So far I don't like CMBB...

[Renaud]

I've gotten a friend and his roomy to buy CMBB, who would not buy CMBO formerly. They are loving it. Working on a 3rd guy...

[Ken Talley]

I think CMBB is really quite an improvement over CMBO in so many ways. Infantry, in particular, is more rewarding to play. Once I got used to the system, I no longer have problems with exhaustion or movement paces. The increased firepower of infantry was a surprise but works both equally well for offense or defense. Much, much better than CMBO.

But two points can spoil the fun and lead to a lot of frustration. Playing in flat, open terrain and using green/conscript troops. I avoid those two situations and have a great time.

[Epée]

I am not a grog, and realism details never bothered me much (i.e., never thought about MGs being bad in CMBO, don't care if armour penetration in a tank is not correctly modelled, etc) - I just play the game as it is, and learn how to use my assest as they are.

Yes, CMBB was different, infantry tactics had to be adjusted coming from CMBO - but I didn't even think twice about it. Just learnt to play it. I haven't played CMBO since. I guess many people are just like me...not that worried about realism details, but love CM for what it is.

[zukkov]

forgive me if someone has already said this. i skipped most of the responses to reply..

it seems obvious to me that some players are just not going to "get it" with this game. for them i feel sorry. everybody has different comfort levels of fun vs reality and that's just the way it is. some will get there in time, but for others cmbb may never feel right. so be it, that's the gaming biz. i for one would be severely disappointed if bfc were to tweak the game back in the direction of cmbo. to me it has the right mixture of playability and realism. i hope most of you feel the same way...

[Stoffel]

I think a simple way to develop new infantry tactics is look at the terrain,the Vl's and your troops.

than you should think as an individual soldier or try to amgine what he might think if you give your orders

[Andrew H.]

My experience with infantry in CMBB has been like that of a lot of people here: initially I had trouble making the infantry do what I wanted it to do, but after a week or so of playing the game constantly, my troops will pretty much do what I want them to do. (Although what I want them to do is,of course, limited by my understanding of what they can do).

It's possible that there is some tweaking that should be done for sneaking/exhaustion routine - perhaps non-panicked troops should sneak toward their objectives until they are tired, and then try to Hide until they are more rested or their morale recovers. (As a tip, I often find that hiding is the best response to the unexpected appearance of enemy tanks; if they are buttoned up and there are no nearby infantry, it's really hard for them to see you, and even if they have seen you, they will often lose you if you hide).

It may be the case that other routing behavior needs to be looked at, although if tweaks are necessary, the tweaks should make the routing directions more realistic, *NOT* make the troops less likely to rout.

I ran across this incident in the Green Book that describes the river crossing at Arnaville:

"When one soldier, a veteran of all the division's combat, had his carbine shot from his hand and his closest friend killed by a shell which fell near his foxhole, he jumped up screaming and ran towards enemy lines. He was caught by a fellow soldier but had to be knocked unconscious before he could be quieted. Evacuated, he could not remember what he had done."

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the further commentary.

Every time I see it I take issue with the notion that infantry is somehow hobbled in CMBB vs. CMBO. It is true that you have to be more careful with infantry, and used combined arms tactics more, but infantry is no less powerful when used correctly. In fact, I think infantry is MORE capable than it was in CMBO. Again, with more careful (and realistic) handling of infantry.

Think of it this way... a King Tiger is, on average, a more easy to use tank than the PzIVJ. But in the average Western Front matchup, the PzIVJ is in some ways is equal or BETTER than the KT. However, you can in general make more mistakes with the KT and wind up on top than with the PzIVJ. And that is sorta what we see here with infantry between the two games. Think of it this way...

Let us assume the PzIVJ stands for infantry. In CMBO there were a host of issues that made the PzIVJ perform more like a KT. This allowed for unrealistically agressive tactics paying off with unrealistically positive results. The player could also make more mistakes and suffer less punishment than would happen in the real war. Some people realized that the PzIVJ was a great tool, even if a somewhat unrealistically portrayed one. They used it and used it well. And they had fun using it this way.

Then CMBB came along and corrected these issues so that the PzIVJ behaves more like a PzIVJ instead of a King Tiger. The players mentioned above now find that their old tactics and expectations revolving around the PzIVJ don't work so well.

They try to modify their behavior slightly, but still no go. So they modify their behaivor a bit more and still only get mixed results. They then complain that the PzIVJ has been made "too brittle" and that the game is no longer fun for them. Others point out, using historical facts and figures, that the PzIVJ is now working correctly compared to CMBO and therefore any problems being experienced (i.e. "brittleness") are not a result of game model flaws but of incorrect tactics/expectations left over from CMBO. They don't have a problem getting good results from the PzIVJ because they have changed their tactics or find their CMBO tactics work better (I fit into the latter, BTW). Others find that they do have a problem but recognize that they need to bone up on new tactics and see this as a challenge that they want to rise up to.

The "brittle" guys balk at the notion that their tactics are in need of changing and instead state again that something is broken or that Battlefront went too far towards realism. What they forget (or don't know) is this same thing happened with Steel Panthers, Close Combat, and ASL players when CMBO was released. Their tactics and expectations needed adjusting to the new system and some just couldn't (more like "wouldn't") admit that a transition was needed, much less possible.

So threads like this continue. Some people will eventually realize that if they change their tactics, slightly or seriously (depending on CMBO play style), they can have BETTER results than they did with CMBO. Those who drag their heals and try to make the CMBB system yeild CMBO like results with CMBO tactics are going to be frustrated, disapointed, and perhaps even angry. Hard to find the "fun" in a game with an emotional state like this. Much the way people have not embraced GI Combat, BTW.

I also do not agree that armor is more important in CMBB vs. CMBO. I think in many ways it is less important. But in any case, the options are all there to make the kind of game you are most comfortable with, so there really should not be a problem in this regard.

To sum up...

CMBO's release required wargamers to "unlearn" previous game tactics and expectiations. Some didn't want to do this, some wanted to but had problems at first, and the MAJORITY embraced the new system whole heartedly. Those who decided CMBO was not for them generally cited that it was "not fun" because they found they couldn't argue that it was less realistic than the other games.

CMBB's release mirrors this discussion, but to a much smaller degree. The difference is that comparing CMBO to CMBB is a lot easier to do than Steel Panthers to CMBO (for example). This makes for a more confusing discussion because the two are so similar but in no small way are quite different.

We feel quite strongly that the majority welcome the change that CMBB brings just like they welcomed the change CMBO brought. Some just simply won't like this change or find that they can't (won't) change their perception and tactics to suit the new situation. For such people I am sorry, but not that sorry. If my enemy changes his tactics to beat mine, then I change mine to beat his. I don't complain about the change I simply figure out a way to master it. In real war, those who can not adapt to change are left behind (or killed, which is thankfully not an option here ). So for those of you having problems with CMBB, step back, take a deep breath, and reexamine the advice people are giving regarding playing more successfully. It can be done and there is plenty of "fun" for those who arrive at the new plateau we created.

Steve

[ November 02, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Spook]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In real war, those who can not adapt to change are left behind (or killed, which is thankfully not an option here).

Steve

Couldn't resist a bit of going for the jugular?

But basically true. Changes to the game system necessitate a review of earlier tactics. In one scenario I've created that involves Russian infantry having to dig out Germans in trenchworks, the key tactic is that a greater number of units have to apply suppressive fire to allow a smaller number of units to close up. But even this was advocated as a basic tactic in the original Squad Leader manual of the 1970's.

[Stoffel]

btw Steve,

Could you contact me about the uniformitems you want to have?

I am serving in the Dutch army and can get them for you.

read,buy them

Henk

[Abbott]

I think CMBB is really quite an improvement over CMBO in so many ways. Infantry, in particular, is more rewarding to play. Once I got used to the system, I no longer have problems with exhaustion or movement paces.

Absolutely.

[Schoerner]

Very interesting thread.

I like the improvements, too but what should be really become corrected is the moving direction of panicked or crawling squads under fire.

It would increase the fun extremely, if they would react in a more realistic way.

If you get under heavy s/lMG fire, you would

1) keep your head down and stop moving, or

2) crawl away (in most cases for more cover, but not necessarily; away, just away)

3) or run to the nearest cover

But you would NEVER crawl from i.e. bushes into open ground and even torwards the direction the fire comes.

If BTS would fix that, the game would be almost perfect.

I still don't want to play it again, 'cause i still have in mind the last scenario i played - Cemetary Hill - and how the squads suddenly moved torwards open ground.

None of the three squads that were pinned on the very right side, acted like they would in reality.

Wood 5 meters away, i corrected the crawl commands several times (delted or changed direction) and they didn't care about.

They again started crawling towards the firing-direction or even into open ground.

Not one stood up and tried to run towards the very close woods.

BTS, you did such a great work, and i can't imagine, that it shouldn't be possible, to let units react in a more realistic manner, when under fire.

In CMBO this behaviour wasn't that annoying to me, due to the weak MGs, but now, i can't live with it.

For not being misunderstood: i LOVE the new realism of weakness against MG-fire - i.e. a MG bunker now is really that huge problem it is in reality, but the behaviour of the units' under fire, destroys a lot of the great improvements.

IMO this little improvement (compared to all the other changes), would bring the game a huge leap forwards.

BTS, please fix that as soon as possible.

[ November 02, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[KG_SSpoom]

I love CMBB.

For my $.02 its a huge

improvement over CMBO

which was a quality game

in its own rights. I have not

booted up CMBO since getting

CMBB :cool:

[Renaud]

Why do people continue to imagine that men under fire will always do the sensible thing, or that they will obey (or even hear) orders in such situations? From the godlike perspective of the player it is easy to see the 'correct' path. Not so for the guys huddled under fire behind some bushes. They may well choose to crawl over some open ground to get away, perhaps even toward any enemy they aren't aware of.

To bad there is not the possibility of HQ units getting shot by their own troops after some particularly insane order.

[PeterX]

Steve posted:

The "brittle" guys balk at the notion that their tactics are in need of changing and instead state again that something is broken or that Battlefront went too far towards realism.

Despite the fact that I initiated the 'Infantry too Brittle' thread, I must confess, that, after a week of play, I've converted to the official BFC position. I even find the 'sneaking to exhaustion' under fire phenemenon increasingly plausible. OTOH, I've intentionally only gone to battle with regular and up troops.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Why do people continue to imagine that men under fire will always do the sensible thing, or that they will obey (or even hear) orders in such situations? From the godlike perspective of the player it is easy to see the 'correct' path. Not so for the guys huddled under fire behind some bushes. They may well choose to crawl over some open ground to get away, perhaps even toward any enemy they aren't aware of.

To bad there is not the possibility of HQ units getting shot by their own troops after some particularly insane order.

I don't expect, that the units follow the commands under any circumstances. But i expect a realistic behaviour even without commands - like they do usually.

Sensible thing? Don't hear orders? I don't know in which CM-wonderland you are living, but if you believe, that squads will move just randomly torwards less/no cover when they get under fire and where the MG-fire/sound comes from, you are definately wrong.

Imagine you have troops with low morale and they are keeping moving away from the direction where the fire comes from. Several times you give them orders to move forwards, but they keep retreating. THAT would be realistic and a huge improvement, but not that stupid auto-suicide-sneaking.

It's only a small but important difference, if you are angry about the units not following your commands, or if they behave unrealistically stupid.

This unpredicable behaviour in a REALISTIC way, has always been one of the huge benefits of CM, but what's happening now to the infantry, has nothing to do with it.

And if units don't know where the fire comes from (they nevertheless know where they came from, and in which rough direction the enemy is suspected), they usually keep their heads down while looking around for better cover.

When it's getting too hot, they maybe will stand up and run towards it or they will retreat where they came from.

If you believe, that the scenes we all know from movies, where SINGLE persons lose complete control, are that common for squads like in CMBB, you're wrong, too.

Every stupid behaviour could be explained with "they don't hear this and they don't see that" and enough imagination.

It's not good to defend these issues, due to loving CM.

It's necessary for keeping critical, 'cause only then BTS receives the feedback for necessary changes into the right direction.

Therefore the critical posts are maybe even more important for BTS, than the "i love this game" ones.

If you can live with it, it's ok.

I can't - and in the meanwhile i prefer CMBO, till this BUG will become fixed. :mad:

[ November 02, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[xerxes]

Now that's a good idea. When an HQ tries to lead a platoon to certain death the platoon has a chance of revolting and even "removing" the HQ. Boy would people howl then.

I think most of the "problems" with infantry morale have to do with moving through open terrain while taking mg fire. Guess what, you shouldn't do that unless you're willing to take the hit on getting squads broken and exhausted.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I went a little overboard in my last post. I think I'm angry that such drastic changes were made to this game. Maybe some more playing will help.

I still don't like the fact that units panic/break and also tire too easily and I'm hoping for a patch that will tone this down.

I'm also bummed about the new camera views. I feel distanced from the action and I'm wondering why they were changed in the first place.

On a happier note, I'm enjoying the scenario "A Morning At the Zoo" much more than the tutorial battle.

[ November 02, 2002, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[OGSF]

Originally posted by Ken Talley:

But two points can spoil the fun and lead to a lot of frustration. Playing in flat, open terrain and using green/conscript troops. I avoid those two situations and have a great time.

You may have nailed this for me.

I fully expected to love CMBB and that the myriad of improvements would make it another quantum leap in enjoyable gaming. My quandary is that my experience has not been immediately as I expected, yet the evidence of the stunning improvements to the game say quite clearly that I *should* be enjoying it even more than CMBO.

Advancing green / conscript infantry across flat terrain with no smoke, against MGs and other troop slaughterers, is *not* fun for me. I believe anyone can tacticalize themselves into knots, and still get the chocolate pudding shot out of their advancing troops who break and route almost instantly in these circumstances. Realistic? Oh yes. Fun? Not for me.

But the answer I see is not to change the way the infantry is modelled, it is simply to avoid scenarios with low grade troops in open and flat terrain. Such attacks were made historically I am sure. Wave after wave of Russian conscripts mown down by MGs and such. And I am sure that the people involved had even less fun then than I do playing such situations in CMBB now. So I will avoid such situations and have fun doing it.

As an aside, there is a scenario at Tom's HQ (I think) which is "Valley of Trouble ala CMBB". Very interesting to play this CMBO classic with the CMBB improvements. I had a lot of fun with it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by OGSF:

Wave after wave of Russian conscripts mown down by MGs and such. And I am sure that the people involved had even less fun then than I do playing such situations in CMBB now. So I will avoid such situations and have fun doing it.

I think that this is a perfectly reasonable solution. In BO QBs, I used almost exclusively green troops on the attack, at first because I found it much more realistic, and I kept it up because I enjoyed the challenge. I was very happy that CMBO gave me the opportunity to play the type of game that I wanted. The same is true for CMBB for you, I think, with the added bonus that regular and better troops are much more realistic in BB - they are not the gamey supermen that they were in BO.

There is a big difference between Green and Conscript troops, though; I wish people wouldn't keep linking them together. :mad:

[OGSF]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

There is a big difference between Green and Conscript troops, though; I wish people wouldn't keep linking them together. :mad:

I wouldn't, except the AI does. I think low grade troop selections produce platoons with some green, some conscript squads. Even regular troops selection includes such squads in the platoon composition.

[PeterX]

The same is true for CMBB for you, I think, with the added bonus that regular and better troops are much more realistic in BB - they are not the gamey supermen that they were in BO.

I don't think the scenario designers (you know who you are!) are availing themselves often enough of the 'Fanaticism' variable provided by BFC. Some Russian activites, for example at Stalingrad, are inexplicable without it. With a little mad juice, you'll be able to advance your Green troops across that open ground in the face of MG fire. And, in certain times and places on the Eastern Front, it's very realistic.

[dalem]

The simple mechanical problem of autoSneak still exists. No matter how good or slow I am, my guys are still going to take fire. When they take fire and start sneaking around, that's still a lot of micromanaging I have to do. If I'm not a micromanager then I get bored and annoyed. That's pretty much my only point.

Am I asking for a ratchet back to CM:BO casual sprints through beaten zones? Oh my no! Truth be told, I don't think I'm asking for anything, because most (if not all) of the people I regularly enjoy playing against seem to be handling the new tempo quite well, so I have reason to believe that I will learn to enjoy it too. I'm just trying to call attention to a particular facet of the game experience.

Things I've tried that have helped (for anyone in the same position as me) are

1) Limiting myself to a company of infantry: I actually used to prefer this sized game, and only gradually turned into a "battalion plus" slut. I frankly think CM pretty much sucks for more than battalion-sized battles, and always has for me. It's best for company-plus sized, and is decent enough up to battalion, but any bigger and it's just silly. Remembering the original point limits on CM:BO QBs I think I'm on pretty solid ground here.

2) As OGSF said, avoiding coverless maps: No reason for me to torture myself trying to enjoy crossing terrain that got plenty of better men than myself wasted.

3) Learn the new intricacies of the QB system: Not only are there more options, but there are more "risky" options too. I think that the good maps that CM:BB generates are a little better than in BO, but the bad ones are far worse. So I have to be willing to trash a QB setup if the map looks impossible, unless I feel like trying to conquer the impossible. Likewise, getting a mostly Green force, forget it unless I want pain.

In short, I'll never learn to enjoy micromanaging, so I'll just try to keep things limited so I have to do it less.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Colonel_Deadmarsh,

I still don't like the fact that units panic/break and also tire too easily and I'm hoping for a patch that will tone this down.

Er... have you read anything that I wrote? Hoping for a patch to revert CMBB, even a little bit, back to CMBO is like hoping to score with a super model. You can hope all you want, but I wouldn't suggest it

I'm also bummed about the new camera views. I feel distanced from the action and I'm wondering why they were changed in the first place.

Because the testers requested it and approved of the changes. Every feature of any game we make will have SOMEONE not entirely happy. I guess this is just one of them. I have not seen any large scale disaproval with the new camera views, so I don't see any reason for change here.

Dale,

Yup... never be afraid to trash a QB that you think will be not to your liking. I personally reject QB games all the time. I don't get that much time to play so I don't want to play something I suspect won't be to my liking for that particular time and place. One day I might be in the mood for a tank battle and find that the weather option turns up Night. I'll reject it right then and there, no matter what the rest looks like. But the next time I play I might actually embrace such a game. All depends, and that is the beauty of the QB system. Don't like what you see? 2 minutes later you can be looking at an entirely different game!

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

All depends, and that is the beauty of the QB system. Don't like what you see? 2 minutes later you can be looking at an entirely different game!

Steve

On this point I couldn't agree more. The QB generator is the mostest fantabuluscious thing in the history of wargaming. Ever. I take it for granted now but holy whippersnappers it's awesome.

-dale

[Gaylord Focker]

I like CMBB way better then CMBO, everything that was annoying in CMBO (impotent mg's) has been remedied, not to mention all the nice extras added, sound, dirt kicking up from bulletes ect, tank platoons, dyvers aircraft,trenches, improved pioneers,more realistic tactics a must and more fun, ect....

But thats just my opinion, hope you warm up to the game dalem!