Speculation on game style, plus will teams become unbalanced towards the end

[M. Bates]

Regards game style, do the forum members think that the team leaders (in a 3 or 4 person team) will be cautious... or will they try to "overload" in one sector with a massed attack to force the game.

The other thought I had in games with many players, will be when a team is losing, will it run out of tasks for their team members to do? Because obviously, if one side are running low on units the tendency would be to have two strong forces rather than four weakened forces.

I suppose the PBEM files would be shared amongst the team for input and advice before finally sending them on to the opposing side.

[JasonC]

They will put 80-90% of their force, especially the most powerful armor units and large caliber artillery, on a single map, and then move that "stack" around vigorously, trying to keep some initiative. Only tiny bits on neighboring maps.

As a rule, understand. The result will be many cases of massive force hits air, and the occasional unplayably huge monster blowout with a regiment apiece on a single map.

The rules can be set up to avoid this outcome. But only if there are point "stacking limits" beyond which the fields are subdivided. If instead to make the campaign code easier everything is kept at 2 km by 2 km cookie cutter maps, most of the force on single maps will happen all the time.

My experience from running campaigns is that people sometimes start with a mindlessly even division of effort along the front, but rapidly discover the losses those generate if one pushes everywhere are completely unsustainable. Then most sectors pause while only a few push. Then everybody piles into the pushing sectors, if the campaign rules allow it. With some "head games" about which, but little at stake beyond a little ground if one is wrong.

Players also gradually discover that ground is completely irrelevant and only losses matter. There isn't any hurry and there is little if anything to be gained by moving where the fighting happens. The few highest loss fights, strung together, wreck the main body of one side or the other.

Then there is enough left over on the losing side to continue putting up company size forces to block locations, but not enough to have any realistic chance of outlasting the still-intact enemy main body. The few largest results therefore snowball.

Big screw ups can sometimes change the course of things, but typically only some large scale reinforcement from on high, outside the players' control, can restore anything like a fight with even chances.

[Joachim]

The big question is whether there are strategies to beat what Jason outlined.

What can the game designers do?

a) Rules for withdrawal of forces from a battle

Replacement of equipment when crews survive

c) Enough possibilites for operational recce so there is some info about what hits a CM battle before the battle starts

d) Rules for supply/support

e) Operational rules that value strategic ground.

How could players take advantage of these rules?

a)+ CM players would need to put up listening posts and actually withdraw if they stand no chance. Proper recce in a battle would allow for withdrawal of the main body - with a question about some slow units like guns, HMGs or wire FOs. These can't abandon their equipment.

-> You'd need commanders for CM battles that will accept they won't play much that game. No "stand an die" or "hold at all costs".

c) Would allow the operational commanders to assign commanders for withdrawals that can play these types of battles - delay, inflict casualties but get their troops out.

d) Would create problems supplying these moving stacks of death. If there is only one supply route and the enemy is allowed to shell it to interdict traffic, more casualties of the attacker should count as "dead" as they don't get back to the field hospitals in time - and the most important thing: No ammo and fuel gets forward.

-> Tanks without fuel need to be "dug-in" in battles or just abandoned and could not move with the stack.

-> Dominant hills with LOS to supply routes should be OPs to destroy supplies or shell movement.

As a result, operational commanders would need to consider flank security. This would force them to divert troops.

e) If there is one huge stack and little forces elsewhere plus the knowledge about that stack due to operational recce, it might pay to withdraw from that stack and attack elsewhere with "economical" forces that are just enough to win some importanmt ground and head towards likely supply chokepoints.

It is then up to CMC map designers to have maps that allow for e)

Gruß

Joachim

[Peterk]

[ December 22, 2007, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Peterk ]

[Steiner14]

Since CMC seems to model artillery support quite well, it could be extremely dangerous, if players stack forces unrealistically... If a player has learned once, what a rocket-barrage may do with his 200x200 meters wide tank-regiment, he will not do that again.

To the highly flexible arty-support comes IMO another aspect, reducing this problem: the terrain. Even with the random map generator, there is a good chance, that a wooden area will become a difficult and dangerous area for massive tank formations.

So the attacker has to choose the correct operational route and that already gives the defender more realistic options.

And as second aspect, we have modelled supply. Stacking forces can become deadly, if this force is cut off.

I'm very optimistic, that CMC will reduce gamey-problems quite well, thanks to it's realistic model.

[Joachim]

The arty should do the trick - if operational recce is present or you can shell an area after it was taken.

Favorite parameters for lots of players:

"ME, little arty, open ground, lots of turns".

Gruß

Joachim

[M. Bates]

Informative answers.

Will it be possible for one force to be attacked from, for example, the North and South at the same time? I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, and if the larger map works naturally with the various tactical maps.

Even if the result is short of total realism, there must be room for risk-taking, geographical advantage, bluff and movement.

And not waiting for the two largest forces to clash in one decisive battle, with everything else irrelevant.

[Hunter]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

Informative answers.

Will it be possible for one force to be attacked from, for example, the North and South at the same time?

Definitely

[JasonC]

Arty won't remotely stop it. The heavy point isn't 200m by 200m, it has a whole 2 km by 2 km map to fight over. And the tanks are all buttoned.

Telling me I need to find seams because my time is scarce is also nonsense. Anyplace I put a heavy enough fist is a seam, because everything in front of it dies. If I have a large overall force advantage, nothing the defender puts on the frontage can possibly stop the heavy fist. He doesn't know where it will be, and it can roll over his whole force in one tactical combat even if he guessed right.

There are weapons and tactics that can defeat heavy points when the force ratio is close enough. But victory conditions or parameters like time requirements won't make the slightest impression. It takes things like dense AT minefields and PAK fronts. PAK fronts alone can be traded through, particularly with enough arty and heavy weapons supporting to give proper combined arms.

None of the expedients or situations others have suggested so far will make the slightest difference. Do heavy points still have flank security? Sure, but it is small potatoes and they don't need to attack. If the guy behind in overall odds and strategically on the defensive, wants to probe in lots of places, he is perfectly welcome to send his weak companies at weak screens along a broad front, and get a lot of infantry pinned in the open times n. And he can have a few useless fields too.

Campaigns are decided by the destruction of the bulk of one of the forces engaged. That can happen in one battle or in 3 in sequence at each of half a dozen locations, but it is always what decides the matter. Casualties are very high in CM fights whenever either side wants to push it to the death - one is enough. Repeating that several times runs through very large forces in short order. The whole point is therefore to get large and lopsided kills. And the single easiest way to do so is to have far more of your force on one map than the enemy does, while not having any fights at all in other areas.

[Hunter]

JasonC,

I've always been a fan of your analysis, and I look forward to you applying these tactics, and we will see how they go

Cheers,

Hunter

[Ardem]

Well if you create a massive fist and put just enough forces to impede its progress, a few forces to pincer the rear, orders to units may not be recieved, meaning the the fist may not turn around fast enough before it has lost its own supplies.

Running out of supplies and fuel can turn a fist into a withering hand, next thing you know your won the game cause the fist got suckered into a closing gap.

Flank security will just be as important as real warfare.

Also a wide PAK front, can delay a force long enough for your own penetrations to be effective.

Those that try a across the map formation may find they struggle as well. I really do think it comes down to terrain and seizing opportunities that present itself, not one strategy suits all.

Arty: might be a 2x2 map, but your forces start in the area it has been assigned it so it may only be a 1km x 1 km area and 2 300mm rocket batteries (on plan) could ruin your day, the more tropos out there the greater the percentage of hits.

Keyholing your Pak could take tanks in piece meal rather taking on a frontally assault. Also a person with a much larger force will tend to waste their units more willingly then those with smaller assests, meaning over a period of battles that force will take more losses as the commanders lesser ability to control all the units on a CM Map at once.

Having played a few variety of different campaigns, I tend to disagree with JasonC assessment. I seen to many fist campaign players lose to over reaching and over confidence only to be struggling towards the end of the battle.

[ July 09, 2006, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[General Bolt]

I would love to see an AAR or 2 of this game to see how it plays out.

Will it be the fist of death as Jason talks about plowing along.

Or somethink like Recc forces engaging. Then more and more MEs join the battle. With some of them adding to the center of the battle. And some MEs extending the flanks to prevent a surround/pincher type envelopment battle.

Then one or both sides form the fist of death, with concentrated armor, to be used for the knock out punch.

I think a fist of death without secure flanks could result in that group being cut off. CMBB has never taken fuel into account.

Also I'd assume in order to resupply a ME that would need some time (a CMC turn or two) out of the firing line. So if this fist was continusously engaged they cound not get gas or bullets. Pulling an ME or two back for resupply while several other ME in the stack remain engaged could be tricky.

Bottom line: Show us an AAR in any stage of game development would answer many of the questions on tactics in this thread.

[Peterk]

[ July 10, 2006, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Peterk ]

[Peterk]

Anyplace I put a heavy enough fist is a seam, because everything in front of it dies.

And the little stuff I intentionally pull out of your path can bite you in the butt later in the game and lose it for you if you ignore them and don't break up your big stack.

Fighting also takes much more time than moving.

Even just organizing the fist of death stack is likely to take an hour or two. You might not have that time available in a short campaign. Its easy for a designer to make a campaign where a player who fights too much and doesn't move agressively enough will lose.

[ July 10, 2006, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Peterk ]

[Joachim]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Arty won't remotely stop it. The heavy point isn't 200m by 200m, it has a whole 2 km by 2 km map to fight over. And the tanks are all buttoned.

Operatinal arty might hit stacks harder. Depends on CMC arty rules, not CM arty.

Telling me I need to find seams because my time is scarce is also nonsense. Anyplace I put a heavy enough fist is a seam, because everything in front of it dies.

Yes.

If I have a large overall force advantage, nothing the defender puts on the frontage can possibly stop the heavy fist.

Depends on the overall force advantage. With 3:1 you can just move forward across the whole frontage anyway.

Sometimes inflicting losses trua a Pak Front can be decisive. It depends on the force structures. E.g. an Axis attack in '41 or '42 should be easy to hurt with a rather cheap Pak Front. If the stack of death is massive, the Pak Front will die. In a speedy attack many tanks will die. In a slow attack, many forces will escape.

He doesn't know where it will be, and it can roll over his whole force in one tactical combat even if he guessed right.

That's where operational recce is needed. A massive stack should give some hints for the enemy... And there should be some traffic jams if it moves thus it should be slower than a single ME

There are weapons and tactics that can defeat heavy points when the force ratio is close enough. But victory conditions or parameters like time requirements won't make the slightest impression. It takes things like dense AT minefields and PAK fronts. PAK fronts alone can be traded through, particularly with enough arty and heavy weapons supporting to give proper combined arms.

Your batteries are behind your stack or count as onboard guns. Don't guard your rear and they might die. Don't guard your comm lines ant they might not be available to your stack.

None of the expedients or situations others have suggested so far will make the slightest difference. Do heavy points still have flank security? Sure, but it is small potatoes and they don't need to attack. If the guy behind in overall odds and strategically on the defensive, wants to probe in lots of places, he is perfectly welcome to send his weak companies at weak screens along a broad front, and get a lot of infantry pinned in the open times n. And he can have a few useless fields too.

Not attacking in every field. If you have some operational intelligence, you can select a few points for your attack. One btn sized ME vs a screening company will achieve about the same as the massive stack of death.

Campaigns are decided by the destruction of the bulk of one of the forces engaged. That can happen in one battle or in 3 in sequence at each of half a dozen locations, but it is always what decides the matter.

Yes. With most of your force in one fist you might devastate each sector you attack. But what happens if you only find a weak company in each sector? You destroy one company per turn. Somebody else attacks 3 sectors defended by companies with 3 btn sized MEs. He destroys 3 companies.

Casualties are very high in CM fights whenever either side wants to push it to the death - one is enough.

Yes - especially with a certain type of players you will see high casualty rates. Winning the battle is more important than winning the war. But I doubt that one side is enough to force high casualty rates. I can't see how the defender can force high casualty rates on the attacker if the attacker stops his attack. Or how to inflict casualties on a defender that just moves off-map in turn 1.

Repeating that several times runs through very large forces in short order. The whole point is therefore to get large and lopsided kills. And the single easiest way to do so is to have far more of your force on one map than the enemy does, while not having any fights at all in other areas.

If you are the attacker and the enemy is so weak he can't attack at all and there is no time pressure, this will do. But this would make for a very boring CMC op.

In all other cases, it will be hard to avoid other fights vs a skilled opponent.

Plus as stated above, hitting thin air cause the opponent moves away will just give you ground, which is not that valuable.

It all depends on the ruleset of CMC - and the field commanders which must obey orders to withdraw.

Gruß

Joachim

[M. Bates]

The problem with the heavy fist strategy is that the defender will know they will lose, and lose quickly. But they will attempt to blunt the enemy forces enough to achieve an acceptable defeat.

80-90% of the entire force on one map is a juicy target for rocket artillery.

I think that the decisive battles will occur when both sides think that it is a battle they can win.

If the Axis don't fancy their chances they will withdraw or field a token force, and vice versa for the Allies. But eventually both sides will make a judgement that it is time to "put up".

But to an extent I am still concerned that one player on each team will do the mass of the fighting, with the other player(s) placing their AT guns and waiting to die (but destroying some expensive AFVs in the process).

[Peterk]

Static defender in CMC is likely to have more fun than a static defender in a typical CMBB battle. There are still orders that have to be given in a timely manner (ie. entrench, support). He will likely still perform light recon even though the bulk of forces are not moving.

[Steiner14]

JasonC, i'm a real friend of the concentration of forces , but i'm quite confident, that gamey tactics wouldn't work, or at least be no overall key to success:

no matter if you'd have a tank regiment and i'd have only a platoon of StuGs in one battle: on one place, there can only be one tank and since minutes are not a cruicial factor in CMC anymore, there will be finally enough time for more realistical maneuvering. Then i would shoot only one, two or three out of the crowd with extreme fire corridors and afterwards i would simply retreat. Now it's hardly possible in CM to appear 10 minutes later somewhere else, or retreat from the map completely. In CMC this will be normal, i guess.

And once the surprise from the gamey-force is over, the defender can react accordingly.

Who doesn't say, that the defender also concentrates in a gamey manner all his PAKs, arty and air-support?

And good CMC player would anyway choose defensive positions wisely on the operational map, so that an attacker may rush forward with a stacked force, but the real resistance will occur in a good terrain for the defender, not the attacker.

[ July 10, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Ike]

For my part, I'd like to see CMC come out, so that we can then create supplemental campaign rules - those of us who think it might need them - or not as our view dictate. Then, we can see whose views of CMC are true to the game's rules, etc based on the outcomes.

I bow to all of the superior theoretical knowledge and historical knowledge; my remarks are not to be taken as sarcasm re: those posts, but rather as the least iota of impatience with the game release.

[Peterk]

But victory conditions or parameters like time requirements won't make the slightest impression

I just noticed this. You so sure about it? I have a feeling your thinking may be skewed by some other campaign-like constructs you may have played in the past.

Game starts at dawn your orders are to capture a bridge 8km away by sundown. A short 14 hour campaingn. Victory conditions are weighed to ignore points for force loss - all that matters is capturing the bridge.

I don't see how your statement can be taken seriously. Terrain is all that counts and you have a hard time limit. You should even try to avoid fighting as much as possible and move quickly.

Ever play ASL? Time requirements are paramount in most of the better scenarios. The monster stack kills everything in its path and then advances strategy will always lose because it is too slow. Scale up a bit and you can get the exact same effect in CMC.

[Peterk]

Campaigns are decided by the destruction of the bulk of one of the forces engaged.

Not true. CMC "campaign" designers choice if this is to be the case or not.

[JasonC]

It is not theory. I've run 4 operational campaigns. Everybody starts out thinking everything they imagine might matter actually does. In the end, only causalties matter and they are produced by blowout kills. None of the CMC systems proposed will make a dent in fist tactics. Those pretending otherwise are arguing against straw men (zero regiment zero - uh no). I know rules that will, and I've suggested them, but nobody is interested.

What will actually happen is the big stacks will win, except the games will be so slow it will be hard to tell. If we get the thing, that is.

"There are many decent professional officers in Europe, but they all see too many things. I see only one thing, the main body of the enemy. This I crush, confident that secondary matters will take care of themselves". - Napoleon

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by General Bolt:

Bottom line: Show us an AAR in any stage of game development would answer many of the questions on tactics in this thread.

It does seem like we should at least have an AAR to look at by now, after looking at this board for almost 10 full months now (since October '05!), considering that CMC was in development for years before that even.

With respect to the Fist of Death, one aspect of good scenario design might be the retention of important objectives, even for the attacker. So, using all units on the CMC map to take one objective, may only result in the loss of another objective, thereby resulting in a net gain of zero.

Consider a map laid out in the following sectors

123

456

789

At game start, the Allies hold maps 1,2,3,4 and 5. The Axis hold 6,7,8 and 9. Every map hex has an equally important objective. So, if the Axis player forms all units into a Fist, and takes 5, the allied player may use smaller maneuver elements to take 7 or 6, resulting in no point gain for the attacker. If the Fist took heavy casualites taking 5, it might well be a net loss for the Axis.

I'm sure there are creative solutions to the Fist problem. The problem is, most people just aren't very imaginative.

A lot of this is going to be incumbent of the CMC scenario designer. If the designer creates a 20km by 20km map with only one important objective, a village in the center of the map, well don't be suprised when every maneuver element in the game gravitates to that village like a black hole.

[ July 10, 2006, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[General Bolt]

The fist maybe good at killing. But what if the fist then takes square 2 in the above example and the Allies take 4, 5, and 6. Line of Comm, line o supply are cut. The big question is how long (in CMC turns) can a cut off ME can continue to move? The ammo issue for supply is handled will be easy to see.

How the POL supply issue is handled will be interesting - because POL is not taken into account in CMBB.

Hunter,

Will fuel be an issue for a cut off ME? How will that play out in the CMBB battle?

[Dirtweasle]

Jason what ever happened to the campaign you were running using a CMxx map as an operational map?