More scenarios with no arty please!

[theland]

Western Allied doctrine in 1944 was absolutely to carpet the enemy in as much high explosive as possible, to reduce infantry casualties.

If you want to redefine Combined Arms so that it doesn't include artillery, go right ahead, but you'll find it difficult to have a 20th century historical wargame that suits your inclinations. Particularly one set in Operation Overlord, which even by WW2 standards was a massive triumph of firepower.

Personally I'm looking forward to drawing up some nice big fireplans using the sophisticated artillery tools in the game :-)

@Speedy - "as soon as the spotting rounds come in your troops run away" - yes, fair enough - but does running away help them achieve their objective? ;-)

[womble]

I think we can all concur that artillery had a pivotal role in Normandy, and indeed in the closing out of the war in the west in general.

The question though, is what makes a fun scenario to play out in the game. While carpeting the map in 155mm HE is fun in a "magnifying glass and ant" kinda way (without actually harming any ants), it's not much fun being the ant. I think the call is for some restraint from scenario designers to avoid artillery deployment being the only thing that matters in a game that has so much potential for rich and deep tactical conundrums.

Personally, I agree that combined arms should include the support arms (artillery and air) as well as those with more close range contact with the enemy. It is possible to have too much of a good thing, though, and it's probably worth recognising that humans and AI have very different approaches to arty use...

[visor]

HI,

when I play battles downloaded from the repository I always load them in the scenario editor and do some tuning like I want..... delete any arty on both sides or bring more tanks or better inf in the scenario. Thats easy and if you delete any off board and dont look to much to the other forces... you will have good battle like you want.

[slysniper]

In CMx1, which in its day BFC said was as realistic as they could do, I used to avoid wasting points on 60mm mortars: they were in the "useless, just use them if you're forced to" category.

Now the first thing I look for in my force (when I open a scenario) is 'where are the mortars', and 60mm has me rubbing my hands with glee and planning their mission. That is a big change.

GaJ

Now, which is more realistic

in CMx1, JUST LIKE YOU SAID, THEY WERE A WASTE.

So why would any army have had so many of them, face it the game had them under modeled.

Now they are more correct and we have people complaining because they cannot just have infantry and tanks.

Face it, part of the combined arms is the arty, now it is a bigger part of the game. But it is not all that matters.

I disagree with the comments that the game focus is now arty.

Yes you can cripple your opp. with it but it is not the thing that can stop them from making objectives, arty is not that flexable. Arty is good against troops you know you can pin down and hold in place while you rain hell on them. To do that, you still need tanks and infantry to hold them where you want them.

Having games without it is fine, but to make comments like that is better is questionable, it is more just a wish of what you want your battles to be, that is fine, but it does not make it more realistic, it is just more what you have grown accoustiom to playing. The new cmX2 engine does a better job of reflecting combined arms and people just need to learn to adjust their game play.

[LJFHutch]

Personally I love the artillery, I never really used it in CMSF but I'm finding it much better in BN, although I'm pretty impatient: 4 minutes is a long time when people are dying.

[GreenAsJade]

HI,

when I play battles downloaded from the repository I always load them in the scenario editor and do some tuning like I want..... delete any arty on both sides or bring more tanks or better inf in the scenario. Thats easy and if you delete any off board and dont look to much to the other forces... you will have good battle like you want.

FWIW, this is a big no-no for H2H play. You don't mess with the scenario, otherwise people start "adjusting" to meet their ends, and the scenario designer cops the blame when its unbalanced.

GaJ

[womble]

Personally I love the artillery, I never really used it in CMSF but I'm finding it much better in BN, although I'm pretty impatient: 4 minutes is a long time when people are dying.

4 minutes? That's not artillery! That's popguns! What I'm trying to say is that some batteries are going to take 3 times that to come down... Hope you've got good long fingernails

[LJFHutch]

4 minutes? That's not artillery! That's popguns! What I'm trying to say is that some batteries are going to take 3 times that to come down... Hope you've got good long fingernails

That isn't artillery, that's "plan B" > if we die at least in a few hours time the artillery will arrive and light up our enemies! I tend not to use the heavier stuff myself, too long to wait and too expensive, but medium on-map mortars are verrrrry nice.

[Erwin]

"As soon as the first spotting rounds come in run your troops away, arty is ridiculously easy to avoid in CMBN."

Maybe in RT play, but in WEGO it's nasty - esp when the enemy has TRP's and one minute is a looooong time. Of course that's why hardcore players play WEGO as it's much tougher.

[theland]

4 minutes? That's not artillery! That's popguns! What I'm trying to say is that some batteries are going to take 3 times that to come down... Hope you've got good long fingernails

I've not actually experimented with battleships yet, but 12 mins would be on the quick side.... ;-)

[Michael Emrys]

I find the comments about how arty is dominating the battlefield a little puzzling in light of my own experience. I've been playing mostly QBs; I buy lots of arty but seldom get to use it. Why? Not only is it slow to arrive when requested, but the sight lines on QB maps make it almost impossible to use.

Let me explain. On most of the QB maps, the attacker is fighting literally an uphill battle and the defender is usually on the high ground. This makes sense because that is what an intelligent defender tries to do. But it also means that by the time I can get an FO or even a PL with a radio in position to call down fire on the enemy's positions, I've already met and mastered those positions through other means. Other than using it in preplanned shoots on suspected strongpoints or maybe laying down a smokescreen, it isn't all that useful. When it comes to putting HE on identified enemy positions, I'd heap rather have a platoon of tanks along. They react faster and are just as effective. You just have to be sure to protect them from AT assets. And if you have enough of them and use them carefully that doesn't seem too hard.

Michael

[Tarquelne]

I buy lots of arty but seldom get to use it.

After my first few games I resolved to buy less. Pretty much just when I have some specific, planned use for it. Suppression and/or smoke for an advance, for example.

OTOH, the American rockets *are* wicked-cheap. And the smaller the map the better the value arty gives. I'd say it's over-powered on most or all the Small maps. But an agreement with your opponent to limit arty purchases should fix that.

That all applies just to QBs, not scenarios.

So far I've only happened to play 1 scenario with off-map artillery in it. Huzzar: I'd rather have received some extra infantry.

[pcelt]

Would it be possible in QBs v AI to add in an Arty/NonArty option. Especially on small maps arty can in my opinion dominate too much. This option would allow people to follow their preference either way so everybody wins.....

[GreenAsJade]

Are you guys talking about QBs H2H? I don't know how you even manage this ... though it's another topic, the QB maps seem _awful_ for H2H play. If someone has made a list of "the good ones" that would be wonderful to have. I recently opened a "med ME", and found it largely homogenous flat open bocage fields, with one VL right next to one player's starting position. How is this an ME map!?

[Tarquelne]

Are you guys talking about QBs H2H? I don't know how you even manage this ... though it's another topic, the QB maps seem _awful_ for H2H play. If someone has made a list of "the good ones" that would be wonderful to have.

Too bad the QB maps don't have real names as opposed to numbers and designations. What were they named by, the US Army?! I'd have some suggestions if I didn't have to go searching through the QB map directory.

I think you're right about a list of good maps being great... though I don't think it's as simple as good vs. bad. More like "What's this map good for?"

One of my first PBEM maps, for example, involved a Mixed game that was really bloody short because arty + tanks made for such an easy approach... plus blowing the heck out of the defender. An All Infantry (or maybe even Mech.) game on the same map, OTOH, might have been great. Assuming some sharp restriction on arty, of course.

I don't think a random set-up for PBEM is likely to give a good, fair match. Could still be a good game, if the players are resigned to one of them getting shafted.

I'm having some trouble coming up with fair matches even when selecting the QB type, forces, and map. So I don't think we can expect it of the random generator. Too bad.

Best bet might be for players to decide on a map and then what sort of QB to fight on it. Some parameters could be random, but most - or at least several of the more important ones - manually selected.

[GreenAsJade]

More like "What's this map good for?"

The maps are supposed to be good for what their name says they're good for, right?

So you would think that Small Meet Rough would be good for a small meeting engagement, involving rough terrain where amour would struggle.

Think again: take a look at some of those. Open paddocks!

GaJ

[Tarquelne]

Well... yeah. I guess I didn't say so explicitly, but I think you need to look at the actual map to judge it. The names/categories are far too broad.

[GreenAsJade]

And how exactly do you efficiently look through all those maps, with completely misleading names, to find a good one for your battle?

I just got handed "Meet Large Village QB -097" as Axis - I think my oppo set it up with random map choice. Nice one: the Axis have a village with cover to advance to the VL with, the Axis have open fields. FFS. What a disaster...

GaJ

[Speedy]

Yeah it was random, though I wouldn't really consider scattered tree on a largely billiard table map much in the way of cover. I was crestfallen when I saw no bocage what am I going to do with all these satchel charges now?

[GreenAsJade]

LOL... it just goes to show we all love to moan.

I guess you are right that all those buildings on your side of the map aren't actually much in the way of cover in CMBN ... I'm too much thinking CMx1 style

But this is 1.01.... maybe the buildings will be great for you!!!

GaJ

[Speedy]

But this is 1.01.... maybe the buildings will be great for you!!!

After my experiences with CMBN so far I won't go anywhere near them.

[womble]

Yeah it was random, though I wouldn't really consider scattered tree on a largely billiard table map much in the way of cover. I was crestfallen when I saw no bocage what am I going to do with all these satchel charges now?

Flatten the buildings and hide in the rubble? Rubble seems to give quite good concealment and cover...

[Tarquelne]

And how exactly do you efficiently look through all those maps, with completely misleading names, to find a good one for your battle?

Efficiently? As in quickly and/or easily? You don't. I never claimed checking out the maps would be fun, quick, easy, or highly remunerative. It's just what I think you need to do for the best shot at a good fight.

Buildings:

After my experiences with CMBN so far I won't go anywhere near them.

I just had what I'm pretty sure was rifle fire from well outside a building (20m at least) strike down most of a squad as they tried to get out the back door, on the opposite side of the building. Sniper? Probably just an Engineer squad.... Geesh. Other than that it's been better than I expected.