So far I don't like CMBB...

[Stephen Smith]

...and its my own damn fault!

I agree with alot of posters; infantry breaks too easily. I also agree with their detractors, though; this is entirely realistic. After having played about 5 games of CMBB, I have come to the realization that I don't want realism, I want the idealized impression of being a battalion/company commander. I'm getting the realistic impression of being a battalion/company commander, and its not as fun.

CMBB has done an excellent job of increasing the realism over CMBO. I have no doubt that managing a company is closer to the 'real thing' in CMBB than it is in CMBO. What does that mean though? That simply getting your guys to run in a straight line without running away or shooting each other is a full time job. Unfortunately, that's not what I now realize that I really want. What I want is a 'movie'(or 'Squad Leader') version of being a commander, in which the maneuver of squads, leapfrogging from cover to cover forward, and the coordination of firepower and maneuver will allow me to win. We had that in CMBO. We rightly pointed out that it wasn't realistic. We no longer have that in CMBB. The harsh reality is that it's just not as fun.

I have played about 5 games of CMBB: the two on the demo, Cemetary Hill, 'bridge' something (Germans defend a bridge adjacent to a large lake at night). In each one, the attacks are roughly similar to those in Yelnia stare: every attacker can see every defender (and vice-versa), so there is really no reason for maneuver. The attacker fires with some of his force, and runs forward with part of his force. Repeat for 15 turns, as your moving units quickly rotate between suppressed, panicked, ok, moving, routed, firing, running. See if you've reached the objective by the end of the scenario. In the 'bridge' scenario as the defending Germans, I literally 1) moved my tanks towards the Russian tanks, and 2) hit 'go' 21 times until the scenario ended. All my guys were firing, so there was no reason to maneuver anybody (and if I tried, they would have broken/panicked between buildings anyway, so why bother?). I bet playing the defending Germans in Yelnia Stare would be similar; just hit 'go' and allow your guys to automatically fire at the oncoming horde until the game is over.

I feel like CM has gone through the same evolution that Squad Leader did. SL was a fun, balanced, reasonably realistic game. Playing it, you 'felt' like a battalion/company commander, firing and maneuvering to victory. Squads had 3 status's; ok, broken, and dead. At the battalion commander level, that's all you need.

It was rightly pointed out that this wasn't realistic; squads could have lots of status's; cowering, squatting behind a wall rather than standing behind a wall; pinned, but not broken; half dead; dead; ok, etc etc etc. So rules were created to make the game 'more realistic.' Playing the gamettes (and, I imagine, ASL), one no longer felt like a company/battalion commander; one felt like 30 squad leaders, micromanaging the particular mood (pinned, broken, cowering, etc), the particular location (kneeling behind a wall, in the building in the hex, outside of the building within the same hex, etc etc). It became (at least for me) a tedious game of micromanagement.

And I feel the same way with CMBB. Too much micromanagement of individual squad mood, those squads are just too fickle! In CMBO, I 'felt' like I was giving orders to a squad to "rush forward to that woodline and set up a hasty defense. If you make it, the other two squads will follow." In CMBB, the squad will simply panic too quickly, unless I micromanage the suppressive fire of each overwatching squad; unless I micromanage the squad to 'advance for 50 yards, then crawl for 30, then human wave for the final 60" or whatever. Because I don't have the interest in doing that, I end up doing alot of 'mass attacks'. And so, apparently, does the AI.

In each scenario I've played thus far, because 1) infantry breaks so easily and 2) all defenders can see and fire on all attackers, there is no reason for any maneuver. Pick a spot, set half your force (usually machine guns and tanks) to 'fire', set half your force (infantry) to move, and move forward toward the flag. Hit go 15 times and see whether you win. Yelnia Stare was like that, Cemetary Hill was like that the 'bridge' scenario was like that, even the demo tank battle was essentially 'Germans drive forward until the scenario is over).

I find it interesting that in CMBO I enjoyed the basic fire and maneuver of the game so much, I essentially played quick battles all the time-I still haven't played over half the scenarios on the CD (though several that I have played; Elsdorf, the Operation Varsity paratroop attack, the Mortain operation- are phenomenal!).

In CMBB, I don't enjoy the simple process of fire and maneuver enough to want to play a quick battle; I keep hoping an included scenario will be 'it.' I'll finally 'get' it and start to enjoy the actual process of playing the game. So far it hasn't happened. I would still rather play a generic 'capture the village' quick battle in CMBO than replay any of the scenarios I've played in CMBB. Admittedly, I haven't played alot, but I have the sneaking suspicion that won't change.

Why is it? Like I said, its my own damn fault!!! I was one of those people that thought the game was imbalanced because a typical attacker to defender ratio was only 1.5:1 or so (realistically should be 3:1). I was one of those people who thought the Russian hordes had to have their own rules (simulating them with low morale conscripts wouldn't be 'realistic'). I got exactly what I asked for. Now, playing Russians is about as tedious as being an actual Russian company commander (mass with machine guns on one side, mass with infantry on the other, human wave for 15 turns). It's impossible to maneuver against a machine gun without overwhelming firepower (which means one machine gun slows an attack down to a snail-like pace; 3 turn the scenario into tedium). Realistically, it would be quite an accomplishment to get a platoon across an open field into an occupied woodline beyond in 20 minutes. We now have realistic. Oh joy.

My sense from some of the posts here is that at least some people agree with me. The whole 'is infantry too brittle' argument isn't really a question of 'is infantry unrealistically brittle?'. Rather, its 'is infantry too brittle to be fun to play with?' I'll keep playing the CMBB scenarios. Maybe I don't 'get' it yet, maybe the maps are too open and flat (thus making it hard to maneuver, hard to isolate part of the battlefield, whatever), maybe there's something else that's causing all this debate. But I have the sneaking suspicion that once the 'newness' of CMBB wears off, and T-34s are as passe as sherman tanks, the simple (though more unrealistic) fire and maneuver of CMBO will 'win out' over the realistic molasses of CMBB.

Steve

p.s. I haven't read much of Quick battles in CMBB. Is anyone playing them?

[Soddball]

I love QBs against the AI. Keep the points at 500 or less, turns at 20 or less, and set everything to random. Pick Axis one time, Allies the next, and play till you drop!

I can see what you mean about more depth meaning less fun (I think that's what you mean )I am enjoying QBs much more than scenarios, primarily I think because my PC is struggling so much with scenarios over 1,000 pts per side. I haven't started PBEM or TCP/IP on CMBB and I think that'll be the big test for me.

If you want to PBEM someone, email me and we'll see if we can't make it fun again

[blackbellamy]

If you want to avoid the "move forward, click go, repeat 15 times" i would suggest you try Mobile Defense operation as the Germans, or the Magnuszew Bridgehead operation as either side.

[Abbott]

I have found I enjoy CMBB improvements very much. The infantry model works very well in the PBEM games I am playing. I have also found CMBB breathes new life into battle verse the AI. OB’s have become much more challenging and I especially enjoy the 500-600 point battles I set up.

What I have found with the infantry model is that patience is a virtue. Careful planning goes a long way towards successful infantry attacks. I have not found it to be that much more difficult nor time consuming then CMBO. I have found I need a few more turns in an infantry advance then I did im CMBO. I have also found timing of attacks or advances is a key issue.

Proper support fire can not be stressed enough. Be it machine gun fire, on board mortar fire, direct HE fire or off board artillery. Smoke is a great asset, as most of us know as well. Timing an advance or attack is also of critical importance. I have employed a small diversion to another point on the battlefield at times, then advanced my infantry in another sector successfully. I am still learning the intricacies of CMBB’s infantry model and fully expect to find even more workable techniques in the future.

As far as exhaustion of my infantry units the only time it becomes an issue is after units go to ground and exhaust themselves crawling. I also find this a bit annoying but do not take issue with it. I have found in several battles that I am fighting a 2-squad platoon as my other squads, recieved fire and cowered, falling behind the advance. About half the time they catch up and rejoin in the fighting.

I have come to the conclusion as well that some battlefields I am presented with just do not allow successful infantry advances with my skills. Sometimes I just have to accept that a cease-fire may be in order after a risky plan of attack has failed. Try as I might in some situations I just can not succeed. I am in complete agreement, CMBB has turned up the realism a few notches. More fun? Yes, I find it quite enjoyable and a large improvement.

[Duke of Earl]

Be careful what you wish for... you may just get it... or words to that effect...

I find that the Infantry micromanagement requirements of CMBB are much more intense than CMBO... so now, I must function on the practical level of a Squad or Platoon Commander... instead of a Company or Battalion Commander as before... otherwise, I will not have any chance of success in a canned scenario or random quick battle...

Moreover... in larger battles and operations... the micromanagement technique needed to preserve the fragile fighting ability of the CMBB Infantry... is very time consuming and fraught with errors...

Once all of your tank, artillery, mortar and machine gun support is bogged down, jammed up, ammoed out or just plain blown up... then you might as well pull out and send all the Infantry back to the bivouac... because you aren't going anywhere anymore... except to the rear...

So, it's details, details and more details... every Infantry move must now be meticulously planned down to the last boot, bullet and second... special 'weasel' tactics have to learned, memorized and rehearsed over and over... geeesh... I need some more Field Manuals...

Good news for me is that the CMBB micromanagement required for armour and artillery assets has not intensified that much from CMBO... i.e. tanks still behave just about like before in CMBO... except for this 'bailing out' stuff... if I wanted tank crews and halftrack crews to bail out whenever they felt like it... I'd have given them parachutes... hahahahahaha

Anyway... I can still usually use group moves for Armoured platoons without having to individually plot every last inch of every movement path for each and every tank or halftrack...

However, setting firing arcs for each unit is a different matter... it is tedious and fraught with errors as well... I would like to see a function so that I could quickly set a joint firing arc for a platoon of tanks or group of AT guns, etc., etc and then move on to the next group.... or something similar to that... just wish list stuff though...

CMBB is a real challenge and I will continue my explorations of all of the Russian Fronts... but the increased micromanagment required for Infantry tactics dulls my enjoyment somewhat...

Cordialement, Duke of Earl

[ November 01, 2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Duke of Earl ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

~post deleted~

[ November 02, 2002, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Soddball]

Cut it in half? I doubt it.

[Agua]

Originally posted by Abbott:

I have come to the conclusion as well that some battlefields I am presented with just do not allow successful infantry advances with my skills.

He he hehee. Setting the QB to random everything with computer picked forces, I got a North region, February, no snow, treeless, flat, infantry only, attack QB, the other night, with the defender in trenches, a single stone wall and a peasant shack for cover. It went about as you imagine.

[flamingknives]

Yes, the simple option is to set up your troops and press go until turn number equals max turns.

What makes it fun is trying to find a way around this. Using distractions to capture an MGs attention whilst making a run down the other flank, guessing where the enemy will be and laying down suppressive fire before you see them and more make the game interesting.

It sucks when you come up against a KV1 in '41, and all you have is 37mm AT guns, but there is more than one way to skin a tank. Take your time is my advice.

[Sigurd]

Stephen, I understand that too much micro-management can bother you, as i believe you are more interested by the "strategical" aspect of the game : " "What if" that platoon attacks bay this way of approcach". then the tactical implementation of this order is some mandatory thing to do, in order to see if your idea was right or not, through the (for me) rather realistic game-engine.

Actually, it works in such a way for me. I experiment some tactics, and enjoy a lot all the feed-back the game gives me (the "result" of the experiment) : i can see which platoon routed and why, how was the penetration my tank made to that T-34,etc.

Me too find the new care, demanded by the more "realistic" engine in CMBB, rather painful *if* you play >800 pts Scenarios or QB.

Plotting "move sneak advance" in CMBB instead of CMBO can be very enjoyful in company-sized battles, as a true pain for 2 000 pts battles... In that latter case, i feel like a over-worked teacher with 700 dumb kids unable to advance under fire, if i don't carefully explain to each one individually how to do...

So, to return to your post, just pick battles adapted to your style of play : instead of infantery or tanks slug-fest in the open (like yelnia stare), try closed-LOS small-sized battles, so the micro-management won't hurt you too much.

[Capt. Toleran]

I can't really relate to the complaints, but this might be because I almost never play single-player games. I'm almost exclusively a PBEM player, though I have messed around with a couple of the scenarios that came with the game, and beat Cemetary Hill as the Germans on the second try.

I think scenarios like Yelnia Stare are atypical of what the CMBB gaming experience is about. Those scenarios maximize the defender's advantage, and place a severe handicap on the attacker. Early on I realized that the scenarios that came with the game, at least in the smaller size, were far too frustrating in their design, and since CM has always been about playing real people for me anyway, I have stuck with multiplayer games.

Having played around 15-20 PBEM games now, I find that infantry are not that brittle at all, once you figure out what you can and can't get away with. I don't find myself micromanaging any more than CMBO, and I almost never use the human wave command with the Russians.

If you use random or agreed-upon maps while playing an opponent, both sides should have ample opportunity to prove their mettle. Defensive games will almost never look like Yelnia Stare if they are planned fairly -- I for one would never agree to a situation like that one, as it's just not fun.

[ November 01, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]

[dalem]

Unfortunately I'm right there with you Stephen.

-dale

[Dar]

Colonel Deadmarsh:

Instead of these ridiculous claims that BTS has lost half of their customer base, or that only .000001% of us like the game, or that no one plays it, how about setting up a poll or a thread for those who don't like the new system to respond? Just a straight "post if you're unhappy with new model" thread that doesn't ask for elaboration or opinion, but just requests nay-sayers to reply and be counted?

Some hard numbers might just give BTS an idea of how many people are happy and how many aren't.

[Agua]

Guys, give it a chance. It takes some getting used to, but you have to use the new infantry movement commands. You still use, generally, the same tactics you used in CMBO, you just have to go more slowly - don't try to cover as much ground in each order. Stephen, this may be a result, to some extent, of the scenarios you have chosen to play. There's one on the CD named "Hill 312" that works as a good infantry "training" scenario. Think about what the new commands do, use the terrain just like in CMBO, don't ask a single unit / platoon to do too much in one turn, focus your support teams to the immediate task confronting your infantry, and give that one a try.

[Andrew H.]

I like CMBB much better and won't go back to CMBO. I think that most people feel that way; nothing on this board or the (comatose) CMBO board makes me thing that BFC has lost half their customer base.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Agua:

Guys, give it a chance. It takes some getting used to, but you have to use the new infantry movement commands. You still use, generally, the same tactics you used in CMBO, you just have to go more slowly - don't try to cover as much ground in each order. Stephen, this may be a result, to some extent, of the scenarios you have chosen to play. There's one on the CD named "Hill 312" that works as a good infantry "training" scenario. Think about what the new commands do, use the terrain just like in CMBO, don't ask a single unit / platoon to do too much in one turn, focus your support teams to the immediate task confronting your infantry, and give that one a try.

Agua-

I myself am trying all those things - smaller scenarios, etc. The issue isn't whether I comprehend how to attack in the new system, it's whether it interests me to do so or not.

Basically I'm trying to find something about the new tempo that interests me.

But thank you (and everyone else who is being constructive for us laggards) for your comments. Hopefully I'll convert successfully.

-dale

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Amen Steven! You've touched upon what I was saying in the other thread. The "fun" has been taken out of the game for most of us. Sure, there will be a group of players like Abbott who like the new ultr-realism, but the fact is, the rest of us don't want this kind of game.

BTS has just cut their customer base in half. Hope it was worth it...

I strongly disagree.

The "fun" is very much alive in this game. In fact, it's more fun because I have greater options and control over my units. Folks complaining about the realism of "brittle troops" need to stop using cheap crappy troops. Folks complaining about the openness of maps need to start playing a varity of maps, not just the ones with wide open Steppes. Russia and Eastern Europe is not just open steppe land, there's a wide range of landscapes across region. But, when you do play the wide open maps, you need to re-educate yourselves. You must learn a new set of tactics, not use the ones you learned on the Western Front in CMBO.

The fact is that most of us do want the ultra-realism, that's the whole philosophy behind CM. That's why we bought the game in the first place, Close Combat and Steel Panthers just don't cut it.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Amen Steven! You've touched upon what I was saying in the other thread. The "fun" has been taken out of the game for most of us. Sure, there will be a group of players like Abbott who like the new ultr-realism, but the fact is, the rest of us don't want this kind of game.

BTS has just cut their customer base in half. Hope it was worth it...

Ouch! That's harsh. While I don't doubt there are those amongst your angst-riddled crowd, I hardly think it to be a 50/50 split.

I guess I'm with Abbott, give me realism anyday! And the changes from CMBO to CMBB are definitely headed in the right direction.

Suppression is paramount for manuever now, just as it should be.

Good thing CMBO is still around for those who don't like the greater fidelity of CMBB.

[ November 01, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[jgdpzr]

Sorry, double post.

[ November 01, 2002, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

[aka_tom_w]

I hope the Colonel does not mind if I quote him in this Thread:

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Abbott, you make up the .00000000000001 percent of people who like playing this kind of ultra-realistic game. If you're a casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win, these new changes ruin the game. Most wargamers still want what is essentially a game. The keyword there is "game." It's supposed to be fun to play. More realism (if that's true with the effect we have in CMBB now) doesn't always translate into a better game. It can actually detract from the game's playability.

I predict a lot of unhappy customers stuck with a game they don't want and can't return due to BTS's no-return policy. This will translate into much lower sales when the next version comes out.

I don't disagree with what they're trying to do but they went way, way, way too far in implementing this new realism to the point where they've taken the fun out of the game.

I would guess the game is selling very well. I would also predict that when the offer the CMII rewrite it

will sell VERY well also.

I am VERY happy they did not make a game for the "casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win"

I am VERY happy that they made a WWII combat simulation the rewards players for keeping their

men and units ALIVE and out of the line of fire (generally )

My guess is the Abbott might reprsent the "wargamer grog" that was in fact (I think) the target

market for CMBO, (sadly CMBO missed the the mark of being the Realistic Combat simulator that

CMBB is) bUT since CMBO was not perfect it was MORE fun to play and we ended up with an attempt

at realistic combat simulator that was still "somewhat" "gamey" and really fun to play.

BTS has finally honed the game to the state it is now so they could get it JUST where they want it.

(well almost, a few patches to follow). So you can surely appreciate (maybe you can't) that they

re-worked the CMBO game engine to make CMBB the HARD realistic combat simulator that it is

presumably (if you read their old manifesto) because they wanted to make the KIND of combat

simulator they themselves are interested in playing, the kind of realistic simulated experience in

"gaming" that no one else is offering !!

I truly hope they care less for the tastes of the "majority" of casual gamers or a ladder players who

play to win and continue to offer more realistic games for those in the clear minority that appreciate

their effort.

I am surprised you have chosen to complain about the no return policy. Firstly you played (I presume)

the same DULL and BORING demo scenario's that I did and yet you STILL ordered the game,

secondly, if you dislike the game that much sell it on ebay apparently it will sell fast and you can still

get most/some of your money back .

-tom w

[ November 01, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Terence]

I had a lot of fun playing Clash of Minors or whatever that scenario on the CD is where the Hungarians play the Romanians, or something.

You guys should try that one. It reminded me of the fun days playing CMBO.

[Capt. Toleran]

To me, the game is better than ever. In CMBO it really pissed me off that MGs were so undermodeled (and thus tended to be a waste of points). Now MGs have some real value.

I still think Yelnia Stare was not a good scenario for the demo. It gave too many people the preconcieved notion that infantry was going to be too difficult to use. Now that I've been playing for over a month, maneuvering infantry in a safe way comes second-nature.

The whole underpinning of the CM concept is realism. That's why there is such meticulous detail paid to tank armor, slopes, penetration models, etc. -- for BTC to ignore similar factors with regards to infantry would be a travesty.

The game is great as is, and I know I am enjoying it a lot more now.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

Keep in mind that EVERYTHING is open to personal opinion. One opinion is not necessarily more more less valid than another's. However, claims like Colonel_Deadmarsh's are classic "I have an opinion so obviously it is fact that I am not in the minority because my opinion means more than others"

BTS has just cut their customer base in half. Hope it was worth it...

Sure it was worth it. Not because our sales were cut in half, but because they (so far) are in excess of CMBO's. Oooops... did I just point out that you really stuck your foot in it? I guess I did. But SOMEONE needs to get a dose of reality, and having just done the end of the month sales figures an hour ago... I can assure you it isn't me!

But back to the real discussion instead of silly claims made by people who don't know what they are talking about...

"Fun" is a very subjective thing. I bet that 99 out of a 100 PC gamers would not find CMBO fun at all. Probably 999,999 run of the mill gamers (including GameBoy) out of 1,000,000 would not find CMBO fun. Why is that? Because it is a niche product designed for a niche audience. You can define that niche however you care to, but the simple fact is CM's sales potential is miniscule compared to the top sellers. Hell, I just saw TV ads for a friggin SOUNDTRACK album for Grand Theft Auto 3! I SOUNDTRACK!! Hopefully this will put things into perspective a bit better.

OK, so if "fun" is thought of as a broadly defined concept, CMBO was not any more "fun" than CMBB based on one perspective. For the vast, VAST majority neither were any fun. But obviously some people disagreed with the heards of the masses and found CMBO fun. That is why there was a sequel

CMBO was always designed, from the get go, to be a game which simulated reality as best as possible within certain parameters chosen (not a command level game) or practical (AI limitations, limited time, etc.). We did not ever think of "fun" when we designed the game. The "fun" was the assumed end result of having a cool and realistic game environment. Thank God we were right or I would be flipping burgers at the local grease pit

CMBB is nothing more than a continuation of CMBO. The next one we make will be yet another continuation. We could not possible take the "fun out of it" because we NEVER put it in (technically). Obviously every person's individual definition of "fun" varies, so we can not expect everybody who liked ASL to like CMBO, nor everybody who liked CMBO to like CMBB. Just as we can't expect people who liked Sudden Strike and Medle of Honor to like CM of any flavor, past, present or future.

The short of it is... those of you who are complaining about the fun being removed need to keep in mind that this is a very personal opinion limited to your own perceptions and expectiations. Others might come to similar conclusions, but that does not mean we screwed up and that everybody who LOVES the changes are wrong and/or are in the minority.

From what we have seen during testing, here on this BBS, and from sales is that overall CMBB is seen as a great improvement over CMBO. It is also considered to be more challenging and less "gamey". This will no doubt bother some people as it does excite others. There is no way around this and therefore it doesn't bother us.

For those of you who find the new orders system and unit interactions in need of more micromanagement... I might suggest trying the opposite. Just because options are available doesn't mean you need to use them. For example, I issue Cover Arcs as exceptions rather than as a rule. And do I still kick ass? You bet. The reason is that none of the new CMBB features are manditory, only good tactical and strategical planning and executuion are. If you stumble there, no number of Cover Arcs are going to save you. They will just cause frustration.

Well, that is my 2 bits worth Bottom line is to keep one's own opinions in perspective and to understand that liking or disliking the changes does not mean anything in a larger sense.

Steve

[Soddball]

For me, Steve, it comes down to one thing. I liked CM:BO in particular because I was able to play the Brits, Canadians and Americans and have lots of exciting Band of Brothers/Bridge too far heroes/villians battles. With TWO villians - it's that much harder

Thanks for your input, I am glad CMBB is selling so well. Has your linking up with CDV made a significant difference in European sales?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sure it was worth it. Not because our sales were cut in half, but because they (so far) are in excess of

CMBO's. Oooops... did I just point out that you really stuck your foot in it? I guess I did. But

SOMEONE needs to get a dose of reality, and having just done the end of the month sales figures an

hour ago... I can assure you it isn't me!

Steve

Hi Steve

Thats GREAT news!!

Congrats, thanks for the prompt and timely reply..

if I may ask for a clarification (Sheepish question). Are you refering to the fact that in the first month of CMBB sales you sold more CMBB copies than ALL sales of CMBO combined over time, OR meaning the first month of CMBB sales was greater than the first month of CMBO sales??

(sorry)

just curious

-tom w

[ November 01, 2002, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]