Has CMBB changed your force mixes?

[Col Deadmarsh]

In CMBO, infantry was a pretty powerful force on the battlefield, able to overpower MG's and rush tanks without having to worry about being pinned and going into auto-sneak mode for the rest of the game. With the new lethality of mg's, has this changed your purchase ratio of tanks/infantry? Is it a bad choice now to purchase a company or two of infantry because of the way they're now modeled? Are you simply throwing your money down the drain when you should be spending it on another tank instead?

I can see infantry still being purchased on heavy wooded maps but anything lighter seems to be a bad move because of their vulnerability to mg's. Yes, they have better anti-tank capabilities as they are now using demo charges and molotov cocktails to immobolize AFV's and also utilize a "Follow Vehicle" order to keep in close range of tanks. But is that enough to still make infantry a powerful force in semi-open terrain?

What are you seeing in your games?

[ November 21, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[TheSuperSlug]

Because Russian infantry have very little anti-tank capability I definitely take far more AT Guns and tanks then I did in CMBB.

I agree that the infantry model is more realistic then it was in CMBO. However, I think BTS forgot to factor in the fact that when infantry and armour were used together, infantry would often use the armour as cover when advancing, however, this is not possible under the current engine. (I believe).

Also, I think the machine guns are way to cheap in relation to their new troop pinning, routing capablities, or possibly infantry are a bit expensive. Anyway, I love the game. Just my

two cents.

SuperSlug

[ November 21, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: TheSuperSlug ]

[SaTyR]

To answer the question, yes. I take far more infantry instead of AFVs. I've always believed that infantry is the king of the battlefield (in the end) and CMBB is a fine example of that. I've witnessed myself taking the extra platoon or so of infantry instead of a tank just to get more "bang for the buck". Especially early german tanks are so vulnerable that I usually take infantry instead. Infantry and infantry AT assets (beginning with pioneers and ending in AT guns). And yes, I usually play as the axis. And yes, I usually play the finns when I play the axis side (I've actually started to convert some of SPWAW scenarios to CMBB, the battles including finns. Next in line Summa and Winter War scenarios [even tho' it isn't included in CMBB it can easily be "simulated"], thanks to Ukka for the 1st Summa map btw. If I get something worth publishing done, I´ll upload them somewhere).

[Silvio Manuel]

The nice thing about the Soviets is that despite their lack of squad organic AT, their Pioneer platoons (replete w/ demo charges and such) are quite cheap (just comparing squad costs) relative to most of their other infantry...and they get good ammo loads b/c typically they only have 1 SMG and no LMG. Even better, Flamethrowers appear to NOT be organic to Sov. Pioneers Plts, so you can get "enough" cheap democharge-toting units to boost your AT capability. Late-war Sovs get RPGs, which should be useful.

[Battlefront.com]

Just to restate our obvious position...

In many ways Infantry in CMBB is more powerful than in CMBO. It is just more difficult to use them effectively for some people (not for others though). Bad tactics are punished far more ruthlessly in CMBB than CMBO, but that doesn't mean there is no payoff if used correctly. True, on the attack infantry is more difficult to use especially over open terrain. But on the defense? Far easier and far, far, FAR more effective.

I think part of your problem Colonel_Deadmarsh is that you are only looking at the negative aspects evident from the attacker's POV. And of course you don't want to admit that your CMBO tactics need to be changed to something more realistic. I bet you liked to use VG SMG units and the RUN command

SuperSlug,

I agree that the infantry model is more realistic then it was in CMBO. However, I think BTS forgot to factor in the fact that when infantry and armour were used together, infantry would often use the armour as cover when advancing, however, this is not possible under the current engine. (I believe).

Correct, vehicles can not provide cover or block LOS unless they are smoking. But this has no practical effect in CMBB worth mentioning. Generally infantry had no armor support at all, so for the vast majority of realistic CMBB battles this doesn't even factor into the equation. And when armor was present, infantry generally did not walk or take cover behind AFVs in general. Why? Because AFVs tend to attract a lot of "attention" on the battlefield.

An infantryman's best defense is to not be seen at all. Walking behind a 40 ton piece of steel that is making enough noise that the dead are now awake is NOT going to go unnoticed Plus, a hit on an AFV could very likely injure nearby infantry.

Would it be nice if we could support AFVs acting as cover? Yup. Would it make any difference, on average, as to how the infantry modeling works? Not the slightest

Steve

[ November 21, 2002, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Commissar]

From my experience playing the Russians, it is a pain to get my men close enough and in cover to hit the enemy. However when I do, my leg units can really do a number on the opposing side. Now if only my '45 Soviet infantry would be modeled with captured panzerfausts I'd be one happy fake-commie.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Just to restate our obvious position...

In many ways Infantry in CMBB is more powerful than in CMBO. It is just more difficult to use them effectively for some people (not for others though). Bad tactics are punished far more ruthlessly in CMBB than CMBO, but that doesn't mean there is no payoff if used correctly. True, on the attack infantry is more difficult to use especially over open terrain. But on the defense? Far easier and far, far, FAR more effective.

I think part of your problem Colonel_Deadmarsh is that you are only looking at the negative aspects evident from the attacker's POV. And of course you don't want to admit that your CMBO tactics need to be changed to something more realistic. I bet you liked to use VG SMG units and the RUN command

Hell yes I used those SMG squads! But seriously Steve, I was being quite neutral when I posed that question. I may have been tearing down the game before, but since then I've really been trying to change my tactics, and I'm really starting to appreciate CMBB now and the new dynamics that go with it.

But let's face it, if you make a mistake like you said, it's curtains for that squad. And how many people are so on top of their game that they don't make these types of mistakes? So for a ladder player or even just a casual gamer who's played enough battles to realize the power of the MG in this game, that novice-intermediate player would seemingly be wiser to choose armor or support MG's over infantry on anything less than a heavily-treed map.

I would almost expect rules to already be in place to limit MG and armor purchases. Maybe I'm wrong about this and that's why I asked others who've played more games than me to speak out about what they're seeing.

[BlackVoid]

I always max out on artillery and support.

If I attack I also max out on tanks. Not so much on vehicles because they are nearly totally useless in the face of AT rifles.

Yes, my buying habits have definetely changed. I did not like arty in CMBO that much, because it was hard to use and the effects were often not worth the purchase. But arty really makes a difference now.

Also machineguns. They were not too effective, but now I buy as many as I can afford.

[Yggdrasill]

I can sum up my attitude with the phrase, "what's good for the goose..." MGs work both ways.

Infantry is still king of the battlefield, IMO. Unless I know I'm up against a heavily armored force, I would just as soon spend my last tank's worth of points on infantry. If you're attacking, buy your own Heavy MGs and mortars to pin your opponents. There's a reason support units are called "support units." Infantry unsupported by MGs, guns, artillery, and AFVs will have a hard time defending against a combined arms assault, and an impossible task attacking against a well-balanced force.

I don't think my force compositions or tactics have changed all that much, except that I'm much more likely to purchase aircraft. I luuuuuuuuuuv those rocket graphics!!