Samhain

They could add a basic tactical primer. This forum and a number of sites serve that capacity well, but not everyone who buys the game is going to a) know about useful military tactics or know about or look at these extra resources. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

That's cruel, man ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

Since so many discussions on the merits of in-game or real-life tactics around here hinge at least in part on whether or not they're deemed gamey in CM, it led me wonder the following. But first, I'd like to say that I greatly enjoy CM and have great admiration for much of its design. Also, in the context of the game, I'm generally only interested in historical accuracy or verisimilitude insofar as it improves gameplay (i.e., the mechanics of the game and how they contribute to fun). I realize of course that others feel rather differently about the issue That said, could the basic 3D viewing interface of CM be considered gamey, at least in larger battles, say of roughly 2000-point forces or more (to pick non-scientifically )? You as the commander have the ability to almost instantaneously view all your force deployments and the surrounding terrain in minute detail, moving from a bird's eye view down to a nearly first-person view. You can follow your troops in battle, even granting full fog of war, across all different points of the map with extreme ease, leaping from one spot to another, and then actually getting to replay each minute of the battle myriad times to get a better idea of how to react during the next turn. From a game design standpoint, I think this, coupled with the hybrid turn system (clearly unrealistic since you can't stop or rewind time in real life), borders on brilliance. But would a real commander of multiple companies or even battalions during that era have such a god-like grasp of the situation? (I'm don't claim to be even an armchair or amateur historian, though I'm of course interested in WWII.) I imagine that if the answer to this question is no, then you could explain away these aspects of the interface as an abstraction that indirectly represents study of existing maps, pre-engagement recon that's not represented during the game battle, radio communication, etc. That's what I imagine to the be the case, and it seems reasonable, but is the power it grants perhaps too extreme from the standpoint of realistically simulating combat on this scale? I ask this not to condemn these aspects of the game (I love them!), but out of a "philosophical" interest in game design. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-10-2000).]

For wwb_99: Games of War. Very interesting articles there. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-09-2000).]

I don't normally turn to PC Gamer for reviews of more serious games, but Mr. Trotter's review was among the first I read and helped turn me onto CM, for which I'm exceedingly grateful I've been playing computer games for twenty years, and this is certainly one of the best I've ever experienced. (John, my comment about the article not trashing CM was in response to an eariler post in this thread.) ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-07-2000).]

The aforementioned article by Bruce Geryk, who praised CM to the skies in his GameSpot (iirc) and Computer Gaming World magazine reviews, is called "Combat Mission Kills Wargaming." It appears in the December issue of Computer Gaming World, pp. 174-5, not in PC Gamer. It doesn't trash CM at all. Read it, and you'll see why. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-07-2000).]

Here's another basic technique: bounding overwatch. When you're moving into unscouted territory, move one of two groups of troops forward. If it's clear, then move up the remaining group to the position of group one. Then move either group up again. Try to keep them within sight of each other so they can support eacher. Think of it as a leapfrogging movement. The various overwatch and infantry movement procedures and tactics get far more sophisticated, but that's a good one to remember at the beginning. Check out the Articles section at CMHQ, the Tactics section at Games of War, and many other good CM-related sites. I had a little wargaming experience before CM, but not on the computer, so I can relate My first few times around with the demo were tough, since I was basically taking an RTS mentality into it (don't! RTS "tactics" usually don't apply!), treating CM like another abstract game. Had I tried to apply my middling knowledge of military equipment and history to things, I would have fared better (And for the record, I don't particularly like RTS's much.) You'll quickly learn just how realistic CM is compared to most games. It's as much a sim as a game. Like someone said, put yourself in the troops' shoes. You'd want your back covered, you'd want to stay in groups for security, you'd want to use natural cover like forests, walls, houses, etc. to move up to the enemy without getting your head shot off, etc. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-07-2000).]

I'd like to second that request, having enjoyed the tutorial and having been asking about assault tips for QB's with similar conditions on the Tips & Techniques forum. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

It's certainly a realistic phenomenon, afaik. Tigers often threw tracks when they ran up over the drive sprockets. (And they often suffered transmission failures, and in winter, ice would jam the interleaved road wheels.) Great tank when it worked, though (Info from Roger Ford's excellent book, The Tiger Tank, Motorbooks International, 1998.) [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-06-2000).]

Thanks, I did read it and found it informative, up until the end Not being even an amateur historian, I don't have an opinion one way or another about the issue, except in terms of gameplay (and my opinion there, in a nutshell, is to employ any tactics that help me win ). I did find the passage I quoted interesting, though, since the writer was clearly an expert on the topic, with first-hand experience in the matter. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

I use German AA guns of various types for the explicit purpose of engaging ground troops and light armor, and within certain restrictions, it works quite well. I saw there was another thread about the historical accuracy of this, and I'd post this there, but the thread was closed due to an apparently OT flame war. I thought this was an interesting quote from Ian V. Hogg's _The Guns 1939-45_ (Ballantine, 1970.), a book discussing the development and use of artillery, AT guns, AA guns, RCL's etc. during the war. Hogg was a Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery, serving in Europe and the Far East during World War II, later becoming an instructor at the Royal Military College of Science in Shrivenham and the School of Artillery. Talking specifically about the German 8.8cm FLAK 18 in the context of Cyrenaica: "Here the tactical situation was such that it was possible to deploy the guns in their anti-aircraft role in positions which would also allow them to be employed as anti-tank guns. Moreover their range and powers of penetration were such that they could dispose of British tanks long before these were close enough to engage with their two or six-pounder guns. But such employment was not considered normal; the desert forced onto guns tasks which would be unnecessary or even impossible in closer country, and, furthermore, German AA commanders didn't like having their precious AA guns deployed as anti-tank weapons. Indeed, in many cases the loan of such a weapon meant a virtual gift, since the anti-aircraft firecontrol equipment would be stripped off, rudimentary shields attached, and the gun generally rendered unfit for its primary role." (p.67) Hogg goes on to say the British twenty-five pounder field gun was often used in the same fashion, to the great anger of the British field artillery commanders. According to Hogg, in 1940 both Krupp and Rheinmettal (of Germany ) had both been asked to produce an 88mm AA gun that could double as an AT gun, with Krupp eventually producing 88mm PAK 43 gun from the design, created expressly as an AT gun. (p. 67) I haven't read the rest of the book yet, so I don't know what more he has to say on mixed gun roles in the war. But, I thought this might be of interest. Certainly an informative book if you're interested in the big guns. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

Any gaming mag or site would be foolish, imo, to disregard a game that is a) superbly executed in most regards revolutionary for wargames c) a crossover success d) proof that the underdog indie publisher can make good with a marketing and sales strategy that has often been labeled unlikely to succeed, at best. "D" alone makes a great success story. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-05-2000).]

As far as three or four tanks getting shots off against a lone AT gun in the situation you described, be careful of the terrain and especially weather and time of day. Thanks to foolish overconfidence and a particularly well placed AT gun (by the AI, no less), I lost four (doh! the shame!) AFV's (two tanks, Wirbelwind, HT) in one turn to the same AT gun. This was on a dawn/dusk map, so very limited visibility coupled with an ambush made life miserable. (Still won the QB by a landslide though ) Certainly an interesting proposal in general. I know I've been playing under the assumption (borne out through my admittedly limited experience ) that tanks, particularly buttoned ones, need nearby or leading infantry. But that of course sacrifices their speed and mobility, which, as you say, are protective strengths in themselves. Have to try these ideas.... ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

It seems the one real problem with towing and parking RCLs, howitzers, flak guns, etc. while assaulting, is that it limits the mobility of part of your force. I know they're for cover fire and they'll certainly be effective in that role for a while, but then they're arty fodder. In fact, some field artillery, and even SPG's like the Hummel can be knocked out by American HMG fire from halfway across the map. Another thing I'm leery of is ever sending vehicles near unscouted territory (particularly treelines and buildings) without accompanying infantry leading slightly to help counter all the different AT threats. Sending vehicles as an unescorted group can get you into big trouble, and I think that's what you're suggesting? Still, thanks for the ideas: I want to experiment a lot more with assaults. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

I might try that, but I've already learned the hard way just how thin-skinned HT's and other light AFV's are, so using even lighter ones seems like a risky tradeoff--but point taken. With a Wirbelwind in the right situations (i.e., no enemy armor, at guns, or zooks nearby), I know I can just temporarily park it in front of infantry concentrations without fear of any small arms or light machine gun fire. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-04-2000).]

Yes, it does, thanks. I just tried a similar QB, though the terrain was a bit more to my advantage. I cleaned up, playing the Germans: 24 casualties (7 KIA) 1 captured 5 vehicles knocked out (of around 20) Men OK: 168 Score: 84 Allied AI defender: 115 casualties (25 KIA) 28 captured 3 mortars, 2 guns, 3 vehicles knocked out Men OK: 48 Score: 16 Axis total victory on allied surrender. I think the point about turn length was very perceptive. I also felt like I was being rushed when practicing QB's like this, so I switched to 35 turns this time, letting me win a few turns early. The main principles I adopted this time around where, roughly in order: 1) gamey kübelwagen scouting forays 2) rushing up 3 sharpshooters to good observation points for buttoning AFV's and lookout duty. 3) after getting something of an idea what was going on, I started moving up platoons through the woods in standard wedge formations. Meanwhile, heavily tanks took out all enemy vehicles (mainly light, fortunately) from the left flank. A few diversionary AFV's were on the right flank, but the initial advancing force moved up the left-center flank. The key I think, was to only stop in one place for one turn if possible, avoid bunching when possible, and--the big one--start out with forces spread in an arc but within reasonable distance of each other. They then converged as they moved closed on the town. A very advantageous loose formation, since it prevents arty from taking out massed assets on the way in and then concentrates massive firepower once there. 4) Once in the town, I was golden, as I suspected. I had the advantages of the buildings for cover then, but unlike the enemy I had armor to protect the lanes between buildings to cover building-to-building troop crossings. 5) During all this, I called in arty (210 and 105) as needed, sometimes unfortunately without LOS and before troops could immediately take advantage of it, but the 210 is so brutal, that's not a bad tradeoff. 2 81mm mortar halftracks were extremely useful (the German armored Panzer Grenadier heavy weapons platoon is becoming one of my favorite selections.) 2 81mm mortar teams on a back ridge with one of the spotters helped out. 6) I only moved in the second half of my HT's (my reserve, with about a sixth of my infantry firepower--just guessing here, tbh) once I was in the edge of town. I think the most useful tactics were constant, but measured advance, and the pie wedge convergence of the troops. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-03-2000).]

As good as many of the AFV mods are, I also have to go with Magua's buildings, and his new wall and church. They strongly change the look of the game (for the better). ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

Thanks. Some excellent advice about taking the town itself in that thread. My question is broader, regarding the initial phases of a large-scale assault on a town and its outlying regions, the latter also containing VL's and/or enemy units. This is made more difficult (?) by lots of very high hills: valleys provide some cover, but they also bunch your forces, making arty fodder. The crests are doubly vulnerable positions, though tophat and lowsky tank maneuvering can work for a while, before the need to move to a new crest. It's hard to bring howitzers or self-propelled guns into play early, since they're so vulnerable to even HMG fire. HT's help get the troops near town in a hurry, but without an advance of foot soldiers, you run into ambushes or zook/schreck attacks. Parking some HT's near the town and then advancing troops for a little recon is also problematic, since any substantial pause in movement or bunching of forces equals arty on your head more often than not. Advancing on the town over-cautiously with one main force (with a reserve in the setup zone) or two flanking forces seems to unduly expose units to all kinds of problems, not the least of which is arty. Bum-rushing the town itself leads you right into ambushes. It would certainly seem, though, that you need to very quickly find a relatively weak section of the enemy line in or near the town, rapidly gain local superiority, and utilize the same cover and concealment advantages of the buildings that the enemy has. I learned early on that you can't take the town by just temporarily parking on its outskirts and lighting into it with tanks and assault guns. Thoughts? I'm relatively new at this, but I've gotten to where I usually win by a substantial margin against the AI in defenses and meeting engagements, but assaults are giving me grief, especially under the difficult conditions I've given myself (semi-darkness, high hills) Good learning experiences, though ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-03-2000).]

Any detailed suggestions on how to carry out a full-scale assault against a town? Here's a sample QB situation: medium-sized map, large and dense town in the center/rear of the map, moderate tree cover and large hills. The town is far enough from attacker's setup zone to make lots of HT's or other motorized transport recommendable if not required to get the troops close within a reasonable time period. Three main roads lead to town, two parallel each other through valleys (visible to numerous high points near the town), one rises over a huge hill directly at the front of town. The assault is at dawn/dusk (i.e., limited visibility). 30 turns. No intel. 3000 point assaulting force versus 1500 point defensive force. This is of course a very broad question, but here are some issues I'm particularly interested in, along with any other tips: Basic force composition: roughly how much to spend on arty, armor, infantry, transport for the infantry, etc.; also, what basic types of armor (tanks, assault guns, etc.) and troops. When to call in arty in relation to the start of the game and the progress of your scouting or adavance. Move the FO's up behind scouts for clear LOS, putting them at risk, or leave them in safety in the back, slowing arty response time and accuracy? Recommended type of scouting (composition, speed, etc.). Force division. Scout for a weakpoint and sent in the majority there (possibly getting bunched up for enemey arty)? Two main flanking forces? How much of a reserve? Speed of advance. This is a messy situation for the attacker, to be sure. Any suggestions would be appreciated. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-03-2000).]

I heard somewhere that a .50 bullet can go straight through a V8 engine block, so I'm not surprised. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

I'd like to see more Allied vehicle mods. German armor is already "sexy," and then the many great mods just make it more appealing. Allied AFV's really need more modding to look nearly as appealing. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

Excellent site, Kump, and excellent mods, Magua. You both have good eyes for very aesthetically refined mods. Thanks for sharing them with us! I was comparing some screenshots from standard CM with ones I took using Gunslinger's mods and Magua's buildings--almost looks like a different game. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

Scouts don't always telegraph your direct intentions, since they can be just as useful in a deceptive role. You're not only finding info, but when the enemy spots a scout(ing group), they will quite possibly assume you'll be immediately sending a larger force to that area, which of course you needn't do. You could circle well around, head for a different suspected location, etc. The key is not to defeat the enemy but to get him to defeat himself by encouraging him to come to you on your terms, by deceiving him, by letting his impatience or over-aggression master his better judgement, and so forth. As a hopefully related aside, one trap I think people fall into, myself sadly included, is getting fixated on the enemy and letting them determine your course of action. Enemy units? Must be time to attack! Not necessarily, of course. Armor used to really have that effect on me: there's some magnetic force that used to draw me into long-range ping-pong battles with tanks (and still does in my weaker moments ). It's also easier to focus on these single, very powerful units, while temporarily ignoring infantry squads, who of course need to work in conjunction with armor and other assets for all to be effective. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR [This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-02-2000).]

One more thought: temporarily forget the flags like your opponent and use the whole map for flanking. If you're moving, it forces him to rearrange his units, which could potentially, if temporarily weaken his benefits from a tidy combined arms setup. ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

As for AT guns, remember that tanks have the big advantage of mobility (and sometimes numbers). Fast movement from cover to cover and multiple tanks with the mutually supporting fire lanes can help offset the AT danger. AT guns generally turn and take aim pretty slowly, so if you have some fast Shermans with their fast turret traverse, you can even the odds a bit. (I almost always play as the Germans, so what would I know? ) Of course, if his guns have tight fire lanes with flanking terrain cover and nice ambushes set up, well.... ------------------ Hope you got your things together, Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR