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

[TSword]

In the Yelna-stare demo my puny 75mm FO (with 60 rounds i think) had around 40 kills. Ok, during gameplay i could hardly notice some effect, in fact i thought that the barrage was quite ineffective, well the kill stat at the end of the game made me think different. Who would ever buy 75 mm FOs in CMBO and expect anything from it ??

I think we are fooled by EFOW in respect to HE efficiency a bit. I also had a game where i had 2 Brummbaers (150 mm howitzer) they repeatedly needed 3-4 shots to rout or kill the target (In one instance, a Coy HQ, the shell landed exactly at the place of the HQ without any noticeable effect). One should keep in mind that the main effect of HE is psychological to suppress and panic the enemy. Most of the time we waste ammo on already broken enemies i think.

To suppress soft targets not entrenched, small calibre mortars or gun's shells are the most efficient ones, because the killzone does only increase with about diameter of round, although the weight is for times higher. -> Killing is expensive while supression is cheap.

The only bug in CM may be in the calculation of blast effect which seems to low, eg. that HQ-unit unhidden at the edge of the woods would certainly be history if a 150 mm shell explodes spot on (within 1-2 m).

Greets

Daniel

[Ex Bellator]

I'm at work at the moment but when I get home I will confirm that the Blast rating for HE shells is actually much greater in CMBB - not less.

Check a Shermans 75mm Blast rating in CMBO and compare it to CMBB, IIRC it has increased significantly.

FWIW I also don't have any kind of problem with the Morale routine in CMBB, but do not like the Exhaustion (especially due to the infernal compulsory Sneaking) routine at the moment either. I feel it could use a tweak.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

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.

It's the angle. The camera views in CMBB are tilted higher up towards the horizon compared to CMBO. That means you can't see units close to your position as well. To see the same number of units in CMBB as you would in CMBO you have to back the camera away further from the units which makes the units look smaller.

This can be solved by hitting Shift+z one or two times. This will lilt the view down to where it was in CMBO so you are looking at less sky and more ground. The problem is that this doesn't 'stick'. If you change to another view level and then back again you have to tilt it all over again. It's very annoying. I have been one of several people to request that lilt angle be made sticky in a patch.

I don't know about HE being less powerful. I'd have to run some tests. As someone else pointed out the HE blast values have actually been increased over CMBO. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are more powerful, they may just be calculating differently.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

I'm at work at the moment but when I get home I will confirm that the Blast rating for HE shells is actually much greater in CMBB - not less.

Check a Shermans 75mm Blast rating in CMBO and compare it to CMBB, IIRC it has increased significantly.

That doesn't say anything about how these numbers translate to casulties. That can be tuned up or down.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by 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.

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).

-dale

I think this bears emphasis

"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)."

I have found in CMBB that things come down to a CRUCIAL 1-2 minutes (usually just AFTER contact) when everything goes right or everything goes terribly WRONG!

I have had VERY few close games, it is alot easier to win decisively or lose in a BIG way.

I admit I have played almost ALL my games as the Russians against the German AI so far, that might account for alot :confused: .

But it seems like there is always this Golden defining moment when the the armour battle goes one way or the other and then the infantry follow suit.

Maybe I have should play some human players (I have one game going now) but the AI is has given me some surprisingly GOOD games .

I still think dalem is right on with this line:

"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)."

FWIW

-tom w

[ November 01, 2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Lt. Kije]

I too am finding my QBs play out as long, slow buildups leading to an intense critical engagement. Followed by several turns in which the inevitable gradually unfolds.

In a 40 turn battle, I find myself spending 25 or even 30 turns positioning and prepping. Then an intense two to five turns in which all is decided, and the remaining turns to grind through the consequences.

-- Lt. Kije

[demoss]

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.

Actually, not even then many times. I've often had an enemy unit become unspotted, only to see it be "eliminated" when my men finally get close enough to ID the bodies.

[lassner.1]

I have to say that this has been very different from my experience: I have had great battles with quite a bit of ebb and flow (along with the usual nail biting moments). As far as ART is concerned, my 81mm had been brutally effective.

[Bruno Weiss]

aka_tom_w wrote:

Maybe I have should play some human players (I have one game going now) but the AI is has given me some surprisingly GOOD games.

That's right! Instead of dabbling around with the AI, ya ortta be playing me so's I kin beat the tar outta ya and get credit fer it.

[ November 01, 2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Capitalistdoginchina]

I did not do any tests so this thread was borne out of a general feeling that HE effectiveness was toned down somewhat for arty and Tank HE fire compared to CMBO.

I am wondering that maybe the effects are not toned down but just the graphical representation on screen is? Like someone mentioned if you go down to view 1 and get real close in it is ok.

Arty barrages from 150mm howitzers seems pretty lame......maybe Juju needs to make a "Hollywood" mod for arty like he did for the vehicle explosions

I do want to reiterate that i love the game and its many improvements, it is only this aspect that is bothering me.

I was interested to read some of the other comments here.

CDIC

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

I am wondering that maybe the effects are not toned down but just the graphical representation on screen is? Like someone mentioned if you go down to view 1 and get real close in it is ok.

The expanding shock wave was dispensed with. That makes it look tamer from a distance. I still haven't seen any explosions that look like the ones in authentic war footage (forget the crap they stage in movies) although the new ones in the game strike me as a step in the right direction.

Michael

[Silvio Manuel]

I agree w/ the *graphical* representation of the larger arty shells being a bit disappointing- I was just test firing some Soviet 152mm and didn't think it looked too intense... I guess the CMBO blast waves and maybe more debris flying seem more impressive.

[Brian Rock]

The visual toning down adds to the sense of arty being impactful to me. I believe the impact is still there in a game sense, but arty battles don't have the same visceral sense of overwhelm CMBO battles.

I accept that the new visuals are more realistic than the big shock waves, but I really loved those things.

[Battlefront.com]

Some random responses:

1. Artillery/HE being toned down - er... not to my knowledge! I have seen no differences in my games either.

2. Camera Angle changes - these were made at the behest of testers. The CMBO range of angles did not lend itself as well to the larger maps. No changes are planned.

3. Troops get exhausted too easily - this is something I have addressed many times before, but I will continue to do so here. People having problems with exhausting troops are simply asking their guys to do too much too quickly. Plain and simple. CMBO was far too forgiving and that lead to lots of gamey exploitations of the system. If this is how you played CMBO, then it is no surprise to me to hear complaints. But know that the complaints are based on "bad" orders, not a bad system. I have no problems at all keeping my guys in good, non-winded condition. Even troops which are below Fit in bad terrain/weather. The trick is to slow it down to a more realistic pace and/or better utilization of orders.

4. The pace is too slow - no, the pace is slower than CMBO, which was too fast. Heck, even CMBB's slower pace is too fast, but it is a noticable improvement over CMBO. What did we do to make CMBB slower? Did we somehow cook up a magical equation which makes play slower? No. Instead we fixed loopholes/shortcomings in CMBO that allowed for unrealistic behaviors which allowed the player to make things happen far faster and with less negative consequences. We have closed up all the loopholes we were aware of and that is obviously having a serious effect. Which is good

5. Surrendering - If your force is beat up, surrender or offer a Cease Fire. If the AI is beat to snot and it isn't surrendering, that could be a bug or something. I have asked Charles to take a look into this because games are NOT supposed to drag out once they are statistically decided to such a degree that no chance exists that the outcome will be different. Kinda like playing best out of 5 games. If you won 4, no point playing the 5th one EVEN though it could be won by either side.

6. Long time no action, then quick decisive action - depends entirely on the game being played and the nature of the battle. But yes, this can obviously happen. But man... I don't know what you guys are smoking if you think this wasn't the case in CMBO I remember playing against Humans where there was a quick flurry of maneuver (especially for ME battles), then a quick flurry of fighting(especially for ME battles), and then a winding down of the battle where I was pretty sure I had won or lost (especially for ME battles).

7. Necessity to micromanage guys - I find it very instructive that the same people complaining about the game being too slow and the infantry too brittle ALSO always complain about how much they need to babysit their units. Might I suggest that these things are interrelated? Units which are being asked to do to much in too short a period of time will likely be quite brittle and more prone to being in situations where brittleness is a serious liability. I have found that I need to do LESS babysitting of my guys in CMBB than in CMBO thanks to more specialized orders. I have also found that I have far greater control over the fate of my guys due to the new orders, yet I am not issuing any more orders than I ever did in CMBO. Just better targeted orders.

OK, I think that about covers the things in this thread

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I don't usually bump threads, but awe... what the heck

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

No sticky camera tilt?

I play QBs almost exclusively and the maps don't look much bigger than CMBO to me.

[aka_tom_w]

Steve Said;

"6. Long time no action, then quick decisive action - depends entirely on the game being played and the nature of the battle. But yes, this can obviously happen. But man... I don't know what you guys are smoking if you think this wasn't the case in CMBO I remember playing against Humans where there was a quick flurry of maneuver (especially for ME battles), then a quick flurry of fighting(especially for ME battles), and then a winding down of the battle where I was pretty sure I had won or lost (especially for ME battles)."

I have commented on this issue a few times and perhaps I should have been a little clearer that I was just mentioning this factor as an observation (mostly). Steve is correct, this happened in CMBO ME's almost all the time as well. I think my point and observation had more to do with my experience of that decisive moment. I admit I have played Jeagermeister as the Allies FAR too many times and in that one (and a few others), you can count on knowing the outcome of the battle within 2-3 minutes of committing your armour. As the Allies you either gain the upper hand with your armour or your armour gets smoked and then nothing can save your infantry. This is not a complaint, it seems realistic. (I think (?) )

Also the pace in CMBB is alot slower and I don't mind that at all. It is even perhaps more realistic now to experience this defining moment of what I would call "luck" or in the "old days" of boring (no FOW) board games, CRUCIAL dice rolling , now in CMBB the way it is.

I admit I need to have more games against humans and start to play the Germans more and leave behind the obsession of trying to whip the Krouts in Jeagermiester, that is ONE helluva scenario and I think I have played it now almost as many times I have played the orignal Chance Encounter scenario in CMBO :eek:

CMBB takes some getting used to. But I admit am having fun trying to master the tactics needed to win. CMBB does "feel" very different to CMBO and since I suspect Steve is reading this I will state the obvious again and suggest I would be more than thrilled (HINT credit card at the ready! )with some future treatment of the ETO after D-Day modeled by BTS in a similiar (maybe even BETTER) way to the way The Eastern Front is now modeled in CMBB wink, wink, Nudge, nudge, Say more no, :cool: !!

-tom w

[ November 02, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Hortlund]

I'm not sure I understand the complaining about visual effects of HE. I mean...what more could you want? I'm in the middle of the Seelowe operation as German, and I almost sh** my pants when I was following one of my StuGs on view 1 and a soviet arty barrage struck.

I suppose it all depends on how you play/watch the turns. Personally I use the 4 view for overwatch, and when something interesting happens I like to go down low and dirty with views 1 or 2. No complaints about visual effects here I can tell you that

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for coming in with some very decisive answers. A few posters got off track from the original subject of arty and HE effectiveness but it did generate some interest. I guess i still have to adjust and to use camera views one and two more often. I still feel that the graphical representation of the arty strikes on screen is not as visually appealing as in CMBO but i suppose i can live with that.

Cheers

CDIC

[Barrold]

I trust that the effects of HE have not been toned down from CMBO. What I am damn certain of is the impression a Russian barrage can have even if it consists solely of 82mm mortars.

I was playing an operation when my troops along the MLR were hit with what seemed like a vertitable hail storm of shells. I sat at level 1 and replayed the turn several times to watch almost the whole section of my line melt in panic towards the rear. Those that survived that is.

Could have been worse though, could have been rockets.

So my solution. After you watch the big picture are level 3 or 4, go down to the key points of the battle at the lowest level and replay the turn movie.

BDH

[dalem]

Originally posted by barrold713:

So my solution. After you watch the big picture are level 3 or 4, go down to the key points of the battle at the lowest level and replay the turn movie.

BDH

What about those of us that hate replaying turn movies?

-dale

[Barrold]

dale, I could suggest that this is akin to fast forwarding through a porno to get to the dialogue. Or like saying you enjoy steak, but grilling is a too much of a hassle.

Seriously, I really can't understand that concept. If you're pulling my leg let me know because it just seems you are missing a huge part of the fun in the game.

So much of the detail is made unavailable by skipping through too quickly and you certainly don't get the full teeth kicking action at level 3 or 4 as a selective viewing of key fighting at level 1 or 2.

On second thought, you must be joking and neglected the smiley.

BDH

[dalem]

Originally posted by barrold713:

dale, I could suggest that this is akin to fast forwarding through a porno to get to the dialogue. Or like saying you enjoy steak, but grilling is a too much of a hassle.

Seriously, I really can't understand that concept. If you're pulling my leg let me know because it just seems you are missing a huge part of the fun in the game.

Sorry BDH, I'm not joking. I play 90% of the time at view 4 and unless it's a big map or a super-key piece of action I simply watch the movie once, maybe say 75% of the time. And I enjoy the game just fine. That is to say, my view level and frequency isn't the limiting factor in my enjoyment. Since I come from a background of board wargames and tabletop miniatures, the "looking down at the table" point of view works fine for me. The lower views are sure nice eye candy though.

-dale

[ November 02, 2002, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:

What about those of us that hate replaying turn movies?

Matter of taste, I suppose. I nearly always replay the movie, or at least parts of it, five or six times. Maybe more if the action justifies it. Of course, it may take me a week or more to get through a single game, but man! am I ever getting my money's worth!

Michael

[ November 02, 2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

Yeah, armor heavy battles can be decided pretty quickly in CMBB, but I found this to be true in CMBO too. Provided the map was nice and open. Most of the historical maps in CMBO were not like that and therefore armor battles tended to be more cat and mouse than some of the historical battles included in CMBB.

Barrold,

What I am damn certain of is the impression a Russian barrage can have even if it consists solely of 82mm mortars.

One thing people have to remember when commenting on 82mm mortars, especially Soviet ones, is that they come in different size batteries. IIRC 3, 4, or 6 tubes per FO. So someone says "82mm mortars aren't that big a deal" might only be getting hit by smaller numbers of tubes. But yeah, I don't want to be anywhere near a 6 tube bombardment. OUCH!

I usually play more like Dale. Camera 3 and 4 for the most part with some replaying, depending on how spread out my troops are. Generally I find that there are 2-3 focal points which I need to watch independently.

Steve