QBs, Head to Head Play, Balance

[panzermartin]

From the posts I've read so far, it looks like CMx2 series is going to lean more towards single player gameplay than any other CMx1. At least CMSF gives that impression to me.

You have single player story driven campaign (one sided), focus on asymmetrical warfare,

one side (US) with far superior force quality

etc.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the new setting

of CM and I was too hoping for a change but I have my concerns over 2 player games which is where I spend 95% of my CM time (and I'm confident that many others here fall in the same category).

I'm certain that as a US commander you will be able to conduct all kinds of offensive operations, recon, assault,etc.

Will the same apply for the syrian player? Let's

say we eliminate CAS and give Syrians advantage in Inf and armor ratios, whatever. Will this be enough to make a balanced non-assymetrical warfare scenario or the gap in terms of response times, troop quality, C&C, intel etc will still be that huge that such a situation will be impossible to portray? Or perhaps, this kind of

battle will be anyway out of the scope and the new guerilla philosophy of CMSF?

For instance, is this type of (simplistic) hypothetical scenario out of the question? :" Hassan, the enemy is in control of the school complex in the town centre. Force them out with your T-62s and your inf company. We will provide 122mm arty, heavy mortars fire as well as hind cover blah blah..." So far, I almost get the impression that

the attack, assault options for the Syrian side

will be greyed out, even for QBs no matter what

force selections are made.

I'm confident that BFC will make the most detailed and realistic combat simulation ever made, no doubt about it. I just hope for some editing flexibility beyond the new asymmetrical model and victory conditions that will allow recreating some challenging "what if" situations.

[ October 22, 2005, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: panzermartin ]

[flamingknives]

You are aware of how the points system worked in CMX1?

Say a regular M1A2 is 600 points, whereas a regular T72M is more like 200? Add to that the human player, who will be sufficiently more or less skilled than his real-world counterpart to balance the command differences.

Fancy trying to take on a platoon of T72s with combined arms support with a light infantry element.

Just as many of the CMX1 battles were unrealistic? How many German assaults in CMBB took place without tanks? Not many, I'd wager.

Oh, and it's asymmetrical, it has nothing to do with mules.

[panzermartin]

corrected...I missed that one thx

Yes, I'm well aware of the purchase system in CMx1. My point is that the difference wont be only about unit cost. CMSF is going to handle command, situational awareness, victory conditions entirely different than CMx1 did and

if this vast US strategic and tactical superiority is present in QBs then the syrian

side will be incapable of anything but defensive

guerilla warfare which (might) lead to repeative head to head gameplay.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

You are aware of how the points system worked in CMX1?

Say a regular M1A2 is 600 points, whereas a regular T72M is more like 200? Add to that the human player, who will be sufficiently more or less skilled than his real-world counterpart to balance the command differences.

Fancy trying to take on a platoon of T72s with combined arms support with a light infantry element.

But of course, in the real deal, the Syrians would not only be using inferior equipment, but also having less of it than the OPFOR, and being less capable of bringing it to battle and using it efficiently. I presume the fantasy factor will be running even higher in SF QB's than before... or then, by using Rarity values, the Syrian T-72 will be as expensive as an Abrams.

[Justice]

Retooling SF as a 'modern wargame in generic desert environment' makes alot of sense gameplay wise; it's basically impossible to have a traditional, even-balanced wargame based on real world forces - the forces of Amerika Empire simply outclass everything by such an absurdly wide margin that it challenges the very idea of a traditional wargame.

Removing it from the constraints of reality would not only be good for gameplay, but also defuse alot of the politically sensitive stuff that this game sorta reeks of.

Multiplayer would be alot more open ended with a huge collection of real-world, modern day equipment & forces, real-world, modern day settings..and no 'story' whatsoever. The only 'story' about what's going on overseas right now is a Horror Story, for everybody, brown, & white.

[Andrew H.]

I'm not really sure that evenly matched QBs in SF would be much less realistic than they were in BO/AK/BB. If you look, for example, at some of JasonC's posts on RL engagements in '44/'45, you find that each US company should have had approximately two 105mm FOs (or something like that; I've forgotten the exact details). It's also true that tanks usually appeared in battalion strength and rarely appeared at less than company strength.

None of this stopped people from happily playing a US company with an attached platoon of two Shermans, a Hellcat, and a Greyhound, but no artillery vs. a German company supported by a Panther, a Hetzer, a Stummel, and 81mm OB arty.

Highly unrealistic, but perhaps less obviously so since WWII was two or three generations ago for most gamers, whereas everyone is pretty up-to-date on US vs. ME wars.

On the other hand, perhaps the point values plus force selection will lead to realistic matchups from a tactical POV - a couple of Syrian tank companies vs. two Abrams platoons w/ a couple of Bradleys might be very interesting, especially in somewhat close terrain. Such a force might be *strategically* unlikely (how did they isolate the Abrams units; wouldn't the USAF have prevented them from maintaining cohesion pre-battle), but if you can get past that, the actual SF fight itself may be realistic and balanced.

[flamingknives]

Thank you Andrew H. for showing some sense. I was in danger of getting cross.

To take CMBB as an example, I can quite happily play a German assault in a time of a strategic rout, using full strength units with full supply and more tank strength on a 6km square battlefield than was realistically available on the entire front.

Rarity then didn't stop me by making the cost of the German armour considerably more expensive.

Furthermore, the advantage enjoyed by US armour is no more than that available to Tigers against T34s, but in real life the US also has a massive tactical and skill advantage. Choice of skill level in the purchase options and the relative skills of the players will utterly negate this factor.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

You are aware of how the points system worked in CMX1?

Have you ever played a Russian vs Italian QB in CMBB? Not very fun as the Italians, even though the points are the same. And I'd be willing to be that 1942 Russian/Italians forces were closing to parity than Modern US v Syrian.

[flamingknives]

Yes, as a matter of fact I have.

It was against the AI, so admittedly not a terribly big challenge, but I won handily.

If you always play in medium hills, moderate to sparse trees, during the day in good weather and with T34s, it will be difficult for the Italians to make a decent oppostion.

However, on the real front, T34s didn't fight in every occasion and the Italians managed to give a good account of themselves.

In addition, since CM:SF will be US Vs Syrians, not Soviets or Partisans Vs Germans or Italians or Romanians or Hungarians or Finns, the points will be more balanced for the given engagements.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

In addition, since CM:SF will be US Vs Syrians, not Soviets or Partisans Vs Germans or Italians or Romanians or Hungarians or Finns, the points will be more balanced for the given engagements.

Yeah, I think that this will undoubtedly be the case. CMx1's requirement that each unit have only one point value in all time periods and in all circumstances worked pretty well most of the time, but meant that some some (usually less common) matchups didn't really work well.

I think that things will be much simpler in SF since things will be much more static. I.e., there is pretty much one answer to how good the Abrams is in SF, while the question of how good the PzIII has widely varying answers depending on whether you are asking the question in '41 or '45, as well as whether your opponent will be Italian, American, or Soviet.

There is still a place for common sense, though - assuming SF doesn't have some sort of point system, the value of an Abrams in built-up terrain is, realistically, less than its value in flat, open terrain (indeed, for SF purposes, its value in flat open terrain may approach infinity...)