Jump to content

Realism Suggestions?


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Interesting stuff.  I have many rules that are similar to yours.  Mine are a modified version of @Peregrine rules.  I keep adding to them and modifying them.  Part of the fun.  The below is my rule for a KIA CO.    

When a Commanding Officer (CO) of a HQ is KIA the new CO takes a 1:15 Pause.  Order of succession CO, XO, next highest rank. If same rank the one with the lowest squad number, example: 1st Squad / 1st Team.

thanks mos, i had not heard of peregrines rules before, they do look very comprehensive i must say.

 

cheers

 

slipper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Built the "rules" (I prefer to call them guidelines) up over a long time and still use them. Haven't changed them for quite a time now.

The game engine does a better job than ever of punishing out of command units taking casualties.

Original post is over 5 years old now and the guidelines developed for at least 2 before that.

Edited by Peregrine
Update command layer post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Built the "rules" (I prefer to call them guidelines) up over a long time and still use them. Haven't changed them for quite a time now.

+1  Great stuff.  Anyone interested in Command Guidelines should visit Peregrine's link.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi guys!

Good suggestions! I also like command friction and the idea that units should not react to occurances they don't know of. I have no idea myself how it could be translated into a system that could be managed by the game/pc though.  

In my opinion many realism-aspects affect the context/setting of the typical CM match: 

  1. Night battles. People often underestimate how many attacks were carried out at night. (This is also linked to point 2: If the enemy is in defensive positions, you don't want to engage in daylight, as it will be easier to detect your appraoch and stop it - by means of MGs and artillery, usually)
  2. Play fewer meeting engagements as this would be an extremely rare situation. Play scenarios with clear attacker and defender roles. The big problem here is that CM lacks the fortifications that would be neccessary to portray such an engagement (lack of proper trenches & dug-outs). The trenches we have right now don't provide sufficient cover against artillery and small arms fire. In most cases, a defensive line can simply be "bombed out" instead of requiring a capture by fire & manoeuvre.
  3.  Many maps are a bit crowded. Of course it depends on the historical region (--> bocage in Normandy is an exception, obviously), but there is a lack of more open maps that allow heavier weapons and some defensive assets to play out their advantages.* For example, this is also true for the bunkers which are available in the game right now: In order for their cover to be of any help, the distance to the target need to be really big; otherwise, too many bullets will hit the bunker's opening. Also, MGs were preferably used at ranges at which ordinary rifles could not return fire and at which it was not so easy to pinpoint the location of the MG nest. Because of the short lines of sight (= high lethality of weapons) that are so common in CM, I feel that spotting is more important than it should be, requires you to fiddle around and micromanage a lot, and it also adds randomness to the game. Another factor related to map design is that in many terrain features (e.g. woods) have a rather small footprint or are cut off by the edge of the map which turns them into an "obvious" position that can be neutralized quite easily. It's very easy to saturate a clump of trees with arty or HE. By contrast, a 1x1 km wood is a bit more difficult to neutralize.

Generally speaking, from a realism point of view, Combat Mission matches strike me as way too bloody. The amount of casualties is insane. The reasons for this are probably a mixture of the things listed above: the typical CM engagement is an engagement in daylight at very short range with no proper means of defence for the defender (trenches, dug-outs). The one  (BIG) advantage that the defender has is the short range of the engagements which enables him to trigger devastating ambushes (spotting the enemy first, destroying him before he can react).

This is what I've described as a lack of "soft contact" in Combat Mission games. You usually only get "hard contact", with one asset getting out immediately after being spotted, with few if any chances to react. In some cases, it can be extremely frustrating to play under these circumstances. 

I'd also prefer if an infantry unit that gets fired upon while moving with the standard movement-order would go prone immediately, not run to the next waypoint.  

------------------

* Once I've finished my Catania scenario for Command Ops II (https://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/the-battle-for-catania-primosole-bridge-sicily-july-1943.5326/)], I will continue my work on a large map (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133505-thats-one-vast-valley-hard-edged-realistically-scaled-map/).

Edited by Kaunitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The house rule I've been playing with is:

""Units cannot area fire into a location where they do not have a contact marker, unless *no* unit has a contact marker in that location"."

The point being that speculative fire is fine, but if you know something is there (and the firing unit does not) then it's cheating.


I've been mulling over nixing pre-battle bombardments entirely. TRPs are fine, and can do the same job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Generally speaking, from a realism point of view, Combat Mission matches strike me as way too bloody. The amount of casualties is insane.

I don't understand why people say these things. If you're playing against a human opponent in a single scenario, then you can expect to recieve and inflict heavy casualties, because you are playing a game that has no consequences beyond winning or losing. Thus, neither player is under any obligation to agree to a ceasefire, or surrender, if they take a sufficient number of casualties. In fact many players, myself included, will drive their pixeltruppen far beyond human endurance if it means securing a victory in a PBEM.

If you are playing a single-player scenario, then there is no excuse for incurring massive amounts of casualties. I've made it a point to provide such object lessons as "How to Avoid Needless Casualties" with every single scenario I play and record. Sure, my run through 'Gog and Magog' was inconclusive at best, but I certainly didn't lose more than ten percent of my force before realizing I couldn't win without incurring the insane casualties you speak of.

I think the question of casualties comes from an incorrect assumption on the part of the player that every single scenario is capable of being won with a total victory, or that one needs to simply hurl human bodies at the enemy with enough frequency to guarantee a heroic result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

I don't understand why people say these things. If you're playing against a human opponent in a single scenario, then you can expect to recieve and inflict heavy casualties, because you are playing a game that has no consequences beyond winning or losing. Thus, neither player is under any obligation to agree to a ceasefire, or surrender, if they take a sufficient number of casualties. In fact many players, myself included, will drive their pixeltruppen far beyond human endurance if it means securing a victory in a PBEM.

If you are playing a single-player scenario, then there is no excuse for incurring massive amounts of casualties. I've made it a point to provide such object lessons as "How to Avoid Needless Casualties" with every single scenario I play and record. Sure, my run through 'Gog and Magog' was inconclusive at best, but I certainly didn't lose more than ten percent of my force before realizing I couldn't win without incurring the insane casualties you speak of.

I think the question of casualties comes from an incorrect assumption on the part of the player that every single scenario is capable of being won with a total victory, or that one needs to simply hurl human bodies at the enemy with enough frequency to guarantee a heroic result.

I've described in my post above that I don't think it's just due to the "recklessnes" of players. In my opinion, it's also a matter of map-design (primarily quick battle maps) in combination with a lack of properly functionable defensive structures. So, in my opinion, it's not just because players don't break off the engagement, but also because the rate of casualties inflicted during the actual engagements is relatively high. 

Edited by Kaunitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About casualties, remember the game simulates the 'tip of the spear', so to speak, so would produce a much higher than average casualty count than if you include logistic and rear echelon troops. Also, people don't quite comprehend how bloody things can get. In the Battle of the Bulge, for example, each side suffered about 90,000 casualties and 500 tanks destroyed (in VERY round numbers). This happened within a mere 1 month, 1 week and 2 days. That's frickin' carnage! I'm reminded of an anecdote from WWI. Rebellious French troops in 1917 bleat like sheep (lambs to the slaughter) as their general reviewed them, following a futile 10 day battle that had left 120,000 casualties. Bloody indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, MikeyD.   I just read Ortona book about Canadians in Italy.  Front line companies whittled down to ~50%  effectives very quickly in some cases.  Over a few days sometimes down to ~25%.  So lots of casualties could happen and often did.  Casualties in history books are often at division level, but less than half a division is front line combat troops.  So 10% casualties at division level could be 50% at for many of the division's rifle platoons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, really makes you learn that a part of being a good commander is being able to manage with excruciating losses. If you're at the spearpoint of an offensive or the flank of a defensive line, that would be a requirement.

Edited by Frenchy56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may not be possible in QB battles but in regular scenarios surely the scoring with regards to friendly casualties is a useful tool to 'punish' reckless playing and a disregard for casualties.

Mayby more scenarios needs to put a higher degree of emphasis on this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The models are locked-down. If a foregrip M4 model existed in one of the games you'd be able to swap out the model by changing the name but no such model exists. Also there's the matter of animations. Brits field a late model rebuilt L85A2 with foregrip but soldier animations don't use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MikeyD said:

About casualties, remember the game simulates the 'tip of the spear', so to speak, so would produce a much higher than average casualty count than if you include logistic and rear echelon troops. Also, people don't quite comprehend how bloody things can get. In the Battle of the Bulge, for example, each side suffered about 90,000 casualties and 500 tanks destroyed (in VERY round numbers). This happened within a mere 1 month, 1 week and 2 days. That's frickin' carnage! I'm reminded of an anecdote from WWI. Rebellious French troops in 1917 bleat like sheep (lambs to the slaughter) as their general reviewed them, following a futile 10 day battle that had left 120,000 casualties. Bloody indeed.

I don't want to belittle casualties by any means, but I don't think it's reasonable to just throw around numbers like that as an argument. How many troops took part in the 1 month of fighting in the battle of the Buldge? According to wikipedia ( - best source ever), it was about 705.000 men for the US forces and 23.000 of the casualties were "missing". In any case, even if you admit the fact that the casualties would be spread very unevenly amongst the troops, you can get much worse casualty figures than this in a 1-2 hours' Combat Mission game. 

For example, when two battalions of the Durham Light Infantry brigade launched a night attack across the Simeto river in Sicily against the defensive positions of the german paratroopers, the scene was also described as "hell's kitchen" and casualties were "severe": The 6th battalion suffered 120 casualties, the 9th battalion 100 casualties. (ca. 25-35% of the front strength, I suppose?). In Combat Mission H2H quickbattles, you often get a casualty rate of 60% and more within an HOUR (you just need to check out some youtube AARs).

I stand by my opinion that the engagements in Combat Mission are often too bloody, for the reasons stated above ("hard/ambush" is the most common type of contact) and because of the "player recklessness" (which is just natural for a game) that Jack Ripper has mentioned.

Edited by Kaunitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I've described in my post above that I don't think it's just due to the "recklessnes" of players. In my opinion, it's also a matter of map-design (primarily quick battle maps) in combination with a lack of properly functionable defensive structures. So, in my opinion, it's not just because players don't break off the engagement, but also because the rate of casualties inflicted during the actual engagements is relatively high. 

The trouble with quick battles is that they're not based on anything. It's not simulating an actual military engagement, it's merely throwing a bunch of troops onto the map and letting the player muddle through as best they can.

That's a recipe for casualties no matter what you do, and that's never going to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

For example, when two battalions of the Durham Light Infantry brigade launched a night attack across the Simeto river in Sicily against the defensive positions of the german paratroopers, the scene was also described as "hell's kitchen" and casualties were "severe": The 6th battalion suffered 120 casualties, the 9th battalion 100 casualties. (ca. 25-35% of the front strength, I suppose?).

Do you know how many companies they committed? I believe it was normal for CW battalions to put two companies into the attack and hold two back. If that’s what they did here, then these casualties would amount to more like 50%. And maybe more in some platoons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get accurate casualty figures one needs to know how many are support troops.  For every 100 troops, maybe only 10% (10 guys) are combat troops.  So, 5% casualties (ie: 5 guys out of a hundred) might mean 50% casualties for the combat troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still maintain the biggest differentiation between RL casualty rates and in game rates is now *we* play. We keep going when real force commanders would pull back and break contact. We move much to fast a lot of the time short cutting on scouting, forgoing the 5min wait for supporting fire etc. Defenders stick it out when they would really elect to preserve there force and withdraw. Attackers keep trying even as they have lost so much.

A great counter example is the recent AAR for Shock Foce by  @Bil Hardenberger and me:

Bil's force broke contact after my force inflicted a significant number of casualties. But Bil is special most of us would have pressed the attack and racked up massive casualties and I would have tried to hang on to the last man. How would that have been realistic? If the majority of battles were conducted like this one, we would not be having a conversation about realism and casulties.

Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This where careful balancing of the Parameters VPs can make all the difference.....I'm of the opinion that many more points should be available for preserving one's own force than for destroying the enemy, for modern western formations at least.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An anecdote that illustrates, to me, how rapidly bloody things could get, from Hugh Cole's official history of the Bulge, describing an attack by the 87th Division: "While moving over a little rise outside Jenneville, the leading platoon met a fusillade of bullets that claimed twenty casualties in two minutes."

Even if the platoon was at full strength to start (39 men), that's 50% in two CM turns. Even more if they were at reduced strength to start. That level of casualties would be pretty shocking even in CM. Obviously it didn't happen constantly--he says the whole battalion lost 132 men that whole day--but it certainly could if commanders (players) press too hard or make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, General Liederkranz said:

An anecdote that illustrates, to me, how rapidly bloody things could get, from Hugh Cole's official history of the Bulge, describing an attack by the 87th Division: "While moving over a little rise outside Jenneville, the leading platoon met a fusillade of bullets that claimed twenty casualties in two minutes."

Even if the platoon was at full strength to start (39 men), that's 50% in two CM turns. Even more if they were at reduced strength to start. That level of casualties would be pretty shocking even in CM. Obviously it didn't happen constantly--he says the whole battalion lost 132 men that whole day--but it certainly could if commanders (players) press too hard or make mistakes.

Of course it could get bloody. I'm not denying this. I'm just trying to point out that it did get bloody in certain situations - for example: getting hit by artillery without any cover, or in an ambush situation (sudden, relatively short range fire fights). It seems as if such a situation has occured in your quote ("moving over a little rise..."). While I'm perfectly fine with these situations by themselves, I think that they occur too often, particularly on quickbattle maps. And there is a reason for this. 

Many quickbattle maps offer lots of little hills, little clumps of trees, a high "variety" of terrain, if you will. But all these features have relatively small footprints, they're cramed on a map that is too small to hold them all. This results in a "tabletop/miniature railway" feeling. If you compare these maps to real landscapes, the scale is really off (except perhaps for Normandy bocage...). Lines of sight of 1-2 kilometers are quite common in many regions, yet you can hardly get such a line of sight on a Combat Mission map. Quite naturally, this has many implications for gameplay, e.g. forcing long range assets into uncomfortably short ranges, making it easier to neutralize positions (features with a smaller footprint can be "saturated" more easily, positions become more obvious) and, most importantly, short ranges make any first fire very lethal (thus putting extreme importance on spotting). Due to the miniature scale of terrain, most CM engagements play out like ambushes. 

But as i've made my point and it seems as if my impressions are not shared by many fellow players, I'm fine and won't spam this topic anymore. ;)  Any further discussions on this point can be outsourced to this topic: 

 

 

Edited by Kaunitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the comments about line of sight, whilst not untrue, are something of an unfair generalisation.

It's certainly true for some maps, and especially some early examples - cmbn and cmsf 1 have some pretty unconvincing maps - but others are better, or even near 1:1 with real places, so it's certainly not outside the capabilities of the game.

There is definitely a tendancy towards tighter terrain in wargaming - often the tactical decisions involved in a battle are defined by the terrain, so a large flat area would be fairly uninteresting to delve in to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...