So far I don't like CMBB...

[MrPeng]

A very good discussion. I will try not to be too much like myself as I chuck my buchthreeightyseven in.

11. Don't like the game? get the chaplain to punch your TS card. one of the four great truths of the Bhudda is that "life is difficult."

42. CMBB is different than CMBO. I am not a great player, but even a lowly scum like myself scored a draw against the Fabulous Fionn (who still owes me a turn on CMBO - the swine), because it seems to be the case that CMBO was "easier" to play. Brigher lights than I said "when you get cmbb in yer grubby paws yewl quit cmbo forever" well the fecking mook was wrong of course. I still play the occassional CMBO QB but Mostly I play CMBB QBs now. I Could generallly be relied upon to kick some AI butt in CMBO no matter the circumstances, but now I do not do quite so well. I'm getting pretty good at an unrestricted SS 42 cavalry assualt vs a randomized Rus defense at 800 basis points, but dammit it took A LOT of practice to get beyond "YOU HAVE SUFFERED A MAJOR DEFEAT" with the majority of my infantry out of ammo, broken and cowering and all of my armor dead or also out of ammo and everyone kind of hanging around aboot 500 meters away from the flags - it was pathetic.

But I am nothing if not a persistant bastard, and since winning against the AI means a lot more to me than winning against humans I have persisted in my attempts to win QBs against the AI.

It has meant massive amounts of humiliation and shame for me. (not too far akin from RL). However, it has come to my attention that with really only some minor tweaking I have been able to use my standard Company supported by 81mm and a couple of StuGs assault to be effective almost every time. I DO have to be more CAREFUL, {and I suspect for some this might mean a modicum or more of tedium}, whilst plotting my moves, but well hell, pretty much If you have a company of good infantry and an 81 mm spotter and a platoon of StuGs you can beat any damn configuration of AI mess that you run in to. No you can't do it in 12 of 30 turns like you could in CMBO and you might not score such a complete and total victory, but if you are CAREFUL and a bit more DELIBERATE than you were in CMBO then by gawd you will WIN.

Some might find the care and deliberation to be a game breaker. Fine. Piss off. Stick with CMBO or whatever little whorebag game you are playing. Idiot. As Steve said "This is niche market." Go stuff a 'faust up your niche and count to 9.

If you have some small amount of my respect like the fine lad dalem (a lad whom has beaten me me thinks) then give CMBB a chance. It is harder to play than CMBO. But that doesn't in my case mean it is any less fun. It is Different, and at this point a bit frustrating sometimes. However, if I am in the mood to trounce the AI in a quick and dirty game it is easy enough to just play a CMBO thing.

Anyway. Many opines. Mine, of course, is the correct one. All will pay who disagree with me. Just remember; Fun is good. Not fun is bad, and apathy is happy that it won without a fight.

[deanco]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

[QBAfter 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.

[/QB]

You said a mouthful there, man. I had the same flash while playing Battlefield 1942. People "who haven't read the stack of books necessary to truly appreciate CM" want their gaming experience to match up to THEIR IMPRESSION of what WWII was like, not what it was really like. And their impression comes from Hollywood films, books, History Channel, old reruns of Combat (with Rick Jason and Vic Morrow!), etc etc. BF1942 nailed this perfectly, that's the genius of BF1942.

I'm not advocating that CM become less realistic to please the masses. What I think is necessary is to increase the realism of the 3D world in CM, so that people who are watching the action can understand exactly why the units are crapping their pants and not running across that open expanse of land or whatever. That's the key to bringing average people's perceptions of what WWII was like back into line with what they've seen on TV or films. In CMBB, the realism increased, but the 3D world stayed the same, whereas in CMBO the graphics/realism relationship was more balanced. IMHO.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by MrPeng:

All will pay who disagree with me.

Don't step on the grass, Peng

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Colonel_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.

Hi Col,

A Morning at the Zoo is a great scenario. I think that the scenarios on the CMBB CD are excellent; I think that they are better than the scenarios that came on the CMBO CD, by and large.

Here are a couple of quick tips that might make your infantry less frustrating to use: (1) in the initial part of the battle, especially in a QB ME, start your troops off using Move to Contact. They'll go slowly, but they won't be tired when they arrive, and if they encounter enemy units, it will be at extreme range, which is safer for your troops. Assuming the troops are stopped in the open, use either Advance or Assault (preferably) to move the troops to cover. If you are in the open and a distant tank opens up on you, instead of trying to make it to cover, use the Hide command - this is often the better choice.

(2) Use the assault command, often. Although the manual sort of suggests that this is most useful for covering the last 20 meters to assault an enemy in a foxhole, it is actually *much* more useful and flexible than that. Along with MTC, I think it is the most useful infantry command. Use it any time you need to advance about 30 meters in the open, regardless of whether you plan on attacking anyone. Use it to cross roads where you think you will be shot at. Use it to move across the open ground when moving from building to building. Use it anytime you are moving from cover to cover and have to cross open. Assault gives your troops a morale bonus, meaning that they are less likely to break if a random MG opens up at them while they are assaulting in the open. It doesn't make them invulnerable, but it is effective enough that fire that would make advancing troops drop and crawl often only Alerts assaulting troops.

(3) Don't overtire your troops. If you move a platoon to a wooded area and they are tired, let them stay there for a couple of turns until they are rested, and then continue the advance. Their morale will be better if they are not tired, plus this acts as an incentive to coordinate your attacks - if those guys are going to be there for a couple of turns anyway, you might as well bring up a MG to help them for when they are ready to move out. Resting troops also helps with the micromanagement, since you don't have to manage resting troops.

[Berlichtingen]

Andrew Hedges' advise is dead on. Those are exactly the commands I use and how I use them

[Battlefront.com]

I'll second Berli's comments about Andrew's post. This is something that I and others have been harpping on every time someone starts up a "my troops suck because of the game, not me" threads. The basic concept is to play CMBB as CMBB wants to be played, not like it was CMBO. The major difference is pace... if you rush things like you did in CMBO you will have two major problems:

1. More tired troops. This is a very big problem that is hard to recover from. It also creates side problems.

2. More Panicking/Routing/Breaking problems. Very often this is a direct outcome of #1, but is its own problem when trying to assault over open terrain without propper covering fire (for example).

These problems are compouding ones. Once your force is put into bad positions by bad management it is difficult to correct things.

Another problem is that some people just aren't getting why it is we added the new orders to the menus Correct use of Move, Move to Contact, Advance, Assault, Human Wave, and Sneak are critical. Even more important is understanding when to use Run and even MORE important is understanding when NOT TO USE RUN. This was an abused order in CMBO and similar use of it in CMBB is a big no-no.

BTW, I chuckle when I read "I think the new modeling of MGs is great, but troops are too brittle". Er... if we made troops less brittle, then we would be back to where we were in CMBO now wouldn't we? Meaning, a MAJOR reason MGs are more effective in CMBB is because of the other changes we made.

Steve

[SuperSulo]

Just going to add my "Bravo!" to BFC. Bravo! Keep adding realism even if that takes the "fun" out of the game for some. This course of action is right up my alley.

But I also understand that others can and will dislike the changes. Saying that they don't like cmbb just because they dont "want" to learn the new way of things is wrong, imo. People like different things, and with the changes BFC has made to cmbb, some people are just not going to like it. It's not a "learning" thing, it's not just their type of game anymore.

Oh, and keywords is "some people", ofcourse others can be taught how to play.

Micromanagement? That never bothered me, but then I can easily spend an hour on just the setup phase. Oh how I loath padlocked units...

[Barrold]

I am not a big fan of micromanagement for the most part.

While I would not claim to be an expert tactician by any means either, I would not classify what is needed to be successful at CMBB as micromanagement either.

As Steve and Andrew pointed out, there are merely different tools and the application of the proper commands is needed to accomplish goals in this game.

I prefer to think of any extra thinking required for this purpose as merely a defense against the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

BDH

[The_Capt]

I have been thinking about this a lot and if I were to voice one criticism about CMBB re:infantry I think it would be the "Red Whoopie Light".

I really like the way troops hit the ground and even panic if they get caught in a bad place but I think they do tend to "Turn on the Red Light" a little too fast. With good leadership a rattled squad can recover and get back into fighting shape and not suffer from the enduring rattling for the rest of the game.

Perhaps this may calm some of the "My Infantry Are Like Fine Bone China" whine fest we have had to suffer.

[Schoerner]

I'm wondering if i'm the only one, who saw squads auto-sneaking from cover towards open ground, into the direction where (MG) fire comes from.

I'm quite sure i know how to use the appropriate commands, but WHEN they start to auto-sneak, i expect a realistic-behaviour, but the moving-directions of auto-sneaking are unrealistically and very strange.

[Dark Pa]

Wading in:

What I appreciate about CMBB is that I actually need to think very carefully before doing anything with my troops, just as a real-life commander would. Impatience is usually rewarded with the thin screams of my men getting mown down.

My guess is that most soldiers on the Eastern Front preferred to advance with as much suppressive fire in support as possible, and most would hit the dirt once the lead started flying around them and pretty much stay there until it stopped.

Nonetheless, every now and then I see a squad of badasses overcome several enemy positions before wanting a rest.....seems reasonable enough that most soldiers, especially if green, won't be as useful. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Move to Contact is good for most troops - they at least start shooting in the direction of the enemy once they contact them, which gives the more experienced squads a chance to crawl forward and lob some grenades or assault.

[Dark Pa]

Forgot to mention:

Move a leader in close proximity to a broken or shaken squad, and they calm down pretty fast and get back into action, particularly if you move the leader with them.....

[BloodyBucket]

Not having BB yet, I can only say from what I have read that I am looking forward to it when I get it. What I am really looking forward to, however, is BO with the BB improvements. Since I am mainly a player of small battles, the increased oversight of infantry is merely more nuance in the game, a good thing. I find huge battles in BO to be somewhat tedious, and I expect that in BB they are more so.

The Eastern front is OK, but it doesn't have the same fascination for me that the Western front does. I look on you hardcore BB players as merely beta testers for the new version in the West! Now, if only there was a chance for a Pacific version, with the Marine Corps featured in excrutiating detail...

[Thin Red Line]

Until now i find CMBB more fun than CMBO.

I find it rather entertaining to see my squads routed after poorly planned assaults, and the fact they just stand up and die until the last man (like sometimes in CMBO) at least give me another chance to organize a more careful attack with the survivors. And i have no doubt that within a couple of weeks infantry routing occurences will become more and more rare.

Also tank fights are much more interesting and spectaculars than in CMBO, especially in early war encounters (for that I recommend the very enjoyable Directive Number 3 scenario.)

Only my 2 euro cents.