Combat Mission unrealistic

[pawter]

Now that I've caught everyone's attention here is my gripe:

I've been playing and thinking about this game on and off for a good while now, most recently as a member of a ladder (to find opponents, now that this forum is only a pale shadow of what is was back in the heyday of CMBO). My respect for the game is largely based on the way the results mimic what I've read in history books. After making allowances for abstractions and impossibilities like instant intelligence of what is happening to friendly troops all over the map etc to promote playability, at the end of (non-solitary) games when reviewing the sequence of events and their causes I usually feel I have gained a deeper understanding of my reading.

But one aspect of the game I think could be changed without adversely impacting it's playabilility and enjoyability is to delimit the display of the map to that area directly in, or formerly so, the LOS of friendly forces unless they are prepositioned defenders.

I am prompted to write this not by any abstract personal preference, but rather by my observation and analysis of my recent games. I judge myself a better than average player as I win more often than I loose and would like to believe this means I’ve increased my understanding of WWII battlefield tactics. Not merely that I have mastered the logic of a computer game system. The problem is, as I have improved over the years, in attack my troop dispositions and movements stretch the schwerpunktprinzip to absurd unrealism.

Why? Because it usually wins. And I observe my better opponents do so too.

I believe this is due to the lack of need for scouting to find out the lay of the land, and the consequent uncertainty as to which are the best avenues of advance and then attack. The instant knowledge of the exact layout of the map consequently causes battles to start and evolve thereafter in ways contrary to my reading where dispersion of forces until actively engaged in the attack is very important.

ps. in any responses please don’t waste your time by pointing out that overcrowded troops are exposed to artillery, grouped AFVs to being decimated before they can spot/disable the AT gun firing on them etc. What I’m describing is still valid (and occurs repeatedly) even after a competent player takes measures to control these risks.

[gunnersman]

Have you played CMSF?

[LJFHutch]

I ... don't understand at all. What is the problem?

[gibsonm]

Well it sounds like your comments relate to CMX1 (i.e. CMBO, CMBB and CMAK) which is of course no longer "current".

Gunnersman was just asking if you had played CM:SF, the inference being that if you played the newer version you may be in a better position to comment (the engine has moved on from CM:SF to CM:BN but it is more current and therefore a better frame of reference).

That's in a similar vein to suggesting that the latest Holden is "no good" if your experience is based on say an FJ or even series one Commodore.

[weapon2010]

Pawter,

Could you please enlighten the Combat Mission community on the games that you have played that are"realistic"?

[Fetchez la Vache]

You shouldn't be able to see all the terrain.

Sometimes more is less.

[finalcut]

I think what he is saying is you should only know what the map looks like by your LOS.If you cant see it,you should not be able to know what it looks like.This doesn't make sense to me though.I believe during WWII the Armies of the Allied forces had a pretty good idea what the land ahead looked like.Maps of France would be very easy to come by,not to mention that with Air superiority allowing 1000's of recon sorties,the Allies would know what they were up against as far as terrain.

Also,the Germans had been occupying this territory for a few yersr,so they would also have a good understanding of the terrain.His argument may hold true for a game from an older conflict,like the 100 years war,but for WWII his argument loses steam.I think he is trying to say it is not realistic for the Armed forces represented in this game to know what the whole map looks like,but to me,it would be unrealistic if they didn't know what the map looked like.I think this is what he is talking about.

[hoolaman]

Wow that is possibly the most confusing thing I've read.

So in summary you are awesome and you want to "discover" the map ala command and conquer.

That's been talked about here before, it would be realistic sure, depending on the implementation.

OTOH often a commander would have a map or a pre-battle recon report of varying degrees of accuracy. Also there would be a lot of games where you'd climb a hill and spot the whole map and then it is not an issue any more and the player could proceed just like he can now. Lots of unintended consequences and realism drawbacks of its own, and like everything would be a lot of work to put in.

[gibsonm]

So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:

- doesn't have a map;

- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;

- hasn't spoken to any of the locals;

- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and

- hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself.

This is somehow "realistic"?

[sburke]

So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:

- doesn't have a map;

- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;

- hasn't spoken to any of the locals; and

- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see.

This is somehow "realistic"?

Hey Lt, here are your orders. Go west young man and here is your magical michelin map. It is all dark but as you walk forward it will tell you what you now already know.... no you needn't thank me, just doing my job. Oh and the guys in cartography section said something about "payback is a b****"

[Michael Emrys]

OTOH often a commander would have a map or a pre-battle recon report of varying degrees of accuracy.

Not to mention that before major operations there were sometimes 3-D models of the area of operations. And in addition, sometimes sketches of the terrain as seen from ground level and direction as was expected to be approached from.

Furthermore, a commander in real life might have even more information than a CM player does in the form of knowledge brought back by aggressive patrolling, such as where the enemy was dug in and with what. And of course a defender would have extensive knowledge of the ground to be fought over.

Michael

[gibsonm]

Hey Lt, here are your orders. Go west young man and here is your magical michelin map.

No doubt with the bit where it says "beyond here there be dragons" crossed out and "beyond here there be Germans" in is place?

[akd]

So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:

- doesn't have a map;

- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;

- hasn't spoken to any of the locals;

- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and

- hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself.

This is somehow "realistic"?

Don't forget is also incapable of telling a unit to go over a hill or around a corner.

[PanzerMiller]

pawter...wow, this is indeed a pretty confusing post. But now that I understand where you're going, I don't think the current system is unrealistic. As other people have pointed out in this thread, a good commander would strive to have at least some knowledge of the local terrain to improve his chances for successful offensive / defensive operations. The tactical map at the scale of CM would certainly be small enough to allow for effective recon.

Just one interesting example: In his memoir, Grenadiers, Kurt Meyer describes how his defensive operations between Caen and Falaise were improved greatly by the intimate knowledge of the French countryside he gained while stationed there earlier in the war. He knew every fold in the landscape, and could set up a very effective defense in a short amount of time. In the language of CM: He saw the whole map...

[Fetchez la Vache]

CMBN is a Tactical game and therefore I don't see that a FoW is needed to hide local terrain. Recon should be important but only to suss out the position of the enemy prior to full engagement.

At an Operational level game it might be more important. Also I would say that is the level (and higher) that the principle of 'schwerpunkt' is applied and not down to the level of individual soldiers and vehicles (?).

[Cull]

Sorry, what?

[JonS]

Also there would be a lot of games where you'd climb a hill and spot the whole map and then it is not an issue any more and the player could proceed just like he can now.

That depends on implementation. If it were 'see it once and it's known forever' then ... yeah. Not much point in that. Actually, there would be some point, but after the first ~25% of each game it'd be largely irrelevant. That'd still effect the way players plan and open each game though.

If, on the otherhand, it were implemented in a similar way to relative spotting, so that each unit could only see what that unit can see (and selecting no units would show the player an amalgam of what all his units can see) then I think that'd be rather good, actually.

[JonS]

As other people have pointed out in this thread, a good commander would strive to have at least some knowledge of the local terrain

There is a vast yawning chasm between 'some knowledge' and 'perfect knowledge'. The briefing tools already in CM are ample to provide the player with 'some' knowledge - when they're properly used. But they don't need to be used properly (whatever that means ) because the game provides the player with constantly updated perfect knowledge.

I think terrain FOW in CM would be grand. It's currently wildly impractical, and I doubt we'll see it within a decade. But it'd still be grand.

[Michael Emrys]

The briefing tools already in CM are ample to provide the player with 'some' knowledge - when they're properly used.

Okay, so we'd have to print out the briefing maps ourselves if we wanted to be able to plan and carry out an attack with any kind of efficiency? Granted, that would add a degree of realism, but wouldn't it take a pretty dedicated hard-core gamer to want to carry it that far?

Michael

[Fetchez la Vache]

If it really is such a big deal to the OP, then maybe just try self-limiting yourself to what you can see on the map by sticking to eye-level point of views of your units.

Or duct tape on the monitor. :-)

[JonS]

Okay, so we'd have to print out the briefing maps ourselves if we wanted to be able to plan and carry out an attack with any kind of efficiency? Granted, that would add a degree of realism, but wouldn't it take a pretty dedicated hard-core gamer to want to carry it that far?

As a player you can access the briefing at any time when playing.

There is also no rule of nature that stipulates that the briefing tools must forever stay exactly as they are now.

[JonS]

If it really is such a big deal to the OP, then maybe just try self-limiting yourself to what you can see on the map by sticking to eye-level point of views of your units.

That was, of course, the point of Franko's True Combat Rules. Those mocking the idea might want to ponder the popularity of FTCR.

[Fetchez la Vache]

That's exactly what I was thinking about.

*shudder*

[GonzoAttacker]

Depending on the "Standard" template for scenario design used with this game it is up to scenario designer what intel he can and will give. I have seen designers in the past give you information but not all and that plays into the game.

Maps were only as good as eyes on intel was. maps were just plain terrible out in the field for the allies. If you had a guide you had a better chance, but units were burned by intel eary on. Do you trust it without seeing it yourself?

Again it all comes down to design of scenario.

Quick battle maps were fun because of random types, supplying pictures of map or maps I think is great, but to preview whole map may be a little too much, You can make it more challenging if preview does not show setup zones or if map orientation is randomize will make even more fun. problem is single player QBs against AI and scripting.

will some more info on QBs what is revealed is important . A little more input would help, so just have to wait for game to see how this all works, unless Steve , Moon, or Beta testers can give us some more first hand knowledge.

Just my two cents worth.

[sburke]

That was, of course, the point of Franko's True Combat Rules. Those mocking the idea might want to ponder the popularity of FTCR.

Honestly I think the idea in and of itself isn't necessarily generating the response but more the tone of how it was presented by the subject line. One thing that seems to be a recurring phenomena is the posts trying to compare CMBN (always unfavorably and usually in a pretty antagonistic manner towards the BFC team) to some other product that isn't remotely like it and I expect more than a few of us are a bit tired of it. I think perhaps the Op meant the subject line somewhat tongue in cheek, but it probably wasn't the best idea what with some of the other recent posts.

Given that, the idea of fog of war on the map is inherently going to have similar issues as a previous discussion about morale of units and situational awareness. Units being aware of the state of other units they are out of contact wouldn't be particularly realistic. In the same way any FOW of the map would have all units (because there is only one controller) instantly aware of any terrain feature any unit sees. How realistic is it that a unit that hasn't seen an avenue for a covered approach immediately runs for it because a sniper from another company happened to go up that route 20 minutes ago. It might make for a different style of game play particularly in the early game (as you had previously noted), but are you looking for a different style of play or "a more realistic game". The OP had posited that this was a question of realism however unless you are playing a first person shooter and can only see what you actually see yourself, I am not sure how the idea is really workable and realistic at the same time. About the closest I can see to any interaction of the map to FOW working is setting up a quick battle and picking your force without knowing the actual map you will use. In that sense the combat force you chose may be completely inappropriate for the terrain. Beyond that it is what it is - we are the Borg, we know and see everything that any one of us sees- you will be assimilated.