vincere
-
Posts
1,121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by vincere
-
-
Ya, although that's more than possible on the older "smaller" maps too. What you're talking about is a matter of scenario design, not scenario parameters.
I don't quite think that people understand just how dense WWII battlefields were. The area represented by Pete's superb Oosterbeek master-map, for example, in 1944 contained three divisions worth of troops within it's confines. Recall that CM C2 only goes up to battalion level. While you can probably use the editor to cram three division's worth of troops onto Pete's Oosterbeek map, you shouldn't kid yourself that Der Hexenkessel is being modeled in any particularly authentic way. A CM battle on that scale is technically possible, I suppose, but would be absurd.
To take another example; during Op ASTONIA (Sept 44, clearance of Le Havre) the lead Brigade pushed three infantry battalions, plus a ton of supporting armour (Churchills, AVsRE, Crocs, Shermans, Flails, Kangaroos, SP-AT, etc), through a frontage barely 500m wide.
These are not particularly extreme examples, and both of them can be fully represented without even pushing the limits of the older, smaller max map size.
Large maps do undoubtedly offer scope to do some interesting things, but it's worth remembering that many of the things they allow are either wildly anachronistic (because generally force densities were too high to allow it and front lines were usually continuous so there simply was no 'open flank' for recce to go swanning around), or the number of units required to honestly represent all the units present would make for an unplayable mess. CM is, I think, the wrong platform to be attempting anything much bigger than a battalion-group.
Been a while since I looked seriously at force to space ratios and densities but not everywhere was so densely packed.
I do not dispute the specific examples. Yes there were many operations where forces concentrated for attack and the density was quite extreme, on paper and on the ground.
However,
1. the front lines were not all joined up from Leningrad to the Caucasus. There were thin areas, and gaps. In some areas the only road or rail decided the place of battle.
2. I'm sure you know full well that the when a regiment etc is attacking then not every swinging dick is at the pointy end all at the same time.
3. East front, and Patton's charge for a while, there were plenty of open flanks and space for meeting engagements after break through.
Agreed about Battalion level- it's the max I'd take CM, perhaps reinforced with flavour.
That said, for me I think the best use of the larger maps could well be the chunking and creativity adaption to make some kind area that an operation could possibly swing back and forth over.
-
+1 to this. The maximum map size is just a tool to expand the possibilities. So, imagine an x-large map where at the forward edge of the battle area the opposing infantry are still only around 300-500m apart. Now you could use all that additional space to simulate a whole defensive system in depth, with other echelons that the enemy has to attack through. Position mobile armored reserves a good way back, ready to respond to the enemy penetrations. So instead of one gigantic continuous action, you might end up with several different smaller actions at different places and times around the same map.
Feed in reserves, and ammo- Sounds like a damn fine operation campaign to me. :-)
-
Remember x-large maps is an option, not the new default. Foot infantry walks at about 5km an hour. That could make for some mighty tedious gameplay if forces are too far apart and are forced to hike the distance. I still recall some old CMBB maps that I never did locate the enemy for all my wandering and patrolling. There are circumstances where x-large maps should shine. 88s versus heavy tanks, for instance. Armor-heavy maneuvering, extra-long fields of view. But 'ideal' infantry vs infantry map size will probably stay about the same. Because bigger is not always better. Russian tank infantry carries PPSH. PPSH has a range of 200m. Not much utility trading shots on a 5km deep map.
Yes, but the right game set up could see recon units employed in their role of force recon rather than local action recon.
I see and take your point though. That said some larger maps would break down into smaller sub actions, like the 12k AAR, with flanks supporting neighbours; reserves having more prominence; and mobility really showing it's worth.
But infantry being my favourite arm, I hear you.
-
Not to one up you OP but here is the same video in better quality, this Youtube channel also appears to have all the episodes of "Soviet Storm", and from what I have seen it is definitely worth the watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6UkVl3ZFuI
Are you just as competitive in pbem?:-)
Seriously, thanks will check the vids. I recommend Soviet Storm, thoroughly enjoyed that series.
-
Pathing is a definite issue in CM at times.
But really, if Dutch Grenadier couldn't work out decent pathing plans in basically open country, it's his own fault.
I think if Strachwitz had scouted the left side Objective, he'd have found no one home and could be pushing his whole refused flank reserve through the vacant town to sweep through Dutch Grenadiers half of the map towards the center by now.
Anecdotally, I originally made this map for a 2v2 PBEM game.
Each player took a Huge Force, for a total of 25 000 points in the field.
There were split British Infantry and US Airborne sectors, vs combined SS and Heer.
Like this game, the Germans refused a flank. The Airborne quickly overran the token defense in their sector and swung to collapse German center. Game over.
I've just made a revised version of the map, adding new territory on the German side of the map (the same as Dutch Grendaiers in this game), and added in all the battle damage and destroyed vehicles from the first game so that we can play an Attack Scenario with the Germans trying to retake the lost Objectives.
We probably wont get it started too soon though, because the same group of players are about to start a 2v2 with 40 000 points, playing on the Oosterbeek Master Map.
I did think that a little lateral spacing with some half tracks using the field would have helped, but just know that path finding gremlin can strike even with the best intended spacing and pausing.
Great insight. Wow, 40k counterattack. Would be good to see how that and a 2v2 plays out.
By the way, should have said thanks to all four, so thank you for sharing your fantastic map.
-
Watched all four installments back to back today. Fantastic entertainment. I am really looking forwards to the rest. Many thanks.
Finished four and left in suspense for part 5.
Ah mann, Dutch Grenadier severely punished by the path finding traffic jams! I would have been screaming expletives at the replay at the last ones. :-D
-
vincere and Andrew H.,
One thing that larger maps will provide is considerable defanging of artillery, there being so much more ground to cover, so many more places to hide. As things stand now, in Small and Medium battles, artillery can wreak havoc out of all proportion to its typical formation size and relatively meager ammo allotments per gun.
Regards,
John Kettler
Sounds good to me.
I guess smoke for covering flanks will be more viable too.
-
I really love the idea of huge maps, particularly if they are *not* crammed full of troops. Like a recon battle on a 4km by 8 km map where you have maybe a company are are probing for weak spots.
(Maybe followed up by larger battles as both sides reinforce)
Battles where you have to protect your trucks and HTs because it would otherwise take an hour to move from one location to another. Battles where having reserves is important because the map is too large for you to just shift existing forces to cover. Maps where breakthroughs and strongpoints are signficant. Maps where artillery is important, but does not have the godlike power it has on smaller maps. Maps where extremely common things like dropping harassing fire on key roads/intersections is sometimes the best use of your arty. Maps where there actually *are* key roads and intersections...
Exactly, the larger maps and wider scope really adds more dimensions to the tactics.
Check the 12,000 point AAR in the main forum for a glimpse of a larger than average map and forces.
-
This is an awesome AAR. Thanks for publishing this to all three of you.
I've watched three this morning and going back to part 4 now. Maybe we'll see more biggies with engine 3.
semi Spoiler:
Couple of observations:
1. Dutchy really pushed aggressive on his left and centre left and was punished. Looks like it's paying off a little now though, especially with the long range tank duels.
2. Really interested to see how and where the US side commits his large infantry reserves.
3. Sounded to me like you have a little bias to Dutchy, is that because you usually play with the grey pixels, or am I just projecting my bias? :-)
Finally, great map. Really opens the combat and tactics up more with longer ranges, tactical manoeuvre.
-
Vinny, you've just described my love life. Or did you mean hand-to-hand "combat"?
Ha, I know the feeling. Good goal average this year, but context...
Thanks chipping in supportive shared experiences fellas.
I'd play CM 10x more, if it had a fraction of tactical goodness, but the 'operational' context to give me "This battle matters" immersion.
-
The larger maps, coupled with ammo dumps and resupply creating the possibility of 'operations' has fired up my interest in this one.
Yes CM is tactical, and probably the best at that. But for me CM battles mostly run like this.
Stage 1: chore to set up and become familiar with battlefield up until just after first contact.
Stage 2. Great fun with great gaming action moments. Really immersive at times (que bring back rare but awesome hand-to-hand for more climaxes)
stage 3. Empty feeling at end of battle. Labour of set up offset by fun but no context to the outcome. No contextual consequences.
Operation style maps (or the dream of an op level) would be a huge 'force multiplier' for my gaming experience. Battles then have real meaning. I just don't get that with scripted campaigns.
-
In case you didn't see this over on the CMBN forum.
That's great news!! Thanks for posting here.
-
You know this game is different scale and lacking realism level of Cm, but their dynamic campaign has a lot of potential not a million miles from how many would love CM to be.
http://www.wargame-ab.com/?rub=campaign
Abstract a tone of stuff at the Operation/theatre level. Have one or so maps to represent a province. Have CM Battlegroups fight it out. Yes we know not to scale- it's a freaken representation in a game. Voila the best damned game of the decade.
I used to think it's a million mile away, but for some theatres you could get away with less maps than the game has anyway. Then expand the theatre size with the dlc.
Just a dream ... :-D
Edited: Granted easier said than coded. But seems to me that some projects over complicate things that could be abstracted for less resource input- especially in the first version.
-
+1 for larger maps for manoeuvre warfare.
Air modelled. Really, one day they should tackle the issue and model aircraft. As fare as I know CM is the only tactical game that 'gets away' with pin-prick invisible aircraft. This setting would be an obvious one to take a step forward.
+1 for casevac. Way back Steve said they may look at adding to the casualty system.
Campaign. Yeah that old nugget. So they think ops were not the way to go forward. Ukraine is small enough to represent in a Dynamic campaign with risk style map. Strategic options in the map like Wargame Airland Battle- Now that would be a campaign!!
-
.................
Originally Posted by Battlefront.com View Post
EF is by far, hands down, the favored environment for hardcore wargamers. So if you are one, chances are you are an Eastern Front fan. But if you include casual wargamers and strategy/tactical gamers... Eastern Front drops off in interest. There are tons of reasons for that, the biggest one being that the largest audience of gaming customers have an affinity for Allied forces.
CMBB sold 50% as much as CMBO, yet it was a bigger and (technically) better game. There's tons of discussions about this phenomena over the last 10 years, but it always comes back to what I just said above. Eastern Front appeals most strongly to hardcore wargamers and hardcore wargamers are a minority of our customer base.
.....
EF has a lot of appeal.
CMBB was released in 2002? There are a lot more Russians on line playing wargames now. Would be interesting to see how the new game sales compare to Normandy.
-
It would be like Afghanistan, but 10-100 times harder (and vote losing).
The vote losing bit. Unless something like a dirty bomb was detonated in Europe and the US and traced back to Iran. Please not psliding into politics of the past, just hypothetical.
It's an interesting idea. Can CMSF's content represent with the Iranian OOB well enough.
-
I think you're thinking of PzKpfw IV's or StuG's, I have not heard of Panthers in Syrian use.
Yeah, I think you're right, the PzKpfw IVs. I'll double check my source later today though.
Yep, not that logical to keep these running, then again logic doesn't always rule. But agreed, very unlikely.
-
Syria did field Panthers way back agains Israel. Doubt any ar still running, but who knows one may show up in a vid.
-
This is a great read....
+1 And bravo! for excellent use of that small team.
-
Third, I do need that Schreck to provide last-ditch protection against vehicles (maybe even at the cost of his life) for 3rd Platoon by the church, if all else fails. If the enemy is allowed to park a vehicle at the intersection, that vehicle could hit 3rd Platoon in the flank or rear when they need to fend off an attack coming through the trees along the ridge. Fourth, from where he is, the Schreck also has fairly good LOS to the part of main ridge hidden from the rest of the map by all the trees, so if vehicles show up there, the Fusiliers won't be alone with their two Fausts (total for the whole platoon).
Yeah I forgot your on RT. Sounds like a good reasoning. Good luck, I read several people had problems with this one.
-
The current outlook- the only thing that's going to best CM at tactical scale is CM.
The one thing that has made me look twice at this and the Matrix version of CMBB is at least some attempt at non-linear campaigns.
-
I know what you're thinking now – that was kind of underwhelming for first contact, wasn't it?
Not at all, the tension is just building nice.
It's also great to see how other play. For example, the placement of your Panzerschreck team behind the wall with 3dr platoon, quite aggressive positioning, if you don't mind armchair comments
-
1. Hand to Hand.
I watch for this in the threads and nothing much has been said for a while.
The last I saw pre release was that some form of abstract Hand to Hand was supposed to be in, but I've never seen it, nor seen it in an AAR or talked about here. So what does happen now? For me squads die from fire or break.
BFC did say, before release, that Hand to Hand is something that they will look at in a future release. They anticipate it being significant work to get the look right in a 1: representation.
2. That sounds like it may be a scenario designer decision. Surrenders are obviously in, but some designer give reinforcements that don't arrive so as to delay the surender. If you triggered mines in your post battle sweep then that mey have been what tey were after; if not then I dont know what happened.
-
Really? So severely wounded troops lying incapacitated in a row will all be killed if say artillery continues to pound their position and lands on their bodies?
Carefull of ordering area fire to kill wounded or surrendered pivel troops, the Geneva convention may have something to say:
http://kotaku.com/5863817/war-crimes-in-video-games-draw-red-cross-scrutiny?tag=callofduty&autoplay
Christmas Bone
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
I'm sure you can cite many examples of high density combat/ battles during Bagration and the war that supports the 'maps are more historical if kept small argument'. However, even a cursory review of even the major headline grabbing operations reveals that this would be cherry picking. I really doubt that you, JonS, MikeyD, Michael Emrys, and many other CM regulars wouldn't be aware that these super high densities are concentrations for significant breakthrough attacks. Or Urban/hardpoint combat.
The breakthroughs grab the headlines, but the follow up combat was diverse and over a longer duration. During which example of whole divisions if not whole Corps* slipping through the 'lines' were not uncommon. Not to mention all the peripheral engagements, and several large scale break-in and out attempts.
*Of course the divisions slipping through west were not so whole any longer.
My point is that using a large map with some room for tactical manoeuvre while obviously not the accurate portrayal of every combat- it's equally accurate, if not even more common to reject any claims it be anachronistic.
And more to the point, for some of us more fun.