CMBB Infantry Too Brittle?

[bbaker]

In the first couple of QB's I played, I was dismayed to find that my infantry spent most of it's time deleting my masterfully laid "run" lines and "sneaking" for cover, the inglorious bastards. Things like mortar fire or long-range fire from light guns would drive whole platoons to the ground even when no casualties were caused. This was especially bad on large, open maps where infantry is exposed to fire from distant heavy weapons and has little cover to advance through.

On maps like that I've found that it pays much more than in CMBO to advance a heavy tank or four or use an FO to knock out as many of the machine guns or artillery pieces as you can before moving up with infantry. On the whole, I find myself keeping my tanks abreast with my infantry much more than I did in CMBO.

On heavily wooded maps it's much easier to advance so long as you keep a suffucuent base of fire to support movement across open spaces. So while I might advance a platoon in unison through a wooded patch, when I get to a clearing I have to cross, I'll keep most of my guys (and an mg or two if I have one) just inside the woods and send a small contingent across under the watchful eyes of a bunch of guns.

I'm getting useed to it. And it's nifty -- for instance it now makes sense to me that they bothered to put machine guns on tanks On the whole it just requires more use of combined arms, a little more patience, and lots and lots of suppressive fire. Which is, I guess, exactly what everybody else has said thus far

[Andreas]

I think one thing about CMBB is that the learning curve appears a lot steeper than in CMBO. The game is less tolerant of mistakes, and punishes it harder. I am still trying to come to grips with a lot of aspects in it, and find myself learning as I go along, after playing it for quite a while.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PeterX:

Pushing them forward under fire has become a miserable, frustrating grind.

Peter, I think that is quite realistic, really. I have read many battle accounts, and the thing is that you don't just advance under fire. You try to maneuvre around it, shell the sources of it, or do anything to avoid having to advance under fire. That is why the Germans had Stugs, lightweight infantry guns, very portable HMGs, and Stukas.</font>

[PeterX]

1 - Where in CMBO the AI could mount a credible, maybe not inspired, but a decent attack if boosted up +2 in experience, in CMBB the weakness of the TacAI is exposed. The computer opponent has little success attacking as it does not maneuver well, does not learn form it's mistakes in that it apparently has no memory of where it just got the snot kicked out of it. ...

The real test of the new infantry morale model will begin with human-to-human matches via TCP or PBEM. I suspect there will be loud demands for 'balancing' on behalf of the attacking force.

IMO, defensive battles versus the AI, unless armor to armor, are no longer viable, no matter how much you jack up of the force ratios or experience levels.

[ September 26, 2002, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Last night I held off an entire reinforced Russian Company backed up with 2 KV tanks, 2 tankettes, and some assorted heavy weapons with 2 LMGs, 2 split squads, an meduim ATG and a log MG bunker.

2 - In order to use fire and manuever tactics I need more ammo then I am getting. I see why some units get 50 small arms ammo points insted of 30, but really feel like 80 would be a good amount in most circumstances. Likewise for arty and mortar ammo. I'm going through the ammo like you would'nt think possible.

Sounds like a typical day on the Eastern Front.

[thewood]

Would you say that that is just like the real world. There is no harsher punishment than watching your plan lead to the slaughter of fathers, brothers, and sons.

Also, for the first time, you begin to see why tanks were invented. Getting fire support out to the poor bloody infantry. How many times in CMBO did the tanks go off on their own plan with the infantry just marching up the middle. Now you have a reason to keep armor and infantry togeteher for mutual support.

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think one thing about CMBB is that the learning curve appears a lot steeper than in CMBO. The game is less tolerant of mistakes, and punishes it harder. I am still trying to come to grips with a lot of aspects in it, and find myself learning as I go along, after playing it for quite a while.

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

1 - Where in CMBO the AI could mount a credible, maybe not inspired, but a decent attack if boosted up +2 in experience, in CMBB the weakness of the TacAI is exposed. The computer opponent has little success attacking as it does not maneuver well, does not learn form it's mistakes in that it apparently has no memory of where it just got the snot kicked out of it. ...kind of like my playing style so far in CMBB

Last night my green and conscript Russins held off a bunch of veteran, elite and crack Germans. They kept coming through a section of woods right in the middle of the map that I had mined, lined with barbed wire and kept hitting with mortar fire. I got a total victory out of it, but I know if I'd been playing against a human, I would've gotten smeared.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Without meaning any disrespect, I think you need to read what other people are saying a bit more closely. Also, think back to the big debates about the demo scenarios too. Your opinion is absolutely in the minority. The vast majority, including some infantry officers (in particular a Colonel friend of ours) think that the infantry modeling is a HUGE step forward vs. CMBO. In fact, the infantry modeling (for various reasons) in CMBO was rightly criticised for being too forgiving. So it doesn't surprises me at all to hear that a few people are struggling with this and not looking closely enough at their tactics.

IMO, defensive battles versus the AI, unless armor to armor, are no longer viable, no matter how much you jack up of the force ratios or experience levels.

I would also caution you about making sweeping statements like this. Gamers often do this when trying to make a point, which really isn't helpful. I can counter this statement easily -> many people playing Yelnia Stare (including Beta Testers) complained about it being "impossible" to win as the Germans. I agree that the AI is weaker on attack than defense (as any AI tends to be, BTW), but I think it is easily disproven that the the AI is not capable of mounting an attack under the new system. If the Human defender doesn't do a good job, the AI will punish you.

Now, I have another important point to illustrate, and I think it is so important that I will make a new post in this thread specificially for it

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Now, for a rather important point about CMBO vs. CMBB perception...

How many Conscript vs. Regular/Veteran battles did you guys play in CMBO? My take is that, in general, very few people played this sort of matchup. Most people played Reg/Vet vs. Reg/Vet for their bread and butter gaming. I bet that if Peter went back and played a similar battle in CMBO with similar experienced forces that he might see what I am getting at. And that is comparing the performance (or lack there of ) of Conscript troops in CMBB to Regular troops in CMBO is not a good thing to do. Comparing Conscripts in CMBB to Conscripts in CMBO is not directly comparable (because of CMBB's improvements), but the difference is not as dramatic in this comparison.

As evidence of this opinion of mine, I have seen little (none?) complaints about Reg/Vet vs. Reg/Vet battles being "impossible" or "too brittle". So that means people are, likely, having trouble with the problems of commanding masses of poorly trained and motivated troops vs. well trained and highly motivated troops. And that is entirely realistic since if it were otherwise the Wehrmacht would have been stopped cold a couple hundred KMs from Barbarossa's start line.

As others have said, the pace of battle in CMBO was too fast. Casualties were too great. Troops tended to go where you wanted them to go with minimal support. There were a host of reasons for this (MG simulation problems, RUN command being a bit "off", lack of Rarity, etc) and CMBB fixes them to the best we can (Relative Spotting is still needed to fix some other problems). The result is that the player needs to take a LOT more care when moving his forces. He also needs to take a lot more TIME to do it too.

Ask yourselves... how long do you think the German defender in Yelnia Stare would have held out in a similar battle in CMBO? 3 turns? 5? It wouldn't be many, I promise you. But from all the AARs I have seen, from Beta Testers and on this Forum, it took about 20 to 25 for the battle to really swing in favor of the Soviets or decidedly against them. Ask yourself... which timeframe is more realistic? If it was 2-5 minutes WWII would have been over in 1940 , so it is probably closer to 20-25 minutes.

So... are we even thinking of doing some sort of patch tweak to morale, firepower, movement orders, etc.? If we saw the need for it, sure. But we don't see the need for it at all. Quite the contrary... we are seeing fairly overwhelming evidence that we have got it "just about right" within the limitations of CM's and wargaming's general limitations (Borg effect comes to mind).

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I think people are talking past each other.

It really comes down to whether you are after realism or a balanced strategy/action game. For me this is not a close call, realism is the priority. There have to be compromises due to the fact that one person plays the roles of battalion, company, platoon and also squad and AFV commander.

I accept these compromises and would even vote for them, if asked, because the game has to be able to be played by one person. However, for me the “reason for being” of CM is to produce as realistic a simulation of WWII ground combat as technology, and factors mentioned above, will allow. CMBB is not, in my view, an action strategy game, but the most realistic simulation available, including those used by the US and other militaries.

For me, the thought of dumping down CM so as to achieve greater balance between the attacker and the defender is not an option. However, of course, BTS will be the ultimate judge of that.

When it comes to “balance” it is worth remember that in the real world most militaries work on the basis that 3:1, attacker to defender, is normally required to successfully attack, in terms of combat power anyway. So if the defender has 1,000 points, the attacker should normally have 3,000 points, not just 1,500. This is the way to address the balance issue without destroying what many of us value about CM. If you wish to attack successfully, build realistic scenarios. Give the attacker three times the points the defender has. Then you will have a balanced “and” a realistic game.

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

PS. I agree with Andreas, you “have” to get your tactics right, or you will get kicked very hard as the attacker. However, like many others, I regard this as a major improvement. You have think more, and harder, than in CMBO. For someone like me this is challenging , but even more fun if it works.

All the best,

Kip.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by PeterX:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1 - Where in CMBO the AI could mount a credible, maybe not inspired, but a decent attack if boosted up +2 in experience, in CMBB the weakness of the TacAI is exposed. The computer opponent has little success attacking as it does not maneuver well, does not learn form it's mistakes in that it apparently has no memory of where it just got the snot kicked out of it. ...

The real test of the new infantry morale model will begin with human-to-human matches via TCP or PBEM. I suspect there will be loud demands for 'balancing' on behalf of the attacking force.

IMO, defensive battles versus the AI, unless armor to armor, are no longer viable, no matter how much you jack up of the force ratios or experience levels.</font>

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by PeterX:

I'm firmly in the strongly disagree camp. I've played a bunch of battles against the AI so far and lost only in those cases where I could not, or did not, adequately support my infantry. Maybe it's just your copy of CMBB My troops are anything but wimps.

SPOILERS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The first time I played Gefechtsaufklaerung, I got swamped. I didn't lose my men, I just couldn't advance. The second time I played this, I went out and layed down the law with the arty, mortars, HMG, and AFVs while my infantry covered. And THEN they advanced.

The second time I played it, this was pretty easy. But I also didn't have a problem mopping the floor with the Germans on Yelnia. And I am most definitely not a stellar CM player, as my current CMBO PBEM opponent can attest

The same goes for Bridgeheads (that you mentioned). My second go at that was to force the Germans to surrender 7 minutes into the battle.

[PeterX]

It really comes down to whether you are after realism or a balanced strategy/action game.

I don't think it's realistic. Sorry. The intention was good but they let pendulum swing to far. Remember BFC increased the lethality of MGs in addition to softening troop morale. I think that enhancement alone would have reproduced the hazardous environment some posters in this thread claim to appreciate. At any rate, games against the AI, as defender, are history- in my opinion. You'd need to hook it up to Big Blue.

I may be wrong about this issue. We'll see as the PBEM reports come in. The crystal ball tells me players will swarm the forum lobbying for adjustments benefitting the attacker. Higher Attacker/Defender ratios will be requested- missing the real problem. Now, with all of us diddling with the AI, is premature. Time will tell.

Oh, and Andreas, you never responded to my inquiry about why you found it neceassry to max out each Allied HQ's morale in your Bridgeheads scenario....

[ September 26, 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by PeterX:

[QBHigher Attacker/Defender ratios will be requested- missing the real problem... [/QB]

If you take this tact you then are pushing for a non-realistic soloution. I think it is factual that 3:1 odds (or better) for a planned attack was normal. Certainly some attacks could not get 3:1 due to bad/poor intel, and/or any other number of reasons real or imagined at the time.

I do think that we need more ammo though for the attacker to lay effective supressing fire. THis is ony with a couple days of playing the game though...

[Sirocco]

I think a read of Hamburger Hill might give an insight into how difficult infantry finds attacking prepared defences.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I would also caution you about making sweeping statements like this. Gamers often do this when trying to make a point, which really isn't helpful. I can counter this statement easily -> many people playing Yelnia Stare (including Beta Testers) complained about it being "impossible" to win as the Germans. I agree that the AI is weaker on attack than defense (as any AI tends to be, BTW), but I think it is easily disproven that the the AI is not capable of mounting an attack under the new system. If the Human defender doesn't do a good job, the AI will punish you.

Steve

I will concur with Steve as that while the AI isn't overly "inspired" in attack, it can surprise on occasions.

On one play of that earlier Yelnia Stare demo scenario, as the German defender, it surprised me as that the T-34's came up near the crest -- and then WAITED for the Soviet infantry to close up too. As long as Soviet infantry remained by the tanks, my German tank-hunter teams couldn't get close enough. And the tanks, staying with the infantry, in turn were effective at suppressing the German MG's. Mutual support.

It doesn't always happen that way. More often, the AI attack can be uncoordinated and thus be defeated in detail. But at the least, AI infantry is reasonably attentive to using cover when trying to close in. A scenario using reasonable covered terrain, low visibility conditions, and a good AI manpower advantage could thus still be quite interesting.

[MrSpkr]

Hmm. INteresting takes.

I didn't find the greens or conscripts too brittle -- and I played a series of games this spring and summer using green and conscript troops specifically to prepare for CMBB.

In CMBO, I dealt with the same frustration of green and conscript troops breaking and staying broken. I also had to deal with the "rush the MG" issue which has now been largely addressed in CMBB.

One thing to remember -- the Russians in the early war have an effective morale penalty of -1, meening Regular troops are really Green troops; Green troops are really Conscripts; and Conscripts are really Dental Hygenists.

Jack Arrilliac said:

Sgt. Rock doesn't exist in Real Life

LIAR! He and Nick Fury are military heros!

Bloody revisionist.

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Peter - The Bridgeheads was not meant to go on the CD. Because there was space, and because it illustrates a point rather nicely, if I may so, it did end up on it.

When I designed it, I tried to recreate a Real Life™ action, where exactly the German forces that are in the scenario held off something similar to the number of Soviets in the scenario. It worked. It would never have worked in CMBO. To me that was the proof that I needed to be convinced that CMBB was better in that respect. So much for the history of that little scenario. The morale boost was just something I tried while tinkering. I did not see it make a material difference to the outcome, so I left it in. I don't think that the outcome will be any different if you remove it.

[PeterX]

The morale boost was just something I tried while tinkering. I did not see it make a material difference to the outcome, so I left it in. I don't think that the outcome will be any different if you remove it.

As an experiment, I imported the Yelnia scenario from the Demo into CMBB. I maxed out the HQ morale bonuses and raised 'fanatacism' to 50%. Only then, was the bulk of the Soviet force able to stagger up to the German MLR.

[Commissar]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

I think people are talking past each other.

It really comes down to whether you are after realism or a balanced strategy/action game. For me this is not a close call, realism is the priority. There have to be compromises due to the fact that one person plays the roles of battalion, company, platoon and also squad and AFV commander.

I accept these compromises and would even vote for them, if asked, because the game has to be able to be played by one person. However, for me the “reason for being” of CM is to produce as realistic a simulation of WWII ground combat as technology, and factors mentioned above, will allow. CMBB is not, in my view, an action strategy game, but the most realistic simulation available, including those used by the US and other militaries.

For me, the thought of dumping down CM so as to achieve greater balance between the attacker and the defender is not an option. However, of course, BTS will be the ultimate judge of that.

When it comes to “balance” it is worth remember that in the real world most militaries work on the basis that 3:1, attacker to defender, is normally required to successfully attack, in terms of combat power anyway. So if the defender has 1,000 points, the attacker should normally have 3,000 points, not just 1,500. This is the way to address the balance issue without destroying what many of us value about CM. If you wish to attack successfully, build realistic scenarios. Give the attacker three times the points the defender has. Then you will have a balanced “and” a realistic game.

All the best,

Kip.

Amen to that. Although more frustrating at times, the infantry modeling is great. It just means that I must be much more careful of what I do and actually have to worry about the effect that even one well-placed MG can do. Quite frankly, that's the way it should be. CMBB shows very well why it was critical for infantry to have support from StuGs/tanks/SUs/etc in order for them to succeed and advance with a minimum of casualties. I think people are having a harder time because the game has gotten more realistic. You change and adapt your tactics and strategy. There are plenty of other soft-core wargames that pretend at historical accuracy. CMBB doesn't need to be more like them. BFC should remain true to their manifesto and keep the realism as much as possible.

[ARRPEEGEE]

I know BFC offers the new harsh environment as more realistic, but... Maybe they got carried away. Until now, it seems like a continuation of the infantry ennui from the Demo battle, Yelnia Stare.

I think they were carried away in the last one

You could have a crack squad, give it a bonsai charge, and it'd lose every man without so much as becoming 'shaken'

Also, alot of what you're seeing is the new suppression model..troops are going to get down in MG fire, instead of walking through it like idiots.

As an experiment, I imported the Yelnia scenario from the Demo into CMBB. I maxed out the HQ morale bonuses and raised 'fanatacism' to 50%. Only then, was the bulk of the Soviet force able to stagger up to the German MLR.

There's a reason why trench warfare in WWI worked..Advancing across open ground in the face of enemy MG's usually means you're not taking the position...

Plus - That's just your experience..I, for instance, won Yelina giving the Germans +200%, no morale or HQ bonuses, whatsoever for the Russians...So..something to consider...

[ September 26, 2002, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: mch ]

[PeterX]

Steve, I justed noticed your post.

Your opinion is absolutely in the minority.

Now I know how Galileo felt.

I agree with your remarks about morale in CMBO parameters being too lenient. Now, in my opinion, they're a bit too stringent. I did win two major victories in your Yelnia Stare scenario without touching the infantry.

Cheers.

[ September 26, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by mch:

You could have a crack squad, give it a bonsai charge, and it'd lose every man without so much as becoming 'shaken'

Those ornamental trees are obviously more dangerous than they look.

[ARRPEEGEE]

Beta testers, BFC, etc..If any patch does change the infanry model, could you please make note of it on the forum? the goal being a warning for players to avoid it, or quit playing and sell their copies of the game.

[ September 26, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: mch ]