I thought i would get used to it....but i can't

[Capitalistdoginchina]

First off, let me say i do love this game, however there is one general aspect of CMBB that appears to be detracting from my enjoyment.

When i first played CMBB i realised immediately that the High Explosive rounds for tanks and artillery had been toned down.......a lot. Arty barrages seemed wimpy, innefective (Unless used with a TRP) and about as useful as an ashtray on a motobike. Sometimes i can fire off the entire barrage yet i can hardly notice it in the battle. Graphically it is like a firework display, lots of ooohs and aaahs but with little effect or damage.

The same can be said with HE rounds fired from AFV's. I can use a whole platoon of 75mm Tanks firing at a target and if i am lucky the squad will panic by the end of the turn with one or 2 casualties at best. As infantry killers Tanks fail to live up to my expectations. Realistic? probably.

Due to the new camera angles, and zoom the battle seems far more removed than in CMBO, i feel more detached somehow. I can't put my finger on it - is it the perspective? the viewing angle? The units seem to be reduced in size graphically, although i have now adjusted the unit size to +3 but i still feel that as a player i am far removed from the battlefield.

I thought that i would get used to it after playing for a while, but i can't. Does anyone else have the same feeling?

This will not stop me from playing CMBB, I love the improvements over CMBO, although in this one area CMBO satisfied my gaming instincts more than CMBB. Realism is of course important - i do understand that and i have an internal conflict over what is best for the game.

CDIC

[Cameroon]

Wait, you're on the side of the fence saying that HE is ineffective against Infantry? Please, I mean no offense, but I'm seriously not sure if you're joking or not

From where I'm sitting Artillery has become a greater threat. Heck, 81mm now actually does something to infantry besides making them duck. And I certainly haven't noticed any loss of effect from direct fire HE on troops. Are we playing the same game?

Understand, this comes as a great surprise as I've seen all too many threads where the initial coment goes something like "My infantry don't perform like in CMBO". This is the first thread where I the opposite opinion seems to be expressed.

Be that as it may, I don't feel that I've experienced the same things you have

[Brian Rock]

I haven't noticed any toning down of arty. Indeed one of the minor surprises for me in CMBB is the 50mm mortar - I just love those guys. Awesome rate of fire, and if it doesn't kill it does a great job of suppressing.

I suspect one of the differences may be that in CMBO it was much easier to track the effects of arty - the lower level of FOW meant you had a handy kill-counter for monitoring how well the arty was doing. With EFOW you see a unit, and apart from whether it's advancing, dug-in or running away you often have no idea how it's being affected unless it's wiped out.

Of course the obvious argument against this theory is that you say you've tracked the enemy casualties at one or two per minute.

It could still be a contributing factor... of course we could set up more-or-less equivalent scenarios in CMBO and CMBB and test it, but like all true veterens I'm not keen to volunteer.

[Silvio Manuel]

It's the MGs baby! They are now your best friend. It doesn't seem to take long for Green Maxims to pin Vet. Germans under a +2 Morale HQ (effectively Elite morale). Of course, you wouldn't know that unless you are close if you're playing EFOW.

[Bruno Weiss]

I don't have enough experiences as yet to form a contusion about any arty tone down, but I can say I had a platoon of infantry in scattered woods that come under fire from offboard 81mm's. The incomming shells fell right on target, and the infantry barely noticed. Keep right on firing at distant infantry targets. Swatted them 81's off like nats. Maybe it was just this time and some varible was at play. Dunno. Need more experiences to form an opinion.

[OGSF]

I was interested to read about the camera angles creating a feeling of detachment. I hadn't thought that it might be that.

I am having a hard time getting used to trying to fight a battle over 2km+ in 30 turns. I find I am rushing my moves and not getting down and dirty with the troops like in CMBO. Advancing in bounds, using available cover etc., is hardly an option when I need most of the available turns just to get within bayonet range of the defenders and have dozens of squads and AFVs' to manage. Half the time it's camera angle 4, hit "Go", and let the AI sort them out.

It's pissing me off actually. Like "variable" endings always equaling "5".

OGSF

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

It doesn't seem to take long for Green Maxims to pin Vet. Germans under a +2 Morale HQ (effectively Elite morale).

I would think the difference between Green Maxims and Elite Maxims would be moot to the poor sod on the receiving end.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by OGSF:

I was interested to read about the camera angles creating a feeling of detachment. I hadn't thought that it might be that.

I am having a hard time getting used to trying to fight a battle over 2km+ in 30 turns. I find I am rushing my moves and not getting down and dirty with the troops like in CMBO. Advancing in bounds, using available cover etc., is hardly an option when I need most of the available turns just to get within bayonet range of the defenders and have dozens of squads and AFVs' to manage. Half the time it's camera angle 4, hit "Go", and let the AI sort them out.

It's pissing me off actually. Like "variable" endings always equaling "5".

OGSF

If I may... maybe you should add more time. I use 35 for 1000 point attacks on a Large map.

It does seem that way about the variable endings, doesn't it. Unless your defending and it's turn 6, 7, 8...

[Louie the Toad]

Dear CDIC,

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Quote: "Due to the new camera angles, and zoom the battle seems far more removed than in CMBO, i feel more detached somehow. I can't put my finger on it - is it the perspective? the viewing angle? The units seem to be reduced in size graphically, although i have now adjusted the unit size to +3 but i still feel that as a player i am far removed from the battlefield."

I COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS FROM THE GET GO !!

At lower camera levels I can't see enough of the battlefield to make informed decisions. At higher levels I cant I D my own units. Even with bases on I cant tell inf from mg or ht from tank.

I don't have an interface solution since increased unit size gets too weird and unrealistic. Zooming in is cumbersome and time consuming.

At this point I have decided to play Franko's rules when I play BB. So far in small scenarios and QBs the AI has kicked my butt 3 out of 5 times with one draw and one in progress where I am holding my own. But with FTCR you can never really tell until late in the game. Maybe I should look at some of the 'AI Cheats' posts to see what they are whining about because the AI is really tough when a human player uses FTCR.

Down in the grass...... Toad

[Panzer Leader]

Variable turn is driving me FREAKING MAD!! I don't think I'll ever use it for defense games. I mean, if I have lost by turn 30, why drag it out into a complete and utter rout for another 5-7 turns? I understand that it is meant to prevent those "gamey flag rushes" but I have yet to see it do more than drag out a game to nearly unbearable limits. Maybe it's because my games never seem to end in a balanced way - that is, by the time the game is 75% finished it is more than obvious who the winner is. Those variable turns are just rubbing it in, ya know?

Which brings up another fact (I as earlier discussing with OGSF) Why is it that all my games seem to be complete victories or complete losses? Where are the "It could go either way" battles? Now, I don't want to turn this into a rant because I for one feel the game is better and _funner_ than CMBO, but these few things irk me to no end.

Oh, the other things that irk me are the sneaking troops. For cryin' out loud, every turn I have to cruise across the battlefiled making sure none of my sneaky troops are trying to sneak back to their jump off points.

This in turn leads to my biggest irk, which is the speed with which troops become exhausted. WTF?? By the halfway mark, all my troops are panting, sneaking, broken and exhausted and all they've done is advanced halfway to their objective and sneaked the rest of the way back.

Now I fully realize that perhaps my infantry handling, learned through CMBO, need to change, but jesus, it is a freaking CHORE to coax and coddle those troops to make the smallest effort, and then, just when you think you've finally got them to do what you've been trying for 5 turns to accomplish, they wind up FECKING EXHAUSTED!!!!

Sneak - Troops are to ready to resort to it and it is much too exhausting.

Variable turn ending - name needs to be changed to "Take that loser, LOO-OOSER!"

Troop Exhaustion - Fer cryin' out loud, do some push-ups. I would hate to play without fit troops if this is how fast fit troops become exhausted (Two turns advancing will tire troops, a third turn of anything, either advancing, assaulting, ro god forbid -sneaking- and they are shot for the rest of the battle)

There I said it. I feel better.

[Michael Emrys]

As for camera angles, I find that I use 4 or 5 to watch the whole battlefield—or at least a major chunk of it if it's a really big map—and if I spot some interesting action, I stop the clock and rewind, then go down to view 1 or 2 and get in close. One thing I am noticing is that now I hardly use view 3, which used to be my favorite in BO.

BTW, for plotting movement I use an overhead view, like 6 or 7, as that permits more accurate placement of waypoints for me. View 4 is great for checking LOS.

The only gripe I really have with the new views is that the oblique views have the camera pointed down at too much of a negative angle.

Michael

[Panzer Leader]

Oh, and I'd like to add that I have no problem whatsoever with any of the camera controls, angles, etc. They seem fine and as unobtrusive as CMBO. In fact, I think I like 3 and 4 better if there's even a difference, which I'm not sure there is. Anyhow, I like the camera.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I can't understand why there isn't a box for us to enter a modifier for the variable turn ending. That's what the BADCO program offered for CMBO and that was somebody's side project done on a zero budget. How long would this take to code into CMBB? Answer: Not long at all.

So why isn't it in there?

[Chad Harrison]

I will have to side with CDIC on the direct fire HE capabilities. It does seem that this has been toned down. In CMBO, a Sherman 75 could pound a MG and usually at the end fo that turn the MG would panic and leave.

However, I like the new change. I have always been more of a fan of the infantry battles than armor ones. If the HE power has been decreased, I like the new effect that one uber tank will not destroy hopes for a infantry victory.

Chad

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I mean, if I have lost by turn 30, why drag it out into a complete and utter rout for another 5-7 turns?...by the time the game is 75% finished it is more than obvious who the winner is. Those variable turns are just rubbing it in, ya know?

So SURRENDER, why don'tcha and end it all? Or better yet, do like a real-life commander would do and when it starts to look bad start pulling your men back and sending them off the map.

Oh, the other things that irk me are the sneaking troops. For cryin' out loud, every turn I have to cruise across the battlefiled making sure none of my sneaky troops are trying to sneak back to their jump off points.

This in turn leads to my biggest irk, which is the speed with which troops become exhausted. WTF?? By the halfway mark, all my troops are panting, sneaking, broken and exhausted and all they've done is advanced halfway to their objective and sneaked the rest of the way back.

So you'd rather CM were less realistic then? Okay, objection noted.

Sneak - Troops are to ready to resort to it and it is much too exhausting.

Welllllll, you could be right—just a teeny, tiny bit—on this one. I would definitely agree that the troops go to low crawl a little too often and stay in it a lot too long. But all the experienced experts who've spoken on this subject agree that it is exhausting. Hopefully, BTS will give the matter some thought before the 1.02 patch.

Michael

[Panzer Leader]

Mr. Emrys, surrender - that is agood point, though for some reason, it seems a little taboo in the gentlemen's games I play, though you are right - in a no win situation I will begin surrendering or taking my men off the map - I suppose.

As for exhaustion levels, I doubt you or I are experts about how much a fully laden troop could do in combat before they became casualties of exhaustion, however, I argue that the way it stands now is NOT more realistic. 3 minutes advancing, would that truly exhaust a squad to make it combat ineffective? I don't think so, and I can name numerous examples of fortitude, but I assume BTS wants more concrete evidence. I would be curious where they came up with their figures.

Oh, and thanks for the teeny tiny agreement on sneaking, but theis is w a well documented and well-bitched about complaint, so I don't think I need to go into. Far bigger brains than my are grappling with this one.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Mr. Emrys, surrender - that is agood point, though for some reason, it seems a little taboo in the gentlemen's games I play, though you are right - in a no win situation I will begin surrendering or taking my men off the map - I suppose.

Yeah, evacuating is a much better propostion if you can pull it off because your men live to fight another day. I.e., you deprive your opponent of the points he would get by capturing your men still on the map.

As for exhaustion levels, I doubt you or I are experts about how much a fully laden troop could do in combat before they became casualties of exhaustion...

I readily concede that I am not, but a couple of guys who have in fact done just that in training posted a week or two back that it is indeed as exhausting to low crawl as CM depicts it.

...however, I argue that the way it stands now is NOT more realistic. 3 minutes advancing, would that truly exhaust a squad to make it combat ineffective?

Now are we talking about using the ADVANCE movement order? As described in the manual it "...assumes dashing from cover to cover..." Notice the dashing part. I haven't looked at this closely enough to form an opinion as to whether it seems that they are getting too tired too fast or not. My mind is open on this subject, but I think that at this point the burden of proof is on the critics.

Michael

[ November 01, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Treeburst155]

It seems to me the BFC guys have tweaked the CMBB views in a way that favors those who like to get down in the action frequently. In CMBO I used mostly views 4 and 5. In CMBB it's 3,4, and 6. They gave us an additional view level, but you almost HAVE to use it.

I gotta say though I love that sidescrolling by mouse. When I switch to CMBO I keep trying to do it now.

Treeburst155 out.

[dalem]

I've posted it before and I'll post it again: I don't enjoy CM:BB very much.

My infantry sneaks away a lot and I have to micromanage move orders: "Play more cautiously!"

- okay, but that means many battles are boring crawl-fests for the first 15 turns.

My infantry tires quickly when I try to use realistic moves to cover: "Slow down! Suppress!"

- okay, but see above for pacing, and Area Fire is kinda sterile for what it needs to be for truly effective Suppression.

In addition to babysitting every movement order, I've found that oftentimes squads and MGs with plenty of ammo and valid targets are simply sitting there not firing at anything: "The TacAI knows best!"

- But when every piece of lead downrange is critical to my advance, why is anything not shooting, ever?

Often after a long slow buildup/setup, I'll find that the sixty seconds of initial death is enough to win or lose the battle. Not a lot of ebb and flow going on (except for one battle - a really good scenario).

The improvements in the whole game experience are legion - MG effectiveness, infantry brittleness (I'm not contradicting myself here - I like the direction it went in, I just think it went a little too far for me), covered arcs, the graphical and sound extras, the OBs, etc. But I have to learn to adjust to the new tempo of the game, and so far I'm not adjusting.

-dale

[Priest]

Hmmmm

My experience so far is quite different. I ran rampant through an infantry line firing away with some T-34s last game. Of course there was six of them against one platoon but I always believe in concentration of firepower along a narrow band.

And so far it seems I have had a unique experience of having to do little more than I had to do in CMBO to play CMBB. The only added work I have seen so far is the Cover Arc command. And it is worth the extra effort.

Just my thoughts.

[Engel]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

As for camera angles, I find that I use 4 or 5

I usually use 3 or 4, which is mostly fine, but I do miss more visual input at that level. Now I often miss tracer fire unless specifically looking for it (I usually use 4 to find the action, and then go closer to see details), and especially small-bore artillery or mortar fire is almost invisible at that setting.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Priest:

Hmmmm

My experience so far is quite different. I ran rampant through an infantry line firing away with some T-34s last game. Of course there was six of them against one platoon but I always believe in concentration of firepower along a narrow band.

And so far it seems I have had a unique experience of having to do little more than I had to do in CMBO to play CMBB. The only added work I have seen so far is the Cover Arc command. And it is worth the extra effort.

Just my thoughts.

Priest, I'm with you man My CMBB gameplay is very similar to my CMBO play in style. I'm not sure if I should be pleased with that or not

It's just now my play style actually works effectively against

As for loss/win. I just played a draw, 53 - 47 (damn the AI! ). I'll win big against the AI often enough, but when I don't win, I'm not getting slaughtered.

Damn, I must sound like a fanboy or something. Ah well, can't help but tell the truth as I've been playing it

[Abbott]

I do not have any problems at all with advancing my infantry forward. I have played many games verses the AI and PBEM. I use the Move command most often then switch to Advance when ready to attack the enemy, cross open stretches or arrive to a position a bit quicker. The trick is not to over do the Advance command. I also let my infantry units stand in place or use the Move command for a short adjustment for a turn, sometimes two, then continue the Advance. The Assault command I use sparingly and only when 20 or 30 meters from the enemy using Advance much more often.

I have also found on a few occasions I have to carefully lead with armor, carefully selecting (or guessing) where the enemy is not. After moving my armor forward I then can cover the infantries movement forward.

Heavy machine gun teams and mortars now shine compared to CMBO. Even the 50mm mortars add excellent suppressive fire capabilities. Massing 3 50mm mortars on a known enemy infantry, HMG or gun position yields favorable and dramatic suppressive results quickly. I have also had great successes with 80mm offboard mortar support but it requires much more planning to bring to bear, not nearly as flexible as onboard mortar teams.

[ November 01, 2002, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Brian Rock]

I don't find surrender unsporting at all. Not submitting a PBEM turn is, but surrendering makes perfect sense when the cause is lost. Happens in the real world all the time.

The question about feeling involved with the action is an interesting one. I wonder if it's camera angles, bigger maps, or both.

As for the going to ground thing, I think this is an area CMBB has right. Pretty much everything I've read indicates troops after WWI pretty well got the idea that hundreds of pieces of flying lead are faintly hazardous.

Equally with the fatigue thing - apart from the physical exhaustion of running from point A to B factor in sleep deprivation, weeks of marching, poor food and the rest. Stress is very tiring, and adrenaline only takes you so far.

The downside of this, as many posters have noted, is that the pace of combat is much slower. I think its true that some scenarios are perhaps better geared to CMBB pacing, and that it's now too easy for a player to rush an attack. I also accept the slower pace isn't to everybody's taste, esp when playing a PBEM.

Hell, when I want a quick fun game I get the tanks out, not the infantry, whereas in CMBO I'd mix them up a bit more, and I like the inf changes!

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

About the AFV effectiveness : seems also to me that SMALL (< 105mm) HE are less effective than in CMBB. But overall tanks are rather better due to their MGs now being really useful at routing infantry !!

That those doubting try the "Deadly affair" scenario : infantry with molotovs and guts against light German armor ...