneak at one end and the current Move at the other - set the slider appropriatly for the situation.

But that'd be a pretty big change to the current interface and code... (as would the less extreme addition of multple new movement commands like "Kinda Sneaky" and "Move More Slowly") I think we just have to accept that BFC can only make so many improvements to each iteration of CM, and there's going to be some situations, like your case with the 'shreck, where the tools we're given don't quite work. BFC could have made Sneak faster... but then in the name of realism they'd have to make it provide less cover and stealth. (Hmm... though I wonder what speed/stealth units "Following" a vehicle use. Will 'shreck teams Follow?)

I think the best argument against the current Sneak is that it's a little too extreme: "In actual play we'd find a faster, if less stealthy/"covering", version of Sneak more usefull. It'd be appropriate more often than the current command." Note I'm not making that argument. There are times when I've wanted units to be stealthy but Move was faster than necessary and Sneak far too slow... but I've also used each command quite a bit.

Put me in the Not Flawless But "Perfectly Satisfactory" Is An Understatement camp.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think it works pretty well. There are a few things that I would like to see tweaked. Fortunately, two of them are on the list for the patch (IIRC).

The first issue is how quickly units, particularly units that have taken no casualties, go from pinned to panic/broken/routed. Though I cannot prove it, it has been my general impression from reading that units in real combat will often stay pinned under fire for long periods of time without breaking as long as they aren't taking casualties. They may not go forward, but they aren't breaking for the rear either. They rightly (in most cases) assume that they are safer where they are than to move. It's when the guys start getting hit that the illusion of relative safety is shattered.

I know the rate that units go from pinned to panicked has been reduced in the patch. If I were to suggest anything more it would be that units that have taken no casualties be more resistant compared to those that have.

Another issue is the tendency for units that break to flee back across large expanses of open terrain when safe cover is only a few meters further in front of them. This behavior has always been in CM, but it has become more of an issue in CMBB because troops are breaking more often. It has also been discussed a great deal, so there's not much more to say about it.

I last issue is "sneak to exhaustion". I think the problem here is not so much that sneaking is too tiring in the game, as it is a problem with units not being smart about when and where to sneak. This is closely related to the issue above. A HMG under fire in open terrain will try to sneak to cover 100m away, even though there is no way it's going to ever get there at the speed it sneaks at. I'm not sure what the best solution would be. I know some have said it would be better if the unit just went to ground where it was and stayed there. I note that the rate at which units tire when sneaking has been lowered in the patch, and that may be the best than can be done with the current engine.

In short, I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the current modeling. It just needs some tweaking around the edges.

[aka_tom_w]

sneaking to exhaustion seems to be an issue for some folks.

This post from cribtop gamer made the most sense to me, good tips and good tactics...

I understand that there are only 3 things you need to know about moving your inf in the open

SUPRESSION

SUPRESSION

SUPRESSION

Cribtop Gamer

Member

Member # 6225

"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."

Thanks to Steve for starting a new thread.

It is important to remain positive and constructive to effect change in a positive direction .

-tom w

[ November 19, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[REVS]

I think there's another way of looking at this issue. Some people (like me) play these games purely as a computer game, others play it as a very high quality simulation.

I don't think that high quality simulations and cool fun gaming are synonymous, and that with CMBB we're moving away from the less realistic but decidedly cool fun that was CMBO into the more serious, more realistic, slower game that is CMBB.

I'm very busy with my work and I try to fit in a bit of gaming when I can.

To do a PBEM game in CMBO, about the biggest game I can make time for is about 1500-2000 pts max. That's a 35-40 turn game, max. (More usually it's 1000 pts and 30 turns). And that might take a month or so to get through. But at least each turn is full of action and fun, and you get to romp about the countryside playing at fantasy wargames. I want a little bit of realism, but I'm not hung up on authenticity. I don't get off on that. All I want to do is have some enjoyable fun.

Now, with CMBB I find that I have to creep around more, games need to be 50-60 turns. Everything happens slower. Sure, I completely accept the argument that it's more realistic. But for me it's simply less fun.

The solution is simple. I'll keep on playing the excellent CMBO. And good luck to all the peope that love CMBB. You've got the game that suits you. Now we're both happy.

I won't give up on CMBB, but I'll only look at it when I have some spare time, and I can't see a lot of that happening in the near future.

(Of course, it would be lovely to transport back to CMBO the way you can now see out of buildings in CMBB, and having more deadly machine guns would be nice, too, but we live in an imperfect world).

But I do think there is a trade-off between realism and fun, and that's the issue that people are dressing up in a thousand different posts.

[ColumbusOHGamer]

Steve,

I'm glad you spoke up. I've been right in the middle on this one listening to both sides of the argument. Ya, it pissed me off when Vet/Elite/Crack troops would start humping the ground after a few rounds land near by, but now I understand why.

I'm treating this as a way to learn good tactics. In CMBO, I was a pretty good player, rarely did I lose to the AI and was better than average against human foes. But now in CMBO, the realism has been turned up a notch and I have to change MY way of thinking. CMBB is WAY more of a challenge than CMBO is. How does USSR handle the 80mm StuG? How can I stop a KV with a couple of 50mm PzIII's? Will I ever beat that damnable Cemetary scenario???

This game REALLY makes me think and work hard for a victory and I'm lovin' it!

COG

[Vanir Ausf B]

BTW, since Steve is posting here, I wonder if we could be some confirmation/denial on some issues that have been brought up in recent posts on this subject.

Do units that come under enemy fire while moving using the Move order experience a moral penalty compared to moving with Move to Contact or Advance?

Is Move to Contact as stealthy as Move?