Why no T-28's in CMBB?

[Twotribes]

I cant seem to find any T-28's in the game at all. Why is that?

[Palantir]

Good question: they didn't include that lovable land-monster the T-35B either. There were less than 100 made & that may have been the reason, not sure about the T-28.

You could say that they didn't want multipile turreted tanks- but the M3 Grant tank is in CMAK.

[Berkut37]

simply put, they could not model it correctly. May as well ask why there are no proper cavalry units for the russians or horse drawn gun carriages for the germans. You get the same answer. Its a shame, i'd like to see them. Maybe in another version eh? :rolleyes:

[Blackcloud6]

They have all that in ASL! :smoke:

[Mad Russian]

They have all that in ASL! :smoke:

And 9,000 pages of rules too!

CM has a game manager that takes care of all rule disputes, defines LOS unquestionably, takes into account all modifiers for combat/terrain/weather, it accounts for vehicle breakdown, takes care of all morale checks, berserk units, leadership affect ranges, terrain damage, weather representation, reduced night LOS, visual affects of all types AND the biggest of all is I can fight the AI.

No horses, cavalry or T-28's seems a fair trade to me.

What say you?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Palantir]

And 9,000 pages of rules too! MR
:laugh: :hail:

What I like is rule- 6485.951.30B-2

In which it is stated, "All units must have their boots tied, those that do not have them tied can be identified by looking at all the counters & those without clean edges "hanging chads" are them.

These units must immediately be moved back 5 hexes so they can tie them properly- we can't have units tripping over themselves now can we! :D

:laugh: :p

Get ready...

[Twotribes]

What am I missing? Why would a T-28 not be able to be modeled? I can understand the T-35 it had like 4 guns. But the T-28 is one gun tank. What exactly prevents it from being modeled?

The T-28 was a main tank and saw a lot of action from what I can tell. It was in service in 41 in greater numbers than the T-34. What about the T-34 is modeled that isnt possible about the T-28?

[Mad Russian]

What am I missing? Why would a T-28 not be able to be modeled? I can understand the T-35 it had like 4 guns. But the T-28 is one gun tank. What exactly prevents it from being modeled?

The T-28 was a main tank and saw a lot of action from what I can tell. It was in service in 41 in greater numbers than the T-34. What about the T-34 is modeled that isnt possible about the T-28?


What you are missing is that the T-28 had the main gun in a turret and an MG turret on each front corner of the chassis for a total of three turrets.

The MG turrets were immediately under the barrel of the main gun.

Total production for the T-28 from 1933-1940 was 600. There were three tank brigades that used the T-28 exclusively and one that was mixed between T-28's and T-35's.

BFC claimed that it was too much trouble to model for the initial game series. Rather than spend the development time on a few multi-turreted AFV's BFC released it earlier.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Berkut37]

And 9,000 pages of rules too!

CM has a game manager that takes care of all rule disputes, defines LOS unquestionably, takes into account all modifiers for combat/terrain/weather, it accounts for vehicle breakdown, takes care of all morale checks, berserk units, leadership affect ranges, terrain damage, weather representation, reduced night LOS, visual affects of all types AND the biggest of all is I can fight the AI.

No horses, cavalry or T-28's seems a fair trade to me.

What say you?

Good Hunting.

MR

Damn yer eyes!

I want hordes of cossaks galloping across the steppes, sweeping all before them! :ar15:

[Twotribes]

Wasnt aware the MG's were in turrets. Learn something new every day, however, ( there is always an however) since they HAVE figured out how to model multiple turrets in CMAK, whats keeping them from patching in T-28's to CMBB?

[Blackcloud6]

What say you?

I have both and have played both extensively. I prefer ASL. Not that I don't like the CM series, I just feel that ASL is a much better system and extremely immersive. The "9000" pages of rules cause that. If you play ASL a lot (and I do almost daily now due to VASL) the game becomes easier and easier to play. (But you never stop learning nuances, tactics, etc which make for a game that never goes stale)

I too was once put off by the volume of the rules in ASL but that game works, is stable and is a lot of fun.

Find some experienced players and play regularly against them (and be prepared to be handed your ass a lot). You will be surprised how much and how fast you learn rules-wise, tactics-wise and play-wise.

I've played almost all the computer squad level tactical games and none of them, once you get past the eye-candy and sound, with ASL. I've said this many times, the problem with computer tactical games is the victory conditions are almost always based on points for capturing objectives and killing bad-guys. This makes for stale and predictive games after awhile. The strength in ASL is the boundless why clever scenario designers can make the conditions for victory.

Also, set up is very important to tactical games. CM, fortunately has the players do their own set-up, it is an important part of play. Other games fail miserably at this: Steel Panthers, The Campaign Series, Squad battles, etc, all force you into someone else's set-up and plan.

[Twotribes]

You have free set up in Steel panthers.

[Mad Russian]

Wasnt aware the MG's were in turrets. Learn something new every day, however, ( there is always an however) since they HAVE figured out how to model multiple turrets in CMAK, whats keeping them from patching in T-28's to CMBB?

Their decision to stop supporting CMBB with patches once CMAK was on the drawing boards.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Blackcloud6]

You have free set up in Steel panthers.

That's right, it's been awhile since I played SP. I honestly thought this game was going to tbe the computer replacement for ASL. But alas, the objective -centric nature of the scenarios gets to me after awhile.

[Twotribes]

The draw back to Steel Panthers is you can call in artillery fire to arrive before turn one. It is blind fire, in the sense you dont know if anyone will be where you are shooting, but against the AI you hammer the center of the set up area on his side, close to the front and I promise you will disrupt his attack.

[ER_Chaser]

I think somewhere in the CMBB manual, they explicitly mentioned T28 not being included due to its multiple turret system(which would possibly cause big programming effort yet very limited usage. ). A cost-efficiency concern I guess.

[Palantir]

But alas, the objective -centric nature of the scenarios gets to me after awhile.
You have to love those ASL guys in their land of ASL!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

ASL has no objectives- :rolleyes: your units just wander around the map hoping something happens... :nuts:

[Blackcloud6]

You have to love those ASL guys in their land of ASL!!!

You mean the funny farm? :nuts:


I pulled out CMBB last night because of this thread and played a small scenario.

Two other problems I've had with this game series iare that you start out almost right away in contact and the the full hidden nature of fog-of-war is too much in the extreme too. You don't seem to have time to do recon. Recon is a big problem in almost all comuter tactical games that hide the other side's forces. recon becomes "recon-by-death." The Campaign Seroes from Talonsoft suffers from this greatly.

Years ago when I first played ASL I never really grasped the power of the concealment rules. But now after many playings I think the concealment rules are ingenius. Yes , it's design for effect, but it works. And a good scenario designer can use it well.

[Palantir]

... other problems I've had with this game series iare that you start out almost right away in contact and the the full hidden nature of fog-of-war is too much in the extreme too. You don't seem to have time to do recon. Recon is a big problem in almost all comuter tactical games that hide the other side's forces. recon becomes "recon-by-death."

There seems to be 2 camps on this issue.

1. Players that like to get right into the action and not waste time "driving" all over the map looking for the enemy. (>=30 turn scenarios & small maps)

2. Players that like the time to be able to recon, check out the enemy and then form a plan of attack. (40+ turn scenarios & large maps)

Nothing is wrong with either style of play: it just depends what each player likes to do in his games.

[Blackcloud6]

There seems to be 2 camps on this issue.

A really great game would provide for both styles. It seems to me that the computer games trend towards the "immediate action" style of play. But, this could be more a fault of scenario design than game engine design.

[Twotribes]

Simple solution, make the map with lots of trees and no hills.

[Mad Russian]

A really great game would provide for both styles. It seems to me that the computer games trend towards the "immediate action" style of play. But, this could be more a fault of scenario design than game engine design.

What makes you think that a scenario designed for "immediate action" has a fault? :confused:

Because it's not the type of scenario you enjoy? Or what?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Blackcloud6]

What makes you think that a scenario designed for "immediate action" has a fault?

I don't think they're a "fault" just somewhat unrealistic in the in Combat Mission and other games where the opposing forces are compleltely hidden you thn have no inteliignece. Good combat leaders will conduct some recon prior to making contact. You should have some notion of general dispositions etc. So if the game is going to have the enemy completely unknown to you then you shoild have the time and abiltiy to probe, patrol etc.... Or provide at least some information (that may or may not be accurate).

I do grant there are some situation, like in movment to contact or a meeting enegement where the knowledge of the enmy will be low or none-existant, but it seems to me that this is nearly always the case for a Combat Mission game.

[Mad Russian]

I don't think they're a "fault" just somewhat unrealistic in the in Combat Mission and other games where the opposing forces are compleltely hidden you thn have no inteliignece. Good combat leaders will conduct some recon prior to making contact. You should have some notion of general dispositions etc. So if the game is going to have the enemy completely unknown to you then you shoild have the time and abiltiy to probe, patrol etc.... Or provide at least some information (that may or may not be accurate).

I do grant there are some situation, like in movment to contact or a meeting enegement where the knowledge of the enmy will be low or none-existant, but it seems to me that this is nearly always the case for a Combat Mission game.

What I find unrealistic about that, is that, the briefings aren't finished. Not that there is anything wrong with the concept itself.

In my briefings, I put in what intelligence I think the local commander would have gotten at his briefing. That includes whatever local intelligence he would have gotten. I often mark my maps with " ** " to show the last known positions of enemy forces. Sometimes that is done in a H2H scenario as well.

I personally think that the % of engagements where you know, "everything" about the enemy, is about the same as the % where you know, "nothing" about him. A fairly rare occassion for either situation. For the most part, you know, "something", but often even that can be suspect.

For instance, an hour ago there was an HMG in the church. That is great information and yet it can be very damaging for you.

You see, the Germans just moved that HMG to the large house at the intersection. So, when you attack in the shadow of the church, to get away from the HMG that was there, you attack through the intersection where they just relocated it.

There are layers of intelligence. Those layers are for the most part dependant upon time in place.

Meeting Engagement - Zero time in place or at the most just arrived minutes before...zero intelligence on the enemy force locally. You may have some operational intelligence. Air recon, locals have rumors of enemy tanks in the next village, that sort of thing. Not much else.

Short Occupation - Been here for a few hours. Attacked this position at least once before. Some local intelligence. The HMG is in the church. Or more correctly was an hour ago. The intelligence you have in this situation can be, and often is, faulty. Again, yes the HMG was at the church an hour ago. It's not now. You don't have any idea it was moved.

Medium Occupation - Forces have been in contact for a few days. Long enough to make field fortifications. You will know where the log bunkers are, where mines may be, anti-tank ditches, that sort of thing. These are hard to relocate. But once again, the intelligence on more mobile assets may be faulty. That field to the north of the bridge is open for vehicles. No, it used to be. The Germans mined it last night and moved an ATG up to cover the new minefield. You will be going into this attack fat dumb and happy. A lot of your men are going to get killed because you think you "know" what is there.

Long Time Occupation - Forces have been in contact in unmoving positions for months. This is the time when you will know the most about your enemy. Patrols are sent nightly for prisoners and raids, small attacks and counterattacks are a way of life to capture terrain features that make life easier for the locals. The local commander pretty much determines his own course of action. "Take Deadman's Hill. I'm tired of the Germans shooting at us from there." Most of your information is very accurate.

For the most part I think that wargamers, more than 30 years old, are used to having the God Intelligence network reporting to them. Looking down at a map from 10,000 feet. Local commanders don't have that kind of information. Not today and certainly not in WWII. You have no idea where his reinforcements are sitting and therefore have no idea where they are going to come from or how they are going to react. If you do your enemy is at a tremendous disadvantage and you are getting ready to throw him out of his positions. He has become too predictable.

What you know is broken you can fix. If you know he is going to counterattack from the church area, then you can lay a 155 barrage down around the church, at the same time that you attack the intersection.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Sgt_Rock]

Here is a pic of the T-28 - turrets and all:

http://www.msu.edu/user/storto/t28.jpg

I loved Squad Leader but ASL is so difficult to learn. And who wants to immerse themselves in ONE system? That is what it would take for me to become familiar with it.

I had the entire set long ago and got rid of it. Had every module plus Red Barricades and so on. Just way too difficult.

One problem you are always facing with ASL is that you are talking about abstract warfare. Squads either hold or break. Squad Battles by John Tiller has varying levels of morale from being Disrupted, Pinned, Demoralized, etc. With ASL you are either one thing or the other.

I like Squad Leader and play it every so often - I had the PURPLE BOX that came out at Origins. Try and find that one anymore!

CM is a good system. Not perfect but you dont have to intimately know tons of rules in order to be good at it. The computer does the grunt work so you can be the grunt.

[Blackcloud6]

I loved Squad Leader but ASL is so difficult to learn. And who wants to immerse themselves in ONE system? That is what it would take for me to become familiar with it.

It really is not hard to learn; especially now with the starter kits. And full blown ASL is not hard. Small scenarios don't use all the rules. Also, getting with others that play and playing often helps. Full immersion is what makes ASL great. But that does not mean you can't play other games. Once you've got some games under your belt you'll be able to play others. ASL is like many things in life, if you invest so time and effort into it up front, it will pay off greatly in the long run.

Squad Battles by John Tiller has varying levels of morale from being Disrupted, Pinned, Demoralized, etc. With ASL you are either one thing or the other.

Not true, you pins, disruption, berserk, hero creation, casualty reduction, battle hardening in ASL, all can happen as a result of a morale check.

Squad Battle is OK but suffers from what I said above: Pre set-up units and point based victory conditions. And lousy graphics.

[Sgt_Rock]

If guys that play tough hard games in my old club wont learn it then that tells me something.

Yeah, if you are the kind of guy that learns a new computer language every year I am sure you enjoy it.

But having to roll to see if the radiator sprung a leak every time you fire at a vehicle or if the door jams and the crew cant bail out ... more like nuts and bolts instead of soda and pretzels. Which is what Squad Leader is. You dont have to run to a rules book that is thicker than my phone book to find a rule.

To each his own. Its the biggest seller of course. But then lots of folks know HTML, PERL and FORTRAN too.

[Blackcloud6]

But having to roll to see if the radiator sprung a leak every time you fire at a vehicle or if the door jams and the crew cant bail out ... more like nuts and bolts instead of soda and pretzels. Which is what Squad Leader is. You dont have to run to a rules book that is thicker than my phone book to find a rule.

I used to feel that way too. But now that I decided to invest the time into it and have played many many games over the last year, I don't feel that way at all. ASL is a great system with much under the hood. It is truely worth the up-front effort. What will help ids getting in with a group of guys that know the game well, they will carry you along.