Urban Shocker
-
Posts
162 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Urban Shocker
-
-
CMBB has morale built in at the tactical level but I have not been able to pinpoint if troop morale plays out at the CMC level. In other words, if troops are cut off from their parent unit or flanked at the strategic map level do they suffer a morale loss and become less effective as a fighting force (e.g., lower morale to start a battle, desertions before battle). They could become less responsive to certain orders like attacking or advancing but highly responsive to moving back towards their own line!
Of course, this could be mitigated by the eliteness or quality of the troops (e.g., Volksturm vs. SS, conscript vs. elite) to some extent.
I would consider this a crucial element of this type of game as it would mimic reality. Troops get panicky when they here rumors/reality of enemy movements to cut them off and start thinking more about saving their own skin then retaining coherency as a fighting force.
This is also one way a smaller force could defeat a larger force. To make an unexpected appearance in an unexpected place (surprise!) can have a devastating effect on troop morale. The annals of war are filled with such victories.
[ October 21, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Urban Shocker ]
-
Thanks BFC...I now get to take my incompetence to the "next" level. Seriously, as one of the many who have been advocating for this overlay, I am very appreciative and look forward to ordering it.
-
I don't necessary want x to equal n*x/n but if "x" can be approximated by x/n on a realistic but small scale that is very desirable. For example, one might find that 1st and 2nd Division are holding the front with 3rd Division in reserve. Let's say that under attack that 1st Div starts to yield to the onslaught. The commander has many options:
1) Use elements of the reserve to shore up the defense (Hold the Line)
2) Use reserve elements to counterattack (Push the line forward).
3) Use the reserve to start a counteroffensive through 2nd div and attempt to get astride the enemies lines of communication before he gets across mine.
That extra layer of decision can add a "storyline" that many players would enjoy and fits very well with battle accounts that we read in the history books concerning why General So-and-so did this, that, or the other thing.
Now replace the word "division" above with battalion or company. You can still make the same types of decisions and use CM to duke it out. That is why I would iI would like to see a operational layer.
-
I don't know if this person is still around but here is an interesting post from 5.5 years ago. I included it because of the reference to "CM5" which I found somewhat funny. I also found one (TBlaster) from August 19, 1999 though not quite as detailed it did make the same request.
Aacooper
Member
Member # 9
posted December 23, 1999 2:52AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driving home from work today I sketched the rough outline for "CM5 - Operations". Since I couldn't get a single Fortran or C program to work in college, I better let everyone know what my idea is in case someone wants to take it up:
After the entirety of WW2 is covered in CM, the next step is to add an operational level. Basically, it would be a programmed method to play Fionn's "Meta-Campaign". It would borrow ideas from the V4V games and TOAW. The scale would be one division's piece of a battle over several days, and the operational level would allow more maneuvering, concentration of force, feinting, etc... The operational portion would be WEGO, where players move around company or battalion-sized units. The map would be pixelized, not hexes, and the game would shift to the combat map when units are within range of each other (visibility plays a part too, so a unit on an important hill would force more combat than one in the middle of a dense forest). The forces for each combat would, like TOAW, be tracked individually, so the tactical combat could be properly set up. Like TOAW, units could be sent to respond to an enemy attack. The maps would be a mixture of pre-planned and randomly created. An important area could be created, or important highways could be laid down, then the rest would be randomly created.
Around that basic system, there would need to be supply, similar to V4V, and more precise. So, tons of ammo & POL used and supplied would be tracked, and the transportation capability of the supply net would be kept track off. A certain amount of attrition would be automatic. Artillery barrages and harrassing artillery fire would be abstracted.
The idea would be to make the same decisions as a divisional commander, but use the most accurate tactical engine for determining combat results. Battles that had some maneuver (desert, Russia, Bulge) would be more interesting than an attrition battle like Normandy.
Multiplayer would be needed to speed things along, and include the interesting options Fionn mentioned.
Obviously there's a few flaws in the plan, namely the length of each game, and in a 1 player game, the strength of the AI. Also, the potential market is likely to be a subset of the intersection of the TOAW and CM groups of players (miniscule). Still, how neat would it be to out-maneuver your opponent, concentrate your forces, and see your advance fail because a battery of 88's clogged the bridge with destroyed Shermans?!?
-
JasonC,
I agree that force selection and geographical placement is interesting but so is dealing with the consequences whether poor (force retreat) or good (decisive counterattack). Both on an opertaional scale with operational consequences (e.g. cutoff or cutting the enemy off).
It is obvious that you have had a lot of experience with operational games and have concluded that they have not done a very good job but we don't know any specifics of a tactical/operational game from BFC (i.e., Moon's comment in a previous post) so it is hard to discuss the nature or quality of any planned Tact/Op game.
From my point of view, Moon hinted at a dinosaur-sized bone but has only exposed the slightest bit of it.
-
JasonC,
Perhaps TOAW was not a good choice for a marriage to CM. I did look at HPS simulations and found that that their simplified view of supply is enough to add that extra element of decision making: Should I stay or should I go? If I stay (and fight) there will be trouble but (perhaps) if I go, it will be double.
Anyway, as someone who has developed behavioral models for fish and insects I know that the "success" of the model depends on two things:
1) The assumptions that are made. Every mathematical model makes them.
2) Does the model (assumptions) result in realistic behavior?
We might add a third question:
What do 1 & 2 make the human player do?
This is where I started in my first post. I and others(?) would like to make the decision on some scale where we choose to retreat to the next natural line of defense, or to even make that risky move to cut off the enemy's line of retreat/supply. NOT ONLY do we want to make those decisions but then WE WANT to carry out this plan and fight at the tactical level.
Enough said on that. I have to disagree that this could not be done well nor done simply. Which leads to the 1st question I would ask if I were to develop this game:
Would anybody buy it?
-
Even if on a small scale similar to human-coordinated battles that have periodically been conducted by CMers (e.g., CMMC, current CMBB by JasonC). Certainly the individual computing power is there. The games that model different levels of military decision making are there from individuals in squads up to division and army level, even grand strategy are there. Why can't the "twain" meet? Why are military game makers stuck in this "rut" or their respective "ruts?"
When I read military history, units retreat because their overwhelmed (or will be) or because a unit somewhere else has given way to the enemy and their access to bullets and beef (lines of communication) has been threatened. Units attack to destroy the enemy's ability to fight by destroying the enemy or by cutting off their means of fighting (bullets and beef).
Combat Mission is a fantastic small unit game but from the above paragraph the only thing we can do is destroy the enemy. Lines of communication are not a part of it and retreating to fight another day is also not worth doing.
I hope that somewhere in BF's 99 year microeconomic plan that they could "hook up" their platoon level game with decision making at higher levels to present armchair commanders with a different layer of decision making to contend with. Then after placing our weakened troops to defend the impassable Ardennes sector we face the prospect of fighting a german armor thrust or retreating, or reinforcing and fighting it out.
Too much to ask?
-
What's up with the Admiral's white hat? Nice job by the way.
-
I concur...it also has some fairly detailed maps.
-
Forgive me if this has already been posted. Just came across it myself.
-
I agree with the scale but I think that it can be made smaller. For example make the infantry "chits" companies and make the armor chits platoons. I think that this would work because it is not the size of the battle that made the game fun but the manuveuring, supply, and so on. Also by making the units smaller the individual battles would not take as long to complete. With stacking restrictions you could have up to battalion level infantry battles, 3 platoon tank battles or a combination of the two.
One of the challenges with the units is creating new unit chits. The game has only armor and infantry. I would need to create artillery, aircraft, and anti-tank chits. The other unit related conversion would be to decide what type of CM equipment would replace the generalized armor and infantry chits. This is why I would like to tap other individuals'expertise since I am weak in areas like this and would prefer getting advice on the front-end rather than after the fact.
The thing I like about its utility for CM is that it has a lot of the strategic layer details worked out like replacements, reinforcements, unit withdrawals...it even has a simulation of the poor British communication during that period of time. There is also a nice hex-based theater map which includes ports, tracks, roads, rails, simple geographic features, and movement restrictions. There are other things as well but I don't have time to run through it right now.
Perhaps I should post each rule one at a time on this forum and solicit comments. In any case, I appreciate the feedback and interest. I hope others can see the potential in PanzerArmee Afrika.
-
I was sorting through my old board games and came across a Strategy and Tactics magazine I had bought off Ebay a few years ago. This particular issue had a pull-out game called "PanzerArmee Afrika: Rommel in the Desert, April 1941-November 1942." It struck me that this could be useful vehicle adding a strategic layer to CMAK. Much of what is in the rules could be adpated for use with CMAK.
I envision that it could be played by two players like the original version. Both players would know where both sides' units were but the fun was in maneuvering, battling, and protecting one's supply line. It could along with a GM be played by two or more players with better fog of war. I am interested in first adapting it for use with a GM. My ultimate goal is to refine the rules, etc. to the point where anyone who wants it could be sent the rules modifications and so on.
In order to aid this project you have to meet the following criterion:
You need a copy of the magazine or, more importantly, the game that comes with it. The magazine again is: Strategy and Tactics nr. 40 published Sept/Oct 1973.
Again, I think that this has great potential so if you have the game and want to work with me on it I'd be happy to share this enjoyable task.
-
EmphAticAlly A!
-
I am truly impressed with the grassroots campaign-type games that various people have put together. I would be especially fond of a game that could embed a CM-like tactical simulator with higher order strategic or operational layer. In my opinion this would be taking a step closer to simulating the opportunity costs that commanders had to make at higher levels while allowing one to deal with these decisions at the tactical level.
-
Please send my way. Thank you.
-
He didn't even mention it was a WWII game. Makes me wonder if he knew?! :confused:
-
He didn't even mention it was a WWII game. Makes me wonder if he knew?! :confused:
-
If I recall correctly, if you use your line of sight tool it should tell the areas that you are hull down to and have line of sight.
-
Through playing these games many times I find that I can get my AFVs into hull down positions by eyeballing it. Am I losing something by not using the command, that is, could I be in a fractionally better hull down position if I had used the command?
Anybody else do it the old fashioned way? Anyone tested HD command vs. human controlled?
-
I am in 100% agreement with Kip on campaigns. Including things like supply or lack there of and opportunity cost decisions at larger scales and then fighting out the tactical battles on CM would be groundbreaking and fabulous and enriching and interesting and so on.
Truthfully, I would take anything on the campaign front. Once the ball gets rolling...
Personally, I don't care at all about dynamic lighting (whatever the hell that is?!) and other eye candy issues or even (gasp) that the wrong MG bitmap is sometimes used! My main interest is the thought process and application of military strategy and tactics without getting shot myself! Do I appreciate the great leap forward made in the war game genre by CM...oh yes!...but I think a good number of us are looking for the next great leap forward and not a series of tweaky add-ons.
Carry on, BFC! Job well done!
-
Since the previous thread on this topic has descended into...let's just say it has descended and I have a thought on topic I started this thread.
After reading a couple of books on manuever and reading the "one minute turn" thread, I had an idea.
If you allow yourself a lot of time for analysis of each turn you are playing a german style. You are looking to exploit weaknesses in the opponent's defense and use those to your advantage. German lessons from WWI were applied to WWII so subordinate commanders were given a lot of flexibility to exploit enemy weak points in order to achieve mission objectives.
If you allow yourself very little time for analysis making the initial setup very important you are playing a russian style. The russians tended to pick a spot to focus their attack, spent a lot of time planning it, and then went through with it. They rarely deviated from the plan as their subordinate commanders were told to follow orders and complete their mission no matter how difficult or bloody it would be.
-
Anybody read this book yet? If so, how was it compared to other titles on North Africa?
Funny Bit 1: I went to Amazon.com in anticipation of my annual Christmas gift certificate from my in-laws and found this review of the book by a buyer...
"I think it was OK but not what I expected. I was getting this book I THOUGHt was for childern. About "Meeting Footloose Fox" on VHS (Disney) is what the grandkids wanted, so I was disappointed first BUT Even though I never expected it I found it a complling read and a histrical masterpiece. So I say A+ and that I never gave before this time. I am Harold McInnes bye."
Funny Bit 2: Four out of eight people found this review helpful!
-
I had not heard of your campaign before. I d-loaded the stuff and was very impressed. The ease and intuitiveness of setting things up was very nice. I've started CMBB back up in order to play your campaign. I look forward to your version for CMAK.
This is the best campaign system I've used to date!
-
I like the idea although I don't have the game you speak of. Let me know how it goes I might be tempted to get it.
What you are suggesting is exactly the kind of thinking I and a few others are trying to convince BFC to try. Maybe BFC and John Tiller need to collaborate!
Strategic Morale
in Combat Mission Campaigns
Posted
Yes I see that the commanders are rated or leadership, organization, and readiness. It is unclear if any of these are morale based.