Request for reading on the SOP of a mechanized infantry assault/attack

[Erwin]

It may be that the issue is the scale of the scenarios.  Due to relatively small maps there is little need for "maneuver" in terms of vehicular recon down miles of roads until one finds an enemy defensive location.  In CM2, that sort of maneuver has taken place, and we know there is an enemy directly in front of us.  So, in just about 100% of the time, one has to use infantry to probe and locate the ATG's and destroy them with mortars/arty BEFORE exposing one's vehicles used to hammer enemy defenses.

Where I think CM2 scenarios may be deficient re design is that there is something missing...  What is missing is the information about the locations of enemy strongpoints which should have been located by recon.  In CM2 scenarios one is literally dropped into a situation where one knows that the enemy is within a few hundred meters, but one has no info as to what and where. 

So one is forced to conduct very rapid, almost suicidal recon, before an urgent assault.

Armored formations are best suited for wide open terrain where they can move rapidly and in force, not just a couple of tanks or even just one platoon as we generally are given in a CM2 scenario.  CM2 forces us to fight is highly restricted terrain which is NOT suitable for armored warfare.  This btw is why CMSF is still a great game as it generally allows for more open terrain and much longer LOS opportunities.

 

Edited May 19, 2017 by Erwin

[Bil Hardenberger]

12 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

The word of the Jason.

I guess I never understood the worship many have for him and his writings.... to each his own.

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I just still don't really get how an armoured division would have fought in any aggressive way.

In the game at least, the moment your tanks get into LOS of an enemy AT gun, they are toast. Armoured cars too. Halftracks even more. Usually they never see what hit them, and if they do get a spot on the enemy gun, they will fire one shot, it will miss, then the gun crew will duck down and the tank will promptly forget about that target. Hopefully it won't be too long before the next orders phase so I get a chance to do manual area fire.

I don't understand how any armoured formation could have advanced in any assertive way when they could at any moment get wiped out by a couple of well-hiden AT guns.

In the game, my armoured advances feel more like mine clearing. On my belly, proping slowly for enemy defences using infantry, then waiting patiently while I bring down mortar fire, or slowly flank the position, then creeping slowly forward with the tanks again, hoping I actually took out that gun. This approach works, but I sometimes wonder what the big deal about tanks was, given that they were so vulnerable.

And BTW I don't mean to say there's anything wrong with the game in this regard... Just that I'm a bit puzzled why tanks are praised so much. They seem like "glass cannons".

Maybe the main point of armoured formations (tanks&halftracked infantry) is just that they can advance while mostly disregarding enemy artillery?

Yes, tank units are not invulnerable.. they also needed to have the stage set for them to be used most effectively.  If you don't do your homework, conduct a proper map analysis, a thorough reconnaissance, and identify potential enemy strengths and weaknesses (surfaces and gaps) before committing your armor (not just armor but whatever your main combat power is) should always be targeted against the weakest parts of your enemy's line.  Without knowing where these are you cannot use your armor effectively.  Just charging your armor into an unidentified enemy position without any preparation is asking to get your ass handed to you. 

Still not back.. but seems I am inching that direction, damn you guys.  Maybe its time for me to finally install V4 of the games...  

Bil

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

I guess I never understood the worship many have for him and his writings.... to each his own.

... You saw what I did there. ? 

But if you separate the message from the messenger, that post, and many others of his, provides a lot of rich info and context for historically accurate scenario design. JCs thinking does tend to be very 'macroeconomic', sure (15k shells per km of front per day means this stonk should yield 2.33% casualties, otherwise BFC fix or sumfink), while there may be umpteen ways in which actual experience varied from the template, but not all of us here know the template.

 

[Kaunitz]

Some thoughts on offence

Generally, I see two ways to conduct an offence in Combat Mission games:

Charge

This is the tactic I tend to use if I have a mobile force (doesn't really work for infantry) and when I need to attack a position that offers some protection to my own troops once I reach it (a charge is no good if you get shot to pieces once you reach the target!). The base idea of the charge is to ignore the recon-aspect that gives the defender the advantage. It's NOT about discovering the enemy to shoot at him - rather, it's about shooting at any likely enemy positions so that the enemy doesn't even get a chance shoot at you. Here is what I do:

1. Where to charge? Choose the "smallest" avenue of approach/charge. The fewer enemy positions get eyes on you during the approach/charge, the better.
2. Assemble: You need to have a secure area where you can assemble your charge-elements, out of the enemy's weapons' reach. Here, you will deploy all the attacking elements in a very concentrated line. I have run charges in which there were no more than perhaps 15-20m in between the vehicles (don't make it too close - they won't be able to move around obstacles and get in the way of each other, etc.). 
3. Plan:  A movement- and fire-plan is a key component of the charge. Once you have your line ready, you plan the charge-movement by setting waypoints that lead to the target of the charge. On each waypoint, you give target commands. The art of the charge is that your target commands need to cover ALL likely enemy positions ALL the time. This is the reason why we want to attack on a small front (so there are fewer enemy positions that need to be suppressed) and in a very concentrated way (more suppressive potential!). So, when planning, make sure that the target of the charge is well covered by your fire. A charge can go horribly wrong if you fail to cover 1 or 2 enemy positions. If that single position knocks out one of your charge-elements, that charge-element cannot deliver it's suppressive fire, which frees another enemy position. So, there is the risk of a domino-effect. Also, you may want to add some "jokers" to the charge - i.e. units that do NOT get target-commands at their waypoints. These elements are supposed to fire at any unsuspected targets.  

Word of warning: When planning a charge, keep in mind that weapons need to reload and rotate/aim. E.g. if you're setting waypoints too close to each other (in relation to the speed of the order), your element might not have enough time to aim and shoot in between waypoints. So you need to keep the right balance between waypoint-intervall and movement speed (and rate of fire, obviously). Generally speaking, you want the charge to be very fast, so that you cross the distance to the objective quickly. This limits the time during which things can go wrong and also preserves your ammo. Also, a charge is not the time to preserve ammo. You want to go in with all guns blazing. HE rounds with their high suppression radius are good for this purpose.

4. Coordinated execution:  The charge relies on coordination. Ideally, you want all your charge elements pop up at the very same time and move in a perfect line. Never ever show up to the enemy in a piecemeal-manner. A charge can fail or succeed in a matter of seconds. This also makes large charges and long-distance-charges very risky and complicated. I feel comfortable with charges conducted by 4-6 vehicles on a small front (ca. 100-200 m) over distances of ca. 500 meters. Anything larger gets very complicated and risky. Also, you might want to time the start of the charge at the end of a turn, in order to shorten the time until you can give new orders, reacting to the emerging situation.

 

Note that the charge-idea can also be a handy way to move a column of vehicles quickly along e.g. a road in a forest (with potential RPG-threat). Simply have your machine guns blazing left and right (up 200 meters to the front) and race through.  Effective enemy ambush positions are very limited in a wood (up to 40m/LOS range left and right into the woods), so suppression works really nicely here.

Deliberate attack

This is the only real alternative to the charge imho. The defender's advantage is reconnaissance. The attacking elements need to move (making them easier to spot, and giving them a harder time to spot themselves) while the defending elements are stationary (increasing their concealment and spotting-ability). The deliberate attack aims to reduce the defender's recon advantage. How would you do that? By conducting recon yourself. As recon translates 1:1 into time, using this method eats up lots and lots of time. It's a slow and systematical approach, leading to very few casualties if conducted properly. 

As usual, my advice is to attack on a very small frontage along an easily controllable avenue of approach (the fewer enemy positions, the better). Park your force in a safe space and start recon-ing the avenue of approach. Move small, binolcular-equipped infantry teams (recon vehicles are not suitable for this!!) into concealed observation posts (woods, houses if you move carefully, ridges only if you crest them using a slow command) and have them sit there for a few turns to observe potential enemy positions. Don't rush them. Spotting enemy troops might take a few turns! Also, expect the enemy to be everywhere! Never expose your fighting units to risks (exposing them to positions you have not recon-ed). If you're desperate and ready to risk your scouts, you could try to recon-by-fire (have your scouts open fire at suspected enemy positions briefly). If you spot something, make sure that the scouts communicate their sighting to your force (via C2 links).

If you've successfully spotted something, you've gained an advantage over the defender! While your scouting troop is probably still hidden to the enemy (or not, it doesn't really matter), you already know about the position of one of your enemy's fighting elements, while your own fighting elements are still hidden. Now, you can start to attack that enemy element. It's important to understand that you only bring up your battle elements to engage already located enemies. You don't want to scout with (=expose) your battle elements (because usually, battle elements suck at it, being big and noisy, etc.). There needs to be proper cooperation between eyes (infantry) and guns (tanks). I tend to think in terms of concealment more than in terms of protection. Seen from this perspective, I consider my infantry well protected, while my tanks are actually my vulnerable assets.   

Among your fighting-elements, choose the element that is best suited to knock out the spotted enemy and move it into position. Ideally, you want to pick a position at which your element has a LOS that is very  limited to the spotted enemy (keyhole position!). You want to fire at that element only and you don't want to trade casualties! Remember that an element that fires gives away it's position, so make sure no other enemy position has a LOS on your keyhole battle-position! The availability of keyhole-positions also depends on the quality of the defender's layout (number overlapping arcs and axes of fire...). Also, it goes without saying that the approach to the position should be safe (use depressions in the ground, always have a screen between you and the enemy, move slowly in order to reduce noise, etc.).

Now, once you have reached your keyhole-position, it should boil down to an isolated, picked duel between the involved elements. The disadvantage that comes from your unit "moving" into position (which might draw the defender's attention) should be countered by the fact that your unit already has a suspected contact marker on the enemy position. To increase your chances for winning the spotting-duel, you might want to un-button your element (the position should be safe anyway!). Also, make sure that the turret is already pointed at the enemy in the moment you're moving into position. You don't want to loose time aiming the gun/rotating the turret.

So, ideally, you should be able to get off the first shot. If the target is very tough and your chances to knock it out with one blow are small, you should try to concentrate more units on it (from several keyhole positions or massing more elements at one keyhole position). Just make sure they're all moving into position and firing at the very same moment (slightly gamey, but hey!). 

If the element is impossible to kill and controls a "gap" in your avenue of approach, a smoke screen might help. If the gap is very small, you might also try to risk to hop over it, i.e. racing across the gap faster than the enemy can take aim and fire (or at least he can only knock out only 1 element). This works best if you're moving laterally to the enemy's orientation. If you need to get a larger force across a gap, move all elements at the same time in a synchronized manner.

Hasty helter-skelter attack

If you don't want to or simply cannot (time limit, terrain) use any of the methods described above, you have to roll the dice. Four tips:

•  Remember that any suspected contact marker that your scouts produce (and share with other troops) increases your chance to get off the first shot.  
• Concentrate fire power. This is the attacker's main advantage. The defender needs to prepare the defence of the whole frontage. The attacker plans an attack on a tiny, tiny fraction of the frontage (punching through and then expanding the gap), creating massive local imbalances of fire power (see charge). A good attack is one in which the defender cannot fire back (although it makes for crappy cinematic AARs  ).
• NEVER EVER engage in a piecemeal manner. If you have to cross a dangerous ridge, your troops' movement/crossing should be synchronized and fast, limiting the time of exposure. Speed can defeat a badly planned defence (unfortunately though you only find out if the the defence is planned badly by trying out ).
• As the attacker, distance can be your friend. Simply because the killing chance usually deteriorates with distance. The defender might get off the first shot, but there's a lot of distance in between you, you might survive and react. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Kaunitz

[Vanir Ausf B]

Excellent post, @Kaunitz

[Duckman]

On 2017-05-19 at 8:55 PM, Erwin said:

Armored formations are best suited for wide open terrain where they can move rapidly and in force, not just a couple of tanks or even just one platoon as we generally are given in a CM2 scenario.  CM2 forces us to fight is highly restricted terrain which is NOT suitable for armored warfare.  This btw is why CMSF is still a great game as it generally allows for more open terrain and much longer LOS opportunities.

A standard complaint from tank people in WWII was that non-armour officers didn't understand this. They parceled out the tanks in penny packets and/or used them in unsuitable terrain. Their own rule of thumb was that tanks shouldn't be used in less than battalion strength, which means we're usually on the low side in CM.

Having said that, things like situation and terrain tend to get in the way of theory and data from the Western front shows that big tank-on-tank engagements pretty much died out after the desert. Most engagements from Tunisia onwards were small. Tank-on-tank is of course not the only, or even the ideal, way to use tanks and bigger battles can be cut up into smaller at the tactical level. However it does tell you something about how things went down in the not-so-wide-open landscapes of Western Europe and Italy. 

[IICptMillerII]

21 hours ago, Duckman said:

A standard complaint from tank people in WWII was that non-armour officers didn't understand this. They parceled out the tanks in penny packets and/or used them in unsuitable terrain. Their own rule of thumb was that tanks shouldn't be used in less than battalion strength, which means we're usually on the low side in CM.

This is somewhat of a misconception. The argument between theories came down to two schools of thought. The first being that tanks should be spread out over the entire army and mixed with infantry formations in order to lend direct support to the infantry in the attack or defense. For example, having 1 company of tanks attached to every infantry battalion. The second school of thought was that tanks should primarily be organized in their own divisions ( a division made of tanks, not infantry) preferably with supporting armored infantry to allow for proper massing for effective breakthrough attacks. These concepts apply to the operational level of warfare primarily, not the tactical layer that CM depicts. 

The reality is that the second school of thought is the way to go. The German Blitzkrieg was successful in large part due to the Germans adopting the second school of thought and applying it on the battlefield (at least in 39-41)

At the start of the war, the US had armored divisions and infantry divisions. They did not employ an army template that spread out all the tanks in the army across the infantry divisions. However, attached to most infantry divisions was a tank battalion. The attached tank battalions primary job was to support the parent infantry division in whatever it was doing. This was not an endorsement of the first school of thought however, as the Army had most of its armor concentrated in the armored divisions. 

So, the US followed the second school of thought as well. However, no one disputes that tanks are excellent infantry support, and a key part of any competent combined arms team. Combined arms on the tactical battlefield involves all combat branches (infantry, armor, artillery and airpower) working together to overcome the enemy. On the tactical battlefield you want these combat arms intertwined with each other to insure they provide maximum support to one another, thus defeating the enemy swifter while suffering less casualties. During WWII the US Army got very good at creating combined arms teams that consisted of mixed infantry and armor units (on the tactical level, not operational) that were extremely effective in the drive across France. If anyone would like some reading on how the US Army came to develop the combined arms team, and many other tactics that helped win the war in Europe, I highly recommend Closing With The Enemy by Michael Doubler. If anyone wants a scenario for CMBN that does a very good job of depicting the combined arms team, check out @Rinaldi's mission "Duel in the Mist" which is part of the Arracourt community made mission pack. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by IICptMillerII

[Rinaldi]

Shameless plug

[John Kettler]

This may be of some interest. Was looking at Xbox 360s of all things when this showed up in the footer! He's got reviews by James Cobb and R.A. Forczyk, both names to conjure with.

Panzergrenadier vs US Armored Infantryman: European Theater of Operations 1944 (Combat)

by Steven J. Zaloga

https://www.amazon.com/Panzergrenadier-US-Armored-Infantryman-Operations/product-reviews/1472817079/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&sortBy=recent#RHF0PCKAL0CEF

Regards,

John Kettler

[LongLeftFlank]

On 6/7/2017 at 3:06 PM, IICptMillerII said:

The reality is that the second school of thought is the way to go. The German Blitzkrieg was successful in large part due to the Germans adopting the second school of thought and applying it on the battlefield (at least in 39-41) 

Think piece: can anyone cite WWII (ETO) *offensive* operations (outside urban areas) in which a broad distribution of armour (i.e. combined arms down to the tactical level) was or 'coulda-woulda-shoulda' been a superior deployment to concentrating armour in mass?

Anzio containment seems to be an example where a (counter)attacker got better results out of combined forces than they would have hitting with a concentrated armoured 'fist' (cf Sicily, Salerno), but that wasn't an offensive posture.

.... While we are speaking of Doubler, I suppose the final mid July US bocage push to St Lo might qualify.

Is there a better 'might have been' force mix for the German panzer brigades in Lorraine, for example?  What about Kursk?

I haven't plumbed the full depths of Glantz (zzzzzz), but it always seemed to me that the post 42 Russians were rarely (Popov?) caught out in an offensive attacking with either too few tanks or too little infantry. They seemed to have a good feel for the right balance, except with cities (nobody did that one 'well' as attacker in WW2 tbh).

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The Panzer Brigades could definitely have used a bigger recon element and that's a fact.

[Apocal]

On 5/20/2017 at 2:55 AM, Erwin said:

It may be that the issue is the scale of the scenarios.  Due to relatively small maps there is little need for "maneuver" in terms of vehicular recon down miles of roads until one finds an enemy defensive location.  In CM2, that sort of maneuver has taken place, and we know there is an enemy directly in front of us.  So, in just about 100% of the time, one has to use infantry to probe and locate the ATG's and destroy them with mortars/arty BEFORE exposing one's vehicles used to hammer enemy defenses.

Where I think CM2 scenarios may be deficient re design is that there is something missing...  What is missing is the information about the locations of enemy strongpoints which should have been located by recon.  In CM2 scenarios one is literally dropped into a situation where one knows that the enemy is within a few hundred meters, but one has no info as to what and where. 

So one is forced to conduct very rapid, almost suicidal recon, before an urgent assault.

Armored formations are best suited for wide open terrain where they can move rapidly and in force, not just a couple of tanks or even just one platoon as we generally are given in a CM2 scenario.  CM2 forces us to fight is highly restricted terrain which is NOT suitable for armored warfare.  This btw is why CMSF is still a great game as it generally allows for more open terrain and much longer LOS opportunities.

 

Eh, it isn't just scale. You really don't get the full gist of armored warfare because in pretty much every scenario, that attackers running into an intact, prepared defense capable of repelling armor. That certainly happens, but after a breakthrough, it was the exception rather than the rule. If that weren't the case, none of those bold, grandiose advances would have happened because the first village armor rolled through guns a-blazin' they would have gotten blown the hell up. In the real deal, there were a very great number of very hasty attacks made against scattered remnants of fought-out units that could hardly have mustered a trio of panzerfausts between them. Even so, their small arms (particularly machine guns) represented a very credible threat to things other than AFVs. So those sort of holdouts might be able to delay dismounts and force them to expend time, effort and ammunition rooting them out but against tanks there was, in essence, sweet f***-all they could do. Frequently they didn't even try -- preferring life over a glorious death, natch -- and instead slithered away in darkness or surrendered , either outright or to follow-on forces.

I thought there was one scenario depicting the above in CMRT, but it turns out the briefing was misleading and the Germans had nearly as much armor as the attacking Russians, and an arguably superior mix as well. I understand why, certainly, but it sort of takes away another dimension to tactics, battle command and decision-making. It isn't a perfect analogy but you're holding a straight and working the entire table, figuring the odds are against anyone holding anything better and seeing how much you can take from them. Most fold, but some don't and it is up to you to decide whether to back down or call their bluff.

That's kind of why I wish there was an operational layer because you could see this sort of thing crop-up organically and give a feeling for what is typically doable for an unsupported infantry force against meaningful amounts of attacking armor. There are ways for the infantry to win that fight, but they are exceptions to the times when the defenders simply make sure the juice isn't worth the squeeze for marauding armor, such as intelligently prepared defenses that leverages poor terrain against the tanks, channelizes them with obstacles and mines, takes away the attacker's combined arms by separating tanks from dismount protection and the dismounts from the firepower of the tanks, mortars/artillery and mines to deny movement foot mobility, etc. A lot of times, an "operational win" can be had just by delaying the armor or giving them a "pop to the mouth" and making them gun-shy about brazenly assaulting your positions. Other times you might present them with a "soft spot" for easy penetration that is actually your chosen killing ground with plenty of defenders backed by anti-tank firepower that results in the typical CMx2-style blowout losses that a hasty, highly aggressive attack with armor endures.

That being said, I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote.

[Erwin]

+1   An op layer would breathe new life into the CM series.  

Recon vehicles are all but useless currently and tend to get used as supporting light armor - which doesn't seem correct since they were specialized troops.   It's almost as if one needs to have the recon units "disappear" from the map after they have accomplished recon objectives - and then the main assault units take over.

In the meanwhile, all one can do is use the largest possible maps which give some reason for vehicular recon.  I vaguely recall a couple of scenarios like that in the early days of CMBN - one spent a lot of scenario time probing enemy positions b4 major reinforcements arrived and one embarked on an assault.

[Kaunitz]

With a very broad brush that ignores all nuances, I'd say that the layer on which modern warfare gets really interesting and deep from a competitive point of view is located slightly higher up (battalion level at least) than the level portrayed by Combat Mission games. I suppose that many scenarios in Combat Mission games are rather implausible/unrealistic as they usually boil down to full blown trials of strength with casualties on both sides or deliberate attacks on prepared defenses. And while situations such as these - i.e. situations in which both sides have an equal chance to win - make perfect sense for a game, they're not exactly what you'd be looking for on the operational level (which of course does not mean that they didn't happen at all). 

On the other hand, situations that are plausible if you consider the operational background tend to be situations in which one side has decisively more power on the field. And this, in turn, makes for rather dull, highly asymmetrical games on the tactical level. It's just a matter of executing the inevitable. Perhaps you loose a bit more or less in the progress, but still, the result is already clear. With highly asymmetrical forces, the best one player could do is to delay, but that's not really a lot of fun from the player's perspective. 

That being said, despite the scenarios being implausible, Combat Mission games offer very deep micro-tactics (you don't need me to tell you that!), and executional skill and knowhow are key, even though some of it sometimes feel a bit gamey. I think that a major factor of Combat Mission's attractiveness lies in the focus on micro-tactics. It's has a huge immersive appeal. I mean look at all the video-AARs (thanks replay-function!!). It's a miniature's wargamers dream come true. In Combat Mission, I'm on the battlefield, seeing individual soldiers engage! If I was in a battalion-level-simulation, I'd be looking at a map, moving counters (hello, Command Ops!).

I don't know if Combat Mission games should try to grow towards the operational level. I don't think so (we'd need games with durations of 6+ hours... phew). But perhaps it's worthwhile to think more about operational plausibity, both on the level of scenario-design, but also concerning game-mechanics (or rather additional options for scenario-designers). It would be interesting to have more asymmertrical scenarios, with slimmed-down objectives. Also, I fully agree that operational recon should be represented at the start of a scenario. I'd also like a lot if the defending player had the option and the need to preserve his forces by withdrawing more often (when some event is triggered), so that he'd need to carefully gauge how long to delay and when to retreat. Also, it would be interesting to have friendly AI-controlled troops on the battlefield. This would help greatly to make scenarios more plausible while keeping them at a manageable size for the player (you're the captain of this company, the other company to your right is commanded by someone else...). It would be great if players could feel that they're only one cogwheel in a larger battle, part of a battlefield that is alive.  For this it would also be super if objectives could be updated during a scenario. I.e. if the player was confronted with sudden changes (due to the operational developments out of the player's control) and could receive new orders during the scenario. Generally speaking: enhancing the narrative aspects of scenarios. Plans may change: "Battalion command informs you that B coy to the right has spotted a platoon of enemy tanks coming your way. Retreat your company immediately!" --> New objectives: exit your troops at X. Bad example, but you get the idea.

But I fully understand that these are very ambitious suggestions. In any case, nothing compares to Combat Mission games.

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Kaunitz

[Erwin]

All good suggestions. 

cf: "With highly asymmetrical forces, the best one player could do is to delay, but that's not really a lot of fun from the player's perspective."  I disagree with this.  All the designer has to do is make one of the major objectives to be conservation or force and/or ammo.  That makes any type of mission challenging and interesting, regardless whether it is vs uncon or conventional forces. 

Also, we need to define whether we are talking H2H or vs AI.  Much easier to get enjoyment in asymmetric situations when vs AI.  When H2H it's easy for one player to get fed up.  Probably it's H2H situations where one sees the clamor for "balance".

[Michael Emrys]

This is one of the most sensible threads I have read in a long time. I like what I am seeing here.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

On 6/22/2017 at 6:11 PM, Kaunitz said:

With a very broad brush that ignores all nuances, I'd say that the layer on which modern warfare gets really interesting and deep from a competitive point of view is located slightly higher up (battalion level at least) than the level portrayed by Combat Mission games. I suppose that many scenarios in Combat Mission games are rather implausible/unrealistic as they usually boil down to full blown trials of strength with casualties on both sides or deliberate attacks on prepared defenses. And while situations such as these - i.e. situations in which both sides have an equal chance to win - make perfect sense for a game, they're not exactly what you'd be looking for on the operational level (which of course does not mean that they didn't happen at all). 

On the other hand, situations that are plausible if you consider the operational background tend to be situations in which one side has decisively more power on the field. And this, in turn, makes for rather dull, highly asymmetrical games on the tactical level. It's just a matter of executing the inevitable. Perhaps you loose a bit more or less in the progress, but still, the result is already clear. With highly asymmetrical forces, the best one player could do is to delay, but that's not really a lot of fun from the player's perspective. 

That being said, despite the scenarios being implausible, Combat Mission games offer very deep micro-tactics (you don't need me to tell you that!), and executional skill and knowhow are key, even though some of it sometimes feel a bit gamey. I think that a major factor of Combat Mission's attractiveness lies in the focus on micro-tactics. It's has a huge immersive appeal. I mean look at all the video-AARs (thanks replay-function!!). It's a miniature's wargamers dream come true. In Combat Mission, I'm on the battlefield, seeing individual soldiers engage! If I was in a battalion-level-simulation, I'd be looking at a map, moving counters (hello, Command Ops!).

I don't know if Combat Mission games should try to grow towards the operational level. I don't think so (we'd need games with durations of 6+ hours... phew). But perhaps it's worthwhile to think more about operational plausibity, both on the level of scenario-design, but also concerning game-mechanics (or rather additional options for scenario-designers). It would be interesting to have more asymmertrical scenarios, with slimmed-down objectives. Also, I fully agree that operational recon should be represented at the start of a scenario. I'd also like a lot if the defending player had the option and the need to preserve his forces by withdrawing more often (when some event is triggered), so that he'd need to carefully gauge how long to delay and when to retreat. Also, it would be interesting to have friendly AI-controlled troops on the battlefield. This would help greatly to make scenarios more plausible while keeping them at a manageable size for the player (you're the captain of this company, the other company to your right is commanded by someone else...). It would be great if players could feel that they're only one cogwheel in a larger battle, part of a battlefield that is alive.  For this it would also be super if objectives could be updated during a scenario. I.e. if the player was confronted with sudden changes (due to the operational developments out of the player's control) and could receive new orders during the scenario. Generally speaking: enhancing the narrative aspects of scenarios. Plans may change: "Battalion command informs you that B coy to the right has spotted a platoon of enemy tanks coming your way. Retreat your company immediately!" --> New objectives: exit your troops at X. Bad example, but you get the idea.

But I fully understand that these are very ambitious suggestions. In any case, nothing compares to Combat Mission games.

 

Very good post. I agree mostly, but I must say that for me, it's not only the immersion of going down to individual soldiers that fascinates me, it's also very much the micro-level tactical challenges. Chucking a smoke bomb to get across a road, etc. I generally don't like larger scenarios, because I have to spend hours plotting movement orders, but of course there are many movement dynamics and weapons systems that only really make sense with longer sight lines etc.

I think the basic problem CM has is the complete lack of AI to move troops around and to attack in any sensible way. Even the best scenario designers can't script a reasonable attack without massively customising the map layout and force balance. At least I haven't yet played a really enjoyable defensive mission against the AI. This problem is annoying enough with the current campaign system we have now, but it can be avoided by omitting defensive missions. However, this problem would absolutely dominate if we were to have dynamic campaigns where the computer is not only supposed to stay stationary.

A solution could be to prevent defensive battles being fought against the computer at all, defaulting to an auto-calculating algorithm in those cases. But still the computer would need to be able to realise in which sectors to attack, with which forces, and against which defensive locations.

I sometimes claim there are reasonably easy solutions to at least some of the programming challenges of this game series, but designing an intelligent offensive AI is definitely not an easy problem to crack.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bulletpoint

[LongLeftFlank]

Amen on the AI point, and great post by Kaunitz.

The first sequence of this clip from the Estonian film "1944" nicely depicts the unrealistic 'isolation' of many CM scenarios from their own tactical scheme, still less the bigger operational picture.

The filmmakers took great pains to lay out an authentic hedgehog position. Yet the Estonians are shown barely repelling a company scale probe. What's missing, in addition to the minefields and wire which should be stalling the Russians on the forward slope (kill zonel, is intense flanking fire from the identical hedgehogs to right and left. That ranged direct fire should be killing T34s with flank shots and mowing down the skirmishers from enfilade with HMGs. The defenders "on map" really just need to hunker down and call in the battalion mortars to finish the job, unless a few Russians get through the kill zone.

So to represent this kind of thing accurately in CM do you triple the width of your map and shove deep river barriers in to prevent gamey bastiges from making an end run? Or add some form of off board direct fire feature?

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Personally I'd build two half-hedgehogs on either side of the map, possibly with a third behind and between them (but I'm a bit of a b*****d like that). 

[Apocal]

On 6/23/2017 at 0:11 AM, Kaunitz said:

I don't know if Combat Mission games should try to grow towards the operational level. I don't think so (we'd need games with durations of 6+ hours... phew). But perhaps it's worthwhile to think more about operational plausibity, both on the level of scenario-design, but also concerning game-mechanics (or rather additional options for scenario-designers).

Just to be clear, when I say "operational layer" I'm not referring to expanding the scope of on-map CMx2. I mean something like Close Combat 2's campaign or Graviteam Tactics, where the operational level moves are made through a separate interface, with the actual tactical game only beginning when forces clash. People already do so with CMx2 via other games as the operational layer, but the implementation is difficult (particularly in terms of accounting) and it is restricted to head-to-head play over long periods of time.

Example here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118958-operational-level-campaign-completed/?do=findComment&comment=1597228

There are more examples stretching all the way back to CMBB, at least, and possibly earlier.

On 6/23/2017 at 0:11 AM, Kaunitz said:

On the other hand, situations that are plausible if you consider the operational background tend to be situations in which one side has decisively more power on the field. And this, in turn, makes for rather dull, highly asymmetrical games on the tactical level. It's just a matter of executing the inevitable. Perhaps you loose a bit more or less in the progress, but still, the result is already clear. With highly asymmetrical forces, the best one player could do is to delay, but that's not really a lot of fun from the player's perspective.

I disagree with the bolded portions. Delaying isn't necessarily dull, particularly because it demands more from players tactically than does straight-line brawling. I'll agree that more of the fight happens before the first turn, when planning the fight and contingencies, but that doesn't make for bad games. At least not in my experience. Most importantly, however, is that looking ahead to another fight and another and another really changes the outlook players have on losses. An attacking player might be paranoid of losing his best armor and shy away from attacking an inadequate defense that presents itself boldly or similar shenanigans. And ultimately, the point of delaying is usually to bring reinforcements to bear in superior circumstances, so players still get the satisfaction of "victory" when they've held back attackers long enough that now they have their own iron fist of combat power to throw back at them.

If nothing else, it would get players closer to understanding the advantages and disadvantages of armor on the attack, the kind of energetic operations possible when you're riding two dozen or more tons of tracked combat power into the fight. They would realize exactly how devastating a breakthrough could be and what pursuit fighting entails, the ways in which an armored thrust can be neutered, etc. A lot of things that single scenarios and even the stock campaigns don't do an especially good job of catching the flavor of.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Apocal

[LongLeftFlank]

... My prior isn't criticizing CM or BFC btw; they have given us the toolset.

Designers looking to game out smaller portions of larger operations simply need to be intelligent (sometimes creative) in representing the on-map effects of off-map portions of the action.

[Apocal]

11 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

... My prior isn't criticizing CM or BFC btw; they have given us the toolset.

Designers looking to game out smaller portions of larger operations simply need to be intelligent (sometimes creative) in representing the on-map effects of off-map portions of the action.

An off-map direct fire option would likely be panned by players used to map-edge runs. People already complain about mines in that area during RT MP matches; I can't fathom the howls of incandescent rage that would emerge from unspottable, unsuppressible AT fire.

[Pelican Pal]

 

On 6/23/2017 at 0:55 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I think the basic problem CM has is the complete lack of AI to move troops around and to attack in any sensible way. Even the best scenario designers can't script a reasonable attack without massively customising the map layout and force balance. At least I haven't yet played a really enjoyable defensive mission against the AI.

I've been away from playing CM since Black Sea was released. However, in that time I've been playing quite a bit of Arma 3 with a group. In that game you have a reasonably good simulation of small scale infantry/combined arms combat. However, the AI is too weak to adequately conduct an attack. This is a problem in Player vs AI scenarios as a platoon of players could easily defeat a force 2 times their size (or greater depending upon composition).

The solution that some Arma 3 scenario designers have come upon is essentially to accept that the AI is weak on the attack and enlarge the AI attacking force to compensate for this weakness. A platoon sized attack force is doubled, a company gets another platoon or two attached. While this is technically unrealistic the goal isn't to recreate a battle but to give the defender the feeling of fighting a desperate defense against an enemy.

Relating this back to Combat  Mission. I wonder if defensive scenarios would be more fun to play if the eschewed realistic force densities in order to give the player the experience of a defense against a stronger opponent. Aim for a realistic experience rather than a realistic setting.

Of course this doesn't solve the problem of dealing with an operational layer because force preservation and sizes matter a lot more than in one off scenarios.

[Erwin]

I would say is exactly how the vast majority of such scenarios are designed in CM2.  I am told there are a few examples where smarts rather than quantity has been used successfully.  Haven't found any myself.

[Apocal]

20 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

Relating this back to Combat  Mission. I wonder if defensive scenarios would be more fun to play if the eschewed realistic force densities in order to give the player the experience of a defense against a stronger opponent. Aim for a realistic experience rather than a realistic setting.

No, because it isn't a question of bodies that makes the AI succeed. It is the fact that it doesn't know how to do even basic combined arms. By packing a bunch of guys on their start line, the most likely outcome is the player (having a brain and all) simply maximizing the effectiveness of every weapon system they have available, to ludicrous degrees. We're talking machine guns that kill numbers in the high double-digits, rifle squads easily accounting for half-platoons, tanks that knock out a half dozen of their counterparts, etc. The next most likely outcome is that the player is overrun having run most of his forces completely out of ammunition in the process of stacking a massive number of bodies.

Try it in a quick battle. Pick the map, "Wax Museum," it is the last in the list of stock QB maps. Make it a huge point pool, then give the AI +150% points to boot. Only spend half your points -- but do so intelligently -- then lay out your defense. Include generous amounts of large-bore artillery (105s and 155s) along with TRPs. Lay out mines in places you want to "snag" their attack up. Include a modest reserve, maybe just half-tracks and some infantry, maybe add a pair of medium AFVs to that.

Build a competent defense in other words.

Then watch the AI blunder its way through all that mess, as if it doesn't understand that it should not sit under 155mm treebursts, walk three platoons in series through a minefield, that supporting fire should be kept up close enough to the scouts that anything that threatens them is instantly silenced with the corresponding threat being discovery. Place your armor at keyholes and watch as it racks up whole platoons over the course of a minute. Move your reserve literally anywhere, doing anything, and watch as the AI fails to respond in any fashion except shooting at you -- and not always then.

It takes a lot to make the AI attack well in CMx2, far, far, far more than in ArmA.