Noobie: Advice about design and scale

[Concord]

Hi All,

New to the forum. Although I've been enjoying the three CM's for over a year now, consider me a noobie and an aspiring Grognard.

I have two questions I need advice on regarding scenario and operations design for CM. I am an above average map maker and create scenarios popular with gaming buddies. Until now, I have always created 'Fictional' battles, and I am looking to create some 'Semi-Historical' scenarios (initially Italian campaign)

1.) Despite a number of attempts to search the internet for material, I have been unable to come across any website reference material that covers events from a tactical level. I have recently seen the CM reference book advertised, and it looks good! But, if anyone has any links to historical / tactical / geographical websites to add a bit of historical impact to my scenarios, it would be appreciated. Although a fan of the series, I just don't have the time to invest in extensive research.

2.) A question that has occurred to me (since the days of the old Close Combat game series) is scale. If a CM scenario used say a 1km wide by 2km long map, what is the number of units one could (historically) expect to see on it? Would it be something like battalion strength infantry, and a company (9 - 12?) of tanks? Anyone know how many battalions to a division? More to the point, if you were going to include an entire battalion in a scenario, how big should the map be to be a proper historical simulation?

What I would like to do is to have a rough guide to estimate actual map scale of an historical location, and estimate what number of troops would be present on a map, say per kilometre-wide front.

I read about operations where they (a division) take a large town. Would 1km of an historical town perhaps look like a dense city map if accurately portrayed in CM? Would a blob of forest on an operational map actually be a carpet of woods in CM? I downloaded a nice illustration of the Lirry Valley (spelling?), and it was great as a visual reference for map creation, but I realised that at that it was probably many kilometres wide, making it useless as a CM map, except perhaps for 'artistic inspiration'.

Any tips, guidelines and links would be much appreciated. I plan to upload the maps / scenarios / ops for the CM community to test (perhaps the "Proving Grounds"?). Thanks!

[Kingfish]

From the Volturno to the Winter line

The Winter line campaign

Anzio

The New Zealanders in WW2

I have a few more saved on my home computer, so I'll add to this list later today

[ January 23, 2006, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[JasonC]

Force to space ratios varied widely over the course of the war. In many situations, all you'd expect to find on a single km of front would be one company of defenders, and maybe that and change attacking them. On the other hand, on the breakthrough sector of a major penetration attempt, you might find 50 AFVs on a single km.

There isn't single answer. Changing the amount you packed in to the same space was the principle variable sides used to take the initiative on a given part of the line. Packing in lots invites counters, though - dense minefields that don't care how many tanks are in front of them, or massed artillery barrages that shred infantry if it concentrates too much. Doesn't mean people didn't try it, they did. And defenders used such counters against them.

[Concord]

Well that is fantastic, thanks Kingfish and JasonC! These links and answers alone are enough to anchor my designs in some historical realism.

Kingfisher, the info in the links I had a brief look at are ideal. Descriptions, topographical photos etc. Any additional links you supply I will also investigate.

JasonC, in regards to scale, it sounds like a 'quiet' km-wide area of the front could have just a company, while it could be packed for an assault. (Wow, 50 tanks in an assault would be extremely fun in CM, but I think you would be waiting a long time for the calculations and movies!)

Looking at one of the links posted by Kingfisher, "Volturno to the Winter Line", shows an attack by the 34th Division across a front about 3-4 km wide (page 89 - "Third Crossing of the 34th Division"). It would appear 168th Infantry Regiment advancing on a front about 1.5 miles wide, consisting of three battalions (the symbol II ?). So if I've interpreted it correctly, you could accurately simulate this regiment's attack in CM with a map 2km wide, and three (!) battalions of US infantry?

[Kingfish]

The 168th crossed on a two battalion front, with the 2nd and 3rd crossing at 2400 hours on Nov 3rd, and the 1st following behind the next day. Further downstream the 133rd launched a full regimental attack with 3 battalions crossing at the same time, and it appears on a 2km front.

Here are a few more sites:

The Italian Campaign

The Irish Guards in WW2

Salerno to the Volturno river

Naples-Foggia

Northern Apennines

Sicily

Po Valley

Rangers in WW2

[ January 23, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[Concord]

Thanks again for all the great links Kingfish, it will allow me to concentrate on actual map and scenario design rather than chasing my tail with the researching!

Just skimming through the example description of the 3rd crossing of the 34th Division, I wasn't entirely sure of the German composition though (a more detailed read will probably reveal it). Just for the record, what size units are depicted by I, II and III? I gather II is a battalion?

So, for an accurate portrayal of an event like this, I think that a battalion size would be a minimum, and I would prefer even two battalions! But for purposes of an enjoyable game, maybe played by PBEM, am I getting too ambitious? It would probably involve almost maximum allowable map sizes, and allot of units. When I play a large game, I tend to group units by platoon and drag a box to select and move them together, so maybe it wouldn't involve too much micromanagement.

I think that the advantage of a large game with big map and units, is you get a better representation. There tends to be more tactical options too. I'm imagining maybe 9 HMG's hampering the advance of a whole infantry battalion (?)

I'm trying to convince myself that a BIG game is OK! If all the units for both sides were neatly layed out for placement by the player (saving time) and the size of the map wouldn't hamper us poor unfortunates who have a slow band width on e-mail, it could be manageable. In your experience, would there be disadvantages to this scale? Do you think players would enjoy it?

[Kingfish]

Thanks again for all the great links Kingfish, it will allow me to concentrate on actual map and scenario design rather than chasing my tail with the researching!

I highly recommend visiting this site when it comes time to design your map. You can get 1:25000 scale topos of any area in Italy. A bit tricky to navigate, but if you are interested drop me a line and I can walk you thru it. Oh, and its free

Just skimming through the example description of the 3rd crossing of the 34th Division, I wasn't entirely sure of the German composition though (a more detailed read will probably reveal it). Just for the record, what size units are depicted by I, II and III? I gather II is a battalion?

Correct, the 'II' that is above the military unit symbol represents a battalion size force, while 'I' is a company and 'III' is a full regiment. The number to the right of the symbol tells what regiment that unit is from, while the number to the left is the actual unit number.

Referring to this map, the southernmost elements of the 34th division that crossed on Nov 3rd were the 3rd and 1st battalion, both from the 133rd regiment, and the independent 100th battalion.

As for the German units defending the area, a check of the other maps shows the most likely candidate as being the 3rd Panzergrenadier division. A veteran of the recent Salerno battles, its units should be depleted due to losses, but still in relatively good shape. My guess would be at 80% strength for the front line formations, but strong in artillery. Here is the OOB for the division.

I'm trying to convince myself that a BIG game is OK! If all the units for both sides were neatly layed out for placement by the player (saving time) and the size of the map wouldn't hamper us poor unfortunates who have a slow band width on e-mail, it could be manageable. In your experience, would there be disadvantages to this scale? Do you think players would enjoy it?

Depends on the amount of time and effort you put into it. A well designed scenario will sell itself, and may prompt those who normally don't play the bigger games to give it a try. One thing you should know, though, is that the bigger the scenario, the less feedback you will get.

Lately I've been on a 'battle for Florence' kick, and have designed 2 huge, multi-battalion scenarios. The maps were drawn from the 1:25000 scale topos I mentioned above, and took me a month to create (an hour here, 10 minutes there, etc.). In the end I was very pleased with the results, and that is all the mattered to me. If others play it and enjoy it thats icing on the cake.

If there is one thing I would highly recommend you do is take your time on the map, as that is the 'Hook' that snags the players. More than anything a well designed map is key.

[Concord]

The PCN site sounds good, but it may be hard to navigate as you said (especially because I don't speak Italian), so once I decide on a battle location, I'll e-mail you. The randomly picked battle we're looking at as an example might not be too fun...moving a US battalion at night through mud and minefields while being shelled..."Swell"

So, 3rd Panzergrenadier division eh? Some things that occured to me looking at their OOB:

1.) Some of those so-called "battalions" look no bigger than a company in size! (eg 103. Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion) I guess the 8th and 29th Panzergrenadier Regiments were the guts, not to mention the 3rd Pioneer battalion with 3 companies. You could sacrifice the motorised mapping detachment and the regimental band as a delaying action!

2.) How much of this stuff would actually be committed? Whether to give the axis player the two heavy flak batteries to set up on the mountain (!!!) or have the three STUG batteries roll up? My first thought is that I will have to select based on gameplay and guesswork where there's no specific details available. Hmm...

I agree about maps. A well designed map makes it more engaging and helps make up for the slightly clunky graphics. What are the names of your multi-battalion scenarios (on SDII or TPG)? I just uploaded two of my blank maps to The Proving Grounds: "Factory" for CMBB and "Italian hills farms" for CMAK.

[Kingfish]

So, 3rd Panzergrenadier division eh?

Just an educated guess based on maps of the front line prior to the German withdrawal behind the Volturno and back into the Winter line. The 3rd PzGr is right in the middle of the 34th ID's area of operations, and I haven't found anything to suggest they were withdrawn during that time.

1.) Some of those so-called "battalions" look no bigger than a company in size! (eg 103. Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion)

The 103. Pz recon is a battalion sized formation, with 3x Reconnaissance Companies plus armored cars, etc.

2.) How much of this stuff would actually be committed? Whether to give the axis player the two heavy flak batteries to set up on the mountain (!!!) or have the three STUG batteries roll up? My first thought is that I will have to select based on gameplay and guesswork where there's no specific details available. Hmm...

Depends on where in the line you are referring to. Field Marshal Kesselring's goal was to hold the Volturno until October, which he did, and then withdraw into the relative saefty of the Winter line, where the moutains and approaching winter weather would delay or even halt the allies.

Therefore, the river crossing Ops probably encountered rear guards and scattered mines/demolitions, plus heavy arty barrages. The real fighting came when the US VI and British X Corp began climbing the mountains to try and force the Mignano gap.

What are the names of your multi-battalion scenarios (on SDII or TPG)?

The Villas of Tuscany and Strada in Chianti, both now at the SDII. I have a third that is smaller, and based on the battle for San Michele, but am doing a complete redesign of the map based on new research info.

[dieseltaylor]

If you talk Concord through the Italian map site ....can you send me the instructions also. I have no pressing need - its just I like maps. : )

[i have failed on my first breif attempt but no worries]

[JasonC]

Let me strongly urge you *not* to make another regiment scale monstrosity. They are simply not playable. Designers seem to love them, but they are hell on players. Also, the realism of CM suffers very considerably whenever the scale goes above battalion - indeed it is already starting to suffer at battalion scale.

What do I mean? I mean borg spotting, everybody knowing everything everyone else in the whole battalion or regiment knows, is decidedly less realistic than one company knowing. I mean short command delays before changing plans, reasonable enough when the unit changing its plan is a platoon, but ridiculous when a whole battalion changes everything in 15 seconds. I mean the close coordination of a hundred different unit leaders all singing off the same hymn sheet, something no real life commander could dream of.

CM works best at company scale or a little above. Battalion is already pushing it. Save larger fights than that for operations with only a battalion on the map at a time, or campaigns that string together multiple scenarios. Or make a scenario pack with a dozen company fights.

Last one point on attack frontages. You have to understand that serious attacks are not all on line affairs, but are deep and take hours to develop and deliver. There are units behind units behind units. Not all of them engaging in the same 30-45 minute firefight together.

A typical US regiment would attack 2 up and 1 back, for example. That means one battalion is in a regimental reserve meant to back up the more successful of the two front ones, in the meantime just holding the jump-off points in case the attack fails. Then the two front battalions may have their weapons company and one of their line companies hang back. You'd see an 81mm mortar FO out of the former, perhaps. Maybe a single HMG platoon supporting by fire from the start line.

In single battalion advances, the US had a "drill" they used quite often, where only a single company actually advanced, doing so right behind an artillery barrage. A second company would support by ranged fire from start positions, and then move up to relieve the assault company after it took its objective. The third company was resting and refitting, and then shifted to the "on deck circle". The assault company went to the rear to rest and refit, get replacements, etc. The idea being to keep the ability to make small nibbles every day, rather than burning out the whole formation.

For a big set piece attack, though, it'd be more like 4 companies advancing on 2 km, with the balance of 2 battalions ready to back them up, and the 3rd battalion behind those. Fighting in waves, all might be engaged before nightfall - but not all would step off together.

Full attacks are long drawn out things, not footraces to the enemy trench by entire regiments. That sort of thing went out on the first day of the Somme, because it just doesn't work. It only multiplies the number of men hit by each enemy MG or artillery shell.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Let me strongly urge you *not* to make another regiment scale monstrosity. They are simply not playable. Designers seem to love them, but they are hell on players. Also, the realism of CM suffers very considerably whenever the scale goes above battalion - indeed it is already starting to suffer at battalion scale.

Amen to that!! I have been one of those with a predisposition toward playing "historical" scenarios, but I have learned over time how the desire to do such scenarios seduces designers away from what works best for CM. I have the feeling that it may be best to let history serve to provide mostly context for a scenario (for example, type of terrain, types of units involved, a particular tactical problem encountered) but no more. Also sometimes (and I emphasis sometimes!) I think a "scale-down" can work -- say taking a regimental engagement IRL and scaling it down to a battalion (which, as Jason says, may still be too big). In short, be content with "semi-historical" and sell your scenarios on the basis of such things as tactical interest, forces involved, period of the war, etc.

[Concord]

Valuable input!!! Perhaps I will still do a very large scenario out of interest and for novelty value, but I will keep it down to a maximum of battalion level for most. The issues of borg awareness and parade ground marching are valid scale issues that the game wasn't designed to handle. For 'smaller' scenarios / ops, fudging the details probably won't have as much impact on realism, and simply provide guidelines for terrain and force composition.

I'm getting a better picture of the actual combat scale, and how the units were employed. One of my main goals in going for a larger scale was to see the impact of say, a battery of 88's with a view across a 2km front where a regiment was advancing, or the impact of divisional artillery support on a line, etc. I don't imagine that much combat would happen beyond 2km from any unit, even for things like 88's or FO's, so it seemed the right scale to get a true picture of what would be going on at the front.

Still, I'm thinking that there will still be a way to show only a slice of the front and still retain historical accuracy. Some of the accounts I read about on those websites talk about a "breakthrough" by a group of 8 tanks (company size?) with support. So maybe keeping the scale to a maximum of say, a battalion of infantry and a tank company plus supporting units could very well portray a realistic section of the front. Rather than having the full divisional battalions in support, you could for instance portray 103 Pz Recon with a reconaissance company and a platoon of armoured cars. Note: a battalion wouldn't neccessarily always be working as one big unit would it? Sometimes they might split units like this to different areas of the division?

The sheer scale of all this is staggering. When you consider the size of a company, and then multiple companies per battalion, multiple battalions to a regiment, and multiple regiments spead out across just 5km, that's ALOT of men and equipment! And yet, a "threatening" breakthrough could be caused by just a company of tanks!

[junk2drive]

Play Tank Warning (CMBB) from Boots and Tracks by email as Soviets vs a good opponent. Then see how you feel.

[Concord]

"Kingfish, this is Concord, do you read, over?"

I've decided on a battle to historically simulate. It's the 88th infantry division (AKA the "Blue Devils"), 350th regiment, 2nd battalion, attacking the German 71st / 94th division on Mount Diamano (Hill 413, "key to cracking the defences of Castleforte") at the Gustav line, May 1944. (whew!)

The 88th Infantry Division Association

History of the 88th 'Blue Devil' Division

Blue Devils - 88th Infantry Division

Would it be possible to post instructions on how to navigate to the maps in the PCN website for me and others-hungry-for-maps like dieseltaylor?

Portale Cartografico Nazionale

I am going to guess what was present on the battlefield, using my research and descriptions. Initially, I'm thinking a US infantry battalion with fairly hefty artillery support (multiple FO's with offboard 105's), against maybe 1 or 2 companies for the Germans, with the addition of dug-in HMG's, 81mm mortars, snipers, mines and wire (ahhhh, a typical day in Italy 1944, eh? :mad: ) and possibly a wooden MG bunker or three...does the mix sound about right, at a glance?

The map design will have to carry it off I think. I'm not too sure about mountains in Italy: some photos show them covered in trees (eg Mount Battaglia), and others almost totally bald except for scrub (eg Tre Poggioli Ridge).

Any insights are welcome.

[JasonC]

Don't give the Germans 2 full companies and all those extras if you expect Allied infantry to assault them. 3-4 platoons plus a platoon worth of HMGs is plenty.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Concord:

Would it be possible to post instructions on how to navigate to the maps in the PCN website for me and others-hungry-for-maps like dieseltaylor?

First thing you need to do is open up MS Explorer, since this seems to be the only browser it works on. Firefox guys like myself just have to hold their nose while doing it

OK, now copy and paste this link to your address bar and open it:

http://www.pcn.minambiente.it/pcn/default.htm

Click on "cartografia"

The box with the map of italy has the words "Nuova Versione", and below it has

"Vecchia versione". Click on Vercchia versione.

Click "OK"

Click "Accetto"

Click on any of the regions on the map, or choose from scrolling menu (Concord, for your scenario you should choose the region "Lazio")

You now have a choice of several map types. Scroll down to the "IGM 1:25000"

map and click

You can now manuever around the map of Lazio, using the buttons above the map

to either pan, zoom out or in. It takes a while for the map to refresh with

every change either in scale or location, but with a little patience you can

get excellent Topos of anywhere in Lazio (or other regions) down to 1:15000

scale or better.

Concord,

On the left hand side of the map is a box marked "Scala 1:"

Type in 15000 and hit enter

Now go to the coordinate section and type in the following coordinates:

Coordinate top left

X - 399066.6

Y - 4574479.5

Coordinate bottom right

X - 403225.8

Y - 4570907.7

Castelforte should be right in the center.

One drawback to this system is you can't download the map. I've been using a 30-

day trial version of Snagit, which is a screen capture utility.

Feel free to ask if you have any questions

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Concord:

The map design will have to carry it off I think. I'm not too sure about mountains in Italy: some photos show them covered in trees (eg Mount Battaglia), and others almost totally bald except for scrub (eg Tre Poggioli Ridge).

I highly recommend installing Google Earth. Free, and super easy to use. You can find just about anyplace in the world, zoom in and then tilt the screen to get a 3-D image of the topography.

An excellent tool for the scenario designer.

[Concord]

Awesome! Google Earth is quite amazing to see. The world doesn't seem that big now.

It really helped in putting things in perspective, with the ability to view the landscape from an angle.

From what I can tell, Mount Diamano looks like an extension of "S Ridge" from Santa Maria Enfante, and has been described as "pudding shaped". I am about 75% through the map design.

JasonC, your info about the US battle formations was very helpful. Given the German force composition previously mentioned, is there any standard infantry defence formation the Germans used?

The map I've made is quite large (about 1000 x 1700 from memory), that increasingly slopes uphill to the rounded crest. The ground is fairly uneven, with brush, rough, and some scattered trees.

Do I let the German player choose where to set up across the entire set-up area, or should I divide it in two areas; 'forward defence units' and 'rear defence units'? If I allowed the German to set up anywhere, they may decide to bunch up at the crest, which would make for a long 'uneventful' march to the top for the US player. Bunching up would make the German forces more suseptable to artillery though, so it may not be an issue.

[JasonC]

Definitely let the German player decide where to put his men. Multiple small set up zones are anathema - they are you as designer sitting in the player's chair and telling him how to play. Very bad form. Once you've given the players their options, get out of the way and let their decisions determine the pacing and outcome of the battle. Do not try to script things. Give them options, don't decide things for them.

It is still worth coming up with a decent set up as the default, both to save players some time if they just want to get right to it, and also for times when people play against the AI. But let the players change it if they want.

As for how to set up a typical German infantry company defense, they'd have a platoon or so out in front as outposts to see what is coming. Most of that platoon in one position, maybe a few half squads split and separated from that platoon as "listening posts", to get wider LOS.

Then behind all that make a main position based on long lines of sight for the HMGs. Block covered approaches to the HMGs with either a full infantry platoon, or an AP minefield, or a TRP for artillery. In a pinch, an on-map HE weapons with LOS can be substituted (75mm leIG for example, or an HQ spotting for an on-map 81mm mortar). The idea is MGs cover the open and these "traps" cover (some of) the covered areas.

Leave one infantry platoon behind the HMGs in full cover, free of immediate defense responsibilities. It can move around and react to threats, plug holes, relieve somebody pressed too hard, or deliver a modest counterattack on elements that press forward too far, etc.

[Concord]

Well, I have finished designing the Blue Devils Mt Damiano scenario and given it a test run from both sides. I will load it up onto The Proving Grounds after work tonight.

I'm content with the results, but it may need tuning up. It is a fairly intense infantry battle, and it portrays a situation that was repeated time and again in Italy: infantry with artillery support assaulting large hills with dug

in defenders and fortifications. In that sense, it's almost generic.

Thanks to JasonC and Kingfish for your help and advice!

[Concord]

OK, it's uploaded:

Blue Devils Mt Damiano @ The Proving Grounds