Combat Mission--Problems w/ Algorhythms?

[Jim Martin]

Well, here I sit unemployed, and convinced my Dad to play CM against me. Didn't take a lot of arm-twisting, he's a wargamer as well.

 

After a day of playing several scenarios, he's quit. Pissed at the accuracy and armor pen of Allied tanks vs. German tanks. Anyone else feel that Allied tanks in the game are unrealistically powerful and accurate?

[Dan Weaver]

Only when I play against them.

[Brian Kennedy]

It seems that way at first, especially if you compare 'em to tanks in the Close Combat series -- but Battlefront, the guys who make Combat Mission, have defended their data time and time again, and I'm inclined to think they're right.

 

Their stance is that most German tanks were tough as hell in the front, but quite vulnerable on the sides and rear -- especially at close range. A lot of combat reports I've read bear this out. In the game it's pretty much impossible to kill a "big cat" _from the front_, unless you have a Firefly or something with a 90mm gun. (PZIVs are about as tough as Shermans).

 

I had a helluva time in a battle I played last night -- US force attacking german positions. I had to fight my way through a city, with a carefully-hidden veteran King Tiger plinking at me all the way (one of my M36s bounced a few rounds off its glacis before being killed). I sneak two 76mm Shermans close to it -- but they panic when they see the King Tiger and start backing up, and the KT whacks 'em both. Finally I get three M36's at point-black range on its flank -- they bounce THREE shots off its side before KO'ing it. So no, I don't think German tanks are too weak...

 

What I DO think is stupid, though, is the incredible variety of German troops you can get (I mean, Heavy SMG Squads? Escort Teams?) vs. the paltry collection of allied squads (regular and Airborne, basically). I want commandos, rangers, mech. infantry, the works!

[Ssnake]

Given what I know about the poor quality of the gun sights in Shermans, I tend to think that they're too accurate in CM, though. The armor/ammo/damage model seems to be all right however.

[Guest Dwight Pruitt]

Anyone have a good site that talks about the game? Sounds interesting.

 

Dwight

[Harold Jones]

www.battlefront.com is the publishers site. They have several very active forums about the game. As a matter of fact their forums were what prompted me to suggest that we look at the UBB software when the original Tankers Forum started to melt down.

[Guest Dwight Pruitt]

Thanks Harold, I downloaded the demo (all 31 megs of it!) and kicked around the two scenarios. Neat game, but 45 bucks is a bit pricey for me yet...I'll wait 'em out and get a copy on ebay

[Ssnake]

With shipping fees included, I paid about $80 for it - and it sure was among the best dollars I ever spent on a game!

I have played it almost every day since I bought it the day it came out (which is 14 months ago), and I'm still not tired yet. It really is a classic aready.

[Harold Jones]

I haven't played it since December. It won't run on my laptop (NT) and I'm not home enough to play it on the home system.

[Brian Kennedy]

I dunno about the gun sight problem...most CM tank battles take place at pretty close range -- and if you try taking on anything at long range with a Sherman, you don't have much of a chance of hitting anything. Which I guess is as it should be.

 

The biggest realism problem I have with CM is the overwhelming power of SMGs vs. rifles, and the fact that German squads (at least the esoteric versions that players always want to get) have so many more of them. Otherwise, I've found it to be the most realistic (and most fun) wargame I've ever played.

 

 

Originally posted by Ssnake:

Given what I know about the poor quality of the gun sights in Shermans, I tend to think that they're too accurate in CM, though. The armor/ammo/damage model seems to be all right however.

[Ssnake]

Originally posted by Brian Kennedy:

...most CM tank battles take place at pretty close range

Good point...

My biggest grief is that the maps are limited. This almost always favors extreme flank attacks where in real life there'd be another unit taking you under fire. This is the only severe deficit of the game.

I also think that the LOS tool could have been implemented with higher usability (e.g. like in Steel Beasts so you get color codes for the entire landscape, and not that point-to-point indicator). Aside from that ... it sure is a remarkable game.

[DogDodger]

Originally posted by Ssnake:

With shipping fees included, I paid about $80 for it - and it sure was among the best dollars I ever spent on a game!

I have played it almost every day since I bought it the day it came out (which is 14 months ago), and I'm still not tired yet. It really is a classic aready.

 

High praise indeed coming from one of the creators of Steel Beasts...

 

Chris

[Dan Robertson]

Actually you get debates like this which go on for serveral hundred posts at battlefront.com.

 

The penetration for allied vehicles is overstated as the model does not include the propensity for allied rounds to shatter due to their soft noses.

 

Also the worse optics of the allied vehicles is not taken into account, along with the poor acuracy of the first APDS rounds.

 

Which in the game are the most accurate rounds.

 

Luckly the developers have bought "Rexford"'s book on wwII penetration to help them with the squel so it should be more realistic.

 

And in about 5 years time when they re do the western fron t that will include the mprovements.

[Manic Moran]

I hate to say it Ssnake, but SB has the same edge-hugging problem at times...

 

I've had my Sherman miss enough times in the past at decent ranges that I'm not inclined to think that there's too much of a problem.

 

I think the main problem is that CM is a case of reality biting. The German armored vehicles were all made out to be mythilogical invincible vehicles, wheras in real life.. they weren't. But not a lot of people seem to know that.

 

I have the same effect when I run a Command Decision game. I have two players playing double-blind in about 1985. IPM1s vs T-72s. The American player is, shall we say, a little surprised when his frontal shots bounce off T-72s at near point blank range, and the 125mm rounds simply slice through the armor of the Abrams. "But the M1s are hugely invincible!" "Yeah, that's why you get two shots off for every one of theirs, yours are more accurate. and you have a chance of surviving a missile hit!"

 

NTM

[Dan Weaver]

You mean you've never seen the 'shell broke up' message, Dan? It's the curse of Allied tank destroyers.

[Manic Moran]

Dan.. No, the curse of allied tank destroyers is the 88mm that then knocs them out 3 seconds later....

 

BTW, Dan, don't you owe me the current move from 'plum'?

 

NTM

[Ssnake]

Originally posted by Manic Moran:

I hate to say it Ssnake, but SB has the same edge-hugging problem at times...

Well, there is a difference between badly designed scenarios and inherent game mechanisms. I daresay. In Steel Beasts, there is practically no "edge of the world". You can go out of bounds of the mapped area. In addition, you can limit the player's freedom with penalty zones, and frame him with computer controlled friendlies to mimic combat as part of a larger operation.

 

Combat Mission gives you control over everything and everyone. That is both gift and poison since you are responsible for most of the things your virtual companies do. Moving at the edge of the map will always eliminate one flank thread, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

In Steel Beasts, you can surround the "arena" with computer controlled guardians that will either be stationary or move with those units that are supposed to engage the player's force. Either way, you will still receive fire from both sides if you decide to attack over the flank of your designated battle area.

 

To me, this is quite different...

 

[Edited by Ssnake (28 Aug 2001).]