Noob Basic Questions --- veterans please help! Thanks!

[idiot94]

After two games against Shorker and Cargol, I have a list of very basic questions about the game machenism of CMBN.

Would you please help me out by kindly sparing some time for these questions?

Thank you very much!

1. The first question is the victory screen, it reports "area", which listed failed for both sides. What does that mean exactly? And how can one side achieve a "success" in this "area" criteria?

2. The second question is "targets", where my side is listed as "failed", and if you point the mouse to it, it shows a score(for example) of 81pts. Your side listed as "success", it shows a score (for example) of 232. Questions:
a) what does it mean?
b) What is a failure and what is a success? How do we know that before the game?
c) How are the scores calculated? What does that 81 represents and 232?

3. The third question is the victory level: so it seems like the victory level is decided by the scores. And what is the relationship (formula)?

4. Is it a fixed ratio of total purchase points for attack/defense missions and so on?

5. What is the strength of defensive side? It seems like those passive defensive work (fortifications, like trenches, barbed wire, mines) does not work. Attacker's tank actually pass directly through the AT mine I placed, yet nothing happened. And trenches are like coffins for my own men, it is a beacon for attackers mortar fire. So I guess there are other things that the defense can leverage?

6. what was the troop quality you (shorker or cargol ..when I asked, but here, in general, all veteran players) chose to use most? How does that affect the battlefield performance for them?

7. what is the most effective range for infantry weapons? In CMBB, we have the direct numeric firepower displayed every time you aim at something. In BN, this is no more. So we have to guess by experience. So in your experience, in BN, what is the optimal range for infantries to engage enemy infantry? to engage enemy HT? and tank?

8. Is mortar effective against HT and/or tanks?
These are the first batch of questions I have for now. There are many more in my mind, when I have time, I will continue to post them and update the list. Please help me out

Thank you very much!

 

[idiot94]

I will update my new question in this second post later.

 

[Facman]

8. Is mortar effective against HT and/or tanks?

Generally no, but an occasional lucky shot does do some damage.

 

[Cargol]

8. Mortar shells can knock out open top HTs with a lucky hit and can damage tank subsystems or even immobilize them if they are hit constantly.Heavy mortars can destroy tanks(i ve lost Panthers from 4''2 inches mortar shells and i ve killed Shermans with 120mm German mortars.)
7.In game rifle fire can be effective from 150 meters and down while LMGs(such us Bar's or the german squad's MG42 or MG34)can be effective up to 250-300 meters.
6. The higher quality the better but good quality drastically increases the purchase cost and mortar shells can easily kill a crack soldier

 

[Mad Mike]

idiot94

Trying to answer some of your questions:

1. If you both have failed in the "Ground" segment of the AAR screen, it means that you failed to gain EXCLUSIVE control of all (could be one or more) area objectives. Exclusive control means that no enemy units are in the objective area (easily recognisable as the painted areas, toggled ON/OFF via ALT+J) at the end of the game. The way this works it can lead to quite "gamey" behaviour when your enemy (or you yourself) rushes any unit into an objective area at the last minute to deny the points associated with this objective to the enemy. Even one single soldier is enough, no matter the amount of your own forces (e.g. could be a single infantry guy vs. a full Panzerbattalion, it would still be sufficient to deny the points).

2. Targets can be quite individual for the battle and will be set by the scenario / battle author.
Most targets have to do with the casualties taken by your own force and the casualties inflicted on the enemy. If you would like to know more, I would like to refer you to the "Scenario Editor" chapter in the CM Engine Manual v2.0, page 75 (Parameters). As for sub-question b), it is up to the author to let you know about these in the briefing. For QBs it is usually a mix of enemy and own casualties, with a point value being awarded as soon as a certain threshold has been surpassed. BFC takes some pride in the possibility for creating assymetrical win conditions via these parameters (and of course the objectives) - with a good scenario author, it can work quite well .. with others (including some of the early release CMSF scenarios) it will certainly lead to frustration.

3. The calculation of the victory level is comparing the overall points ratio between the two players according to this formula:

A = points for the side who had more points
B = points for the side who had fewer points

then

V = (A + 10) / (B + 10)

and

V < 1.25 Draw
V < 1.75 Minor Victory
V < 2.5 Tactical Victory
V < 4.0 Major Victory
V >= 4.0 Total Victory

This should be correct, according to a discussion on BFCs forum (http://www.battlefront.com/communit...ghlight=total+minor+major+victory#post1279224)

4. No, not really a fixed ratio of the points necessarily. Casualties will have an impact on most scoring in a QB, but for a custom scenario, the scoring could be completely arbitrary - e.g. you could receive 1000 points for an easily achievable "Touch" objective (just move any unit onto the painted zone) while your enemy could only achieve 50 points for destroying 90% of your force. Anything goes, that's why the briefing is important (since most designers will make these points clear). Also, it is important to know if a certain scenario (NOT QB) has been designed with H2H in mind, since the scoring for one side against the AI could by wildly inappropriate in an H2H game.

5. In a QB, the defending side will get less points than the attacker (the difference increases from Probe to Attack to Assault). It is very difficult to offset this difference, especially fortifications and mines are mostly not worth the points, IMHO. So the first advise would be to NOT BUY foxholes, trenches, mines in a QB unless you have very specific terrain and a good plan to make use of these circumstances. Otherwise, the points are just lost and you could have bought a juicy tank with them. Tanks at least give you some mobility/flexibility to react against an attack. Static fortifications are certain death for yout troops. Only useful option I could see would be to buy some trenches, leave them empty and easily spotable, to attract the enemies artillery fire.
But overall, defense is VERY hard in CMx2, unless you have superior forces or play a campaign scenario against the AI .

6. I used to buy troops with veteran experience, but in my opinion the difference when compared to Regular experience is not really worth the price .. they behave almost the same in battle, in my experience. So I now either go for Elite in certain units (tanks, forward observers) and with infantry I try to use better motviated troops to increase their staying power under fire (Fanatic can work wonders).

 

[idiot94]

Many many thanks to all of you guys, thank you so much! And in particular, Mad Mike, you are so KEWL!! That helped a lot, I need something to digest, nevertheless, appreciate it, brother!

 

[Mad Mike]

Many many thanks to all of you guys, thank you so much! And in particular, Mad Mike, you are so KEWL!! That helped a lot, I need something to digest, nevertheless, appreciate it, brother!

You're very welcome .. just ask away whenever you need to.

 

[idiot94]

9. inf. vs. armor: small arms ---- hand grenade, rifle grenade, etc. ----- are any of them effective against HT/tank etc? And to what degree (range, chance etc.) ?

10. inf. vs. inf. ----- if one side is moving vs. one side static (defending or simply not moving), which side enjoys more benefits? Please note that this question has actually two parts: the offensive benefit and the defensive benefit.

 

[Mad Mike]

9. inf. vs. armor: small arms ---- hand grenade, rifle grenade, etc. ----- are any of them effective against HT/tank etc? And to what degree (range, chance etc.) ?

10. inf. vs. inf. ----- if one side is moving vs. one side static (defending or simply not moving), which side enjoys more benefits? Please note that this question has actually two parts: the offensive benefit and the defensive benefit.

9. Yes, quite effective for vehicles with open tops (halftracks, american tank destroyers - M10). You would have to be inside a radius of approx. 25 meters. I once moved a squad of Waffen-SS Panzergrenadiere close to a M10, expecting to kill it with the one Panzerfaust they had. Of course, the Panzerfaust missed .. but then the whole squad started throwing hand grenades, which was quite nasty on the crew in the open turret.
Also, "normal" tanks will definitely be affected by grenades, just not as bad. I guess to desroy a tank with them would be lucky, but it can happen. I'm not sure about this, but I think CMx2 has some kind of abstracted "close assault" mechanism of infantry against tanks. It will usually end in a slaughter of the infantry, but sometimes you can get lucky.

10. The static side should have all the advantages. But since all CMx2 soldiers are criminally bad shots with their weapons, the moving side gets away with a lot unless facing multiple automatic weapons (MG34, MG42, MP44, BAR, Thompson etc..). So if you enjoy a great numerical superiority against a static defending infantry force, rushing the position in order to take it out usually works quite well, especially if it is a single position with little firepower. This has changed slightly with v2.01 of CMBN, where MGs are supposed to be much more deadly.

 

[eniced73]

4. Is it a fixed ratio of total purchase points for attack/defense missions and so on?

I got these tables from Berto awhile ago. They provide pretty helpful information on QB's. These are the points that you are given depending on the size and type of quick battle. The second table is how many points are awarded for objectives and units in a given type of quick battle. If you have 3 OZ's the OBJ point amount will be divided amongst all three depending on how the QB map was setup (most are equal but I have come across some that award more points for one then another---map215 and 214 for example). I believe the unit point amount is divided up amongst all your units depending on worth. Thus if you played a tiny ME battle and only took a Tiger and a sniper, your Tiger would give maybe 80% of the 600 point unit total and the sniper 20%.

This should give you some decent information on setting up your strategies when playing quick battles. Hope this helps.

 

[Mad Mike]

I got these tables from Berto awhile ago. They provide pretty helpful information on QB's. These are the points that you are given depending on the size and type of quick battle. The second table is how many points are awarded for objectives and units in a given type of quick battle. If you have 3 OZ's the OBJ point amount will be divided amongst all three equally. I believe the unit point amount is divided up amongst all your units depending on worth. Thus if you played a tiny ME battle and only took a Tiger and a sniper, your Tiger would give maybe 80% of the 400 point unit total and the sniper 20%.

This should give you some decent information on setting up your strategies when playing quick battles. Hope this helps.

Good info there, especially for comparing purchase points.

The points for the objective zones are off, at least they are not always assigned exactly like is shown in the table (easy to check by opening a couple of QBs in the Editor).

I don't know about the values for the unit objectives, they might by right or not.

Here is what the manual says about QB objectives:

Only terrain objectives are considered for determining victory conditions in a QB.
All other objective types and parameters are ignored. All terrain objectives are
converted to OCCUPY objectives automatically. The code automatically adds an
enemy-casualty threshold victory goal for each side, which is lowest for meeting
engagements, and highest for assaults.

 

[idiot94]

9. Yes, quite effective for vehicles with open tops (halftracks, american tank destroyers - M10). You would have to be inside a radius of approx. 25 meters. I once moved a squad of Waffen-SS Panzergrenadiere close to a M10, expecting to kill it with the one Panzerfaust they had. Of course, the Panzerfaust missed .. but then the whole squad started throwing hand grenades, which was quite nasty on the crew in the open turret.
Also, "normal" tanks will definitely be affected by grenades, just not as bad. I guess to desroy a tank with them would be lucky, but it can happen. I'm not sure about this, but I think CMx2 has some kind of abstracted "close assault" mechanism of infantry against tanks. It will usually end in a slaughter of the infantry, but sometimes you can get lucky.

10. The static side should have all the advantages. But since all CMx2 soldiers are criminally bad shots with their weapons, the moving side gets away with a lot unless facing multiple automatic weapons (MG34, MG42, MP44, BAR, Thompson etc..). So if you enjoy a great numerical superiority against a static defending infantry force, rushing the position in order to take it out usually works quite well, especially if it is a single position with little firepower. This has changed slightly with v2.01 of CMBN, where MGs are supposed to be much more deadly.

Again, thank you Mike ...

So this seems to imply that armor (even HT ) is significantly more powerful (vs. infantry) in CMBN now (vs. in CMBB, where the most powerful force mix is infantry only). Am I right? (That is also my feeling in my extremely limited experience gained by the two losses I just played )

Also, one thing I noticed that even with small arms only (no mortar, no tank support), my supposed-be-ambushing units in well-"protected" positions (such as buildings or multi-story buildings) ---- got wiped out fast by incoming fire, some times even without being able to ID the enemy units. Quite often my unit may have a LMG at least. I tried with light teams, heavier team or even full squad. But the results are similar, without support, my "ambushing" force still got wiped out easily by the attacker (probably merely consisting of 2 squads). After battle, I check the kills of each side, and find that my "ambush" almost killed nothing. Yet a whole squad is done.

So this is also a relavant questions: how do you guys use buildings in BN?

Trees are individualized visually, so there is no such terrains as "woods" any more. Tanks and vehicles can enter any wooded area now. How do infantries use wooded terrain to their advantage? Is the wooded terrain now only serve as concealment ? (vs. providing good cover as in old BB)

 

[idiot94]

I got these tables from Berto awhile ago. They provide pretty helpful information on QB's. These are the points that you are given depending on the size and type of quick battle. The second table is how many points are awarded for objectives and units in a given type of quick battle. If you have 3 OZ's the OBJ point amount will be divided amongst all three equally. I believe the unit point amount is divided up amongst all your units depending on worth. Thus if you played a tiny ME battle and only took a Tiger and a sniper, your Tiger would give maybe 80% of the 400 point unit total and the sniper 20%.

This should give you some decent information on setting up your strategies when playing quick battles. Hope this helps.

This is awesome!

Even though Mike suspected earlier that the objective points ain't accurate, it is extremely interesting to see the breakdown.

My point/question is this: suppose the ratio between OBJ points and Unit Points is somehow accurate. i.e., for an ME mission, if the OBJ point is 600, there will be then 400 points assigned to unit losses. Now, the question is how is this unit point calculated in the end? For example: in a huge scenario, for ME, both side has 7209 purchase points, will the final unit point be a split of this 400 points between the two sides weighted by their enemy's losses counted by the purchase point of the units? Sorry about my bad English, for example:
with 7209 points on both side to start with, by the end, side A destroyed 3000 points of units of Side B, losing 2000 points of its own. Then the unit point for side A would be 400*(3000/(3000+2000)) = 240, and thus the unit point for side B is 160. Am I correct?

 

[eniced73]

Good info there, especially for comparing purchase points.

The points for the objective zones are off, at least they are not always assigned exactly like is shown in the table (easy to check by opening a couple of QBs in the Editor).[/CODE]

MM,
curious as to what you are seeing for the objective points. My computer is down right now and I cannot test this. I do recall testing this awhile ago and it seemed pretty accurate. Let us know what you come up with.

Idiot,
I am not 100% sure on the unit points. Again I did a little testing on this awhile ago. Whether or not the game weighs the points awarded by purchase price or some other method I do not know. Would be something interesting for someone to figure out.

 

[Mad Mike]

MM,
curious as to what you are seeing for the objective points. My computer is down right now and I cannot test this. I do recall testing this awhile ago and it seemed pretty accurate. Let us know what you come up with.

Just one example, open up "Meet Med Open - QB155" in the editor and you will see that there is one objective, occupy for both the Axis and Allies at 100 points each.

So it's either a 100 point objective (because control has to be exclusive) or, if you count both parties, a 200 point objective.

But it's not the 600 points as has been suggested by the table for Meeting Engagements.
This is also true for other QBs, so the points for objectives are not consistently assigned in the battles and therefore the table should not be relied upon for this aspect.

That's all I wanted to say really and it's no big deal.

 

[idiot94]

Just one example, open up "Meet Med Open - QB155" in the editor and you will see that there is one objective, occupy for both the Axis and Allies at 100 points each.

So it's either a 100 point objective (because control has to be exclusive) or, if you count both parties, a 200 point objective.

But it's not the 600 points as has been suggested by the table for Meeting Engagements.
This is also true for other QBs, so the points for objectives are not consistently assigned in the battles and therefore the table should not be relied upon for this aspect.

That's all I wanted to say really and it's no big deal.

MM: in your case, did you notice any relation between the objective (area) point with the number of stars on map? I have seen 1 star to 3 stars... Is it like 1 star for 100 pts, 3 for 300?

 

[eniced73]

Just one example, open up "Meet Med Open - QB155" in the editor and you will see that there is one objective, occupy for both the Axis and Allies at 100 points each.

So it's either a 100 point objective (because control has to be exclusive) or, if you count both parties, a 200 point objective.

But it's not the 600 points as has been suggested by the table for Meeting Engagements.
This is also true for other QBs, so the points for objectives are not consistently assigned in the battles and therefore the table should not be relied upon for this aspect.

That's all I wanted to say really and it's no big deal.

MM,
You took my tone the wrong way. I was far from making a big deal. I was just mearly asking for you to verify as my computer has been down and out.

Anyhow, I am up and running now and was able to get into the QB's to check my statements. One big thing was that contrary to what MM states the numbers in the chart are right. My original post had the OZ and unit points flipped but it is now 100% accurate as seen above. If you play a ME QB there will be a total of 1000 points divided up between the two sids as follows: 600 for units and 400 for OZ's.

Units: I am not 100% sure how the computer divides up the points. Not sure if it is tied into purchase points or if there is some weighting formula behind the scenes. I am sure BF would never spill the beans on this so unless someone gets into the nitty gritty and tests this we will have to speculate.

OZ's: The total OZ points are divided up amongst the number of OZ's on the map. I originally thought they were distributed evenly (which is the case on most of the QB's I looked at) but this is not the case. Look at QB maps 214 and 215. 214 is a ME map and has three OZ's. If you look this map up in the editor as MM did with map 155-- you will see them labeled as worth 100:100:500. THIS IS NOT THE AMOUNT OF POINTS THAT YOU RECEIVE FOR CAPTURING THOSE ZONES!!. This is the ratio of points that you receive for capturing that zone. Setting this map up and then surrendering on the first turn will give you 57 points: 57 points: 285 points for the respective three OZ's. The total is close to 400 ( as I stated in the chart). Look at QB Assault map 215 for another example of the ratio being 100 (62 points) :100 (62 points) :500 (312 points) :500 (312 points) with four OZ's. Total OZ points equaling close to 750 per the chart.

Bottom line is that you should check out the ratio's in the editor before you make your plan on a QB map/battle. You could end up spending most of your time trying to secure the wrong OZ's. If you played an Assault QB on map 215 and did not look at it in the editor you could devise a faulty plan to capture the two OZ's that are only work the 62 points each when you opponent is happy to sit on the two worth 312 points each!!

So there is alot more to a QB than meets the eye. Use the chart before offering your terms of engagement. Make sure you devise your plan to secure the most points. Hope this helps.

 

[eniced73]

MM: in your case, did you notice any relation between the objective (area) point with the number of stars on map? I have seen 1 star to 3 stars... Is it like 1 star for 100 pts, 3 for 300?

Idiot94,
I looked through some QB's in the editor and did not really see any correlation between the stars and points. There may be some QB maps in there that were setup with a more stars / more points plan in mind. Like I said in my post above some QB's do have multiple OZ's that vary in point allocation but I did not look to see if the editor stated anything along this idea?

 

[Mad Mike]

MM,
You took my tone the wrong way. I was far from making a big deal. I was just mearly asking for you to verify as my computer has been down and out.

Anyhow, I am up and running now and was able to get into the QB's to check my statements. One big thing was that contrary to what MM states the numbers in the chart are right. My original post had the OZ and unit points flipped but it is now 100% accurate as seen above. If you play a ME QB there will be a total of 1000 points divided up between the two sids as follows: 600 for units and 400 for OZ's.

Units: I am not 100% sure how the computer divides up the points. Not sure if it is tied into purchase points or if there is some weighting formula behind the scenes. I am sure BF would never spill the beans on this so unless someone gets into the nitty gritty and tests this we will have to speculate.

OZ's: The total OZ points are divided up amongst the number of OZ's on the map. I originally thought they were distributed evenly (which is the case on most of the QB's I looked at) but this is not the case. Look at QB maps 214 and 215. 214 is a ME map and has three OZ's. If you look this map up in the editor as MM did with map 155-- you will see them labeled as worth 100:100:500. THIS IS NOT THE AMOUNT OF POINTS THAT YOU RECEIVE FOR CAPTURING THOSE ZONES!!. This is the ratio of points that you receive for capturing that zone. Setting this map up and then surrendering on the first turn will give you 57 points: 57 points: 285 points for the respective three OZ's. The total is close to 400 ( as I stated in the chart). Look at QB Assault map 215 for another example of the ratio being 100 (62 points) :100 (62 points) :500 (312 points) :500 (312 points) with four OZ's. Total OZ points equaling close to 750 per the chart.

Bottom line is that you should check out the ratio's in the editor before you make your plan on a QB map/battle. You could end up spending most of your time trying to secure the wrong OZ's. If you played an Assault QB on map 215 and did not look at it in the editor you could devise a faulty plan to capture the two OZ's that are only work the 62 points each when you opponent is happy to sit on the two worth 312 points each!!

So there is alot more to a QB than meets the eye. Use the chart before offering your terms of engagement. Make sure you devise your plan to secure the most points. Hope this helps.

Very good explanation, eniced.

I've checked this out with my example, QB155, and for sure, the points awarded for the one objective were 400 (tested via hotseat).
So I was wrong.

So this is another undocumented "feature" then, since the manual says nothing about the fact that the points you assign in the editor are not the "real" points you will be getting in the battle. Instead, they are parts of the total sum, which will be converted to percentages of the total, which will then be used to assign the "real" points from the fixed, predetermined sum (e.g. 400 points for MEs). Seems a little bit overcomplicated to me and at least it should be documented somewhere (CM Engine Manual v2.0, anyone?). Sometimes I wonder if even all the permanent BFC stuff know how their game is working .

 

[idiot94]

MM,
You took my tone the wrong way. I was far from making a big deal. I was just mearly asking for you to verify as my computer has been down and out.

Anyhow, I am up and running now and was able to get into the QB's to check my statements. One big thing was that contrary to what MM states the numbers in the chart are right. My original post had the OZ and unit points flipped but it is now 100% accurate as seen above. If you play a ME QB there will be a total of 1000 points divided up between the two sids as follows: 600 for units and 400 for OZ's.

Units: I am not 100% sure how the computer divides up the points. Not sure if it is tied into purchase points or if there is some weighting formula behind the scenes. I am sure BF would never spill the beans on this so unless someone gets into the nitty gritty and tests this we will have to speculate.

OZ's: The total OZ points are divided up amongst the number of OZ's on the map. I originally thought they were distributed evenly (which is the case on most of the QB's I looked at) but this is not the case. Look at QB maps 214 and 215. 214 is a ME map and has three OZ's. If you look this map up in the editor as MM did with map 155-- you will see them labeled as worth 100:100:500. THIS IS NOT THE AMOUNT OF POINTS THAT YOU RECEIVE FOR CAPTURING THOSE ZONES!!. This is the ratio of points that you receive for capturing that zone. Setting this map up and then surrendering on the first turn will give you 57 points: 57 points: 285 points for the respective three OZ's. The total is close to 400 ( as I stated in the chart). Look at QB Assault map 215 for another example of the ratio being 100 (62 points) :100 (62 points) :500 (312 points) :500 (312 points) with four OZ's. Total OZ points equaling close to 750 per the chart.

Bottom line is that you should check out the ratio's in the editor before you make your plan on a QB map/battle. You could end up spending most of your time trying to secure the wrong OZ's. If you played an Assault QB on map 215 and did not look at it in the editor you could devise a faulty plan to capture the two OZ's that are only work the 62 points each when you opponent is happy to sit on the two worth 312 points each!!

So there is alot more to a QB than meets the eye. Use the chart before offering your terms of engagement. Make sure you devise your plan to secure the most points. Hope this helps.

BRILLIANT!!! Thank you thank you thank you!

This does not only help, buddy. Honestly speaking, without this, what were we doing? We did not even know what we were fighting for! The unit point system also needs to be figured out at some point, that is equally important. I will also try to find the clues myself, albeit I am not very good at this kind of things.

It is really strange that BFC does not reveal/document these things clearly: what is the point of "hiding" these RULES anyway? (yes, these are actually basic and important game rules, it defines what is win and what is lose. By not telling the players these, what is BFC asking players playing after all?)