The_Capt

Just having completed a year long staff course, the topic of manoeuvre and attrition was forefront throughout. Manoeuvre is NOT the rapid deployment of forces towards an enemy weakness, all Blitzkriegy and sneaky. Attrition is NOT the opening of the Somme and 6000 dead in about 25 minutes. The labels "Attritionist and Manoeuvrist" are in fact terrible as they conjure up the above images. Manoeuvre is a methodology. A way of doing business. It is actually quite simple but amazingly complex to apply. Manoeuvre doctrine at it's absolute essentials stresses the Commanders "intent" over that of the actual mission, to the point, (everybody pay attention here) that it becomes more important to the actual mission statement itself. Manouvre "empowers" a subordinate to exercise maximum initiative in contributing to the overall success of the plan. This mentality yields a very fast tempo pace of warefare which relies on armour (because it can move quicky) to exploit and "show max initiative", normally aimed at enemy weakness. The applications and implications of that statement are legion so I will move on. Attritionist doctrine, stresses the actual letter of the law rather than the spirit. It focuses on immediate objectives with little or no room for change. "Take the Flag", not why or what if the enemy does "blah", just "TAKE THE FLAG" until I say otherwise. Attritionist doctrine stresses maximum control over your troops towards a central (normally terrain based objective..Vimy Ridge for example). To answer what seems to be a snide post by Mr Cawley (no doubt born out of frustration)...No War has been one by single use of either of these two principals. They are in fact two sides of the same coin and have direct application to any conflict. D-Day was an attrition battle. The sole design of which was to allow "break-in" into Germany where some commanders (Patton most notably and Monty most "not"-notably) employed a manoeuvrist method to the battle across France. Attrition stresses control and maximum planning and is normally used in the break-in battle when "fancy-footwork" will only get you killed. Manoeuvre is used when an attrition battle has been successful and exploitation can be accomplished. Both of these methods may be employed numerous times in any given conflict. As to CM, it is attritionist, period. Sub-commanders are actually strings of code and cannot execute initiative beyond a very narrow scope. Also the entire emphasis is on Flags or terrain objective which may or may not have any real value in term of what the enemy is doing. We may have battles which may have been part of a "manoeuvrist" operation but each battle is an execise in attrition, no matter how fancy someone is with their tanks and Halftracks. Anybody who preaches otherwise has no real understanding of the concept but have jumped on the "buzz-word" band wagon anyway.

Having read the above exchanges may I offer a simple suggestion. Give the player the ability to have more control of targeting. If TacAI can't do something it is in the best interest of gameplay to allow the player to take on that function. Target "Lock": Shoot at that Churchill until it out of LOS, then keep orientated to that direction until I say otherwise. Target Priority: Churchill till out of LOS then target someone else. Could also be incorporated into an SOP style of "priority of engagement". Target "Free": Shoot at whatever your little silicon brain figures it should, based on experience and threat profile. Such a system may go a long way to allowing more control as to what gets fired upon. I think we have to remember that the "computer tank commander" is just that and cannot be expected to react like a person. CM is very good but could use a little tweaking. I also think that the "powers that be" know this and are going to make CM2 all things to all people. In fact I am thinking of starting the "Church of CM2" with the faith that CM2 is in fact the second coming and will bring 1000 yrs of bliss to humanity. It shall cast "Lucifer" aka Bill Gates into the fiery pit of hell were he will roast and be tortured by guys who can actually do more than one push up and be forced to work on his own OS for 1000 yrs....or words to that effect.

Bang on comments by "tss" and "Dorosh". I could go on at great length as to the employment principals of obstacles and the "general" vs "close support" concepts. Regardless, tss has an excellent learning point in that all obstacle must be covered by direct or indirect fire. Another clear example is the Gulf War. If the Iraqis had actually offered resistance along their defensive obstacles the US casualties would have been much higher. The AT ditch embedded in a minefield is my worst nightmare. With modern armoured assets (ploughs, rollers, dozer tanks and Armoured bridges) it still takes around 5 mins to breach an AT ditch in the middle of a minefield. And as everybody here knows 5 min is one hell of a long time under fire. As to CM engineers, yup, what we are seeing are actually Pioneers or trained infantry, semi-permanently attached to a battalion. These guys did the dirty work of blowing wire and holes in bunkers. "Engineers" were centrally controlled and would execute Brigade level obstacle plans. This is changing with the concept of manoeuvre warfare and empowerment of subordinates. Engineers are now cut to Battalions in sufficient numbers to do a hell of a lot more in a shorter planning cycle. Last note on the subject: CM is probably one of the better games in the use of engineer and engineer works. Steel Panthers III also does a pretty good job of modeling the effect of obstacles. I hope CM 2 will improve this by adding the complete spectrum of engineer capability available in the time period.

Ok time for me to wade in. I have spent 12 yrs as a full-time Combat Engineering officer and though I may have limited knowledge of WWII employment of the "sapper" I think I can shed some light on the ensuing argument. For the purposes of CM engineers are employed in to distinct roles. Defensive: Defensive works are completed prior to engagement with the enemy. WWII did not have SCAT Mines of FASCAM which could actually influence the defensive battle so wire, minefields, bridges etc would be prep prior to the actual contact with the enemy. CM has been rather gamey (my only criticism of the game by the way) on the actual effectiveness of these works. Minefields were/are normally 400m in depth and can be several kms long, with AP rows mixed in. The AT ditch, which is a real "show stopper", is not even modeled. These effects were no doubt "toned down" to enhance game play but they are unrealistic. In the defensive battle one could see bridge demolition but in the scope of CM it would probably, be an entire battle on it's own, not a tactical device. Next the offence. Engineers are critical in the offensive role. They remove enemy obstacles by breaching. Breaching can be by hand (very slow and costly) or by explosive means (bangalore, line charges, satchel etc). The breaching of buildings or "mouse-hole breaching" is the act of engineers placing a satchel charge on a safe wall and blowing a hole for the infantry to enter and clear. The charge not only provides an opening but also tends to neutralize anybody inside the building in the vicinity, much the same for pillboxes. Breaching of barbwire and roadblocks is very "do-able" and is in fact part of the "mobility support". Second-to-last and not really included in CM is general support. Fortifications are an example. Hull-down positions and extensive trenches/CP hardening are not in the game but should be, for a price. Last, we can see small pieces of it but Armoured Engineering has also been left out. Breaching Tanks, flails, rollers (WWII?) which provide a high-speed and protected method to deal with these problems would also add to the game.

12 yrs as a Canadian Combat Engineering Officer Reg Force, One yr in the Reserves. Many adventures and flying steel. CHIMO!

Combat Mission - $45 US Shipping and Handeling - $10 US Total Price - $83.00 Cnd 3D Tactical Wargaming done right after a 16 yr wait - PRICELESS!!!

Combat Mission 2: "Nazis can't jump!"

I know that in current doctrine (NATO) that HMG fire can be sited, particularly in the defence. The posn and angle of the gun are marked and fire is coord by higher. Maybe an infantry wizard can enlighten us as to whether or not this is/was actually employed and whether it would work in CM. I would like to see it as it would greatly increase the effectivness of the HMGs by allowing fire outside of the LOS. The question of effective range still remains though...

Searched and couldn't find a discussion on the subject. I know it is current infantry doctrine that the .50 cal and other MG can be sited to fire indirectly in to beaten zone. Any thoughts on the employment in CM (ie HMG TRPs) The ranges would just fit on a large map, I believe. Any thoughts?

Flank Security, thus endeth the lesson.

A real Meeting Engagement involves an "normally" unexpected unit/formation colliding with an en going in the opposite direction. These battle are fast and furious in which the fastest "draw" usually wins. I believe CM is mistaken in placing objective flags in the middle of the two forces as it tend to draw focus on terrain rather than en units locations which in a real ME is ultimately more important. The error is compounded by the fact that the objective flags do not represent terrain which is really important to the battle (ie random) I think MEs should be based on unit strengths remaining and not positions on the ground. Please note that I have absolutely no idea what this would involve from a programming point of view, only what is correct from a military doctrine POV.

Even though it turns my stomach to discuss anything Navy in nature, I will venture my 10 cents worth. The resposibility of command is what empowers a commander to tell other people what to do. It is not because he/she is smarter or better at the job but because he/she has stepped up to be trained and accept responsibility. That being said, at what point should a commander be held responsible? When things "go bad" in combat, it is a very dangerous thing to automatically crucify the guy in charge. It breeds undo caution in his/her peers causing paralysis in decision for fear of making the wrong one. A very US military mindset right now, hence CNN polls etc. Perhaps the best advice I ever received was from an old Armd Maj who said " I will always forgive a sin of commission, it is the sins of ommission I cannot abide". Which is to say never hit someone for doing something (within reason of course) as long as they were using best judgement and keeping within the intent of their superiors direction (a little manoeuvre doctrine for you guys). Failure to act is a far more serious crime. That all being said, I don't think anybody here has enough of the facts to even wager a guess, let alone an opinion on the actions of a senior naval officer.

I don't have to take off any clothing do I?

I just lost my Junior cherry!!! I love you guys...sniff. Drinks on me, ring the bell!!

I had a similar problem running CM on a laptop with a ATI card. Try changing your bit color pallet. I was on 16 bit then switched to 32 and the mouse pointer came back. I would switch your card as I had nothing but trouble with that ATI, lock-ups etc

Tell your wife, gently, that she's puttin on weight and that the exercise of pushin the grocery cart will do her some good. Then play away. Or tell her that you've received death threats from your opponent so you are really playing for her and the family.

"We Go" concept has been seen before. First time I saw it was in the old SSI "Computer Ambush". Still a good idea reintroduced within brilliant packaging does not lessen the life affirming entity which has become "COMBAT MISSION". HOO-WAA!!

You guy (BTS) ever think of licensing the engine "a la" Quake/Unreal?

Oh c'mon! WW2 was not the final word on combined arms tactics. Even Steel Panthers went modern. There would be an issue of scale (ie larger maps) but systems are only getting faster. I think an Middle East game would be a blast...ATGMs, BMPs, mmmm!

Oh my someone needs a girlfriend.

A thought and a question. Thought: The CM engine could probably be used to model any number of small unit actions from cavemen to modern. I am speaking of something like TalonSofts Battleground Series. Question: Has this issue been discussed and is there any plans for expansion of the series beyond WWII.

It may be true that I was not alive during WWII but I do know that mines can be placed in a "hardstand" surface. I HAVE SEEN THIS WITH MY OWN EYES!!! Its is neither hard nor all that difficult only time consuming. I am pretty sure they had mine, pick axes, coal grit and clay in WWII, which is about all you need. I sincerly doubt one will find that little nugget of info in any book because in the grand scheme of the war it wasn't that important or was so common that nobody really thought to mention it. CM doesn't have booby traps either and there is plenty of evidence they were used in both the anti-vehicle and anti-pers role. I guess this is leading to a central bone I will pick now. IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE IT PROBABLY WAS! And just because the "grognard" community cannot find it in their "manual libraries" doesn't make a valid option in game play. It's these argument against doing anything ahistorical which really tick me off. Yes, I do believe that one should keep boundaries on some things, like vehicles used, weapons and their capabilities, historic troop qualities but a "slavish" adherance to every facet and mistake that was made during WWII is really silly. If the equipment was available and the capability for an action is plausible then it should be allowed.

I will be very interested (read:worried) to see how the problem of relative spotting is addressed. The only way to truly remove the "godlike" position the player is in, would be to drop him (or her for the two girls out there who actually play the game...now, now lets not start something) into the chair of the Bn/Coy Comd. Restrict to a first person view and only get info by radio, runners and your own POV. Plot pins on a map and send orders the same way (radio, runner etc). This would be very realistic but I don't think many paople would find it very fun. In fact it would be a little to much like work (ie frustrating "What the hell did that guy say...The enemies where?!) I think a few really hardcore players who really need to get out more would go for it but you can forget mass market appeal. I think CM spotting is fine the way it is. There is just enough Fog of War to make you wonder just what the hell is going on but not so much as to make you wish you had bought Diablo II instead.

I am a Combat Engineer and I have seen AT mines placed in a paved road. In fact I have seen improvised AT mines made out of concrete to be placed on a paved road. The Croations were particularly adept at breaking pavement, placing a mine and then camming it with a combination of coal grit, clay and ground up concrete. Now whether or not the engineers in CM would have time would depend entirely on the scenario. IE a German prepared defence could definitly do this but in a hasty defence I really doubt it. Zgrose. Yes there is such a beast, it is called an "off-route" mine but I am pretty sure nobody fielded any in WWII except for the Germans who may (and I say this because I have only heard of it second hand) have rigged a Pzfaust 30/60 on a trip wire to fire flank side across a roadway. We have a similar trick with the LAW when a proper off-route system is unavailable. I hope this gives some insight

REMF!!! I will have you know I am a Combat Engineer..."FIRST IN LAST OUT!!!!" Hey guys I am not bashing the US(well OK maybe a little), although the UN still says Canada is number one. Must have something to do with the ability to take out your garbage without having to strap on a bullet proof vest and have the wife provide overwatch. I would also argue that a objective review of history isn't "second guessing" but in fact an attempt to prevent us making the same mistakes, not unlike our last battle Grobby boy! :} The world does need a police force as it is bloody obvious that nations will often be unable to deal with problems on their own. A global cooperation in keeping the peace (a Canadian idea by the way)is an evolutionary step forward. The knot of this entire argument is not based on whether the US is good or bad but the arrogance in which you people do things..period. Look at Kosovo. Just about every expert at the table said "partition" is the only way in which this would work. But noooo! We had to try and build a wonderful melting pot where all people could live in harmony and pursue life, liberty and hapiness. Guess what boys, it doesn't work. These people don't like each other and never will, you can't make me live together in peace and love. Once again American arrogance ruins what was an excellent exercise in intervention. Now I know you guys are footing most of the bill and are taking most of the risks but that doesn't make you right. So my advise to your country is to, shut up, listen to people who know, think about what you are going to do and then have the will to do it no matter what everybody is saying. Approach the whole thing with an open mind and a healthy dose of humility wrt to the awesome resonsibility of the role which is being thrust upon you. A little more Gary Cooper/Jimmy Stewart and less Senator Helms(sp?)