Balance in CM:BN

  • Thread starter The Fisher King
  • Start date
T

The Fisher King

Guest
I have three PBEMs going at the moment, and as they are my first games I am learning a lot. My main observations are that infantry seems to bit a lot more jumpy than in CM1, with panic quick to set-in. Also mortars and artillery seem far more effective and when utilised properly can be a big deciding factor in a game.

I'm interested to know what people feel the balance is like between attacking and defending. With CM1 I felt it was pretty good and there was no need to adjust the side weightings. I'm starting to get the feeling that CM:BN favours the side attacking based on how easy my defensive troops seem to dislodge.

Anyone else have a view?
 
Imo the attacking side in CMBN needs at least a 20% advantage, especially if the defender knows what he's doing. I'm attacking in one of my PBEM and my opponent is very good on the defense. Although I am making headway I am losing 3 or 4 men for every 1 of his. Which translates to me running out of troops before I have reached my objectives.
 
Yo Fisher King! Von Clauswitz already taught us what we need on the attack. CMBN gives a statistically representative game engine for the time period. Therefore one could expect the games to represent a fair facsimile of combat conditions. This being 2nd generation CM, they undoubtedly refined their engine to reflect a better simulation, hence the differences from the 1st generation CMs. I'd say we need to give the game a chance to be played for awhile to get the real sense of how it actually translates. Arty & Mortars are to be feared in this game much as they are in real life. I have an opponent who is shredding my defenses with his.
 
Foxholes offer protection, just not absolute protection (unless you're hiding, but that doesn't work so hot for shooting back). As far as buildings and such go, they do seem to offer less protection than CMx1. But this cuts both ways. If your guys are in buildings and the enemy bombards you with mortars and MG fire, you're in trouble. But most maps allow you to position yourself such that the attacker also has to depend on buildings for cover too (not to mention running out in the open to get to them). So if your guys are getting torn up in buildings, the attacker's men should too. Bocage offers great protection, both cover and concealment. It takes a lot of resources to successfully attack through bocage. Setup your defense a few layers deep and you have a good chance of routing the attacker's men before they can successfully break through your lines.
 
From what I'Ve seen so far, a lot depends on morale and the skill level of your troops. Recruits are VERY prone to panic and are mostly useless in a proper firefight with lots of enemy fire coming in. That's one thing: The sooner your guys cower, the sooner they ge torn to shreds.
Second, skill level. The better your guys are, the better they whack the crap out of the enemy. Pretty logical actually. :biggrin1:
Third thing to keep in mind is accurately judging what provides proper cover and what does not. Foxholes might be a bit bugged at the moment, but that is looked into. Technically buidlings are NOT bugged, but the game shoots itself in the kneecap so to speak. Why? Actually it's rather simple: Each bullet's flightpath is traced and cover is simulated like it would be in real life. That's okay, although it would be nice to know if large caliber weapons can actually shoot through walls. Rifles definitely aren't supposed to do this, but I don't know about MGs (although I suspect they can't either).
Now here comes the problem with that system: Since everything is traced depeinding on the actual 3D models, your guys can't shoot through a solid wall either, which means they have to occupy all the windows - which incidentally offer almost NO cover. That's why troops in buildings get killed so quickly: a lot of guys bunching up at the windows which means that a bullet that'S technically missing soldier no. 1 will most likely hit his buddy standing right beside him. In CMx1 we got an abstracted cover value which incidentally worked a bit better than we got currently. I, too, hope they'll find a good solution for this but at the moment we're a bit stuck. Best option probably is to divide teams and have one team inside the building and the other one outside with what cover is available. I bet your casualties go down...
 
Sounds like the jury is out, it'll be interesting to see if things change as we get more experience with the game.
 
Earl of Grey said:
That's okay, although it would be nice to know if large caliber weapons can actually shoot through walls. Rifles definitely aren't supposed to do this, but I don't know about MGs (although I suspect they can't either).
Click to expand...
Rifles and MGs can both shoot through walls in CMBN, just as they can in real life. .30 caliber ball ammo will easily penetrate a brick wall, a small tree, etc. I think CMBN simulates reality pretty well in this context. I think that churches and other stone buildings don't offer as much cover as they probably should, but the normal houses and buildings would easily be penetrated by American or German rifle fire. Here's a screenshot of penetration from a .30 cal American MG through a brick (not stone) building. You can see this same effect from normal rifle squads, and these penetrations happen a lot. I'd guesstimate one out of every 3-4 shots.
30_cal_penetration.jpg
 
If MGs do that, okay. But the standard rifle shouldn't be able to (nor was it intended to do it in the first place - might be bugged). I expect the first patch to change quite a lot...
 
Correct me if Im wrong, but wasn't the M1 rifle ammo the same as that of the MMG? If it was, then the penetration capability should be identical for the 2 weapons.
 
Why would an MG be able to shoot through a wall but a rifle not? They both use the same cartridge. In the real world a .30 cal would have no problem at all shooting clean through a brick wall. Even a double-thickness wall wouldn't stand much chance against a 30-06 round. This is a second-hand citation, but it looks very accurate to me:

The following information is from Hatcher's Notebook by M.G. Julian Hatcher, U.S.Army, 1947, page 408:

Average Penetration for Cal. .30 M 1 Ammunition (.30:06 caliber, 150 grain FMJ, 2700 fps, at 200 yards)

1/4" armor = 0.1"
gravel = 7.0"
brick masonry = 4.3"
concrete = 4.0"
solid oak = 13.8"
dry sand = 6.5"
moist sand = 7.3"
loam = 24.1"
clay = 24.6"
loose earth = 19.0"
 
I believe you, but that's what BFC said rifles shouldn't do. No idea why or how it'll turn out, but if eveything coud punch through, well, almost everything, we wouldn't need any cover whatsoever. And since there's suppsoed to be cover that's also offering protection... We're probably not talking about your standard brick wall but rather thick walls built from natural stones.
 
When did they say that? The last thing I recall Steve saying is that not all rounds would go through, but that anyone on the back side of a wall getting shot by .30 cal is going to have a really bad day due to partial penetrations, brick fragments, etc.
 
Well, since I'm "on the team" so to speak, I can see what is talked behind the curtains. It's possible, though, he referred to the "rural" alls not being part of any building. But while we're at it: There would be pretty few calibres remain that aren't able to punch through wals - 7.92 has pretty good penetration, too...

Somehow buildings aren't as attractive anymore as they were in CMx1 times...
 
Sounds a bit off on BFC's side, a .30 and a 30/06 round (m1 garand) should be able to do some damage to a plain old house...


Although, take into consideration that Normandy homes are thick, layered from the outside with brick...It may stray into a house, but the odds of actually shredding it apart with a rifle is 70/30...

However, if the house is a shed...hands down you should be able to tear it to bits.
 
I'm not sure what was decided, have trouble finding the relevant thread at the moment... I think there will be a distinction made between sheds or "light" buildings and heavy buildings like stone houses or churches on the other hand. Either way we most likely won't get the same results wiht buildings we got in CMx1, but I still expect cover/protection to be adjusted.
 
Having never been to Normandy, I cannot speak with direct knowledge, but were not a great number of farmhouses in Normandy, built from field stones? Field stones would be significantly stronger than brick & mortar construction.
 
From what I have seen on the usual pictures: yes. Seems that a lot of houses were built from field/natural stones, but I'm no expert. Let's see what happens with the first patch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom