JorgenCAB

I just started playing with this rules and must say I really like them... have not played Combat Mission for quite some time... Regarding the fire arcs discussion this was one thing that came up in a recent scenario I was playing (single player) and my house rule was to give a cutoff squad or fire-team a choice between trying to fulfill the original order (if able) or go into self preservation mode. I would "role-play" that on a case by case scenario... to be honest that seem to be a very difficult way to write down in hard fast rules when a unit happens to violate an order. Once a unit or team start panicking or become pinned and/or receiving heavy casualties AND become separated from it's platoon I would likely force them into a self preservation mode and only allow them to fire on anything unless fired upon until they regain C2 with its platoon leader or another HQ unit. This will make me even more forced in C2 as a unit that is pinned and seriously shaken would suddenly forgive orders and just hide unless the enemy get really close to their position. If they have not already bolted they would fire, of course they may fire if fired upon in every case. But unless the unit was separated from it's platoon under chaotic circumstances there should be very few cases they would change their standing order. There also are those situation when a platoon is defending a stretched out area and being out of C2 is a product of design. In those circumstances the squad or team in question are likely to stubbornly follow the last order until the HQ reestablishes contact. The same could happen on a battle drill on the attack. A team might get an order that will take them outside of C2 for an extended period. The team or squad then have to perform that "order" the best of their ability. In my opinion this is also try about recon... they will get an order of what to do and come back or hold position. When **** hit the fan then they will fall into self preservation mode and a different ruleset should apply. There also is the option of detaching a scout team from an isolated section to run back and find their HQ and report any development and request any new orders. Even a panicked squad might do this after they run off and hide in a forest nearby. Or a platoon leader who lost their radio need to communicate with their company HQ but can't really leave it's post, sending one or two runners probably is the second best option available. In single player I always give mental orders to squads, platoons and companies and then have the leaders trying to perform them to the best of their abilities until they can make contact and get new orders. There also is a limited amount of orders a company or battalion commander can give and receive in any given 60 second turn. But making hard rules for that is kind of difficult. At least It makes for more fun games for me and the game become more challenging overall, especially some of the single player campaigns becomes quite difficult to play.

I do agree that any QB with a clear attacker and defender produce the most interesting games... that is what I play pretty much evert QB when I get to play them. Meeting engagements just seem very gamey for too many reasons. We still have the issue of points being very relative to scenario type, length, scope and terrain... to the point it is almost impossible to get it "right" no matter how much you want it to... at least in terms of "balance" (if there now is such a thing in war... ) We all of course want to play a game that is "balanced" in terms of victory points, but that is a different issue. In my opinion we would be better of if the game gave us more historically plausible forces based on the map, terrain and mission types and then we just play the forces we are given. I think the whole I need to select the units I like is generally bad for the overall fun part (or balance for that matter). Such "random" generated scenarios could even add some random events such as reinforcement never arriving or reinforcement arriving when not expected. Sure it takes away from the "duel" type of games with points and a mirrored map... but then why are you playing Combat Mission if that is your preference... there should be other games where butting head in a tactical challenge if wits is better suited.

Only if we consider "balanced" and fair engagements to be in anyway very realistic, especially played within a confined self-contained context... this is why point systems in a QB structure always produce unrealistic engagements which is very far from how such engagements would play out in reality even if they do happen. Almost all meeting engagements in reality is two forces meeting when they did not expect it to or between reconnaissance forces. The amount of persistent force you are able to apply in such scenarios in reality is often very restricted based on the operational goals of the event. Most QB I have played with my friends usually just end up in whomever manages to sprint to the most objectives first and establish a good defensive position wins, casualties and operational priorities does not matter. Then there are the complete lack of defensive forces close to your starting position which means you know 100% there are no troops for a fair bit of real estate in those games, this produce a gamey environment that is not really that fun and one reason why point systems is quite relative. How many towed anti-tank guns do you realistically take in a small to medium QB game, they are not really worth their points for the most part. You often bypass certain elements in the unit hierarchy as they are not as "efficient" for the type of QB you are playing, another evidence for "relative" points costs. Almost every object (unit) in the game has a huge relative worth in value depending on terrain, scale and mission type. This is why, if you can manage to do it, having a third party generate the battle, doing the unit selection, give you the mission briefing and set the goal for the game. This would generally produce the most "fun" and interesting games. Points is a great tool for a rough estimation of equipment comparisons for scenario building, but that is all. I have sometimes even built scenarios to troll the players so they don't rely too much on the initial mission briefings and instead think a bit more for themselves. Such as forget to mention the defender will get a pretty substantial reinforcement in a certain time frame... perhaps not know to either or at least not as extensive as they previously thought. The reason being that the attacker are suppose to actually become the defender at some point, but the player have to understand this and adapt... This is another example where points cost are quite relative as one asset you get from the start may be pretty worthless (say towed anti-tank guns) during a quick paced armored assault, but quite important when you need to withdraw into a defensive position. If the player are not mentally prepared for this they might waste or mismanage those odd resources they had from the start. Are the StuG too expensive... sure for most types of environments it probably is. When you build a scenario on the other hand that is not really relevant. Should they have multiple points versions of every equipment based on battlefield size, type, length and force composition etc.?!? Perhaps they should... but it can get complicated really fast. They biggest issue is meta gaming which means that points values also is depending on what equipment the opponent chooses to bring.

I perfectly understand why points are so important to allot of people but frankly they are always relative. That is why I hate QB and point systems with a passion because they are extremely unrealistic and most of the time produce very unrealistic scenarios. They also produce very boring meta gaming environments which to me destroy any sense or realism and fun. I do however understand that for some the game is more important than the simulation. The best solution is of course to play a game where there is a third party setting up the game and forces... as in reality battles are fought with the forces at hand... no one withhold resources not needed for other purposes in order to make something fair or balanced, in reality we want the fight to be as unbalanced as possible given all other priorities... While the Stug might be a bit over costed it does have allot of advantages that other tanks does not, but as points are extremely relative anyway it is really difficult to say. If the opponent take very few regular tanks then the StuG certainly is over priced... if the map have many large open spaces and there are allot of tanks then StuG can be outright under costed for it's value. As most QB usually are played on smaller maps and mostly use infantry then the StuG are obviously too expensive in favor of lighter vehicles. Against infantry pretty much ANY vehicle protected against small arms fire is a better choice than another more expensive vehicle. There is a good reason for why not all combat vehicles on the battlefield is a heavily armored tank, they are a very expensive piece of equipment that also cost allot of time and resources to maintain. Usually a 30mm auto cannon are equally effective if sometimes not even more so effective in engaging infantry over a 120mm tank gun, especially when you consider rate of fire and ammunition capacity. A StuG should be taken not for it's points cost but because it was a very common infantry support vehicle... most points system just destroy these types of realistic force compositions and that is just sad.

You sound scarilly exactly like me... I hate using exploits just to get a higher score in games. I want the game to be a challenge or else I get bored. I frequently impose restrictions on my self rather than let the AI cheat with extra bonuses. Some extra bonuses are OK but not extremes, that will just turn the game into cheesiness from the players side. I have almost never finished games in the last two decades for the same reasons as you. In my opinion in most games it is not always the AI that is the problem but game design. Take Civ as an example, there are no mechanics to stop any factions of steam-rolling once they get rolling. This is not realistic or else the world would be one country by now... I think the reasons for this are that most gamers are casual and playing something that don't allow you easy access to world domination don't tend to sell. For me a game is about the journey, not the end screen....

I have only played two scenarios with this mindset so far, one tiny and one small engagement. I will start a new campaign now and will try to adhere to these rules quite strictly. I don't mind if it takes allot of time to finish a battle. It just mean I will be able to enjoy all the scenarios "more"...

For the next version of combat mission I wouldn't mind this part of the game fleshed out a bit more. Such as moral loss if you leave you wounded comrades behind and things like that. Picking up wounded and carry them with you. Able to split of medic teams to take care of the wounded etc. Dedicated field medics to take care of wounded that increase the chance of them surviving and so on.

playing real-time without pauses just make the game harder to play (as you pointed out), but would probably not make me feel like it plays out in a realistic manner. In a real war situation there are many people with situation awareness and able to make independent decisions, I'm just a slow witted single person and will not be able to play coherently that way. I must say that playing the WEGO is preferable in my case, because then I have more time and ability to view the actions from each of my commanders viewpoint and put myself in their shoes and try and act as they would in that situation. It is also harder to micromanage everything in the WEGO system I think, but on the whole it is probably harder to get the whole picture in real-time play. I must also say that I usually try and put great effort into making buddy aid. At least I think it should boost the morale of my troops in a strategic sense even if it has a marginal effect on a tactical scale. I take great pride in reducing the number of KIA in any game, not just in this game.

I have played the scenario and the two first times I was utterly squished. The third time I actually deployed good tactics, I also waited until I got all my artillery before I made a push over the bridge in force. Laying down harassment artillery bombardment and firing smoke from my tanks and mortars helped to get my infantry across and able to help starting to lay down suppressing small arms fire. That way I can soon suppress or destroy the ATGs and start moving tanks down to help with the infantry advance. Losses in manpower will be high no matter what you do in this scenario, i think that is unavoidable.

I am not doing only that, I get sort of confused placing way-points. But I will do that for squads in general when deciding what they want to do. HQ units usually have detailed maps so they can orient themselves a little easier from a top down view when planning maneuvering their troops or themselves.

Must first say that this game is just an awesome game and I was a huge fan of the original Combat Mission games when they came out. Played those to death... Now, I just started to play this game. Bought it a little over a week ago and been playing to non stop since then. Even called in sick a day to play, not done that since I went to school like ages ago... Anyway... I basically jumped in playing the game at Ironman level, for me that is the only way to play this fantastic game. I now wondered if anyone gone even further than that, in the last two scenarios I started to restrict my movement and ordering of my troops even further to adhere to the fog of war and chain of command. Squads or team will have to report any changes to their platoon HQ by actually being within voice and close proximity, only rudimentary information can be delivered by far visibility and only very limited movement orders. Scout teams must return and deliver enemy position before the platoon HQ can make any decision on new information and only act in accordance to what he currently actually knows. No team or vehicle may area fire on anything unless they either see something, have previously seen something or is ordered by their platoon commander (or currently assigned one) to shoot at a specific target. vehicles and other heavy weapon assets can be ordered by other platoon commanders than their own if they are in communication with them. These assets can and will often be attached to infantry platoon commanders during battle but can be pulled away by their own commander at any time. Vehicles and straggling teams/squads will attach themselves to platoon leaders close by if their own commanders are dead or they have no idea where they are. complex orders for movement and engagements can only be given throgh radio or close visual and voice contact. I even deem some orders too complex to be given over radio, especially from battalion to company or company to platoon level that it will require close proximity to convey a new complex plan that was not part of the original plan (or just a minor correction). The most important thing is that any commander may only devise combat plans based on what they know. They can not take into consideration of what a small scout team just detected that has yet to be relayed back through proper channels. Squads and teams will always try to carry out their last order as best they can but will make orderly retreats or small tactical repositioning as they see fit but may only operate on what they actually know. I also give new complex orders at least one minute to be conveyed before they can be executed and communicated to the next level. Squad leaders may still lead smaller teams of their squad or other minor assets (anti-tank teams, HMG, leaderless teams from other squads etc..) in tactical maneuvering if they are close enough to do so. My question are if anyone else play the game like that? I find that it gives me a real challenge even against the random battle AI.