The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[TSword]

I love the new Infantry model !

However there are some "minors" as VanirB pointed it out.

Greets

Daniel

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

Maybe I missed stg in this long thread ?

I think so, Pascal. BFC opened this thread in response to the debate about infantry modelling.

What you describe is exactly the remarks BFC is anwering to so there is no need to answer the answer with the question.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

Maybe I missed stg in this long thread ?

I think so, Pascal. BFC opened this thread in response to the debate about infantry modelling.

What you describe is exactly the remarks BFC is anwering to so there is no need to answer the answer with the question.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Doodlebug:

OK. Understood that. But what happens when you run out of clumps? It's the advance across the open I have trouble with. What when the next cover is a full turn (or more) away?

Try running or advancing them 50 or so meters at a time (or less; the shorter their dashes, the less fire they are exposed to). Halt them and give them a hide order and let them rest for a turn. Move at least two squads, or better, a whole platoon at a time. That prevents the defending enemy from concentrating his fire on just one squad. It ain't foolproof, crossing open ground never was, but it is probably the best shot you are going to get in that situation.

Michael

[ November 20, 2002, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

Can I still disagree ?

No. But you can say something about CDV if you wish

[xerxes]

1. Units taking heavy fire and panicking don't act rationally.

2. Instead of persisting in a course of action, try something different. If your unit is taking heavy fire, for the sake of your digital men, break the target lock. Hide-Smoke-Surpress-Distract.

3. Sometimes, you just can't mount a successful attack against a particular enemy position. It doesn't matter what tactics you use, some positions are too strong to take. Recognize this and CHANGE YOUR PLAN.

4. Treat your soldiers like they were real and you are their commander and you'll do much better.

I hardly ever see the huge problems that some people claim exist. I'm not the only one.

The REAL problem with CMBB is that when you import padlocked units they don't remain padlocked. That and concealment in steppe/brush.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

Can I still disagree ?

No. But you can say something about CDV if you wish </font>

[Fetchez la Vache]

Originally posted by murpes:

I have neither training manuals nor a historical education.

I think this is a very succinct point and valid to the "debate".

I've been 'coaching' a friend of mine in CMBB since his previous WW2 strategy experience began and ended at Sudden Strike. He initially hated CMBB because, quite frankly, he had no idea how to use his men or machinery properly. He's getting the hang of it now and I hope he'll be playing it for a long time to come once the 'CM Bug' takes hold.

What I'm trying to point out, and as I think Murpes was alluding to, is that maybe there's a point where too much 'grognardness' is a bad thing, at least for people new to the genre?

As a suggestion I think it might be a good idea for there to be a 'realism' toggle for the next CM engine. In the same way a flight sim such as IL-2 has different realism toggles, maybe it might be an idea to try to impliment the same into CM? This way die-hard grogs are happy, but the game is still accessible to Joe-public who may not have the historical knowledge (or training manuals) to initially play the game properly. For example infantry suffer less morale problems when under fire?

Another thing is that we are blessed with hundreds of AFV's now. However not everyone has a detailed knowledge of WW2 weaponary. A simple guide of basic weapons and their recommended (or historical) use might be nice as well for newcomers to WW2 gaming?

My current limited impression is that there is a danger that as BTS get closer to the grail of a perfect simulation, there is a danger that the 'playability' is seen to lessen. Resulting in fewer players and fewer games bought. Personally I'd still play CM even if it required me to wear full battle-dress while playing and kicked me in the groin whenever I lost a man, but I hate to think all those other Sudden Strike players may be missing out...

[xerxes]

Like most good things in life, CM is difficult to appreciate initially. It requires effort and experience.

I'm sure some other game company will come up with a wizzbang easy-to-play knockoff of CM.

[aka_tom_w]

I think that I have to admit I have spend more time reading about this CMBB Infantry Modeling issue in the multitude of threads on this forum than I have spend time playing CMBB to find out what is going on.

I have been playing CMBB enough to understand the issue here.

Is it possible that those that thing there is a BIG hairy unplayable game play issue here are happier or at least more content if they use Veteran Crack and Elite Infantry units??? :confused:

It seems to me that CMBB "should" be much more playable to those folks that have had REALLY bad experience with Infantry units panicing and crawling to exhaustion when caught under fire in the open that if they only ever used Veteran and above units they might see the more the kind of behaviour they expect.

I believe the game correctly models the way Conscript and Green units react to being shot at.

In all the reading of all the threads on this issue I have not seen any other suggestions ( suggestions that do not includeing try to code memory to units that is currently impossible with this game engine) that are not already on the Next BIG Patch List that will address this issue.

Does anyone have more CMBB Game experience with Crack and Elite Inf units and do they react to fire and being caught in the open the way you would expect them to??? If so then DON'T play with green or conscript units and NEVER let them get shot at while moving in the open as we now know they panic easily.

Some things will be addressed in the next GREAT patch, for all those things that aren't "fixed" in the next patch why not try testing out the Crack and Elite infantry units and see if they don't live up to your expectations. I think you will find the game WAY more playable if you try to use Vet Crack and Elite infantry units, especially if they are German and expecially if they are taking on Russian Green and Conscript units?

Does that help??

:confused:

Now bring on the damn patch so this discusion can continue after we all get our hands on the new tweaks to the infantry model !!!

-tom w

[Andy 2-0]

I learnt the very thing with an inadequate smoke barrage linked to "running" invincible (of course) Waffen Grenadiers into the reptile house in "THe Zoo" scenario yesterday - lost three squads in open ground as the survivors routed

tried the same move with more smoke , more suporting fire squads and assualy and advance tactics

worked perfectly and

took the building

the game is , of course , fantastic,

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

What I'm trying to point out, and as I think Murpes was alluding to, is that maybe there's a point where too much 'grognardness' is a bad thing, at least for people new to the genre?

I think it is a mistake to think that CM can be turned into a "one size fits all gamers" project. CM is practically unique at this moment in that it presents the gamer with a reasonably accurate representation of WW II tactical warfare. To dilute that would be to make it indistinguishable from a host of already available products that are aimed at the less-than-serious gamer. To put it another way, there are and always will be an abundance of games that have been dumbed down enough to meet the needs of the tyro or the casual gamer. Let's leave CM as a pinnacle to be strived for when, and only when, the gamer has become seasoned enough to tackle it, if and only if he no longer finds sufficient challenge in the lesser models.

As a suggestion I think it might be a good idea for there to be a 'realism' toggle for the next CM engine. In the same way a flight sim such as IL-2 has different realism toggles...

This is a more interesting notion. I am not sure that it would be possible to implement any time soon within CM's programming structure. There is also the problem of how you would reconcile two players playing PBEM or TCP/IP using different "realism" settings.

Another thing is that we are blessed with hundreds of AFV's now. However not everyone has a detailed knowledge of WW2 weaponary. A simple guide of basic weapons and their recommended (or historical) use might be nice as well for newcomers to WW2 gaming?

This is a worthwhile project. I don't see it as something that BFC is required to take on though, in light of the many websites devoted to exactly this kind of information, some of them specifically geared to CM. What would be nice would be links to the better and more useful of these sites in some central and well-publicised location to make them more accessible to those not given to making extensive web searches.

My current limited impression is that there is a danger that as BTS get closer to the grail of a perfect simulation, there is a danger that the 'playability' is seen to lessen. Resulting in fewer players and fewer games bought.

I don't think BTS is anywhere close to heaving "playability", i.e. ease of use, over the side. I think it is inevitable that CM sales will slide a little bit as those players who are always in search of "something new" no longer find it so innovative as they did two years ago. At the same time, as a new generation of players mature to the point where their interest in authentic simulations of WW II combat demands something above the average, sales will continue to be steady. And the old dogs like myself won't be going anywhere any time soon.

Personally I'd still play CM even if it required me to wear full battle-dress while playing and kicked me in the groin whenever I lost a man, but I hate to think all those other Sudden Strike players may be missing out...

Your dedication is impressive.

As for the Suden Strike etc. players, let them find their own level. They will come to CM when they are ready. If they are never ready, hey, it's a big world.

Michael

[ November 20, 2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Battlefront.com]

Eden,

Yes. What is most painful is to see an enemy appear and eradicate my advancing platoon, while my back platoon does nothing, or continues to do area fire nearby, (but not close enough!).

I still need to see some save games of this "my guys won't shoot problem" because I have never seen anything like this at all. Not saying it isn't possible, but a few people appear to see it all the time and most people never do. This GENERALLY indicates that a few people are misunderstanding something and think they are seeing something that doesn't make sense when it really does. As for Area Fire, this is something I almost never use because it is quite ridged. When I do use it, I only designate a redundant unit to do it so I always have a reactive unit available for support in that area. There will be no changes to Area Fire. This was one area we didn't change from CMBO and aren't going to mess with it now.

Nabla,

So if during the computation of the action phase the unit receives a strong negative stimulus, which makes it abandon its current order, it already has knowledge of what it was trying to do at that time.

This is not what we call memory. Of course the system knows what it is doing now when it makes a new decision. The problem is that once the new decision is made there is no record of what it has done before that. So if a unit is Advancing under fire to a spot of woods, and the unit decides it needs to crawl, the system can easily switch it crawl and maintain its current location. That is the extent of what happens now and there is no way to change it. First of all, any changes made now would make all scenarios (not just games in progress) unplayable with the new version. And what you describe is not that easy to implement in any case. Best to just keep it as is and move onto the rewrite. If there was an easy fix here it would have been done a long time ago.

Pascal,

* the original BFC post did not recognize there was any problem

Because the kind of whining/complaining/criticism I addressed with this post did not center around this behavior. It is a more seperate issue. Sure, it is related to infantry modeling but c'mon... thousands of things are. If we lumpped everything together like that we would have three threads going on this Forum -> one for infantry, one for armor, and one for artillery. Obviously that would be silly

* and the discussion thereafter was on "why it is not possible to have memories in the TacAI" preventing the Sneaky Circling ...

This issue I have discussed in detail already. There is only so much we can do without units having memories. You might not like that answer, but that is the only answer I have. CMBO's behaivor was much the same in code, but because infantry behaved very differently it was not seen as often as it is now in CMBB. Hopefully some tweaks we did to 1.01 will mitigate this issue. However, as I said in my first post... this is NOT an issue that will satisfy the Blatently Busted Group of people this thread was addressed to. For the hardcore, they want a return to CMBO and that is never going to happen.

Fetchez la Vache,

Good story about your friend. Yes, we probably are turning away some potential "casual gamers" by requiring either knowledge, intuition, or the patience to learn from repeated mistakes. One thing we are confident about is that a newbie can pick up this game and get enough feedback from it to improve his performance. How much improvement? Depends on how skilled the player is in general terms and how much he wants to master the game. Some people just won't be interested in this. And that is no surprise to us. Someone is buying the National Inquirer for their news and eating McDonalds when "going out to a good dinner"

As a suggestion I think it might be a good idea for there to be a 'realism' toggle for the next CM engine.

This is already part of the plan There will also be some sort of realism "meter" that will inform the player how realistic the overall gameplay is with the selected feature set. One feature turned off might not affect the score too much, but turning off Morale (or something like that) will bury the needle into "Unrealistic" territory for sure. However, it might be a lot of fun for some people to play this way. As long as we give some sort of indicator so people can compare apples to apples experiences this should work out fine.

Another thing is that we are blessed with hundreds of AFV's now. However not everyone has a detailed knowledge of WW2 weaponary. A simple guide of basic weapons and their recommended (or historical) use might be nice as well for newcomers to WW2 gaming?

Who knows, perhaps we have something in the works that might fit the bill

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

I think it is a mistake to think that CM can be turned into a "one size fits all gamers" project.

Amen to that!

However, what we can do is identify those aspects of the game that cause newbies more trouble than they perhaps can handle at first. Providing different options allows the game to be played with these features turned down, or off, until they decide they want to tackle the game at a more challenging level. Or not, if that is what they choose. Think of it as an expansion of concepts like the Fog of War option currently available in CMBB. These kinds of options aree fairly easy to do if we think about them ahead of time, which is exactly what we are doing this time around.

As for keeping this fair and even in multiplayer games... easily done! These settings will be determined by the host just like all other settings. Meaning that other players (note the plural ) will have to play with whatever level of realism is designated by the guy setting up the game. Again, think of this as an expansion of the Fog of War options concept.

Steve

[SurlyBen]

Regarding the whole dance of death bit that the machine gun did, I have to wonder if some of that behaviour is caused by the LOS bug in brush/rubble/wheat (which is fixed in the patch).

Prusumably if a panicked unit can manage to get out of LOS, it will stop getting shot at, and therefore have a chance at recovery... In 1.0 LOS doesn't degrade like it should, so a unit that retreats into the brush/rubble/wheat stays fairly easy to spot.

As for the whole brittle infantry debate, I come at it from the point of view of a gamer (as opposed to historical grog or whatever) and I like the new infantry modeling just fine. I fight at longer ranges and I stay out of the open in BB like I stayed off the pavement in BO. As long as the other guy is operating under the same constraints, I can continue to play to the system like I always did. If that means I have to use historical tactics, so much the better . There's a reason I play CMBB and not RTS games

One issue that this whole brittle infantry debate has made me consider is how common open terrain really is. (for me infantry only seems panicky in the open (which makes sense... I know I don't want to get shot at while standing in the middle of a field.) No idea about 1940s Russia, but here in 2002 Washington state, I'd say brush and rough are at least as common as open ground. It will influence my mapmaking, for sure.

Ben

[ November 20, 2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: SurlyBen ]

[aka_tom_w]

"quote:

As a suggestion I think it might be a good idea for there to be a 'realism' toggle for the next CM engine. In the same way a flight sim such as IL-2 has different realism toggles..."

I would suggest that in some small way the choice of unit experience (Green v. Elite) is a "little" like a realism toggle.

you want troops that don't panic, just play will all Elite troops, SIMPLE Realism toggle OFF.

Want more realistic behaviour play Green and Conscript troops Realism Toggle ON !

What more can you ask for?

-tom w

[Dirtweasle]

I've not had too hard of a time adapting to CMBB from CMBO. Initially the new move commands took a few games to get straight, and I was tiring out my troops too much. The Russian equipment is a little new to me, except the real obvious stuff like T-34s. But I seem to be getting the hang of the new game pretty well. (At least now ParraBellum is not shooting my troopers to pieces with alarming frequency!)

Now admittedly, I have only glanced at the manual, and not done the formal "tutorial" scenarios. So maybe had I done so my learning curve would have been less, and transition would have been even easier.

I am wondering that if some are having trouble either making the switch from CMBO, or coming in cold and cannot quickly get the hang of things, perhaps the tutorial needs to be revisited? Either by the player or the designers to determine if there needs to be more of an elaborate tutorial. Perhaps someone could take the time to give some examples with in game pictures and so forth...

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I still need to see some save games of this "my guys won't shoot problem" because I have never seen anything like this at all.

Oh! Ok, didn't realize- next time, NO problem!

Not saying it isn't possible, but a few people appear to see it all the time and most people never do.

I haven't said that I see that most egregious non-firing, (when friends are being slaughtered), "all the time", but it does happen. I play *alot*, I think- a couple scenarios a day, since I got this crazy game delivered by Harrier jet... For a person to say they *haven't* seen this or that, is not quite as conclusive as to say they *have* seen it. Possibly they did, but didn't even notice- the battle continues.

As for Area Fire, this is something I almost never use because it is quite ridged.

Yes.

There will be no changes to Area Fire.

That's ok...(sniff)...limited resources...(choke, sob)...I really don't need to effective area fire behaviour to advance, I'll make do...(sob, sob, cry tantrum moan)...

Eden

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

As for the Suden Strike etc. players, let them find their own level. They will come to CM when they are ready. If they are never ready, hey, it's a big world.

Michael

Michael-

I read your whole post, never fear. But I must say that it is a mistake to assume that all currently-dissatisfied folks are simply "Sudden Strike" players. I consider myself a "veteran gamer", a serious gamer, a semi grog, well-informed, and a true devotee of CM:BO. And yet, CM:BB leaves me cold. If I am alone, or share limited company, then I agree that it's a version of "too bad, so sad" for me. But if I'm not then casual dismissal might be undeserved.

Just a thought.

-dale

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Nabla,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So if during the computation of the action phase the unit receives a strong negative stimulus, which makes it abandon its current order, it already has knowledge of what it was trying to do at that time.

This is not what we call memory. Of course the system knows what it is doing now when it makes a new decision. The problem is that once the new decision is made there is no record of what it has done before that. So if a unit is Advancing under fire to a spot of woods, and the unit decides it needs to crawl, the system can easily switch it crawl and maintain its current location.</font>

[Gary T]

Just my two pennies worth...

There's seems to be two forms of 'whiners' - those that claim they can't do anything with their infantry at all and those that are concerned about the 'sneak of death' issue. I think it is patronising to claim that those that have issues with the sneaking under fire somehow don't know what they are doing, use the wrong tactics, are Sudden Strike converts etc I've been playing CM a long time and been around the forums from early on, even if I don't post much.

I personally like the infantry model in CMBB because it is far more realistic than CMBO. That being said I have two major, and they are major to me so much so I've stopped playing.

The first is of course the 'sneak of death'. I, together with many, would rather see my unit pinned an not move rather than see the sort of antics my prostrate men get up to. In the last scenario I played one of my squads came under fire from an unseen enemy. It hit the dirt - fair enough. It had two choices - stay where it was or retreat 5 yards back over the lip it had just crossed (yes I know I shouldn't have skylined them). Instead it decided to crawl forwards 50 metres, that is towards the enemy, uphill through some barbed wire and into a trench - an enemy trench. To say I was rathered amazed at this courageous, but foolhardy decision was an understatement.

The second issue is the previously mentioned 'units not firing'. I have seen this on several occasions. You put a squad into overwatch while another moves. The moving one comes under fire and the overwatch mob just sit there while the enemy just a hundred metres away destroys the moving platoon. Even more frustrating is when they stop firing even when you've given them a fire order. And EVEN more frustrating is when they start firing just as your now routed platoon legs it.

Anyway, I just need one answer...will the 'sneak of death' be fixed? I can live with the non-firing (just pretend it's relative spotting in place) but if CMBB is ever to grace my CD drive again then sucide sneaking needs to be stopped. Could the sneaking be disabled if there is no cover within 15 metres or so? Lets hope so!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

As for the Suden Strike etc. players, let them find their own level. They will come to CM when they are ready. If they are never ready, hey, it's a big world.

Michael

Michael-

I read your whole post, never fear. But I must say that it is a mistake to assume that all currently-dissatisfied folks are simply "Sudden Strike" players. I consider myself a "veteran gamer", a serious gamer, a semi grog, well-informed, and a true devotee of CM:BO. And yet, CM:BB leaves me cold. If I am alone, or share limited company, then I agree that it's a version of "too bad, so sad" for me. But if I'm not then casual dismissal might be undeserved.

Just a thought.

-dale</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Gary T:

Just my two pennies worth...

There's seems to be two forms of 'whiners' - those that claim they can't do anything with their infantry at all and those that are concerned about the 'sneak of death' issue. I think it is patronising to claim that those that have issues with the sneaking under fire somehow don't know what they are doing, use the wrong tactics, are Sudden Strike converts etc I've been playing CM a long time and been around the forums from early on, even if I don't post much.

I personally like the infantry model in CMBB because it is far more realistic than CMBO. That being said I have two major, and they are major to me so much so I've stopped playing.

The first is of course the 'sneak of death'. I, together with many, would rather see my unit pinned an not move rather than see the sort of antics my prostrate men get up to. In the last scenario I played one of my squads came under fire from an unseen enemy. It hit the dirt - fair enough. It had two choices - stay where it was or retreat 5 yards back over the lip it had just crossed (yes I know I shouldn't have skylined them). Instead it decided to crawl forwards 50 metres, that is towards the enemy, uphill through some barbed wire and into a trench - an enemy trench. To say I was rathered amazed at this courageous, but foolhardy decision was an understatement.

The second issue is the previously mentioned 'units not firing'. I have seen this on several occasions. You put a squad into overwatch while another moves. The moving one comes under fire and the overwatch mob just sit there while the enemy just a hundred metres away destroys the moving platoon. Even more frustrating is when they stop firing even when you've given them a fire order. And EVEN more frustrating is when they start firing just as your now routed platoon legs it.

Anyway, I just need one answer...will the 'sneak of death' be fixed? I can live with the non-firing (just pretend it's relative spotting in place) but if CMBB is ever to grace my CD drive again then sucide sneaking needs to be stopped. Could the sneaking be disabled if there is no cover within 15 metres or so? Lets hope so!

Great Post Gary!

More folks like you, who have been around since the begining (note Member # 186 :eek: ) should speak up with their observations and experience with this issue in CMBB.

-tom w

[ November 20, 2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[rune]

Just a question. To those that are having squads not fire:

1. Are they area firing?

2. Are they attempting to fire through the friendly unit to hit the enemy unit?

I am trying to re-create this, but have not been able to so far.

Rune

[ November 20, 2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:

...it is a mistake to assume that all currently-dissatisfied folks are simply "Sudden Strike" players.

I don't. Witness my own criticism in this thread and elsewhere with the Dance of Death.

I consider myself a "veteran gamer", a serious gamer, a semi grog, well-informed, and a true devotee of CM:BO.

I know. I've been reading your posts for I don't know how long, Dale, and your credentials are sound with me. Still friends?

And yet, CM:BB leaves me cold. If I am alone, or share limited company, then I agree that it's a version of "too bad, so sad" for me. But if I'm not then casual dismissal might be undeserved.

Believe me, I don't dismiss anyone casually. I respect people whose tastes radically depart from mine as well. It's just that I accept it that CM isn't going to be everybody's cup of tea and the game ought not to be mutilated in a vain attempt to appeal to those who are on an essentially different road. I happen not to care for any number of games on the market, but I don't go around harrassing their makers into making changes that I would rather see, because the fact is that if they bothered to listen to me (which I am confident they would not) and implement my desires, their games would become completely unrecognizable.

Cm is not the ultimate game that I would like to play either. But I think its designers are on the right road. To that end, I prefer to offer them encouragement salted with constructive criticism.

I hope that somewhere down that road, and soon, that you will be able to garner greater pleasure from playing. Maybe you need a vacation from CM. Sometimes I think I do. If that thought becomes strong enough, I will act on it. But a vacation is not abandonment.

Michael

[ November 20, 2002, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]