CMBB more difficult than CMBO ??

[anton]

I`ve finished the first and second battle in CMBB

and still fighting towards Sevastopol in the third

scenario. I am always the attacker.

My results aren't very successful. At the first

mission (ants and elephants)i think, i had a little luck, because I could destroy all german

light fieldguns by only loss one of my T-34's.

So I continued this scenario with an impressive

advantage of amor and troops(i think so).

But in the end, however I didn't reach all mission objectives.(suffer too many loss).

The result was a tie.

My attack in the second scenario (assault to moon)

finished in a great desaster.Total defeat.

When I look around on my battlefield in "way to

Sevastopol" many of my vehicles stand smoking

spread over the area. When I arrived the little

village, I am surprised to discover more enemy tanks than excepted. My apprehension is, my efforts will break down again.

NOW my questions!

Belong this Scenarios to the "harder ones" in CMBB?. Is CMBB more difficult than CMBO in general? Or I'm only a more worse commander than

remebered? I believe my pixel-soldiers will hate me very well.

Excuse my english, but i'm still in exercise.

greetings

anton

[Terence]

I think CMBB is harder. I managed a Total Defeat in Assault on Moon. And on Cemetary Hill I got a minor defeat and then a major defeat. The changes to the game engine make it harder. But I think it is more realistic.

My pixel soldiers desert when they see me coming.

Your English is fine. It is better than some Americans I know. And some British folks too.

[Boo Radley]

I think CMBB is a bit harder and it takes more micro-managing than CMBO. I've heard it said several times that you need to play this game a lot slower than CMBO, and I agree 100%.

Hey, I've had my pixeltruppen try to frag me on several occasions. :eek:

[Michael Emrys]

I would agree with Boo that it is slightly harder due to a degree of increased complexity to the game overall. But I think most of the difficulty people are experiencing (at least those who have played CMBO extensively) comes from having to unlearn old habits. Things that worked routinely in BO may not work well or at all in BB. So you have to stop, learn, and reprogram yourself, and a lot of people are loath to do that.

Michael

[kipanderson]

Anton, hi,

Yup, I agree, CMBB is more difficult.

The reason is that your virtual soldiers want to live more, MachineGuns have more suppressive effect. Also everything takes longer as a result. Because attacking infantry are more easily suppressed, the attacker has to use more area fire at possible defensive positions in order to suppress the defenders while moving the attacking infantry forward. Also, anti-tank guns are less easily spotted and destroyed than in CMBO.

In my view, CMBB is a big improvement on what was already a very fine simulation. Battles now take a far more realistic length of time. In CMBO you could assault and take a village that was 500m by 700m in just 15-30 minutes. Now it will take 30-60 minutes even if things go well. Far more realistic.

In attack, you have to do things more carefully. Do not rush, take your time. Attack is really very tough, in some situations anyway.

All the best,

Kip.

[zukkov]

i suppose the answer to your question is relative. some folks here have stated that they have never lost to the ai. i guess so far(knock wood) i'm one of em. then again, i haven't tried some of the scenarios gamers say are difficult. i can honestly say though that i in no way feel superior to the ai in this game. and as kc would say, "that's the way, uh huh uh huh, i like it". who wants to win all the time!? do you want to live forever!? i prefer a challenge to a sure thing any day!

[CRSutton]

Yes tougher, more complicated, smarter and better. Thats exactly what I would expect from a second generation game.

I really like the new commands. For example you can now use light guns offensively. You unhitch them in woods or on a reverse slope and then use the move to contact command to advanced them unseen to the target. Because of the small target size, you will generally spot a pesky tank, gun or machine gun before getting spotted. Your crew will then stop and set up and you will get off three or four shots before being spotted yourself. Brillant! I just love this thing.

[Hensworth]

I think some VERY challenging scenarios were included with CMBB.

When you find that your setup zone is surrounded by open ground, there's no smoke available and the enemy turns out to have more and better tanks than you do, you shouldn't feel too bad about your attack failing, even against the AI.

[Jotte]

I now have a shining US version through the Marshall (of the Soviet Union Grisha ) Aid and have played some differnt QB's and the Balkovzy Surprise scenario ( nice one WWB!). My initial impression is that armored comabt are about the same difficulty level (although this is also a bit harder) as CMBO whereas Infantry combat now requires far more use of real tactics. I really like that.

[bob9017]

After having my fanny waxed in a few scenarios it is nice to see that others have had their heads handed to them by the AI.

Good thing I didn't really command troops in battle. I'm sure they would have fragged me rather quickly.

[dalem]

Well, here goes:

I think it's far more difficult, and for me far less enjoyable. As a matter of fact, I don't enjoy playing it, to the extent that I've dropped all my PBEMs until I do start enjoying it, if ever. In my opinion, and for me only, I find that I have been unable to achieve a consistant series of results during my QBs vs. the AI and PBEMs against real humans (and Cesspoolers): I see Veteran tanks sometimes Move in the face of a targetted enemy instead of firing, units in command sometimes not firing at valid targets, tanks ordered to Fast Move around a nasty AFV toward cover and around a flank instead stop in full view and engage, and other things.

Game engine "better stronger faster" is good. Infantry model realism changes are good. Gameplay feedback inconsistant and patternless is ungood. Again, for me only, better historical gameplay at the cost of more micromanagement may mean I'm simply outside of the target audience for BB: Resetting Movemement orders at the beginning of every turn for lots of units is boring to me, not a challenge. I'm playing around some with the AI, trying different things with battlefield tempo, seeing what I need to learn and unlearn, but overall, not really a fan so far. Maybe in a while.

But that's just me.

-dale

[Abbott]

Originally posted by dalem:

Well, here goes:

Sorry to hear that Dale.

[Brian Rock]

It is more demanding. In CMBO I could get by with a "close enough is good enough" approach. When I apply that in CMBB I get wiped out.

The game is particularly quick to punish the attacker. It is much easier to blunder into a kill sack. When I remember little things like "don't advance everybody into range on the same turn" I do a lot better.... go figure.

I don't find I have to micromanage much more, but I do have to slow things down and pick my timing better.