How will CMC affect CMBB tactics?

[Runyan99]

I think CMC is going to have a massive effect on the average CM player's battlefield tactics. Or, at least it SHOULD. I am beginning to think that a lot of CM players are going to have to learn real tactics for the first time in 5 years. No longer is the super-aggressive take the flag or die tactics going to be the norm. Very few flags on the tactical maps will be worth that kind of loss. For the first time, CMC players are going to have to consider the larger ramifications of their small unit tactics, and force preservation will take a massive leap towards the conservative end of the spectrum.

Of course many players will continue to play out their CMC battles as they did their old CMBB games, and they will of course incur massive losses in the first few engagaments. I expect these players will then find themselves unable to achieve their larger operational goals 6 hours later, or 2 days later, or 5 days later.

Eventually, these players might reconsider their battlefield choices, and decide to tone down the intensity of their attacks. Overall, this should lead to a slowing of the tempo of combat in CMBB. What a CM player might have attempted to achieve in 45 minutes (e.g. take the village), the CMC player might now allow himself the freedom to accomplish over the course of 6 hours, that is in 6 CMC turns, and over the course of six 30-60 minute CMBB battles. Assuming the overall campaign allows for several days, such time spent on taking a well defended objective is prudent. In fact, it's what real commanders tended to do.

The more I think about CMC, the more excited I'm starting to get about it. I guess this is pretty much what I always wanted CM to be, or at least it comes much closer to what I always thought CM should be. I guess there will still be a tendency over the course of a campaign to use up your forces in order to achieve a win, but CMC should push tactical considerations a good deal towards the unreachable goal of realistic decision making on the part of CM players.

I think a lot of people are really going to learn some things. I know I have a lot to learn about moving a larger force over time, and making decisions about things like recon and screening. I never had to think much about these things in CM. Now I have to decide how much force to allocate to these tasks.

Just when I thought I was about ready to put CMx1 on the shelf, CMC gets announced and opens up a whole new can of worms. The advances in the engine that CM:SF offers may make CMBB unplayable for me. I don't know. If not, the sheer depth of play that CMC will offer may keep me on the eastern front for another two years or so.

[securityguard]

The whole "Well the battle is going to end with me losing anyways, I might as well try anything I can" era of CM is pretty much over with CMC. If CMC works the way I expect it to, everything you say is pretty much true. The combat will be more similar to actual combat instead of constant gruesome frontline combat with 80% casualty rates.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

No longer is the super-aggressive take the flag or die tactics going to be the norm. Very few flags on the tactical maps will be worth that kind of loss. For the first time, CMC players are going to have to consider the larger ramifications of their small unit tactics, and force preservation will take a massive leap towards the conservative end of the spectrum.

Yep. In the new setting, you will be forced to make the evaluation yourself: did I win or lose? Was the ground gained worth the losses I took? Will this result help my side in achieving our operational goal?

[Caesar]

I suspect a lot of early campaign battles are going to be fought by both sides in exactly the same way that they have always fought them. The losses will be relatively similar and the result will be a radical shortage of manpower in later battles.

Should be quite amusing!

[Steiner14]

I agree with all said above, but one point is missing:

we won't see that much battles with balanced forces again.

We will learn, that the normally well balanced CM-battle is quite an exception. And therefore it could change our view at CM in general. Conventional CM battles could even become boring, not becasue of the missing broader perspective, but because of the suddenly felt unrealistically but necessary tactic, to reach a victory in percent.

[K.A. Miles]

I know one thing, I need to practice playing with "unfit" troops. If units in CMC get fatigued easily, we will probably be playing alot of games with troops who are in a less-than-ideal condition. Does anyone know of a good CMBB scenario that includes a significant number of "unfit" troops?

[Steiner14]

No!

[London Calling]

Excellent points Runyan99.

I'm one of those strange breed of CM players who actually care about the lives of my little pixel men and try at all costs to minimise casualties whether possible, even in a Quick Battle, so hopefully I'm going to prosper in CMC...

There again my own reading demonstrates that even a well-handled battalion/company at the 'tip' of the spearhead is eventually going to be bled white by the gradual, unavoidable accumulation of casualties here and there during combat operations.

And I'm sure there are going to be times when even a 'casualty conscious' commander is going to turn to a battered, fatigued company and order them "over the top, one last time" in order to take an 'important' strongpoint!

[ October 20, 2005, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: London Calling ]

[Yair Iny]

The big question to me though, is how this will all play out in single player mode. The AI in CMBB fights pretty much all out, and while a human player can understand the broader concept, the AI is unaware of the need to conserve its forces. This might lead to a situation where the operational level is unduly affected by the AI aggressiveness, reducing the appeal of CMC in the single player world...

[Steiner14]

London Calling,

yupp, at least when the best and strongest battalion has become the last hope for the decimated ones...

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Yair Iny:

The big question to me though, is how this will all play out in single player mode. The AI in CMBB fights pretty much all out (snip)

I do not believe that CMBB's AI will be responsible for fighting CMC's battles. CMC's own AI should be resolving the Grand Tactical engagements.

[Renaud]

I think they said you can have the AI control one side in the CMBB battles.

Horrible in attack. You will be consigning your attack force to oblivion unless you have at least 6:1 odds.

Semi-decent in the defense, if the human player doesn't have much better than 2:1 odds or is inexperienced in attacking or CM generally.

[NIX]

I envision more "skirmishes" as opposed to all out battles. However, at some point there will be the enevitable clash where two large forces meet. For some players this aspect may be boring and tedious. For myself, the anticipation of when and where the next huge battle erupts will be worth the wait.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Renaud:

I think they said you can have the AI control one side in the CMBB battles.

Horrible in attack. You will be consigning your attack force to oblivion unless you have at least 6:1 odds.

Semi-decent in the defense, if the human player doesn't have much better than 2:1 odds or is inexperienced in attacking or CM generally.

Agreed, on the tactical level if one chooses to fight the battle in CMBB.

Are you saying that CMBB's AI will fight both sides of any tactical engagements?

Is CMC's AI only used for positioning forces on the Grand Tactical maps? And assorted bookkeeping issues?

How I understand the game to work is we will also have the choice of CMC resolving the Grand Tactical (Operational) battles with its own AI. Thus if that choice is made the game will not touch the CMBB’s AI and continue on in CMC after the engagements resolution until the next engagement presents itself and we again are offered a choice of "Tactics with CMBB" or "Grand Tactics with CMC".

[Renaud]

You can assign CMC manuever elements to be AI controlled, on either or both sides, I'm pretty sure. Could be wrong.

So you could divide your ME's on the german side for instance into AI and player controlled, however you want. Handy if players can't play that weekend, or leave the campaign or whatever. The limiting factor is that at least one human has to be there for the CMBB battle!

** and i'm 99% sure the CMC AI will actually manuever the ME's on the operational map, entrench, defend, initiate CMBB battles (attack), etc. Could have some undesirable results, but that's the chance you take, hehe.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by NIX:

I envision more "skirmishes" as opposed to all out battles. For some players this aspect may be boring and tedious.

I think that's the question for the moment. CMC may create a lot of 'slow burn' low intensity fighting or probing that some players may not like. The problem is that with CM's rigid 1 minute turns, this kind of fighting might get dull for those more interested in traditional annihilation style battles.

CM's 1 minute turns are too short for this kind of fighting. That's why I've always suggested some kind of variable turn structure for CMx2. Ideally, the program would monitor the amount of bullets flying around, and then stop the game at appropriate intervals. Short turns when the action is hot and heavy, long turns when there is no contact, or just skirmish firing.

Although CMC will open up the dimension of time into the fullness of a 24 hour day, at the tactical level we are still stuck with CM's 1 minute turns which were designed for the ASL 15 minute game.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Renaud:

You can assign CMC manuever elements to be AI controlled, on either or both sides, I'm pretty sure. Could be wrong.

So you could divide your ME's on the german side for instance into AI and player controlled, however you want. Handy if players can't play that weekend, or leave the campaign or whatever. The limiting factor is that at least one human has to be there for the CMBB battle!

** and i'm 99% sure the CMC AI will actually manuever the ME's on the operational map, entrench, defend, initiate CMBB battles (attack), etc. Could have some undesirable results, but that's the chance you take, hehe.

Ok, got it. I believe we are saying the same thing. Of course I am just guessing until I see the game.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Although CMC will open up the dimension of time into the fullness of a 24 hour day, at the tactical level we are still stuck with CM's 1 minute turns which were designed for the ASL 15 minute game.

To take this one step futher, 24 hours = 1440 CMBB turns!

Of course, units didn't fight 24 hours a day. But they might easily remain in close contact for 24 hours. Stalingrad is a good example of large formations in close contact for a long period of time. If a CMC player wanted to, he could initiate battles for 10 hours in the streets, which then have to be played out in 600 turns. One by one. Or auto-resolved with unpredicable results.

That's why I initially started the 'Is this thing really playable' thread. I just wonder how the nuts and bolts of this thing are going to work.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Runyan99:

Although CMC will open up the dimension of time into the fullness of a 24 hour day, at the tactical level we are still stuck with CM's 1 minute turns which were designed for the ASL 15 minute game.

To take this one step futher, 24 hours = 1440 CMBB turns!

Of course, units didn't fight 24 hours a day. But they might easily remain in close contact for 24 hours. Stalingrad is a good example of large formations in close contact for a long period of time. If a CMC player wanted to, he could initiate battles for 10 hours in the streets, which then have to be played out in 600 turns. One by one. Or auto-resolved with unpredicable results.

That's why I initially started the 'Is this thing really playable' thread. I just wonder how the nuts and bolts of this thing are going to work. </font>

[NIX]

Auto resolve will be a key feature in the game. My concern is my experiences in games such as RTW. In RTW in the campaign, the auto-resolve would cause 10x the casualties and typically the life of the commanding general. The same battle played out would be a one-sided victory for the player. I'm guessing the results of either auto resolve or playing it out should be somewhere in the middle.

If anyone knows, is auto resolve anything more than crunching the total attack values versus the total defense values without regard to other modifyers such as terrain, morale, etc?

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by NIX:

If anyone knows, is auto resolve anything more than crunching the total attack values versus the total defense values without regard to other modifyers?

I obviously don't have a definitive answer for this; would be a neat concept for the TacAI to duke it out with itself though that might be a lengthy stream of computations. However, to maintain integrity of the unit values - since individual units are tracked - perhaps it isn't so far fetched?

[General Bolt]

Skirmishes, long term contact without attacks, slow burn. Will the troops dig in place mines set TRPs... Will it be boring version of WWI with WWII weapons?

Or will the lines form up with inf companies. Then the tanks, that were held in reserve, will punch a hole in the enemy and exploitate the rear areas? This will result in CMBB battles as we all know and love today - fight to the last man meat grinders.

[Ike]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

I agree with all said above, but one point is missing:

we won't see that much battles with balanced forces again.

We will learn, that the normally well balanced CM-battle is quite an exception. And therefore it could change our view at CM in general. Conventional CM battles could even become boring, not becasue of the missing broader perspective, but because of the suddenly felt unrealistically but necessary tactic, to reach a victory in percent.

I think that you point out a very likely outcome with CMC. But, it requires that only one of the "Generals" achieve strategic or operational surprise and superior concentration of force against his opponent.

What CMC implies to me is:

(1) More recon, with those small-unit recon battles fought out by players unless it will be possible to get intel from such a battle if it is played by the AI only - not to mention terrain information valuable to the General;

(2) More carefully fought battles, with concern for lines of communication, supply and retreat and with concern for withdrawing some significant fraction of a losing force from the battlefield to fight another day;

(3) More genuine thought in operational maneuvering, timed concentrations of forces, threats to a genuine line of supply - in short more thoughtful maneuver at the operational level;

(4) More combat groups/maneuver elements assembled based on the General's (or campaign designer's) ideas of combat utility not only "cause they're Russian Guards!" or similar sentimental bases;

(5) In short and summarized, more application of real world military knowledge that formerly found in CM, even in some of the better campaigns that have been or are being run now.

It will be fun, no matter how detailed a simulation of operational maneuver and conflict it may or may not be.

[Grapeshot]

I think the key will be the same as it is in the "real world" gather enough intel through any means (probe attacks ect). Then attack that area with overwhelming force. How long can that enemy company hold out against your 2 overstrength battalions with tank support. Then it will be a mad scramble to meet this thrust with reserves/redeployment with another massive engagement.

This is a guess of mine of how a CMMC game will go between humans. If you have roughly two divisions squaring off you will have 3-4 large battles that will decide who will win. There will be 10-15 battles to determine who has the most/best forces available/in position for these large battles. By either wearing down, pinnning forces or gathering intel these smaller battles help determine who will win the big engagments.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Ike:

What CMC implies to me is:

(1) More recon, with those small-unit recon battles fought out by players unless it will be possible to get intel from such a battle if it is played by the AI only - not to mention terrain information valuable to the General;

This may account for our disagreement in the map thread. I get the impression that the OpAI will "handle" recon by the use of icons representing enemy Maneuver Elements on the operations map and that reconnaissance will be simplified. Also, that reconnaissance of terrain will be considered to have been done beforehand (hence my comments about the value of letting players see the CMBB maps before CM:C operational turns).

I would think reconnaissance may be one of those things best simplified by the game engine - leaving the "real life" burden of Intelligence gathering - to the computer and letting the player concentrate on the real world burdens of the combat commanders. In other words, the regimental commander - the player - will let his staff (the computer) gather, collate, track and update information on the enemy. In CM:C I thought this would be done by allowing the player to click on enemy icons on the strategic grid and finding what info is known on the enemy units.

You would almost have to let the computer handle this, otherwise a human player will either

a) have to keep written side notes on what forces he is up against

or

have the ability to manually input data into the CM:C operational map in order to chart what unit types and strengths he is able to ascertain by his "recon".

I think this is unwieldy and the computer should probably handle recon - it has a better ability to collect the data and realistically, the regiment/battalion/company commanders would have this data "processed" by the Intelligence staffs beforehand.

There are certain types of intelligence that can ONLY be simulated by the computer, such as unit identifications. In the real world, you would search enemy dead for insignia, paybooks, identity tags, etc. but in CM:BB - you have no ability to do that. To simulate that type of intelligence, it has to be fudged by the computer.

The only real intelligence you could garner by fighting a 60 minute battle in CM:BB would be troop types opposite. Even positions of anything but fixed fortifications would simply change by the time the next battle got set up in the next 60 minutes. Plus the human player would have to make mental notes of everything he saw, and potentially remember it for several days or even weeks if PBEM an engagement during that 60 minute phase.

So for those reasons, I'd say the emphasis in CM:C will actually be on less recon. But again, I have no idea how the designers will be tackling these issues. The screenshots do suggest that enemy forces will be tracked on the operational map; whether this will include detailed strength and identification, I don't know, but would hope so - and leave the main burden to the players one of fighting.

[ October 20, 2005, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Russophile ]