How much do you roleplay?

[banned]

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

One thing which nobody has mentioned yet is treating the wounded. I've been reading quite a few accounts of Vietnam warfare (which admittedly is different from WWII). But getting the wounded off the battlefield was a major concern. In Combat Mission, I have to admit that I rarely wait for buddy aid (aka "kneel if you want to share your buddy's fate") to be finished, or even move up vehicles to pretend they carry away the wounded (well most of the times it's simply too dangerous).

We commit a lot of resources (smoke, diverting vehicles to cover, helping hands) to attend the wounded even when it may endanger mission objectives no matter how much time is left on the mission. If I would be forced to choose get the wounded or an additional objective I probably would decide for the first. Thats what I would also do in reality. We even "waste" precious time to secure reported dead (dark red) casualties for roleplay reasons.

Long ago somebody proposed to have the option to give first aid to enemy combatants for roleplay reasons. Don´t know if this comes with issues coding-wise but really great idea nevertheless. Some may think this doesn´t happen and while I have no exact idea how often this was seen in WW2 -mid combat -, on a modern battlefield like for example potrayed in Shock Force this happens more often than you think.

But to sum up our CM philosophy,  Erwin nailed it pretty much on point with following statement:

15 hours ago, Erwin said:

I definitely play like there are real human lives at stake and am always asking myself what would I do in a given situation, or what can one reasonably expect from the "guys".

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by MANoWAR.U51

[Jock Tamson]

15 hours ago, Erwin said:

What is this?  Never heard of it.

Anyone who is on Steam and has a Steam history of interest in strategy games will have seen it.

[Rinaldi]

There are real reasons beyond basic human dignity for securing friendly casualties. Asides from securing ammunition and weapons it helps to keep your opponent guessing; corpses and critically wounded men can be spotted and a smart player will try and at least keep track. No sense in making their arithmetic easier and getting a better picture for the state of your forces. Clear those losses; use your XO or Company NCO like you would in reality to control casualties and tactical supply. 

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I actually wait for the information to be relayed through the C2 system before allowing a unit to react to it.  Example: A tank can't fire on an OpFor HMG position until the tank has at least a tentative contact for the position.

I think this is very sensible, and I respect people who play like that. Actually I would love to see it added as an optional realism setting - not least because I don't quite have the self control to strictly enforce it, myself, and because it would be interesting for playing against other people, where you're not always sure if they have the self control to enforce it either.

 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[General Liederkranz]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I actually wait for the information to be relayed through the C2 system before allowing a unit to react to it.  Example: A tank can't fire on an OpFor HMG position until the tank has at least a tentative contact for the position.  An infantry platoon sends a runner over to the tank.  Generally in a minute or three the tank gets the tentative contact and is then able to react to the HMG.  See the below link for peregrine's command layers.  

Yeah, I do this with all forces (in single player), but my concern was that it's much tougher for Italians to send runners since they can't split squads. You need to sacrifice a whole squad or HQ unit to use as a runner, rather than just breaking off a scout team. I hadn't thought of adding dismounted drivers, especially in the same chain of command--it's a great idea. I suppose setting manpower to 90% for the rest of the formation could compensate for the extra bodies (though I doubt any scenario would be unbalanced by a few extra guys with 6.5mm Carcanos). 

The other problem with doing this, I've found, is a glitch (I think confirmed in a different thread I posted a few months ago) whereby an AT gun, once spotted, will sometimes leave NO suspected contact for other units. I don't know if others have seen this but I encounter it a lot. The units that can see the gun will have a full spot, and everyone else, nothing--even after info sharing should have worked. But that's off-topic.

 

[General Liederkranz]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think this is very sensible, and I respect people who play like that. Actually I would love to see it added as an optional realism setting - not least because I don't quite have the self control to strictly enforce it, myself, and because it would be interesting for playing against other people, where you're not always sure if they have the self control to enforce it either.

 

I like this idea but it seems like it would raise more problems than it solves--e.g. what about an attack plan that revolves around blind fire? (e.g. "HMG platoon moves to the edge of the woods and places area fire on that hill to cover the infantry while they outflank it." Or, defensively, real-life MG final protective fire lines.) They'd have to build in some way to pre-plot these fire orders to avoid abuse, which would certainly be realistic but not a lot of fun.

[DerKommissar]

One of the reasons I really dig these games, is that the gameplay mechanics welcome roleplaying. There's no real reason not to evacuate the dead and wounded, in a safe enough area. I'll admit, I do it too much and often find myself in that Full Metal Jacket scene.

This being said, I do, at times, give "hive mind" orders -- even though I play on Iron. A lot of things are abstracted -- and messengers running around is one of them. Runners, couriers, dispatch riders, pigeons, dogs -- all of them were used on a fairly ubiquitous scale. 

In these games, metagaming is boring. So, I generally keep it to a minimum.

I was recently playing the Shield of Kiev campaign. In the second mission, I took heavy casualties -- but not as heavy as OPFOR. They actually surrendered an hour before the game was done. I found the remnants of my infantry platoons searching for their casualties amidst an urban landscape littered with enemy wounded and dying.

They ignored them. But I think it would be a triple sick feature if they could react to enemy casualties. Either evacuating them, treating them, interrogating them (to learn vague enemy positions) or even mercy-killing them.

[Bulletpoint]

16 minutes ago, General Liederkranz said:

23 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think this is very sensible, and I respect people who play like that. Actually I would love to see it added as an optional realism setting - not least because I don't quite have the self control to strictly enforce it, myself, and because it would be interesting for playing against other people, where you're not always sure if they have the self control to enforce it either.

 

I like this idea but it seems like it would raise more problems than it solves--e.g. what about an attack plan that revolves around blind fire? (e.g. "HMG platoon moves to the edge of the woods and places area fire on that hill to cover the infantry while they outflank it." Or, defensively, real-life MG final protective fire lines.)

Fair enough, but maybe it could be fixed by allowing MG fire at any target point, while tanks and anything else firing high explosives would only area fire with the main gun if there's a contact icon at (or close to) the target point?

Another option could be to allow the player to plot area fire orders while deploying, just like we can order artillery on any location during setup.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Kaunitz]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

 

You can also add the dismounted vehicle to the TOE of the unit you want the runner to be assigned.  This will create realistic platoon. company and battalion runners within the C2 system.  I actually wait for the information to be relayed through the C2 system before allowing a unit to react to it.  Example: A tank can't fire on an OpFor HMG position until the tank has at least a tentative contact for the position.  An infantry platoon sends a runner over to the tank.  Generally in a minute or three the tank gets the tentative contact and is then able to react to the HMG.  See the below link for peregrine's command layers.  

[*snip*]

Cool idea to add dismounted vehicles to a particular formation! Thank you for the explanation of TOC and the link to the house rules. I will take a closer look at both.

15 minutes ago, General Liederkranz said:

I like this idea but it seems like it would raise more problems than it solves--e.g. what about an attack plan that revolves around blind fire? (e.g. "HMG platoon moves to the edge of the woods and places area fire on that hill to cover the infantry while they outflank it." Or, defensively, real-life MG final protective fire lines.) They'd have to build in some way to pre-plot these fire orders to avoid abuse, which would certainly be realistic but not a lot of fun.

This can be solved by target reference points. So you could either aim at a contact marker or - for final defensive fires or preplanned suppressive fires - at TRPs. The bigger problem is that as long as the game does not allow you to fire at reverse slope areas, you can't reliably fire at contact markers and TRPs even in situations in which you should be allowed to.  This problem primarily affects infantry who fires from a position close to the ground, and generally speaking in flat or very gently sloping terrain. In these cases you often need to fire at a point way in front of the actual target. 

[MOS:96B2P]

9 minutes ago, General Liederkranz said:

I like this idea but it seems like it would raise more problems than it solves--e.g. what about an attack plan that revolves around blind fire? (e.g. "HMG platoon moves to the edge of the woods and places area fire on that hill to cover the infantry while they outflank it." 

Yep, you can get as complicated as you want with this stuff.  As an example: I have a Unit Tasking form on a Word document where I generally record the current mission for each platoon (I usually play with a Company + so maybe 6 platoons).  So if it was part of the original plan it is allowed (it can also be added with the appropriate time delay/communications).  1st platoon will suppress Hilltop #231 in order to support the advance of 3rd platoon.  Also, the units can burn through ammo pretty fast so this particular example of area firing probably won't happen very much or for very long.    All kinds of interesting rules you can adopt and modify to what interests you.     

[A Canadian Cat]

I usually remember to rename the highest ranking HQ with my name during Quick Battle force selection.

Does that count as role playing?

[DougPhresh]

8 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

They ignored them. But I think it would be a triple sick feature if they could react to enemy casualties. Either evacuating them, treating them, interrogating them (to learn vague enemy positions) or even mercy-killing them.

That's a warcrime, in case you weren't aware.

[sburke]

8 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Yep, you can get as complicated as you want with this stuff.  As an example: I have a Unit Tasking form on a Word document where I generally record the current mission for each platoon (I usually play with a Company + so maybe 6 platoons).  So if it was part of the original plan it is allowed (it can also be added with the appropriate time delay/communications).  1st platoon will suppress Hilltop #231 in order to support the advance of 3rd platoon.  Also, the units can burn through ammo pretty fast so this particular example of area firing probably won't happen very much or for very long.    All kinds of interesting rules you can adopt and modify to what interests you.     

Ever see the Gamer's Tactical Combat system OP sheets?  You can find em on Gamers archive . net.  They designed exactly what you are referring to into the board game series.

 

[Erwin]

"The Gamers" company produced some xnt games approaching very realistic in terns of how they deal with logistics etc.   IIRC they were bought by Multiman Games (who also own the "ASL franchise").  They are obviously insane, and seem to be out of most of the original "The Gamers" products.  But, they do have some interesting cardboard wargames:  http://www.multimanpublishing.com

Edited June 19, 2018 by Erwin

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

Ever see the Gamer's Tactical Combat system OP sheets?  You can find em on Gamers archive . net.  They designed exactly what you are referring to into the board game series.

THANKS!!!  Very cool.  Their OP sheets are basically my Unit Tasking Form.  Some interesting reading at that site.  I think I can improve my Unit Tasking Form with some ideas from the OP sheets........................ very cool.    

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

15 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

They ignored them. But I think it would be a triple sick feature if they could react to enemy casualties. Either evacuating them, treating them, interrogating them (to learn vague enemy positions) or even mercy-killing them.

That's a warcrime, in case you weren't aware.

Also interrogating them, according to what I can read on the Wiki:

"Articles 5 and 6 covers what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information."

I'm sure it was often done in practice though.

[JoMac]

I use 'House Rules' against AI or Human Opponents as a form of 'Role-play'...

[DougPhresh]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Also interrogating them, according to what I can read on the Wiki:

"Articles 5 and 6 covers what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information."

I'm sure it was often done in practice though.

I don't want to get into this too much, but this happened while I was with Battlegroup in '08,
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/capt-robert-semrau-dismissed-from-the-forces/

My $0.02 CAD is having 12th SS kill Canadian prisoners out of hand in CMBN doesn't improve gameplay or immersion. Similarly, I would like to be able to treat enemy casualties in accordance with the LOAC, but I don't think that there should be systems to enable war crimes.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

but I don't think that there should be systems to enable war crimes.

I don't either, I hope that was clear...

[Aragorn2002]

I don't really do role play, but for me the number of casualties is what determines my actions in a scenario. When my number of casualties is too high, or what I consider as too high, I adjust my goals, even if that means not reaching a draw or winning a victory. Making the enemy pay is what matters and if I can inflict (much) more casualties upon his forces than I have to suffer myself, I regard it as a victory. Mind you, I don't care so much for balanced battles. I have the distinct impression that most operations ended in not achieving their goals and making sure most of the unit would live to fight another day, especially seen from the German viewpoint towards the end of the war.

[Sublime]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Also interrogating them, according to what I can read on the Wiki:

"Articles 5 and 6 covers what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information."

I'm sure it was often done in practice though.

I vividly remember an interview with a US 101st AB vet on the AHC channel.  He openly stated if they needed info from some rounded up Germans theyd pick the one who seemed in charge - he said it was usually pretty obvious - and outright walk over and blow his head off with a .45 to make a point. Apparently they never had any holdouts.  IIRC this was happening around this soldier around the time of the Bulge and into Germany..

Edited June 19, 2018 by Sublime

[DerKommissar]

4 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I don't want to get into this too much, but this happened while I was with Battlegroup in '08,
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/capt-robert-semrau-dismissed-from-the-forces/

My $0.02 CAD is having 12th SS kill Canadian prisoners out of hand in CMBN doesn't improve gameplay or immersion. Similarly, I would like to be able to treat enemy casualties in accordance with the LOAC, but I don't think that there should be systems to enable war crimes.

Is 0.02$ CAD even worth anything, these days? Now that they ditched the penny and the lowest form of currency is the nickel?

I would be happy if they allowed your soldiers to pack away enemy casualties much like they do their own. I think that would be the most efficient implementation. They would just be marked MIA, and become POWs (like surrendered troops do now). This way, any war crimes will not be shown -- but could be implied, in the context of the conflict at large. Which is where the roleplaying aspect comes in.

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Also interrogating them, according to what I can read on the Wiki:

"Articles 5 and 6 covers what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information."

I'm sure it was often done in practice though.

Is it possible that POWs could volunteer information in hope for better treatment? Either way, interrogation (or "interview") is slightly outside the scope of the game. Most likely happening way off screen.

All I'm saying is that it would be cool if your troops could react to enemy casualties, instead of leaving them to the crows. 

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

making sure most of the unit would live to fight another day,

In terms of a satisfying scenario, ammo conservation should also be a factor.   One of the reasons that campaigns are much more satisfying imo is that one often has to preserve enuff force and ammo for the next mission or missions b4 one gets reinforcements or resupply.

But, as someone who always treats WIA, am not sure adding the ability to treat enemy WIA, adds anything worthwhile other than yet more options (which is general good I agree) and more complexity for the BF programmers (which is not good).  

Edited June 19, 2018 by Erwin

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

I vividly remember an interview with a US 101st AB vet on the AHC channel.  He openly stated if they needed info from some rounded up Germans theyd pick the one who seemed in charge - he said it was usually pretty obvious - and outright walk over and blow his head off with a .45 to make a point.

Not the brightest bunch.. wouldn't the guy in charge be the one who actually knew stuff?

[Aragorn2002]

12 minutes ago, Erwin said:

In terms of a satisfying scenario, ammo conservation should also be a factor.   One of the reasons that campaigns are much more satisfying imo is that one often has to preserve enuff force and ammo for the next mission or missions b4 one gets reinforcements or resupply.

But, as someone who always treats WIA, am not sure adding the ability to treat enemy WIA, adds anything worthwhile other than yet more options (which is general good I agree) and more complexity for the BF programmers (which is not good).  

I agree.

Treating enemy WIA is pushing it a bit. Instead better to concentrate on enabling bailed out tank crews to man another abandoned but still intact tank, or combine with the remnants of another tank crew. Nothing as bitter as having a perfectly good tank just standing there. But the game is already complicated enough as it is and I'm pretty sure BF has included most if not all options that are possible. I mean, look at how a crew bail out a burning tank. It's sheer poetry. Well, as long as it's an enemy tank, that is.