Union jobs and CMBO

[Aganemnon]

I'm a Newbe to this forum so you'll just have to forgive me for any mistakes...

To begin with, I don't own a copy of CMBO. I have been playing the demo for the last two days, and although flawed in some ways, it is thoroughly enjoyable.

Two problems that poked me in the eye…

After playing the first scenario, I found that there are a large number of unarmed troops running around the battlefield. I'm referring to all the combat teams such as MMG, HMG, AT, Mortar, and Artillery Spotters. These all must be union jobs, because a six men heavy machine gun team is armed with nothing but the actual HMG. None of the other team members seem to carry any additional small arms to defend them selves with.

Second problem is in the re-arming of heavy weapons. An eliminated AT team might still have salvageable bazooka or panzerschrek rounds, thus not limiting a single team to five shots.

So my question is, are these problems addressed in the full version, if not, then are they going to be addressed in CMBB?

[Ozzy]

In CM:BO none is represented (ammo collection, picking up HWs, armed crews for portable weapons)

AFAIK, in CM:BB, the crews of portable HWs (such as MGs and mortars) will get small arms as well, while picking up ammo or weapons still did not made it for programming restrictions (the old effort vs. effect question you will frequently find in this forum)

[chrisl]

This was actually a conscious decision on the part of the designers (Steve and Charles) way back in the beginning of CM. Crews have actually even been weakened since the original release of the game.

The rationale is that the crews are trained specialists in using mortars, hmgs, shrecks, AT guns, infantry howitzers, tanks, whatever, and if they lose their weapon (the only time a weapon is abandoned is when the combat resolution engine determines that the weapon is damaged) they should highttail it back to the rear area to get re-armed for the next action, rather than wasting themselves in gamey charges. I vaguely recall that the firepower of MGs does factor in the rifles of some of the other crew members, but I could be wrong about that.

That sort of thing (gamey crew charges) did happen in earlier games, at least as far back as Squad Leader. It's a relatively unrealistic tactic. People always quote isolated historical instances of tank or gun crews acting as infantry, and it does occasionally happen in CMBO: occasionally a tank crew will bail out and then blast the zook or schreck that killed its vehicle, or shoot a couple guys in an attacking squad.

In a pinch, nobody is going to complain if you set a crew to shooting at something that is nearby and threatening, or to keep watch over some area that's relatively out of the action, but the weakness of crews was intended to keep people from taking a horde of crews from abandoned weapons (I just played a scenario in which I lost about 70 vehicles, most of which had surviving crews) and charging at the enemy lines. You also suffer a greater loss of victory points for losing crews, and if you're playing an operation you can't get back vehicles whose crews were killed.

A reasonably valid argument against this might be that for some crew served infantry weapons (mgs, light mortars, bazookas, etc) the crew members were trained riflemen in addition to their crew job, and probably carried at least a carbine. It's possible (but at this point I'd guess unlikely) that in future versions there will be distinctions between types of crews, but not in CMBO, and I would guess not in CMBB (though I haven't seen it yet and haven't been through the FAQ very carefully).

It really shouldn't be that big a worry-- if you're down to counting on crews to act offensively, you've probably already lost the battle. If you use good tactics and beat your opponent, your crews will probably be behind the lines guarding prisoners or occupying flags that are well back of the lines.

Edit:

Ozzy has probably paid closer attention to CMBB. Also note that MMG and HMG never actually run out of ammo, they just get "low". This is to represent ammo scrounging. This hasn't been implemented for other crew served weapons AFAIK, probably because the programming effort isn't worth the minor effect.

[ July 22, 2002, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: chrisl ]

[Aganemnon]

Thank you for clearing that up, it does make sense, however, that brings me to my next question.

Two things I noticed about AT teams. If given a chance, they will empty all five shots at an incredible distance with very little chance of hitting. Is there a way to command the team to take a pot shot and then stop instead of firing all 5 shots in 60 seconds?

Second: when I order my men to crawl to a location, that means crawl to a location, not crawl and engage enemy in a firefight. The whole idea of being stealthy is to arrive at a location without the enemy knowing you are there, or that you are moving towards it. Is this a glitch, intentional programming or am I doing something wrong?

By the way, if these topics have been covered, just point me to the right thread.

[Conscript Bagger]

You can keep your AT teams from engaging at extreme range by using the Ambush and/or Hide commands. True, once they start shooting they will continue to fire, but since they are usually spotted and engaged after their second or third shot, I'd rather they keep it up.

Try using Sneak instead of Crawl; I believe it is more stealthy.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

...when I order my men to crawl to a location, that means crawl to a location, not crawl and engage enemy in a firefight. The whole idea of being stealthy is to arrive at a location without the enemy knowing you are there, or that you are moving towards it. Is this a glitch, intentional programming or am I doing something wrong?

You're doing something wrong, or rather missing a trick. When you give them a crawl order (or any movement order) and want them to hold their fire once they have completed it, do as Offwhite sugests and complete their movement with a hide order. This has the added benefit of making them harder to spot by the enemy.

Michael

[-Havermeyer-]

Just an FYI, it's been so long since I played the Demo-- but there has to be some changes between the crew performance in the Demo and the game.

Moot point, though. Prepare yourself for CMBB...

[Monty's Double]

You guys must be in unusually forgiving mood, I can't believe you let him suggest CMBO is flawed. Those aren't flaws sir, they are features. At most I'll give you quirks, but flaws is franly libellous. Buy the game and lose your soul to it like these fine gentlemen, then tell me whether they are flaws.

[Conscript Bagger]

Monty, I suppose you'd also characterize the determinedness with which you pursue your chosen field of occupation (as listed in your profile) as a mere "quirk" rather than a flaw...

[Monty's Double]

More of a "calling" actually.

[ParaBellum]

Forgiving? Na.

Well, I always thought that this forum was indeed very kind to Newbies. That is, as long as they post their questions/observations in a polite, well-mannered tone, like Agamemnon did.

With trolls there's another standard operations procedure..

They will get humiliated, sent to Canada, beaten to death with wet towells and their liver eaten...

With a glass of Chianti...

Mmmmmh...

[ July 22, 2002, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Das Reich]

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

Second: when I order my men to crawl to a location, that means crawl to a location, not crawl and engage enemy in a firefight. The whole idea of being stealthy is to arrive at a location without the enemy knowing you are there, or that you are moving towards it. Is this a glitch, intentional programming or am I doing something wrong?

By the way, if these topics have been covered, just point me to the right thread.

The problem is the tactical AI.

The soldiers you command are not robots. They have emotions and react to situations, and sometimes those reactions will go against what you ordered them to do.

Also, a units experience would come into play here.

A veteran unit in your same situation may be able to make it the place you want him to crawl to and not get jittery and fire.

Where as a "green" troop might lose patience and shoot atthe enemy before he gets as far as you want him to.

So, this is probably what is going on.

The game does this, well, for realities sake.

[ July 22, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Das Reich ]

[Das Reich]

Originally posted by Monty's Double:

You guys must be in unusually forgiving mood, I can't believe you let him suggest CMBO is flawed. Those aren't flaws sir, they are features. At most I'll give you quirks, but flaws is franly libellous. Buy the game and lose your soul to it like these fine gentlemen, then tell me whether they are flaws.

WELL SAID!

[Monty's Double]

Hmm, maybe I'm just grouchy because my PBM opponent is dragging his heels with the next turn. Anyone would think I'd just killed two of his Panthers. With Chaffees (I love this game). Time to go home I think. Apologies Ag, just buy the game OK?

[Aganemnon]

Gentlemen, your comments are most welcome… and amusing.

My big beef is that WW2 AT teams are essentially regular infantry with a long pipes. Thus they should have no problem in defending them selves against both armoured and infantry targets. CMBO leaves them defenceless against regular infantry. The same goes for mortar teams, whose main weapon is useless at ranges less then 100m. When an engagement occurs, it is not unusual for the battle lines to be mixed. Thus a mortar team may very well find them selves out flanked by a clever enemy, and forced to return small arms fire before beating a hasty retreat.

I do not pretend to be immune to the lure of this flawed yet exceptional game. The dilemma before me is whether to purchase CMBO now and sample the forbidden fruit, or wait for it’s better looking sister (CMBB).

Quote originally posted by ParaBellum

With trolls there's another standard operations procedure…

They will get humiliated, sent to Canada, beaten to death with wet towells and their liver eaten...

With a glass of Chianti...

Mmmmmh...

Lastly, to ParaBellum... I am a Newbe. Nay, I’m lower then a Newbe for I do not yet own a copy of the game. But mark my words Sir, I live in CANADA, so you just bring those wet towels over and we’ll have a go around. BTW up here in the great white North, the land of igloos and uglies, we spell towels with one “L”.

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

CMBO leaves them defenceless against regular infantry.

Not entirely true. I've had a Zook take out a company HQ with a few well placed rounds. That was quite the sight.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

Try using Sneak instead of Crawl; I believe it is more stealthy.

You're right, IIRC you get zero Stealth enhancement while crawling, unless you are near a wall or other terrain feature that would block LOS due to your troops hugging the earth.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

Lastly, to ParaBellum... I am a Newbe. Nay, I’m lower then a Newbe for I do not yet own a copy of the game. But mark my words Sir, I live in CANADA, so you just bring those wet towels over and we’ll have a go around. BTW up here in the great white North, the land of igloos and uglies, we spell towels with one “L”.

Agamemnon, from where I come we don't even spell them with an l at all... We call it Handtuch and everyone knows that canadian towels were inferior to german Handtücher during WWII.

It's just a matter of optics and armour quality, the Canadians always neglected this with their standard models, ya know.

The German InfanterieSturmHandtuch'44 was, as every grog here will admit, the best all-around towel of WW2.

Even the german allies favoured the german towel over their domestic models.

There are reports of finnish soldiers destroying T-34s and KV-Is with nothing but wet german towels, so be careful with your challenges, Sir!

[ July 23, 2002, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Aganemnon]

Wolfpack

You were undeniably lucky in taking out that HQ, however, you wasted precious rounds designed to take out armoured vehicles on mere infantry. Rounds that you might have been short on if you came up on an armoured target. My point is, that these teams should be able to defend them selves after they spent their main weapon ammunition. Even vehicle crews get an attack rating which makes them capable of killing the many defenceless weapons teams in the field.

I realize that I am a mere mortal talking to Gods of the CM battlefield, and what I am about to say may incur celestial wrath. But hear this! <Shaking my fist at the sky>

There once was a software company called Atomic Games, and may God have mercy on their souls for going out of business.

They made a product called Close Combat that in many ways was far superior then Combat Missions. What’s this, “Heresy” I hear you shout. Well non-believers, the CC combat system included all of the nitpickings I keep reading about through out the CM forum. It had all the elements that CM has and more. Even those of you who are devout worshippers of the CM battle system cannot deny me the following advantages: All teams carried rifles and sometimes grenades and would switch automatically to rifle fire when required. If lead to a weapon, an unarmed man would pick it up, this included enemy weapons. All weapons had a finite ammunition supply. Some of these weapons could be rearmed by scavenging the corpses of the fallen. In a desperate situation a non-AT team member might pick up and use an AT weapon lying next to him. And the final and the most blasphemous aspect of the game was that it all occurred in real time. No time outs, no let me think or test my strategy for the next 60 seconds. And back then, I was a God.

But alas Atomic is no longer, and I find myself empty and wanting of spiritual truth. So I put to those of you well versed in CM scripture. Should I convert to CM:BO or worship in secrecy until CM:BB is the popular religion?

Parabellum

Although the German towel was en effective weapon, alas that’s all it was, a weapon of war. Meanwhile its Canadian counterpart could be used as a weapon of peace. Hence the many German POWs, who remained here in Canada after the war. Once they had experienced the Canadian towel, there was no going back. I can’t say the same for any Canadian POW remaining in Germany. As far as I know, all of “our” boys came home. Now a day, the Canadian towel serves proudly with our armed forces abroad. We issue it regularly instead of real weapons, because our Ministry of Defence is constantly under budget.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

WolfpackThere once was a software company called Atomic Games, and may God have mercy on their souls for going out of business.

They made a product called Close Combat that in many ways was far superior then Combat Missions. What’s this, “Heresy” I hear you shout. Well non-believers, the CC combat system included all of the nitpickings I keep reading about through out the CM forum. It had all the elements that CM has and more.

CC and CM are hardly comparaby in the way you do. It is unfair to point out your perceived shortcomings of CM when compared to CC. CC was a platoon to company sized game that featured individual soldiers. The very focus of the game was the individual soldier and a psychological model to simulate indicidual behavior.

CM, on the other hand, portrays larger scale battles around battalion size. Individual soldiers are disregarded (and actually disregardable in the views of the creators) due to playability and computer hardware limitation issues, but also because the focus is on the grand orchestra of tactical cooperation bewtween different arms and equipment. For this intent, the abstracted nature of infantry in CM works pretty well. It works worse the smaller the scale of your game is. If you pit platoon vs. platoon in a tiny CM scenario within a small village, you might actually be better off playing such a game with CC.

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

But alas Atomic is no longer, and I find myself empty and wanting of spiritual truth.

you might be interested to hear that there is sort of a follow-up to the CC series to be released imminently, very similar to CC with the focus on infantry soldiers, only it is in 3D, called GI Combat, made by some of the former atomic crew that made CC.

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

So I put to those of you well versed in CM scripture. Should I convert to CM:BO or worship in secrecy until CM:BB is the popular religion?

Depends on your financial and time budget. If you can spare 50$ right now and have time at your disposal right now, I say go for it and buy CMBO. You will not regret it, it is a damn fine game. And even after CMBB comes out, I think CMBO will still have its value, not the least because it will be a looong time before BTS/BFC will revisit the western front with a completely new CM engine.

If you are a student or someone who is very low on money but will always have ample time to play the game at a later time, you can wait for CMBB, but although it is apparently (almost or actually) finished, it might very well still be a month or even more before you actually hold it in your hands.

CMBO has created a huge amount of fan paraphernalia from very dedicated people, there are all kinds of mods, scenarios, operations. If you are ready to accept the differences, limitations and strengths, of CMBO, foremost in your case the fact that CM does not focus on the individual soldier, but rather on larger engagements, you will be a very happy camper with CMBO, even after CMBB comes out.

as regards sneak and crawl,

sneak emphasizes stealth, the squad will not fire even if they walk over an enemy, only if fired upon they will stop right where they are and fiore back.

crawl emphasizes forging onward at a minimum of exposure to the enemy fire.

from the excellent 170-page manual that comes with CMBO when you order it:

"SNEAK: move cautiously and slowly to avoid detection, stop and take cover when engaged by enemy

CRAWL: go prone and crawl forward cautiously using full cover but at very slow speed"

hope this heps,

M.Hofbauer

[ July 23, 2002, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

Parabellum

Although the German towel was en effective weapon, alas that’s all it was, a weapon of war. Meanwhile its Canadian counterpart could be used as a weapon of peace. Hence the many German POWs, who remained here in Canada after the war. Once they had experienced the Canadian towel, there was no going back. I can’t say the same for any Canadian POW remaining in Germany. As far as I know, all of “our” boys came home. Now a day, the Canadian towel serves proudly with our armed forces abroad. We issue it regularly instead of real weapons, because our Ministry of Defence is constantly under budget.

Never taken a holiday in the Med. have you? Never underestimate the German towel.

[ July 23, 2002, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

[Ales Dvorak]

Originally posted by Aganemnon:

They made a product called Close Combat that in many ways was far superior then Combat Missions.

Oh no not again, please.