Strong pre-sales may influence pushing back release date?

Rule_303

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
385
Reaction score
23
Location
San Francisco Area
I don't know if the "fix" is a "fudge" or not, but in CMSF the AI programming logic has no ability to "split squads" if they don't start the game already split. And if split teams subsequently move to the same point on the map, they recombine automatically and then don't split again.

That didn't matter so much in CMSF when it was mostly BLUE players against AI Syrians who where AK rifle firepower isn't much different than their LMGs at closer ranges. But in CMBN it's going to be a more noticeable problem, especially when the AI is German infantry attacking.

Seems like the "fix" would be to let the scenario designer designate two sets of destination squares for an AI "Assault" order instead of just one. The intact squads advance to the first (overwatch) set of squares first. Then each squad automatically splits off its LMG or BAR team. The MG teams open fire on targets in the secondary (target) set of destination squares, while after a few moments the rest of each squad (1 or 2 rifle teams depending on squad size) close assaults them using "bounding", crawling or a good old fashioned charge.

That would be an accurate reflection of WWII squad attack tactics as used by both sides, I think. Create a base of fire to suppress enemy defenders (especially MGs) while the grenadiers move in for the kill.
 

Tanker

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
702
Reaction score
4
Location
New Hampshire
Country
llUnited States
True, but the "live and die by the LMG" German-style had its price too, in ammo and lack of maneuverability and concentration of FP in one source. And then post-war we spent 30 years trying to emulate the Germans, the losers, in one way or another, squad tactics-wise. Sheesh.

-dale
Dale, the Germans did not lose because of their infantry tactics. They were, in many ways, the superior of the Allies in Normandy.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
Dale, the Germans did not lose because of their infantry tactics. They were, in many ways, the superior of the Allies in Normandy.
They lost for several reasons, albeit few of them tactical, I agree. Still, in this hobby there's such a large UberGerman factor that I thinks it's valuable to point out their flaws whenever possible. And I can think of very few ways they were superior to the Allies in Normandy, other than, you know, being there first. But that's probably a discussion for another thread. :)

-dale
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,573
Reaction score
2,484
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Dale, the Germans did not lose because of their infantry tactics. They were, in many ways, the superior of the Allies in Normandy.
Not tactically. The Allies had figured out long before how to ring their bell. That they didn't do it regularly was a testament to equipment and training problems as well as inexperience. But the Allies' doctrine was sound, and when practiced properly produced good results.
 

Rule_303

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
385
Reaction score
23
Location
San Francisco Area
Just looked at the third AAR, the WeGo one - very decent of tyrspawn to put all this work in.

I'm a little worried that it's going to be way too easy to simply blast defenders out of even heavily fortified positions using firepower alone. That was the "fatal flaw" JasonC identified with the CMSF infantry game way back when... Get into LOS then pull triggers until they all die, or you do. No close assault needed.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Just looked at the third AAR, the WeGo one - very decent of tyrspawn to put all this work in.

I'm a little worried that it's going to be way too easy to simply blast defenders out of even heavily fortified positions using firepower alone. That was the "fatal flaw" JasonC identified with the CMSF infantry game way back when... Get into LOS then pull triggers until they all die, or you do. No close assault needed.
That was rooted in the ridiculous trench model in CMSF. The desire not to "abstract" things like firepower and cover made BFC use the 3D model of the trench which of course doesn't work at all.

It is my understanding that the new fortifications that are subject to fog-of-war also abstract protection. Which can fix it if the right values are picked.
 

Rule_303

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
385
Reaction score
23
Location
San Francisco Area
It is my understanding that the new fortifications that are subject to fog-of-war also abstract protection. Which can fix it if the right values are picked.
I hope that's true. But when I was watching the AAR videos it seemed like the defenders in foxholes were still getting killed pretty quickly by small arms fire that was still 100 yards or more away. Same for buildings. I thought Steve said they were putting the "heavy" building type back in for CMBN. I hope so. Just jitters I guess. I really want this thing to deliver on its promise, at least on the big things.
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I hope that's true. But when I was watching the AAR videos it seemed like the defenders in foxholes were still getting killed pretty quickly by small arms fire that was still 100 yards or more away. Same for buildings. I thought Steve said they were putting the "heavy" building type back in for CMBN. I hope so. Just jitters I guess. I really want this thing to deliver on its promise, at least on the big things.
Past behavior of BFC value picking would lead to a guess that the values are picked too conservatively, yes. I'll wait and see for myself.

Overall I am getting a creepy feeling that CMBN might reintroduce CMBO's ability to outright overrun positions that according to their real-world firepower/suppression and real-world protection values shouldn't. That might not be a bad thing since it also means the oversimplified CMBB MG model and the crawl-of-death/auto-sneak-exhaustion are gone. That's overall better. The latter mechanisms screwed things up for real. If there are no runaway mechanisms and the problem is simply one of not making foxholes protective enough (duh but whatever) then a simple adjustment of protection value would help. Screwed up overengineered mechanisms are much harder to fix than screwed up values for simpler mechanisms (mainly because there's no way to convince BFC to just drop code chunks that obviously do more damage than good for realism or gameplay).
 

Rule_303

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
385
Reaction score
23
Location
San Francisco Area
But on the positive side, I thought the German prep artillery barrage in the second AAR where Tyrspawn was GIs on defense was AWESOME (and about as close to that kind of hell as I ever want to get).
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
But on the positive side, I thought the German prep artillery barrage in the second AAR where Tyrspawn was GIs on defense was AWESOME (and about as close to that kind of hell as I ever want to get).
Yes, sometimes in a scenario in CMSF I think, bloody hell those Syrians (or NATO etc) seem to now exactly where I am headed and Arty that spot. The AI artillery often gets it right where the AI infantry seldom do.
 
Top