Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

Is CMBS a tactical game?

W

Wildcard

Guest
Since the release of CMBS I have played mean games. Over that time I have noticed in my own personal opinion that CMBS is the least tactical title made by battlefront.

The reason for this view is that I feel the game is all about finding somewhere to set up that over looks a position and then just sit there and put rounds down range at anything that moves. I feel there is no tactics involved in this anyone can find some cover and rush over to it and sit there and wait.

Could the lack of tactics being involved be down to bad map design? i.e. yes the tend to be bigger than ww2 games but are very open.

So I have two question for you

1. Do you as a member feel that CMBS is a tactical game compared to the ww2 titles.

2. Why do you feel that it is or is not a tactical game.
 
I find that the special considerations of the modern aspects of the game, if anything, emphasise solid tactical planning and execution. My reasoning boils down thus;

1). It is an intense game of 'how not to be seen'. IR optics, NVGs, and laser range finders make cover + concealment a huge part of any scheme of maneuver, and weather effects have a different impact depnding on what equipment and side you're taking...

2). The modern battlefield is devastatingly lethal. This means mistakes are incredibly punishing. In one of my first BS PBEM's an opponent did exactly what you described - rushed his t-90's to an overwatch high on a hill to dominate the battlespace. Only to get picked off very quickly by keyholed ATGMs and Recoiless rifles. On the other side, poorly positioned defneces saw an entire platoon of mine wiped out by @Gnarly 's bmp-3s airbursting large HE over their heads...

3). Speed of manouver. Modern assets - IFVs, armour and wheeled vehicles - all have much better off-road performance (and often, on-road) than their ww2 bretheren. If you can keep concealed, you can manouver incredibly quickly. This allows for all sorts of nasty surprises in the hands of the right opponents.


At the end of the day, the game is the same. Conceal your movement, present with overwhelming firepower or surprise (preferably both), and don't expose yourself to unnecessary risks. The difference is in ww2, a 98K or a 75mm can't do what an AK or a 25mm bushmaster cannon can.
 
I do see some of your points.

unfortunately not all is correct. Infantry wise they are very very over powered if and when they get into a fire fight. You will find that just about all the ammo used by infantry during ww2 was of a high caliber such as the 98K. this in turns means it has more stopping power and do's far more damage when hitting and is more likely to kill the enemy out right. For this reason most NATO countries after ww2 went to 5.56mm which was designed not to kill the enemy but injury them so as to slow down enemy due to having to treating casualties. ie Russains.

IR optics, FLR and the rest is way to good within the game. several times I have been hit by tank fire which has been able to fire through a thick dense wood
I find most of the movement in the game is more luck then tactics unlike the ww2 stuff.

I do take some of your points.
 
*shrug* Happy to take you on, Black Sea Russians vs Ukrainians? :p Happy to be the yellow + blue if you like :)
 
Thank you for your constructive criticism Canadian Cat for a legitimate question. Don't understand what the LOL is about. Or is it your way to troll someone?
First off I never said anything about not enjoying the game I'm somewhat on the other foot I love all the CM titles. I take it you do understand the term that assumption is the mother of all f**% ups if so you gave a very good example of it.

Secondly you have not answered either questions. So once again this comes across as someone trolling or I could give the the benefit of the doubt and instead of saying your trolling say it seems your trying to white knight for the CM titles.

so again please feel free to comment on either question.

1. Do you as a member feel that CMBS is a tactical game compared to the ww2 titles.

2. Why do you feel that it is or is not a tactical game.
 
It pretty much depends entirely on what you consider 'tactical'. For me, there isn't a sliding scale of "not very tactical" to "super tactical". Everything you do in any CM game from deployment to orders to cease-firing is tactics. How successful those tactics are is a different matter entirely.

So yes, it is 'tactical' and it is just as 'tactical' as the WW2 titles.
 
Wildcard said:
1. Do you as a member feel that CMBS is a tactical game compared to the ww2 titles.
Click to expand...
Absolutely BS is a tactical game. It's just not as soft as the WW2 titles. You have a large squishy zone in those that allow you to correct your errors. BS/SF is much more tactically hard (not hard as in difficult), meaning there's much less room for error. You have to be on your A game or you could find yourself turned upside down not knowing what hit you in a matter of seconds. You have to think much further ahead and be much more aware of your surroundings in the modern warfare CMs as opposed to the WW2 CMs. Granted, this type of warfare is not for everyone when it comes to a game, but it's what warfare has become in this day and age. I personally really like fighting on a razor's edge.

2. Why do you feel that it is or is not a tactical game.
Click to expand...
Because you can use modern combined arm tactics in the game and be successful.

Now to address this:
Infantry wise they are very very over powered if and when they get into a fire fight.
Click to expand...
How so? Because that doesn't match my experience in the BS PBEMs I've done.

You will find that just about all the ammo used by infantry during ww2 was of a high caliber such as the 98K. this in turns means it has more stopping power and do's far more damage when hitting and is more likely to kill the enemy out right. For this reason most NATO countries after ww2 went to 5.56mm which was designed not to kill the enemy but injury them so as to slow down enemy due to having to treating casualties. ie Russains.
Click to expand...
Ah, internet myths die hard. No, 5.56 wasn't adopted "to slow the enemy down." I also wasn't aware the Russians cared about casualties anyway :p. A really big factor was weight. I have a can of 500 rds of .30-06 and a can of 1000 rds of 5.56 right here next to me. Which one weighs less? the can of 1000 rds of 5.56. You can carry a lot more 5.56 than .30-06, which translates into a lot more rounds going down range per infantryman. 5.56 is also cheaper to manufacture, and it has much less recoil. This means the firearms using it can be smaller and lighter. Here's an interesting article on the history of 5.56: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02/okay-so-why-did-we-choose-556.html
 
Last edited:
Wildcard said:
You will find that just about all the ammo used by infantry during ww2 was of a high caliber such as the 98K. this in turns means it has more stopping power and do's far more damage when hitting and is more likely to kill the enemy out right. For this reason most NATO countries after ww2 went to 5.56mm which was designed not to kill the enemy but injury them so as to slow down enemy due to having to treating casualties.
Click to expand...
This meme needs to die already.
And to add to Rambler's post, the smaller high velocity rounds have flatter trajectories which means longer point-blank/battle zero range.
 
Yes, it is a tactical game ... just some of the tactics are radically different and the environment much more deadly.

Also, in CM WW2 we have become accustomed to playing on say a 1km x 1km environment for a feasible battle ... with the testing I did for the Borscht Campaign concept, unless it's crowded built-up city/urban battlefield, the minimum size of a map should be in the more 2.5km x 2.5km minimum to 4km x 4km size to at least give you room to maneuvre.

Also, it's a truly all-arms environment ... and often a CMBS QB will limit you points-wise to gaps in that OOB ... for instance, enemy does assume overlook position that stops your advance, you need room, time and access to support weaponry to neutralise that position and/or make it too uncomfortable to occupy. (attack helos, artillery, air support etc)

Also, recon, recon, recon when advancing ... (if you have the resources)

PS: as to the open nature of so many of the CMBS maps, it probably reflects the landscape of where this is set -- eastern Ukraine.
If this was central Europe Cold War Germany NATO vs Warsaw Pact it would look a lot different...
 
thank you all or your responses on this matter

Rambler you are right 5.56 is about damage and fragmentation you also got to take into account distance to target. 5.56 was designed for close range fighting and is most effective at about 150 yards /137m. most fire fights are over that range. You may find that article is only looking at it from the point of a conflict such as Vietnam war which was close fighting. At closer ranges you will get the maximum amount of fragmentation. After that due to the loss of velocity it no long has the power to fragment but instead the round will start to tumble. ts this tumbling which causes the damage. due to the slower velocity when the round enters the body it will tend to do 1 of two things.

1. round enters and stops within cavity it has made.
2. round enters hits something hard then turning your insides into a pinball machine cause internal bleeding.

both these situations are designed to first wound the enemy which in turn requires these individuals to require buddy aid or call for the Medic.

Vartuoosi your wrong smaller rounds have slower velocity.

I'm speaking with 13 years of experience as a class one combat medic.
 
Wildcard said:
Vartuoosi your wrong smaller rounds have slower velocity.
Click to expand...
Care to source that?
Numbers I'm finding give 5,56 NATO velocity in the range of 2900-3100 ft/s and 7,62 NATO in the 2400-2800 ft/s.
7,62x39 seems to be in the 2100-2400 ft/s range and 5,45x39 around ~2900 ft/s.
 
Last edited:
yes smaller rounds have a high muzzle velocity but once its left the barrel the rounds are unable to keep that velocity up due to friction with the air, tumbling and there lighter weight. This is why they are unable to fire as far as say a 50cal which is able to keep its velocity over a long range.

enjoy the read

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/ballistics.htm
 
I'm enjoyed this little debate on velocity. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wildcard said:
Thank you for your constructive criticism Canadian Cat for a legitimate question. Don't understand what the LOL is about. Or is it your way to troll someone?
Click to expand...

Call me what you want. I was not actually trying to troll you but your question was, well, just humorous. @Hapless and @Rambler and @Rico have answered your question thoroughly.

1: asked and answered
2: Sorry I just could not find nice succinct words to explain something I thought was totally obvious. I think @Hapless wrote it best but see others.

Honestly I thought you were just upset about getting your ass kicked and wanted to vent. Lots of people get totally hammered in CMBS even when they are pretty good at the WW2 titles. Myself included: My win record in the WW2 titles is a not to bad 72% while in the modern game I can only muster 44%. My only conclusion is that the modern game is harder because I refuse to accept that I suck. That last part is me just joking LOL because it is me and not the game that sucks.
 
I apologise then. It did come across as trolling. I'm not a serious gamer far from it im more interested in having a good time with like minded ppl and learning from my mistakes. win loss all the same time me. I was just interested in people opinion that's all.
 
Wildcard said:
I apologise then. It did come across as trolling. I'm not a serious gamer far from it im more interested in having a good time with like minded ppl and learning from my mistakes. win loss all the same time me. I was just interested in people opinion that's all.
Click to expand...

No harm done ... it is an interesting discussion how modern conventional full-bore armoured warfare differs from the WW2 version ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top