CMBB Infantry Too Brittle?

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

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

Actually, I don't think that is the central issue. These battles *are* balanced, or at least can be just as much as CMBO. The difference is that the skills required to win in certain battles might be unbalanced and more difficult to master. Unlike RTS games, simply overwhelming the opponant with numbers and/or nifty little tricks (ah... fond memories of multiplayer WC2 and Red Alert come flooding back ) isn't good enough.

My point here is that balance isn't the issue for some people, but rather pace/skill. I think some people want to feel like they are on an even playing field in terms of tactical requirements. CMBO was never like that, but the range of difference was less because the Allied and German forces weren't all that different. But comparing early war Soviet to early war German... yeah, there is a big difference

Steve

[Spook]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

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.

That reads as if dental hygenists aren't to be feared. Ha! I always fail a "morale check" in facing a teeth cleaning from a hygenist.

Though it can cut the other way. One time, while one of those damn pointy dental picks poked my gumline, I smacked down hard on the dental chair armrest. The hygenist recoiled and said, "Are you going to hit me like that?!" :eek: I replied, "No, but I'm going to hit SOMETHING!"

LIAR! He and Nick Fury are military heros!

Bloody revisionist.

Steve

What always impressed me about Nick Fury, as an agent of SHIELD, was that as a WWII veteran he could go through several following decades, all the while still smoking his cheroot cigars, and never seem to slow down.

[ September 26, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Apache]

I must admit, all this stuff sound like the makings of an EXCELLENT game. While CMBO was brilliant (IMO) I could sometimes press infantry on regardless of what was coming at them and make some kind of progress. If CMBB forces the effective and efficient use of tactics and combined arms, so much the better.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

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.

Comments like this reinforce my thinking that you need to concentrate more on new tactics and less on blaming the system I think there were more people bitching about the Soviet forces being *too strong* rather than too weak in Yelnia Stare. We had a couple of Beta Testers insisting, for example, that I swap out the common Pak36s for quite rare Pak38s because "the Soviets won too easily".

If you find it impossible to get your Soviet infantry to wipe out the Germans, then I suspect your tactics aren't up to the challenge of such a scenario. Even against the AI. Of course this will vary from player to player, lucky even to lucky event, but overall I think the weight of evidence on this Forum alone indicates that your broad statements are on a shakey foundation at best.

As I said, the vast majority of players think that we got it "about right". They, and we, do not believe that we over compensated for CMBO's shortcomings. And to back this up we cite, like Andreas, historical outcomes of real battles, recountings from veterans, and the opinions of combat infantry officers to determine if we did a good job or not. At this point in time I would say that we have, according to these other sources, hit the nail just about on the head. Therefore, if we are to make changes we will need to see a very compelling argument using similar sources for support. Failing that, no changes will be made. Currently we aren't even contemplating any changes.

So Peter, with NO offense intended, I think you need to brush up on infantry tactics specific to the command of crappy troops. If you don't want to do this or don't feel you have to, then I suggest playing more middle and late war scenarios since it appears to be crappy troops that are giving you problems.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

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.

I haven't received my copy yet, but according to the little webpage of CMBO to CMBB changes Madmatt put up when the demo was released the penalty for Russian troops is only to command delay.

[Hoopenfaust2]

Are people angry because they can't win? Do they feel cheated? I've seen some posts where someone claims they are an above average CMBO player. I love this. Is this statement based upon a win/loss ratio?

Yelnia stare can be won by just infantry alone. You have enough maxims and mortars to suppress and you have enough infantry to overwelm. Andreas™ made the greatest point of all... area fire....area fire.... area fire. It makes realistic and tactical sense. If I can't see the enemy but have some inclination as to where he is, I'm going to pour firepower into this spot. At the same time, try and move my infantry closer. In Yelnia Stare (still haven't received my copy ) I've used mounted infantry on the t-34's and moved my one platoon up as far as I could go. It worked up until 150M from the forest, where MG fire made them leap off the tanks. Sure they panicked, but only for a turn or two. They collected their wits and snuck through the brush until they were in a position to assault or area fire the forest. I then leap frog another platoon into that area where the tanks stopped. Sure I take casualties but thats part of the plan.

Reminder: How long has this game been out? A week? Maybe practice is something that makes sense here before rushing to conclusions. Most importantly, have fun. Its just a game.

Keep up the good work BFC. You've got a great product .

Cheers

Brett

[ September 26, 2002, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Hoopenfaust 101 ]

[Barrett's Privateer]

Peter,

You have a valid point.

The concept of play balance is only partially defined by tactial applications and can be analysised completely independantly of 'realism' debates.

That is, unless you're playing historical 'Alamo' scenarios where outcomes are virtually inevitable.

In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.

My impression is that CMBB does not pass the above test.

CMBB play appears biased in balance, being dependant on a VERY particular strategical approach that based upon playtester opinions is 'realistic'.

Speaking of- Have any recognised experts in this area of military history been asked to endorse the game? Personally, I'd love to hear what even a general military historian (like John Keegan, Sandhurst) thinks.

By the by to Spook-

Nick Fury was given the infinity formula, similar to Captain America's super soldier formula which gives both longevity.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Barrett's Privateer:

In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.

My impression is that CMBB does not pass the above test.

CMBB play appears biased in balance, being dependant on a VERY particular strategical approach that based upon playtester opinions is 'realistic'.

Sorry, I really fail to understand what you talk about here. Biased towards or against what? Attacker? Defender? Infantry? Tanks?

How can 'CMBB' fail that test? Individual scenarios certainly can. How often have you played it to come to that conclusion, how many games against the AI, how many against humans?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Barrett's Privateer:

In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.

My impression is that CMBB does not pass the above test.

I don't understand your point. A meeting engagement, with the same forces on either side, will pass that test in CMBO and CMBB. And by definition, CMBB is not guaranteed to provide a level playing field.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Barrett's Privateer:

CMBB play appears biased in balance, being dependant on a VERY particular strategical approach that based upon playtester opinions is 'realistic'.

I didn't know that fire and manuever and combined arms were very particular.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Barrett's Privateer:

In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.

My impression is that CMBB does not pass the above test.

Now that simply is fallacious. The only contest I can think of in which two players of equal skill each have a 50% chance of winning without regards to whether their in-game decisions are wise in light of the game and its rules is, well, calling a coin toss.

Unless of course, one of the players decides to call the coin as landing on it's edge.

Chess is probably the most balanced game out there. If you do not coordinate the use of your pieces with one another, you will lose, pure and simple.

In other words, you decide not to castle when you should or just move that knight out across the field without any support, and you will pay for it.

Similarly, in CMBB, if you do not soften up suspected enemy positions with area fire, protect your troops as they advance with smoke shells, and locate and destroy threats to your armor so that they can support your infantry attack, you will lose.

What is so 'unbalanced' about that?

The first time most people play chess against someone who is an experienced player, they will lose.

The same is true of CMBB. Heck, my biggest gripe is that I TRIED to use good tactics in CMBO -- area fire, MG suppression, etc. -- but was not as successful because the game didn't model that correctly.

So, in order to win, I learned bad habits, like charging a couple of platoons at a machine gun and expecting to take it with only a few casualties.

Now I have to unlearn those bad habits and get back to good ones.

Once you learn good tactics -- covering fire, use of obstacles to cover troops movement for as long as possible, effective combined arms tactics, proper overwatch advances, etc., you will be more successful at CMBB too.

Steve

[Hoopenfaust2]

(whoa)

[ September 26, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Hoopenfaust 101 ]

[Grisha]

This thread really defines the difference between 'wargamer' and 'gamer.' The former is interested in seeing as realistic a simulation of a given conflict as is possible with the resources at hand, so as to understand the concerns and difficulties of the period in question. The latter is interested in seeing a contest that guarantees equality of resources so as to determine the outcome, based on a singular definition of 'skill.' What CMBB is foremost is a wargame, not a game.

[Stixx]

Originally posted by Grisha:

This thread really defines the difference between 'wargamer' and 'gamer.' The former is interested in seeing as realistic a simulation of a given conflict as is possible with the resources at hand, so as to understand the concerns and difficulties of the period in question. The latter is interested in seeing a contest that guarantees equality of resources so as to determine the outcome, based on a singular definition of 'skill.' What CMBB is foremost is a wargame, not a game.

Damn Grisha, that is almost worthy of being put in to a signature!

Well said mate!

Stix

[lassner.1]

I could not disagree more strongly with PeterX. The infantry game feels quite good now - and far more correct with respect to WWII tactics.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Barrett’s Privateer wrote,

“In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.”

To my mind any tactical military game that is realistic, will not pass the above test, nor should it. The reason is that often, but not always, attack is more challenging than defense. In defense it is often, but again not always the case, that you can to some extent, sit back and rely on firepower alone to win the day. In a realistic tactical game, you need to know what you are about to win when in attack. Learning these skills, having to think a lot, is all part of the fun.

I can define exactly what I mean by realism in a simulation. By realism I mean that given the tactical environment, forces on each side, terrain and so on … and given the decisions taken by both players, the outcome is that which it is likely to have been in reality.

For the reasons I have explained, Barrett’s Privateer’s definition of “play balance” would not pass my definition of “realism.”

Take time to develop the required skills, and CMBB is balanced. The fact that it is very challenging, is a plus point, not a negative.

All the best,

Kip.

BTW, I use the same definition of “realism” as the US Army does in similar simulations. I have read their own internal reviews of games such as TacOps and Steel Beasts and the officers that use TacOps and Steel Beasts are fans of it for identical reasons to my high opinion of CMBB.

[WWB]

Originally posted by Barrett's Privateer:

Peter,

In my mind, true play balance is by definition a contest in which matched players of ANY equal skill will have a 50-50% chance to win a game.

My impression is that CMBB does not pass the above test.

Sorry to be so blunt, but that is a crockload of bull. CMBB games are won by tactics--I have punished and been punished both attacking and defending. True, one must unlearn alot of CMBO tricks and learn what works, but the better tactics will previal in the end.

CMBB play appears biased in balance, being dependant on a VERY particular strategical approach that based upon playtester opinions is 'realistic'.

Combat ain't no arcade game. And the attacker has it rough in many ways. The defender also has some issues to deal with, like being outnumbered and relying on fixed points where firepower can be massed.

Are you saying that CMBO where hordes of SMG toting infantry could run about the battlefield with little to fear from weapons which made real soldiers eat dirt was more realistic?

Speaking of- Have any recognised experts in this area of military history been asked to endorse the game? Personally, I'd love to hear what even a general military historian (like John Keegan, Sandhurst) thinks.

Interesting idea, but Keegan will be the first to tell you he has never been under fire. I would place alot more weight in words of those who have.

WWB

[lassner.1]

To add to what wbb_99 just wrote:

When I played CMBO with those friends of mine who were officers in the U.S. army, and who were on the ground in the Gulf War, they always remarked that CMBO was ludicrously off-base when it came to portraying infantry assaults.

I too feel that CMBB is a far better simulation of infantry behavior under fire than CMBO. And for what it is worth, I am an Assistant Professor of Military History at the Air Command and Staff College, Air University.

That said, all the views I have expressed above are my own and do not represent those of the U.S. Air Force, the DOD, or the U.S. Government. (Ya, ya, I know, its a bit much, but those are the rules).

[Lt. Kije]

Well, the wargamer in me is glumly content with the new order of things. "I suppose I'd go to ground too, were I to hear the zip of lead passing by me. It's clearly up to me to learn how to deal with this."

[bTW, has anyone been watching the re-release of the Civil War by Ken Burns on PBS the past few nights? Again and again, stories are told of vast seas of men grimly marching forward across an open field toward prepared positions, the air "alive with lead". And march they did. Even if they had done this before and knew full well what the likely outcome was.]

The gamer in me, however, wants to know how to deal with distant light guns and rifles breaking my veteran Panzergrenadiers crossing open ground. To be able to see where the fire is coming from, I need to get closer. Even Conscript opposing forces are often invisible from any significant distance. In many cases my men seem to go to ground or break with no indication where the fire is coming from. Even if I know it must be coming from somewhere 'over there', I rapidly run out of ammo sending prep and suppressive fire out to all the various woods, trees, and grassy knolls 'over there'. And even then I discover that not all the Conscript guys lay down or ran away. Some just sit hidden in their foxhole, sharpening the ends of their bullets, waiting for my prep fire to let up.

I hope to learn, learn, and learn. But at the moment, I agree with the above folks who have asked for twice the ammo, twice the units on attack, or twice the number of turns in which to crawl to the objective.

It's a death march, lads. A death march.

-- Lt. Kije

Moving toward enlightenment, just as a monkey climbing higher in the tree is moving closer to the moon.

[ September 26, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Lt. Kije ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Lt. Kije:

[bTW, has anyone been watching the re-release of the Civil War by Ken Burns on PBS the past few nights? Again and again, stories are told of vast seas of men grimly marching forward across an open field toward prepared positions, the air "alive with lead". And march they did. Even if they had done this before and knew full well what the likely outcome was.]

How many machine-guns were opposing Pickett's charge again?

[DougieB]

Hi All (Those lucky b`s who already have CMBB)

We poor Anglos have now to wait until 10/11 for CDV version.

But I digress.

I fought Yelnia Stare in the Demo as Axis with no modifications to either side and won a tac victory although the Russian hordes were almost on top of me, but I still held all VPs but one.

For those who think the inf too brittle I disagree. Fire and movement are the criteria to be applied here. Buit maybe when I receive the full game I may be of a different opinion. Still I thought CMBO was fantastic and judging from the comments on this forum from those playing. I think CMBB will be even better.

Douglas (aka DougieB)

Belfast NI (UK) :cool:

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[snips]

I can define exactly what I mean by realism in a simulation. By realism I mean that given the tactical environment, forces on each side, terrain and so on … and given the decisions taken by both players, the outcome is that which it is likely to have been in reality.

Ah, "realism" again, Kip -- I said I'd have to have words with you about this, didn't I?

The obvious trouble with this definition, of course, is that it is not possible to tell what is likely to happen in reality; if it were, many of the purposes to which simulation modelling is put could better be fulfilled by other means.

A particularly common flavour of error (usually in the context of simulation validation, a fruitful source of arguments with non-simulationists) is the supposition that a simulation is somehow "accurate" or "realistic" or "valid" if the results of the simulation match some set of historical results. This attitude produces such silliness as a team at RMCS using a combat model to re-fight the battle of Medenine, and, presumably, coming to the conclusion that history was correct; although, as there was only one replication of the historical battle as against their ten or twenty model runs, I don't understand how they can be confident that the historical result wasn't an outlier.

But even if you have a large and representative body of accuately-collected historical data (which, if you read the standard intro to British WW2 OR reports, you will realise never happens) that are genuinely interpretable in terms of some simulation outputs (and there are some intractable philosophical problems about this, for which see Jerry Weinerg's introduction to General Systems Theory) you would only be looking at correlation, not necessarily cause, unless you have some insight into the mechanisms that influence the results. It is easily possible to imagine an entirely fantasmagorical simulation mechanism, bearing no resemblance to anything in real life, that, thanks to a conflation of counteracting errors, contrives to finally produce a "correct" result (there is a real-life example of this kind of counteracting errors in the aerodynamic modelling of the Handley-Page Victor tailplane). It is, therefore, for simulation models, quite useless to look at outcomes; you need to look at mechanisms. What matters is not that the answer is 42, but why it is 42.

Sorry to bang on, but it's quite a fundamental point to the whole of simulation modelling.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

BTW, I use the same definition of “realism” as the US Army does in similar simulations. I have read their own internal reviews of games such as TacOps and Steel Beasts and the officers that use TacOps and Steel Beasts are fans of it for identical reasons to my high opinion of CMBB.

Let's hope the U S Army doesn't make too much of a habit of throwing "realism" around in sloppy fashion.

All the best,

John.

[tabpub]

It is fun to watch the "viruses" and "anti-bodies" battle it out in these types of threads.. I am betting on the anti-bodies on this one..any takers...

[PeterX]

It is fun to watch the "viruses" and "anti-bodies" battle it out in these types of threads.. I am betting on the anti-bodies on this one..any takers...

Excuse me?

[Tarquelne]

The latter is interested in seeing a contest that guarantees equality of resources so as to determine the outcome, based on a singular definition of 'skill.'

Damn Grisha, that is almost worthy of being put in to a signature!