Limited to a division, yet "operational areas of several hundred square kilometers?"

[Grisha]

"Tactical Battlefields of up to 4 square kilometers in size, and Operational areas of several hundred square kilometers."

"The smallest terrain tile shown represents an area approximately 1km by 1km in size. Battlefields are made up of 4 of these small tiles, thus giving a 2k x 2k battlefield in CMBB."

In 1943, Soviet rifle divisions attacked in sectors 3-4kms wide. In 1944, that shrank to 1.5-2kms in width. Is this game limited to a single division as a force, or will there be other AI formations in the "operational area"? Or, is the intent to limit scenarios to one of operational exploitation, which would account for such a low force density?

[PzKpfwIII]

I suspect that "hundreds of square kilometres" is an upper limit, Grisha; campaign designers would not be obligated to make maps that large.

Bear in mind that even an average map operational map of say 30 CMC operational tiles (in a 5 x 6 grid) still gives you 120 square kilometres of terrain, with perhaps the first row of tiles never being fought over, nor, if things go wellf or the attacker, the last row of tiles.

[Grisha]

Thanks for the reply, Russophile. Do you know if the limit of total forces in the operational game is a division? Or does that only apply to playable forces? I ask because by 1944 a Soviet rifle division would essentially have the same frontage as CMC's tactical battlefield.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Thanks for the reply, Russophile. Do you know if the limit of total forces in the operational game is a division? Our does that only apply to playable forces? I ask because by 1944 a Soviet rifle division would essentially have the same frontage as CMC's tactical battlefield.

I don't know any more than you do. I would guess that play would be optimized for division size forces (simply by sheer number of CMBB games that would be generated) but that masochists could design larger battles - rather like CMBB, which is company or battalion sized in scope but some scenario designers can pack a regiment/brigade onto the map if they want.

Like everyone else here, we are pretty much waiting to see what develops.

[Grisha]

Aye aye

[Grisha]

Then again, there's nothing wrong with having a map becoming a 'corridor' based on divisional boundaries. For the ultimate sadist pleasure, one could make a 2km wide by 8km deep map for a 1944 Soviet rifle division in a main attack direction. That does bring up the question of upper echelon assets: would a division have the ability for, say, an attached heavy tank/SU regiment along with pre-planned Army-level heavy artillery? For that matter, how does the game determine a division's worth of men & equipment? Specific TOE? Points?

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Then again, there's nothing wrong with having a map becoming a 'corridor' based on divisional boundaries. For the ultimate sadist pleasure, one could make a 2km wide by 8km deep map for a 1944 Soviet rifle division in a main attack direction. That does bring up the question of upper echelon assets: would a division have the ability for, say, an attached heavy tank/SU regiment along with pre-planned Army-level heavy artillery? For that matter, how does the game determine a division's worth of men & equipment? Specific TOE? Points?

Again, my guess is that this is all predetermined by the campaign creator in the editor, using Maneuver Elements of his choosing. For a German division, he might pick as many rifle companies as were present historically in a division, plus FOs, and then decide - according to his historical research, or on a whim - to attach say a ME of a StuG company (or to be more flexible, three StuG platoons).

Have you read the FAQ thread yet, incidentally? May be good stuff in there for you.

[Hunter]

In third Kharkov, I have looked at the defence of the Liebstandarte Division as a possible scenario. They had much, much less than a division in effect most of the time, more like a single regiment, defending an area about 30km wide and 30 deep, or 900 square kilometres. Obviously they were spread out, stayed mobile mostly, and defended key strategic points.

So while some aspects of the front were densely packed, others were not. The system can do either, but I think the ones that are more fluid will produce more interesting campaigns?

Just my thoughts...

[Grisha]

Russophile,

Thanks, I will go over the FAQs more carefully.

Hunter,

"So while some aspects of the front were densely packed, others were not. The system can do either, but I think the ones that are more fluid will produce more interesting campaigns?"

For gameplay purposes, no doubt they will prove interesting. But, historically, nearly all exploitation began with a penetration battle in WWII. Wouldn't it be interesting to showcase combined arms at its most crucial moment?

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Grisha:

Wouldn't it be interesting to showcase combined arms at its most crucial moment?

Probably not, because that is the most imbalanced fight you could model. Your Soviet division attacking on a super-narrow front is probably rolling over a half strength German battalion stretched over those 2km (although I'm guessing the Russian division is probably badly understrength also).

It's only interesting if there are German reserves to the rear which make a counterattack later to restore the line. Then you get an interesting back and forth CMC campaign.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

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

Wouldn't it be interesting to showcase combined arms at its most crucial moment?

Probably not, because that is the most imbalanced fight you could model. Your Soviet division attacking on a super-narrow front is probably rolling over a half strength German battalion stretched over those 2km (although I'm guessing the Russian division is probably badly understrength also).

It's only interesting if there are German reserves to the rear which make a counterattack later to restore the line. Then you get an interesting back and forth CMC campaign. </font>

[JasonC]

There is great misunderstanding of Russian operational practice here. More on that below.

And I doubt very much that fixed sized 2 km by 2 km maps are going to work, as a uniform setting. They seem designed to make the campaign designer's job easier, which is a lousy reason. They will lead to oversized fights much of the time, and to small forces on empty battlefields occasionally. You'd be much better off with a flexible map size, from 600x800, through roughly 1 km and 1.5 km sizes, with 2x2 maps the largest rather than automatic.

First on Russian deployments. The thing you have to understand is defenses were usually 2 up 1 back, sometimes linear, while attacks were usually in column. Meaning, the frontage of a unit was at least one echelon size smaller and sometimes two. Not because the front was overstuffed, but because the attack had depth, in the form of wave after wave of subformations.

If a regiment were attacking it would not put battalions side by side, unless the attack were just a fixing "demonstration" to mask some part of the German positions. One battalion would lead. The next would be right behind it on the same frontage. The last would be behind both. The intention was not just to outlast the front line defense on that sector, but to ensure any local success could be exploited and widdened. The force that makes the actual break-in is seldom in any shape afterward to follow it up properly. Particularly true for infantry forces.

If you look at a Russian breakthrough division level deployment, you see things like the left side regiment masking the left flank with one battalion and making a holding attacking with 2 more, one behind the other. On the right flank something similar, except the 2 battalion attack on that side is the main effort. And the whole third regiment is stacked up in column of battalions behind that sector, making a column 5 deep of successive battalion waves. Battalions are attacking on a kilometer each. But there are lots and lots more behind, in the places breakthrough is planned.

On defense, you get army averages like 12 rifle divisions with 32 km of frontage. But that does not remotely mean a single division has 2.67 km of frontage, let alone 2.67 km by 2.67 km. Because the army is deployed 30 km deep, not 2 km. In three layers of divisions, only 4 of them in the front line - with 8 km each therefore. The front line divisions are in turn in two regiments up, one regiment back formation, with a total deployment depth of up to 6 km. Meaning, up at the front line the density is as low as a company per kilometer, with single battalions deployed 2 km wide by 2-3 deep (again, with one company plus heavy weapons behind the other two).

Why so deep? To stop breakthrough by local concentration, in a "self sealing" manner. They know the enemy can put 100 tanks up against a single front line position. Adding an extra company or two of infantry won't make the slightest difference, where that happens. The point is, instead, to have another line behind when the first "goes", and then to shift reserves laterally and forward to the threatened point. It is the same with linebackers against a run in football. The linemen are going to get blocked, everybody knows it.

If you make a thin slice through formations like this, even a deep one, you will make nonsense of the whole scheme. The reason to keep men off the line is to protect not the men in that slice, but the whole wider and larger formation, against breakthrough or encirclement. (It is harder to encircle a mist than a pebble). And they don't just defend forward - if they did, then you'd pancake them to the line right away. Instead they shift side to side, and get lots of help from outside the immediate sector if the front line breaks there.

As for the time scales, these local deployments shift and "fire off" on half day to 2-3 day intervals. The third line formations of the front line armies were in action by the second day at Kursk, for example. The first line formations - I mean whole divisions - at the points of main attack were smashed in less than 48 hours. Front line regiments lasted half a day.

Army level formations treated divisions as the minimal objects with some staying power, and everything smaller as ammunition.

Now, in less intense fighting, away from a point of main breakthrough, regiments lived longer, certainly. Deployments were also more likely to be 2 up 1 back with a km to a company, rather than a columns of 5 battalions passing over the same km one after another. But if you force that on the players by game system design, you just removed division level operations planning from the simulation. Because deciding to put such a column here and only screen there, e.g., was exactly what such divisional level ops meant.

In my CMx10 campaigns, I set *scenario* sizes not by fixed maps but by points. I usually used 1 km by 1 km maps, and I aimed to have fights always battalion scale or less. (CM works much, much better for battalion and under, half hour and under, battles, than anything larger. Borg control falsifies tactics with too much on one map). But the latter - battalion scale was more important than the former - km maps. If the players packed too many men into a km, I split the fight and had scenarios with 600m of frontage. What I never let them do was put 3000 points of troops on the same map.

The operational level should handle the higher level maneuvering, in other words, not moving some CM group of units from the left side of cookie-cutter-map A to the right side. And map size should adjust to density, instead of just sitting there passively. Otherwise you will give players too much incentive to pancake formations meant to be layer after layer deep, into overstuffed 5000 point monster fights on single maps.

Another way of encouraging realistic depth is to "tire" units that have fought recently. Make them fight down a quality level if they haven't been relieved or had a chance to rest, since any lost fight or any fight in which they took moderate losses. Also, make operational movement "sticky" or difficult for units directly opposite enemy ones. While allowing anybody off the immediate line great freedom to move anywhere. At the operational level, realistic map sizes and "turn lengths" mean most units, even leg infantry, could move long distances in single turns, as long as not engaged.

FWIW.

[MPK]

"You'd be much better off with a flexible map size, from 600x800, through roughly 1 km and 1.5 km sizes, with 2x2 maps the largest rather than automatic."

--This is a really good idea...

If the map size doesn't relate to

the forces deployed on it, how can

one avoid problems like countless

skulking matches between rival

recon patrols?

Not saying there isn't a fix,

just that flexible map size makes

sense.

[Andreas]

Time for that thread again...

All the best

Andreas

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The operational level should handle the higher level maneuvering, in other words, not moving some CM group of units from the left side of cookie-cutter-map A to the right side. And map size should adjust to density, instead of just sitting there passively. Otherwise you will give players too much incentive to pancake formations meant to be layer after layer deep, into overstuffed 5000 point monster fights on single maps.

From my perspective this is one of the better posts on this forum to date; historical practice is compared to how things might be portrayed in the game.

My only question would be regarding the relation of force density to map size. I am wondering if there would be circumstances, as you see it, in which flanking movements by companies would be portrayed in the tactical games (ie a CMBB map that is wide enough to allow company sized units to maneuver to the flanks of an opposing enemy force)? You state quite explicitly that maneuvering would be done on the operational level map, but the mechanics of that are still not clear; it would appear that such movement will be from a 2km tile to another 2km tile. I'm wondering if infiltration (especially at night) by company or even battalion sized MEs would be possible in the operational layer, and if not, if you don't think that such maneuvers should be possible in the tactical layer?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by JasonC:

You'd be much better off with a flexible map size, from 600x800, through roughly 1 km and 1.5 km sizes, with 2x2 maps the largest rather than automatic.

How would that work, from the point of view of the connection between the operational and tactical level? It's gotta be rigid, if CMC is to be based on tiles.

[Portero]

Aren't the 2x2 tiles divided into 4 1x1 CMBB maps?

At least that's how I understood it. In that case a couple battalions could make a defensive front on the tile with one in reserve behind them. Any attack would be against one or the other battalion. Seems ok with me......maybe I'm missing something?

[Grisha]

Runyan,

I didn't say it had to be an overwhelming attack, circa 10:1 odds tactically Besides, Lvov-Sandomierz in 1944 was one very tough penetration battle that saw the necessity of committing the front mobile group to assist in the penetration. The Germans typically had three defensive belts, each separated by about 12-15kms., though only the first belt was fully manned. The defensive belts themselves had 2-3 defensive positions separated in depth by around 2-3kms. The first position was usually heavily fortified with entrenchments, bunkers, wire, and minefields. If the Soviets seemed to be making a lot of headway, the Germans would fallback to their next position. Trying to penetrate such a system was no mean feat, and absolutely required a well-honed combined arms methodology.

Jason,

Good comments. And definitely, echelons were the cornerstone of Soviet tactics and operations.

When I heard BF was putting out an operational game for CMBB, it was encouraging. Finally, a means of showing a level in the military hierarchy that truly operates on maneuver (after all, tactics is about attrition, and combat provides the opportunity for operational manuver). But, if this is going to happen there needs to be a good means of representing the operational scale of war in the Russian front. I would suggest that corps be the limit for a player to control--or at least allow up to a corps, of which only a division can actually be played, or somfing. Sure, put restrictions on tactical combat, make a battalion battle represent the actions of its entire regiment, or something, but allow for an upper field that is truly operational in scale (in WWII, a division was actually considered the upper echelon of the tactical level. The reason is that you can order a division into combat, but it becomes increasingly difficult to order a corps/army into combat. Instead, such units are ordered to maneuver and any decisions about combat are left to subordinates--though operational orders may indicate if combat is advisable or not).

I'm sure means can be implemented to lower troop quality temporarily after engagement in a battle, then allow it to return to it normal level with rest.

Anyway, I'll be keeping my eye on this development.

Andreas,

Thanks for linking that thread on Soviet corps attacks, it was one of the better threads from the past

[ October 27, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Portero:

Aren't the 2x2 tiles divided into 4 1x1 CMBB maps?

No... one CMBB map covers four CMC tiles.

[Hunter]

Ive been pointed here by someone who asked the question "Is Division the largest OOB represented" or something.

No, you can represent higher level formations, up to Army Group level, but one still wouldn't want more than about a division worth of troops involved, or it will get way too unwieldy in CMBB.

Hunter

[Grisha]

"No, you can represent higher level formations, up to Army Group level, but one still wouldn't want more than about a division worth of troops involved, or it will get way too unwieldy in CMBB."

Hunter,

I have many more questions regarding the minutiae of CMC, but it should wait until I see/read more on this game. It's promising, but the devil's in the details.

[Renaud]

Hunter, couldn't agree more on the idea of fluid campaigns with few troops spread over wide areas being more interesting. As in the fluid situations after the set-piece breakthrough. Pursuits, exploitations, alarmenheiten, fire brigades, etc.

The thought of playing a 'realistic' divisional size russian or german breakthrough attack is not that appealing to me, as your ME's will likely be reinforced battalion size units with lots of arty and so forth. Then again if you are attacking with 10:1 odds, which would be the norm I think, it would be a case of just 'going through the motions'. In that case you might as well auto-resolve. But then you don't get to see your 24 FO's call in 3000 rockets into a 2x2km map, lol.

Maybe it would work if you had enough players, dunno. It's hard for me to visualize.

[Grisha]

"Then again if you are attacking with 10:1 odds, which would be the norm I think, it would be a case of just 'going through the motions'. In that case you might as well auto-resolve. But then you don't get to see your 24 FO's call in 3000 rockets into a 2x2km map, lol."

Actually, Renaud, 10:1 tactical odds were not the norm, even for Soviet attacks. What makes the Vistula-Oder operation of January 1945 so notable was that attacks were at 10:1 to 16:1 tactical odds. Such is the power of the German Generals' words, which are still taken at face value, it seems. The reality is much more unflattering for the Wehrmacht: the Germans were simply unable to adequately monitor what was right under their noses. The Red Army actively insured that German failing through extensive intelligence and deception, but that's an operational issue.

To put it plainly, the Soviets earned those tactical odds through operational art.