Starting to feel a bit disillusioned

For rocket battery; first i have to find a good spot,(3-4min gone) wait another 8- 9 minutes for the arty setup etc, and finally i must wait another 5 minutes for see the rockets effect, and i can't attack during this barrage;at this point i lost 16-17 minutes, if the game it longs 30 min, i'm seriously in deep shit.
Because it's more difficult conquest the zone when half time is gone and there are some panthers or pzvgs around waiting for you.
The question;will i try another time the rockets? well it depends on the map( if there is a good spot,and how much time i needs to go there),and obviously the time battle.
A simply solution it could be to increase the points for these rockets,(atm is around 59 points for 4x)
 
Bootie said:
Taking something out of context and popping it in here is pretty poor. You know I was talking about The Campaign.... a competition which we know isnt set up as balanced battles?

What we are talking about here is balance in friendly games.
Click to expand...
I didnt took something out of a context i ve just copied ur entier post and the game that u ve described it was a tourney game just like the other one where the preplan atillery thing was brought in.
No need to argue though as both of us i think we made our point.
 
Use bunkers that are out of LOS with trenchworks or covered routes (by terrain) leading from them to the fighting positions.
 
My two cents worth.... Which is really only worth 1.5 cents...

Arty hasn't caused me much trouble as RT said (love ya my man). You just have to watch for the spotting rounds. I have never come up against the big stuff but can understand that on a smaller map it would be impossible to hide. The only problem I would have is pre-planned on a setup and I don't think any one here is juvenile enough to do that. That is a BIG no-no.

About the big cats. I personally feel ashamed if I buy more than 3 in a 2500ish points game. Especially if the map is flat and not much cover. This should be fun for both sides. But I have been against 5 Panthers in one game and a Tiger, 2 Panthers, 2 Marders and a Stu42 in another. Both with 2500 to spend. I feel the cost of the big cats should go up exponentially as you buy more. That third Kitty could cost, oh I don't know, maybe 600-700 points in a 2500 point QB. BF should really give this a thought.

I love this game, and realize it's not perfect. All the CMx1 games were great also and gave me YEARS of enjoyment. And we have years ahead of us with CMx2. I can live with the slight imbalances and chuckle when I'm against 5 Panther and such. It actually kind of makes me try that much more to win. I got the guy with Tiger and family. My 2 Shermans shredded the soft side armor and a 50cal HT will waste a Marder!

As a few have commented, it is good we can talk about this. It keeps it real.
 
The actual problem isn't really the artillery in itself or the number of big cats but rather that the standard maps are SO DAMN SMALL. Arty dominates a 1x1km map as much as a couple of big cats given that there's not too much bocage lying around somewhere. Bocage nixes the cat's range advantage, but the artillery is still as effective as before. So if each player gets a chance to get out of the way of the heavy stuff on both sides everyone should be satisfied - I would be for sure! (Not that I really play very much CMBN, I actually still enjoy playing CMx1 and even CMSF more than CMBN)

So all we need is bigger maps, preferably up to max map size to allow maneuvering and setup zones that won't be ploughed by a preliminary bombardment from end to end from Turn 1 on. Too bad the ditor is such a pain in the ass to use in comparison with the old one...
 
I think Earl is right - bigger maps can eliminate advantage of big cats especially. I'm downloading all bigs maps made by modders. I miss sometimes CA restrictions from CMx1
 
I would think big maps would increase the German tank advantage. If they have good line of sight that is.
 
Correct - but at the same time they give the Allied player much more room to outmaneuver the cats. Although bigger maps are more intended for evening the arty advantage. it IS tiresome to get blown off the map 'cause you got nowhere to put your troops and your opponent simply can't miss...
 
Bidermann said:
Its shame that we have to have so many rules to play a battle, it would be better to have a btter balanced game made
Click to expand...

There's always checkers, but somebody still gets to go first.

It's a simulation. I don't believe it's meant to be balanced.
 
But bigger maps also mean it will take longer for players in a pbem will go into combat and that will take most of the fun away.
I dont want to waste 20 turns before I get enemycontact.
 
Since everyone is voicing their thoughts on CMBN..heres mine;

1. CM1x...there still are complaints posted on how bad and unfair these three games were for either Allies, or Axis. CM1x wasn't designed to be balance and fair....it was design to be accuracy, base off history. The same goes for CMBN. So if you want balance and fair...negotiate with your opponent to take away some of his advantages or find another computer game.

2. CMBN, More often than not, I'm getting my butt kicked. Its not that my opponents are cheating, or taking unfair advantage of their side equipment or men, or I didn't negotiate well enough to screw them or the gods of Battlefront game programmers hate me...it's forgetting lessons learned by both side in WWII, thinking CMBN is just another CM1x game and not enough time playing C MBN is learn it as I did with CM1x systems.

3. I'm slowing learning to love CMBN game system, but its a bitch at times to me. Others seem to do better than I am. So the real blame must be ME....not the game, or all opponents, or any pre-arrangements made before hand, but with ME. And there lays the root of the main issues gentlemen, so stop blaming poor defenseless computer game and take it as a in depth game, that's needs your time and attenuation to learn it.

4. And yes, I agree that the map size is very important for CMBN. My suggestion is that the map size should be equal with points used per side. Large amount points for one side, equals a large size map...and so on.

5. For me learning CMBN has been very frustrating experience and still is. And I blew because of that, conceding my games to all my opponents due to that. My apologies to all my opponents, for my poor behavior. But in time the true of it, came to me. It's isn't CMBN, but it was me. After reading Battlefront forum on the why's and how's of the design, and all the other players bitching about it and how they were being screwed by the new game, did I realizes how wrong I was (and they were too). In time we well come to realizes that CMBN is truly a masterpiece of gaming programming.

My thanks to Battlefront
Lighthorse
:pray2:
 
Hear hear :amen:

CMBN is indeed a great game. I played CMx1 ages ago and by that I really mean ages ago so I cant speak of CMx1.

ps: enjoying the holiday and I'm turning of my laptop. I'll check in in a few days. :focus:
 
For people coming from the CMx1 stuff (AK/BB particularly): Firstly, get PC:O (also), it's the spiritual successor imo.

Second, you need to learn a new game that is essentially the same as CMBB/AK but takes place on a smaller scale. Then you will fully appreciate it. Lots of misunderstanding causes frustration and people are turned off because they don't feel in control of the game. Practice with the mechanics is the only way currently to bypass that.

Start with scenarios where you just control a platoon HQ. (If they aren't designed yet someone should make them.) Use real time, pause as much as you want, and stay near your platoon hq unit with a mind to C2 links & limitations. This is pretty much the crash course to appreciate the new game fully. If it were better documented we could read a manual and get the same thing but this is good practice anyhow.
 
Pillar - you're right, but all is matter of time. I haven't time for so much "investigation". I still think it's a great game - however needs to be modify.
 
I don't want to necro a thread, but the discussion here was quite interesting.

From my point of view, regarding QB's, mTk said it perfectly and concisely. There's certainly a problem with balance regarding Xylophones: I'm pretty sure that sooner or later the point cost for those will be increased to put them in line with Nebelwerfer batteries.

Regarding scenarios: as I said in another forum, Artillery can become a Deus Ex Machina that decides the scenario in a way which is not enjoyable by neither side. Here the ball is really in the scenario designer court.

If he wants to you to play the Germans being hammered as they were for instance, during the Huertgen Forest battles, well, it's fair enough. If he wants you to play the Götz Von Berlichinger panzergrenadiers being crushed by naval artillery barrages, it's also fair enough. However, this should be noted in the scenario designer's note with a convincing rationale for "yeah, you got some really shiny toys at the start, but I want you to feel frustrated seeing them being destroyed by 350mm naval rounds".

I think we're still a bit learning the game - especially regarding how certain weapons are modelled. This is critical for scenarios being "balanced". "Common sense" as says Earl of Grey, should discourage anybody from allocating an Artillery Battalion to a company sized attack in a 500m x 500m map. It's also critical for us developing tactics, when terrain allows. Usually, one isn't forced to deploy his troops - right from the start - in obvious strong defensive terrain. The Germans historically excelled in vacating his entrenchments - leaving just a few really brave observers behind -, wait for the enemy barrage, and then rush back to occupy them while the attacker was starting his assault.
 
I have always laughed to myself when someone says "it should be a better balanced scenario". As Tanker said, and I wholeheartedly agree with him, this is a simulation of World War II small-unit tactics. If you don't like it because it seems unfair that one side or the other has a tactical advantage in a particular scenario then you have four choices 1) Don't play the game at all, 2) Modify the scenario so that it is more favorable to one side or the other (almost always makes the scenario very unplayable), 3) Come to an agreement with your opponent before playing (this is one option I never do) that you will limit the amount of ammo for a particular unit (like artillery), and 4) The option I like the best, play the scenario twice (switch sides). Of course, the last option is not one that is well suited for those with limited time.

I have been playing wargames, in one form or another, since the early 70s and I have seen some systems that have handled indirect fire very poorly (way too weak, way too strong). I have also seen some systems that have handled this asset very nicely, CMxx being one of them (the other being ASL). An example of too weak a system would be Tiller's Campaign Series. I have seen a platoon of infantry come out of an heavy (as in caliber size) barrage with nothing more than a little dust on their uniforms. An example of way too strong would be SPIs Steel Panthers II. Whenever I played that game with a human opponent we always had the agreement "NO FASCAM". I have literally wiped out a Soviet armored column with an A-10 or F-15 armed with FASCAM and never fired a shot with my ground units.

As for the artillery units in CMBN. Well, I can't really make a respectable argument since I have only played the demo and haven't had the chance to blow something up with the German 210 Mrs howitzer or the Allied heavy naval guns, but I am sure they can turn units into hamburger. But you know, that is what those weapons were designed for and to put the fear of God into those on the recieving end. I'm happy with that.............OFG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom