Battle for Normandy Beta AAR 3

Sgt_Kelly

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
296
Reaction score
6
Location
Ghent
Country
llBelgium
Hiya Scott,

While there are a few features that CMBO had that CMBN doesn't there is are large number of features that have been added that CMBO does not have, beyond the ones you've mentioned. As you mention, many were added when CMSF was made and others have been added specifically for CMBN. With a little time I could put together a more comprehensive list. Maybe if I mention a few others can chime in for me. Feature like the ability to play real time, recover ammo and weapons for a down soldier, the ability to re-man an abandoned vehicle, the ability for a vehicle and squad to fire at 2 different targets at once, resupplying units, ammo sharing, finer terrain definition, PBEM files now allow you have both a plot and a movie in each turn, much better indirect fire modeling, more detailed C2 system, no "borg sighting", far more flexible victory conditions, preview maps for QBs, on map field infantry guns can be used for indirect fire, passengers can fire out of open vehicles...... That is a far cry from a complete list. As I said, maybe some others will add some of the ones I haven't mentioned. Not doubt some will mention features that CMBN does not have (my pet peeve one is WeGo TCP) but that is a much smaller list and many, in balance, would not trade lost features for added features. YMMV.
The problem I have with this is that many of the features strike me as either not very relevant or very close to unrealistic :

  • Weapons & ammo recovery : how often would this happen in a real WW2 tactical engagement ? In almost all the instances I've seen this used in the AARs posted, no real soldier would have taken that action.
  • Field guns used for indirect fire. Not sure if this is realistic for the map sizes CMBN allows.
  • Recrewing of abandoned vehicles. Again very unlikely to happen in the midst of pitched battle.
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
The problem I have with this is that many of the features strike me as either not very relevant or very close to unrealistic :

  • Weapons & ammo recovery : how often would this happen in a real WW2 tactical engagement ? In almost all the instances I've seen this used in the AARs posted, no real soldier would have taken that action.
  • Field guns used for indirect fire. Not sure if this is realistic for the map sizes CMBN allows.
  • Recrewing of abandoned vehicles. Again very unlikely to happen in the midst of pitched battle.
If you're asking me Sarge then the answer is "I don't know". You can count the number of books I've read about WW2 on one hand and still have fingers left. What I can say though is that people have asked for the ability to pick up fallen soldiers weapons and ammo for a long time. "The guy carrying the baz went down, why wouldn't the other guy in the team just pick it up" is the usual context. I have zero point zero (Blutarskys GPA) idea about the range needed for indirect fire of field guns. And to the third, I have heard people tell stories on the these wargame forums about dismounting tanks to have to look over a ridge or on the other side of a patch of woods before driving the tank into possible trouble. The re-manning of AFVs abandoned because they were shot is not something that happens often in the game because crews usually get pretty shot up as they bail. But it can and does happen (it did in the AAR I made). And again, I have a Blutarsky GPA of an idea if it happened in real life and if so how often.

The point was features that CMBN has over CMBN. A the nice thing about 2 out of 3 of the ones you mention is that if a player feels they are unrealistic they do not have to use them. There is much that a player can do about buddy aid to avoid using it, short of moving the unit away from the down soldier. But if you're playing someone and think re-manning a tank is unlikely to happen in the midst of pitched battle you can tell the other player as much and agree to not re-man AFVs. The TacAI does not control that, the player does.
 

junk2drive

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
897
Reaction score
7
Location
Arizona West Coast
I'm not as well read as some people here but this is my favourite recrewing story

Years after the battle, Paras on the anti-tank course were told this story. An Egyptian SU 100 was approaching a 106. The gunner fired his spotting round and hit it. The Egyptians recognized that a spotting round had just hit them and immediately jumped out and took cover. Nothing happened. The Egyptians assumed they had made a mistake so they climbed back into their vehicle. The British gunner, who was still dead on target, fired his main gun destroying the vehicle and its crew. The moral is - a spotting round is a spotting round, don't get back into the vehicle.

http://www.standto.com/airborne/suez.html

More about the paras in the 1956 war at the link above.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
While not an ultra grog like some I do like to think that I have a working knowledge of ww2 weapons and tactics. I can honestly say from experience too that if your guy on the big MG goes down, then you want someone else to be wielding it as soon as you can.

Some of the CMSF/Afghan features that have impressed me are:

The ability to pick up weapons from fallen soldiers, although I believe this was abstracted in CMBB.

The ability to share ammunition between groups of soldiers. This enables your men to fight for longer than the 5 minutes that CMBB gave you most of the time.

1-1. Though it doesnt always work as it should, once you have played with 1-1 a few times, going back to CMBB just doesnt feel the same. Also with 1-1 is the ability of you squad to engage more than 1 target at a time.

Vehicles also engage more than 1 target, coupled with the fact that infantry can fight from vehicles and engage other targets too. A much more realistic situation.

Real Time. 4 years ago I never would have said this but RT is a fantastic way to play a tense game where you stand and fall by instant decisions, just like in real life. Although the caution here is that it can get too big and a platoon plus is usually enough, although I have played a few Company sized games in RT.

I like the command delay removal as this was, in my opinion, a pain in the proverbial in CMBB. Why should I get a command delay when Im playing every squad? Im a dozen Sgts and Cpls and Junior Officers.

The Air and Artillery system is much better as well.

There is a lot more in there already mentioned above by others. Play the Afghan or CMSF demo and fool around with some of the commands, split squads, buddy aid, weapons pick ups and ammo sharing.

The features introduced in CMBN will only enhance the ones in CMSF in my opinion. And I dont think anything is fundamentally broken as far as I can see.
 

junk2drive

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
897
Reaction score
7
Location
Arizona West Coast
I played Command and Conquer, Starcraft and Close Combat to death until one day I realised that I was too old for real time. Around 2001. I have tried it again several times in the following years and just can't do it. Taking turns has it's problems too, especially against a human. WEGO is the best compromise for me.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The problem I have with this is that many of the features strike me as either not very relevant or very close to unrealistic :

  • Weapons & ammo recovery : how often would this happen in a real WW2 tactical engagement ? In almost all the instances I've seen this used in the AARs posted, no real soldier would have taken that action.
  • Field guns used for indirect fire. Not sure if this is realistic for the map sizes CMBN allows.
  • Recrewing of abandoned vehicles. Again very unlikely to happen in the midst of pitched battle.
I dont disagree on the face of it; what I hope this means is that as computers continue to get more powerful, we will see a return to large scenarios of the same scope as some of the CM:BO ones - i.e. battalion or regiment/brigade size. An abandonment of the real time aspect, and perhaps even a return to an "operations" style campaign. In that context, stuff like recrewing, indirect fire, etc., would be more appropriate, particularly on a larger map and when done "in the backfield" so to speak.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
An abandonment of the real time aspect.
I hope not, as I said previously, its something I rather enjoy and the game is designed for it to be played that way too. I'm looking for more smaller scale scenarios and games. I'm actually looking forward to smaller QBs against real people live.
 

BlitzCanuck

Pretend Command Sgt. Maj.
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
228
Reaction score
5
Location
Great White North
Country
llCanada
So when you're playing a real time battle against a live person, pausing the game must pause it for both players right?
and you can pause as much as you want?
If so, it seems to me the game would seem very disjointed.....no 'flow' to it.
Or is this handled differently than i'm imagining?
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
So when you're playing a real time battle against a live person, pausing the game must pause it for both players right?
and you can pause as much as you want?
If so, it seems to me the game would seem very disjointed.....no 'flow' to it.
Or is this handled differently than i'm imagining?
No pauses. Beginning to end game play. Thats why it cant be too big....or long....
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I had no idea.

I guess i won't be playing very much tcp since i like larger battles.
I'll try it but can't imagine liking it.
I mainly play the AI RT and it is and can be good fun and challenging! PBEM is still OK for humans and using Dropbox can almost feel like IP WEGO. Would be even better if BF invested a bit of time making PBEM with Drop box automated. Like PCO will be.
 

vulture

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
192
Reaction score
4
Location
Ossett
Country
ll
Sure, but you can pause when playing the AI right?
Yeah, pausing vs the AI is allowed. I have some vague memory that there was a difficulty setting in CMSF that prevented pausing (Iron, presumably), but I wouldn't swear to it.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Some of the confusion about pausing in RT is I don't thinkl it was in from the beginning. Or at least pausing and issuing oderes. Being able to pause and issue orders was added after a year or so based on demand from users.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I like the command delay removal as this was, in my opinion, a pain in the proverbial in CMBB. Why should I get a command delay when Im playing every squad? Im a dozen Sgts and Cpls and Junior Officers.
But you're also the company commander, who has no ability to transmit an order magically down to every private and have it instantly understood and acted upon. Command delays seem like a decent way to reflect the sheer mechanics or order transmission, receipt and interpretation.

-dale
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Command delays and RT do not mix well.
One of the reasons they need to abandon RT. They tried to go for the larger audience. I'd like to see some official polling on their forum to see how well that was done rather than the phantom demographics they apparently rely on. If they're going to go back to what they do well, then go all the way back. I think reliance on real time is just going to hold them back from fully implementing the best product possible, since there will always be compromises between what is best for WEGO and best for RT.
 
Top