Renaud

For certain arty units in CMBB, there are no on-board models. Nebelwerfer, 120mm mortar, lots of soviet artillery all come to mind. They aren't going to make a bunch of new models and stuff for CMBB, so campaign designers will have to be creative in substituting 105's for everything bigger, etc. Attach some LMG's or light infantry to gun batteries for self-defense, etc.

There won't be civilians, the tacAI for them is too difficult or something. So I can use my 120mm XM1028 cannister without blowing away the town market, hehe.

Yea, I don't think there's any hardcoded relation between what's on the CMC map and what's in the CMBB maps. None at all. It's up to the designer to have the CMC square give some useful indication of what's in the corresponding CMBB map. Wonder what happens when some knucklehead shows land in CMC when the CMBB map is actually all water, hehe. Or high hill and it's actually a vast pit.

heh, i'm sure the loser will never be happy with the results. I'd say the auto resolution will be used more for handling peripheral matchups or when the human players bail out of the campaign, as often happens in CM grand tactical campaigns, or if they don't have time to finish their assigned CMBB battles by the deadline set by whoever the organizer is. I think a GM will greatly facilitate the running of the larger CMC campaigns by setting deadlines and managing setup and stuff - ideally the same guy that created the scenario. Which brings to mind...everyone will be on the honor system not to bypass the ingame communication system and use emails or other comms about the ongoing campaign, I'm pretty sure. Shouldn't be a major problem since these types of games will be played by serious wargamers (in the good campaigns anyway).

I think TCP/IP would work on the CMC operational map until one of the CMC turns resulted in multiple CMBB battles. Then you may be looking at 1-many battles, perhaps 6 or 8 at a time. TCP/IP in CMC then becomes moot. Just finishing one CMBB battle will take hours, even with a 3 minute orders time limit. AI vs AI CMBB battles is not possible now and won't be with CMC either, so that won't work. Unless you use the CMC resolver, which does not require CMBB at all, times to play the multiple CMBB battles will have to be arranged. Russophile: The main reason TCP/IP CMBB resolution is faster, is that you can put a timer on the orders phase. Three minute timer means the orders phase is over in 3 minutes regardless of whether you are done or not. PBEM gives the opportunity for a long and tedious chess-like consideration of your moves. I know I spent an hour or more on some of my orders phases in larger and close fought ROW battles. I much prefer timed TCP/IP because I think it more accurately simulates the time pressures impacting a commander's judgement on the real battlefield. For instance, you may not have time to issue orders to your 3rd platoon in a quiet area because you spend too much time yelling to 1st platoon over the field telephone. Or running up there yourself if the wire's out.

Bil, i'll download your NATO symbols! Heck, i'll make em myself if I have to. My photoshop skills are at least that good.

TCP/IP makes no sense to me given the scope of this game. On a CMC turn in which operational moves generate large numbers of battles, the battles will be distributed to the ME commanders who will then have to arrange times to play TCP/IP or PBEM's to resolve the battles. Possibly multiple CMBB games per human player per CMC turn. We're talking about weeks of real time between each CMC turn for a regimental combat team size campaign. Hunter, Moon, do I understand this correctly?

CMC is a gift from BF and HT software to the campaign community. Not something that joe-gamer will be playing for an hour here and there... How many companies would support something this great, but for such a relatively limited number of enthusiasts? I love it. I do believe that subordinate commanders will be responsible for moving the units under their command on the CMC map. The overall commander will be able to send orders, threats, complaints (subject to existence of a communications link and associated delays), but that's it. Just as in reality. I'm re-reading Manstein's 'Lost Victories' and it's interesting to see how he personally influenced regimental and even battalion level actions at the front during his tenure as commanding general of 38th Corp. He would show up with his driver and runner in a VW and offer to recon the route ahead for a timid local commander. That usually got them moving. But of course, he couldn't be everywhere at once so this was the exception to the rule. The way to play regimental and larger actions will be with larger number of players and/or AI players to fill in the gaps. The more players, the faster the tactical battles will be resolved and the operational game can move on to the next turn. I would think at least 4 per side for a regimental combat team divided into battalion size battlegroups. TCP/IP with 3 minute delay would be ideal I think, you could finish a typical battle in 3 hours with paused setup and assuming it only went to 30 turns or so. See the Divisional TOE thread for more details: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=53;t=000072

HA! Just be thankful no Peng or 'Cheery Waffle' threads have found their way here.

The number of reasonably sized manuever elements to simulate an entire panzer division will be insane. Figure 40+ company sized units not counting artillery or the non-combatants (of course). 24 grenadier companies combined with 8 Panzer Co's might be 10-12 combined arms kampfgruppe ME's of 2-3 CO's each. Most of the support CO's such as engineers and AT would be integrated among these kampfgruppe. The recon companies should be broken into 8-12 small ME units. The would only concentrate for the odd attack or defense (by stacking). I think it would be 20-24 ME's counting only the front-line combat units as i've done. You would want a divisional commander and at least 3 regimental level players (colonels) to handle all the ME battles. Perhaps a 4th to command all the recon ME's. That's assuming my option 2. Option 1 would allow seperate panzer and PZG commanders who would only control panzer and PZG ME's respectively, and have to stack to achieve combined arms. Either way I think TCP/IP CMBB resolution with 3-5 minute round timer is going to be critical to get the battles finished. PBEM would be hell.

You won't be encounting long range ATGM's in dense urban areas so that's moot. Sounds like just the thing to 'scratch-the-back' of the M1 200 meters up the street though. Hey, it worked for the Cav in Vietnam! I know marine M1's will be firing cannister in urban environments once they get it. HE too, once that arrives. Right now they fire HEAT and it ain't pretty. It not only knocks out the baddies house, but punches through to the neighbors. Kind of like home defense with an M1 rifle instead of shotgun. Both HE and cannister will be superior to HEAT in MOUT - that's why they authorized the emergency procurement. By using the example of spider holes I meant to imply an RPG ambush in open terrain, not MOUT.

Ike, I agree with your thoughts on a good campaign. I guess there could be 2 theories of CMC OOB and ME creation. OPTION 1: Split up battalions into company-size ME's and put one human player in charge of all the companies in the battalion. So for example, for a regimental size kampfgruppe, you would have: 1 PZG battalion with 3-5 ME units, commanded by player #1; 1 Panzer battalion 3-5 ME units commanded by player #2; 3-5 support units commanded by player #3, assigned from some higher echelon unit. Such as engineers, AT, foot infantry, whatever. Player #4 would be the overall kampfgruppe commander, perhaps also commanding a reserve, recon and supporting arms. The beauty of the above is that players must really cooperate to achieve a combined arms attack or defense, since no one player has all the pieces. Who would fight the CMBB actions during combination battles is the prickly part that would have to be decided, since battalion commanders are really co-equal, or is that even possible in CMC...dunno OPTION 2: Each of 3 field commanders has 2-3 combined arms kampfgruppes already assigned certain proportions of armor, infantry and supporting arms. For instance, an armor company + PZG company + engineer platoon. The overall commander could have control of arty, recon and reserves and assign as requested and warranted. I kind of like OPTION 1 right now, for the challenge of player coordination. Option 2 might be a lot simpler to implement in game reality.

Can we make this one a sticky? Pretty please? Thanks russellmz!

Ugh...a whole division. That's going to require a crapload of players. I'd prefer to bite off a more manageable chunk, like say a regimental combat group from a panzer division, with maybe some supporting units from an infantry division covering the flanks. My idea of a great game will be a large map featuring relatively few smaller battlegroups in a fluid situation with many operational objectives and pathways, not a slug fest. Or maybe an initial slugfest followed by exploitation and wide-ranging operations behind the main line of resistance. I can hardly wait to get involved in a big multiplayer campaign. I still think it might require an organizer or GM of some sort, what do you think? To schedule battles and so forth.

In the good old days, when the basic M-1 carried the L7 105mm gun, I believe that there was an idea that the gunner might do some good by firing a beehive round down the missile bearing. If the Sagger gunner was close enough he might be at least distracted by the passage of large numbers of flechettes, and if not, then the missile or its guidance wire might suffer damage from one of them. I have never heard of this sort of technique being used successfully either in training or in combat, and the modern way to do this is with an active DAS of some sort, like the fSov Arena or Shtora. I don't believe any Western powers will be fielding an active DAS by the year CM:SF is set in, but might the Syrians have a few DAS-equipped MBTs, just to annoy Javelin gunners? All the best, John. </font>

Between 2003 and 2004 I played a large campaign with a friend in England in which we went through the entire eastern front at the rate of 1 battle per war-month (48 total battles), 1 battle every other weekend or so. We played exclusively TCP/IP, generally 3 minute turns, paused for setup. We typically finished a game inside of 3 hours. We both got very good at ordering large numbers of troops with limited time. Both have their advantages, but I prefer TCP/IP as it's faster and requires decision making under pressure which I think is more realistic than the chess-like consideration of orders in PBEM. Here's the link to the AAR's and other info on the campaign: http://www.thefogofwar.net/ostfrontAARS.html

The M1A2 SEP is such a tremendous improvement in the FLIR, sights and everything. *drool The simple 3x/10x magnifications and stuff I refer to above were for 'ancient' 3rd ACR M1A1's in 1990. Looks like 3rd ACR moved to Ft. Carson Colorado in 96 and are currently if not already completely refitted with M1A2 SEP!!! I also assumed it's daytime with clear vis in my example, but gunner has the FLIR turned on (as they normally would). Basic AT3 can only fire in daytime good-vis anyway. Hidden ATGM crews are virtually impossible to spot out there in the rocks, before they fire. Just like AT guns in CMx1.

Yep, that's where i pulled that example from. They fired at rapid rate and could tell when they got penetrations by seeing which tracers disappeared...at the turret ring as it turned out. What happens when an AT-14 strikes the front turret of an M1A2 SEP? You'll be able to argue back and forth forever on that and many other matchups.

Coax could start firing in 8-10 as well. This is some guesswork, a crack crew might be a few seconds faster, as little as 6. A confused crew might take 20 seconds, who knows. I would say most times you will be hit b4 you spot a flank ATGM launch. We are really talking about dismounted ATGM's with remote controls. If you can start swerving then old style ATGM's like AT3 may have a hard time hitting you, especially fired by unskilled troops. The 2 smoke salvoes available would be great on calm days if you are stationary or backing away into cover (like behind a building/berm), and the ATGM is not a state-of-the-art model with active thermal sights. There's the engine smoke generator, but I think that would just confuse and obscure LOF for other friendlies, particularly those without active thermals, who should be engaging too. I'm confident the AT-3 or below can't penetrate front of M1A1 or M1A2 or most crew areas of the side hull (due to the front 2/3rd 3" standoff composite skirts - does not cover engine area). It might penetrate the turret side (250mm or so of composite)...I couldn't guess on that matchup. Catastrophic kills are going to be hard to come by with M1, it's well compartmented and tough. Mostly you are going to blow out the engine or ammo compartments while the crew survives. A top-attack ATGM may take the crew compartment out. When a javelin hits a loaded T72 the T72 completely disintegrates and the turret flies about 150 feet in the air, don't know if you've seen the videos.

Hydraulic M1 turret is very fast. Lemme see, hmmm, here's a little scenario: Tank moving forward, open desert, unbuttoned TC spots 3 flashes and smoke puffs at guestimated 2000+ meters, 60 degrees right. 1) TC yells 'SAGGER SAGGER SAGGER RIGHT SIDE!' while reaching down for the override to orient the gun tube toward the area by eyeball (3-5 sec). 2) Gunner acquires the target at 3x, switches to 10x, lases the target or area, verifies a good range is returned, yells 'IDENTIFIED!' during this process (3-5 sec). During this time the driver will accelerate and swerve in sharp arcs toward the right; 3) TC yells 'FIRE!'; Gunner yells 'ON THE WAY' and fires whatever he has in the tube, probably a SABOT . Loader reloads HEAT (there is no 120mm HE) and that one should be flying in 5-6 seconds. TOTAL TIME: 8-10 seconds. 15 sec until 2nd round. Flight time of 120mm rounds is negligible. If I was within 1000 meters or so we would use coax M240 instead. The TC .50 is really useless when you are swerving around like that. The loader's M240 is useless generally, but especially moving and over 200 meters. oh yea, forgot to say that the effect of this fire on the ATGM guy may be negligible, especially if it's a remote launcher. If it's a hull-down vehicle like a BRDM there's a good chance we'll knock out 2 with the 1st and 2nd shots. If a man is visible with the launcher, we may well hit him as humans are easily visible in thermals. Guys hit coyotes with sabot from 1500 meters at night. If it's a javelin or similiar, you never saw the launch in the first place. [ October 15, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

That's why I have always been gunshy of fictional games like NATO/WARPAC that never happened, so that we have no way to judge whether their predicted outcomes hold water or not. </font>

The way I look at it, if you don't like the Syrian/UN scenario, just forget that and play the game as the amazing modern tactical combat simulator that it will surely be! Pretend you are in Iran, Iraq, Africa, Ft. Irwin/NTC or wherever suits your fancy. If you were hoping for WWII as the first CM2 release, think on the positive side: CMSF will get all the bugs out and perfect the system for the WWII release. I mean, look at the improvements between CMBO and CMBB...night and day.

Michael, I posted this in the ATGM thread, but it's more on-topic for this thread: I wonder how BF will determine what weapon can penetrate what armor...much simpler in WWII where you have ample historical research, yet we still argued about the minutea for days on end. Modern weapons are often top secret, like the details of chobham armor, kinetic penetrators, advanced defense systems and systems to defeat those systems. It's bewilderingly complex and mostly unknown. I for one won't expect some pie-in-the-sky realism. If its plausible, i'm good. Judgement calls will be a big part of the modelling here, much more so than even in armor/penetration modeling for a WWII era game.

So it can coast for over 3000 meters? Wow.

Aha, thanks for that info! "Hunter: Man of Few Words" But what about my question of whether embarked guns will be forced to remain embarked, or can the ambushed player deploy them during setup? It's actually not that big of a deal, since you will be hosed anyway with a narrow column-like deployment. But forcing at least guns to start limbered would be ideal.