operational art of war

[tankmajor]

i love combat mission battle for normandy and i was wondering if any one

on the forum could see the day when combat mission could go strategic

like the other great game strategic command

[noob]

i love combat mission battle for normandy and i was wondering if any one

on the forum could see the day when combat mission could go strategic

like the other great game strategic command

I'm running an operation using John Tillers Normandy 44 as the strategical layer and CMBN as the tactical combat resolution tool, you are welcome to join if you want, there is room for two more players.

[Broadsword56]

+1 to the use of good board wargames to run operations/campaigns for CMBN.

It's fun, it adds realism, and you can do it right now instead of waiting/hoping CMBN someday gives you that capability. CMBN is great as a tactical game, and even if BFC tried to give it those operational levels, I'm sure people would complain about it and pick apart all its shortcomings. It can't be all things to all people.

[Lt Belenko]

It was attempted with CMx1.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86356

[Dave85]

I too would love to see this, and a campaign where you control an entire regiment or even division on the campaign map so you can have 50+ battles in a campaign with various battalions and actions of units on the battle map affect other units on the campaign map. The major drawback to going strategic is that players who are very good at the strategy will inevitably have to be rewarded with completely unchallenging battles

[Michael Emrys]

The major drawback to going strategic is that players who are very good at the strategy will inevitably have to be rewarded with completely unchallenging battles

Interesting thought and probably true: "The art of strategy is never having to fight fair."

Michael

[tankmajor]

indeed ww2 was rife with deception and ruses on the various battlefields

i agree that the game may not be for everyone but combat mission is all games to me the detail of tanks etc does it for me even down to the ring sights on the 50 cal awsome thx cm team

[sburke]

I too would love to see this, and a campaign where you control an entire regiment or even division on the campaign map so you can have 50+ battles in a campaign with various battalions and actions of units on the battle map affect other units on the campaign map. The major drawback to going strategic is that players who are very good at the strategy will inevitably have to be rewarded with completely unchallenging battles

I have been on the receiving and sending side of those. if you know it is part of an op layer there is still good reason to fight even when totally outnumbered. Also if the scenario creator allows for a withdrawal it puts pressure on the attacker. Winning and losing take on a whole different meaning.

Personally I have found this strategy layer to add so much more to the dimensions of a battle that the force ratios aren't even so important. What I look for as the defender is what should I be doing to influence the larger battle, last stand at the Alamo or fighting withdrawal.

[Sarge]

i have enough trouble keeping a squad alive while advancing.. can't imagine the inner turmoil of commanding a Regmt or more ~

[Broadsword56]

Adding to what sburke said (having been on the opposite end of our op/tac battles for Saint Lo), I think perhaps it makes imbalanced CMBN battles easier to accept when, as a player, you also know the "bigger picture." And if you come up a loser today, you know there's always tomorrow and you might be the one enjoying 5:1 odds.

For example, you might find you're better be able to accept a lack of supporting offmap artillery in today's battle if you also know your division HQ spent those fire missions on predawn interdiction fire that slowed/damaged the enemy's armored reserve and prevented it from reaching you.

Or perhaps you accept (just like a real battalion commander) being handed a lousy mission at terrible odds because you're the only unit stopping an enemy regiment's advance and need to hold the line for just the next 4 hours to save the campaign.

With the operational layer running, you get loads of realistic dilemmas about where to make the main effort, which troops must be sacrificed, worries about lines of supply and communications, etc. Weather gets to play its role over time. And you can use airpower and divisional/long-distance artillery realistically without trying to fit it into the smaller CMBN battlefields.

Example: Preparatory preplanned bombardments. CMBN players have argued about how fair or unfair it is to allow first-turn artillery stonks, how big they should be, and the challenges of managing them within a CMBN battle. With an op layer you can "abstract" those aspects and apply the results to the CMBN battlefield area before the CMBN action begins. Then you can set up the CMBN forces with the effects of the bombardment/air strikes already applied, starting the battle from there.

BTW, I've found reinforced battalion-sized CMBN battles to be quite fun and playable as long as the command structure is kept in mind, and units carefully deployed with their parent HQs. The greater issue has been not quite knowing what the game will handle, as far as map size/detail + number of units without eventually crashing a game in progress.

[Boo Radley]

i have enough trouble keeping a squad alive while advancing.. can't imagine the inner turmoil of commanding a Regmt or more ~

Tell me about it. My operational strategy is just trying not to Die-A-Lot now.

[JonS]

I have been on the receiving and sending side of those. if you know it is part of an op layer there is still good reason to fight even when totally outnumbered. Also if the scenario creator allows for a withdrawal it puts pressure on the attacker. Winning and losing take on a whole different meaning.

Personally I have found this strategy layer to add so much more to the dimensions of a battle that the force ratios aren't even so important. What I look for as the defender is what should I be doing to influence the larger battle, last stand at the Alamo or fighting withdrawal.

I guess the other thing to add to this is that - given a reasonably well functioning Op Layer - neither side really knows what the other side consists of, nor what their objectives are. That thick FOW means that odds with poor odds ratios aren't as hopeless and predictable as they'd be in a conventional standalone scenario.

Waaaaaaaaay back inthe day I was involved in CMMC1 - A Louviers Affair (or was that CMMC2?), usually at an operational level, but I was involved in one battle situated in the dying hours of the campaign. I had an artillery regiment, and knew that I had an SS armoured attack bearing down on me (the situation wasn't going so well for us ...). For whatever reason, I decided that I needed to get my guns out of there and off the map, and that's how I played, but about halfway through the battle it dawned on me that I was sort-of stopping the enemy, but by that time I'd decamped most of my guns, and trying to re-deploy them under pressure would have led to choas and heavy casualties (order, counterorder, disorder). So, I ran away, let the Germans through, and the campaign ended up much closer than it should have been. The point of all that is that both players made some pretty significant mistakes because neither of us really knew what the heck was going on. I should have stayed put and fought it out. The German player should have been able to roll me pretty easily, but streated the whole battle a lot more circumspectly than he should - or could have. I assume that's because he didn't have a clear idea what he was up against, and thought I had more than I did.

And that kind of mutual confusion is exactly what makes for the best meta campaign moments, IMO.

[fry30]

Forced to listen to my friends brag about their relationships all day, and finally, when I think the blood is coming back to my cheeks... you spring this on me.

I want in. Maybe not now, but I know when I see something I like. Hopefully in a few years when I have truly settled down, I can get something going like this with one of my own friends or even someone online... which leads me to a few questions

-------

I know this sounds naive, but this board game/ combat mission hybrid is done online right?

Furthermore, I've never been able to figure out how this sort of thing works. Do you need a third party to design and handle the abstractions of the game? I like the idea of someone able to manage the FOW and troop movements. But it also seems a little in depth... not to mention... welll (Its sort of, based upon what I know of the game, like a D&D Dungeon Master, right? Please tell me I wouldn't have to start fearing the sun and hiding from the opposite sex in order to play with a decent set of rules.)

The previous sentence may sound like a complete slap in the face to most of you, but I mean to say: I am a single otherwise normal 25 year old with an addiction to war gaming, with a borderline-useless history degree. In other words... I have to at least spend some of my free time attempting to procreate, and I definitely have to spend a majority of my time earning pay to at least be able to come home to this game in any shape or form. With limited time constraints in mind:

Just how in depth would setting up one of these games be? I have a friend in mind who might want to play... but if I need to find another person I might as well donate my 'creator' to science because I wouldn't be using it anymore.

[JonS]

You're a wargamer. You /already/ fear the sun and hide from the opposite sex!

Yes, there is generally a Game Master (GM), or better yet a team of GMs, who runs and manages the campaign. Naturally the GM does not have an active, combat, role.

They can be as in depth as you choose. But deeper is harder, in oh so many different ways.

[noob]

Forced to listen to my friends brag about their relationships all day, and finally, when I think the blood is coming back to my cheeks... you spring this on me.

I want in. Maybe not now, but I know when I see something I like. Hopefully in a few years when I have truly settled down, I can get something going like this with one of my own friends or even someone online... which leads me to a few questions

-------

I know this sounds naive, but this board game/ combat mission hybrid is done online right?

Furthermore, I've never been able to figure out how this sort of thing works. Do you need a third party to design and handle the abstractions of the game? I like the idea of someone able to manage the FOW and troop movements. But it also seems a little in depth... not to mention... welll (Its sort of, based upon what I know of the game, like a D&D Dungeon Master, right? Please tell me I wouldn't have to start fearing the sun and hiding from the opposite sex in order to play with a decent set of rules.)

The previous sentence may sound like a complete slap in the face to most of you, but I mean to say: I am a single otherwise normal 25 year old with an addiction to war gaming, with a borderline-useless history degree. In other words... I have to at least spend some of my free time attempting to procreate, and I definitely have to spend a majority of my time earning pay to at least be able to come home to this game in any shape or form. With limited time constraints in mind:

Just how in depth would setting up one of these games be? I have a friend in mind who might want to play... but if I need to find another person I might as well donate my 'creator' to science because I wouldn't be using it anymore.

Hi Fry,

If you want to join the operation I am running or just observe it to see if your interested send me a private message and I will give you access to the game information and forums.

I am using a historical scenario from the hex based Panzer Campaigns Normandy 44 game as the strategical layer and CM to resolve any tactical combat, the operational map measures 19 x 16 hexes or km so there's plenty of room to manoeuvre, alongside that i'm using boxnet for the admin side of things, all the boxnet folders have discussion sections so all communication between me, the umpire, and the teams, currently 2 Axis players and 3 Allied players, goes through that along with any diagrams, maps and tables.

If you are up for it you can join the Axis side, I will send you an invite to my boxnet site.

The operation in question is the fighting around the town of Carentan during the 13th and 14th of June 1945 involving US Paratroopers versus Axis SS and Paratrooper units, unfortunately CMBN has none of the Axis unit types so i'm using PzGrd's for the SS and Fusiliers for the FJ.

There are 10 operational turns representing 2 hours per turn, the map is a hex map with hexes of 1 x 1 km.

The operation is currently most of the way through turn two, there have already been three rounds of CM battles and a fourth is just about to get underway, if you join you can spectate these battles as all players not fighting a CM battle get to do.

This operation is a beta test for future operations I intend to run as new CM modules become available, by the time the operation is completed the rules will be hopefully be refined to a definitive version, then i'm going to create a website and post the system on the CM forums for public consumption.

Due to health issues I am at the PC more or less 24 / 7 so i'm the perfect umpire as there are no delays with the admin side of the operation.

[sburke]

As JonS says, there are a lot of different ways to do this and having someone run the op layer who is not directly involved leads to more FOW. In my case the person doing the OP layer generally takes the Americans. I take care of the Germans in the tactical battle and provide feedback from the German perspective for the op layer, but not final decision making.

There isn't nearly as much FOW, but I don't find that much of a hinderance. My opponent and I are both capable of playing from the perspective of the units involved including allowing them to make mistakes if they don't have proper intelligence on their opponent. It is fairly interesting to try and get into the mindset of what the company or BN commamnder would think and play from that perspective and only change your plans based on intelligence acquired in the battle itself. The point is to get some perspective on how the larger battle plays out not necessarily get tied down to the win/lose proposition. We don't even assess the battle based on CM victory conditipons but rather take the results and apply them to the op layer to figure out the next turn. for example I may lose a battle, but cause so much damage to the attacker that when applied to the op layer a larger offensive begins to unravel.

Unfortunately right now I am on the road and not getting any CMBN time at all so all this talk of op layers etc is mostly wishful thinking .... heck I can't even consider the procreation part either....dang!

[Broadsword56]

Hi Fry, welcome -- and it's great to hear your enthusiasm.

From what you share about your life and priorities, it seems to me you might be happiest as an occasional player in one of the op/tac campaigns that someone else is running.

These types of campaigns are rare for a reason -- organizing them and running them is a big commitment. And keeping a stable group of players together to complete all the battles over many months is no small challenge, either.

I knew I didn't have the patience for that. I wanted the op/tac campaign experience, but in a way that suited my own schedule and preferences.

So here's another way, and it's worked great for me so far:

Just pick a board game you like and whose scale is suitable for an op layer to CMBN.

Set up your own solitaire campaign using a computer-based module (Vassal, Cyberboard, Zun Tzu),and just play it yourself when you feel like it, at your own pace.

When you get to an interesting battle situation, pause the board game and make your own map/scenario for it in CMBN. You'll need to look at your boardgame's rules and work out a basic set of conversion rules for CMBN. For example, if a unit in your boardgame's is "pinned," what will that mean when they enter the CMBN battle (motivation level, fitness, etc.)?

Then look around for a good PBEM opponent for the battle, and play it out with them. If you both have fun, invite them back. if the opponent is a dud or unreliable, find a new one the next time you set up a battle. Someone will almost always appreciate the chance to play on a unique, authentic map and be part of something special like an operational campaign, especially if all they have to do is show up and play.

Then you can go back to your board game and just do the next battle when you feel like it -- no pressure, no need to resolve every skirmish with CMBN or organize a bunch of other gamers. You to play when you want, with whom you want, and exactly how you want.

If you post the progress of your maps and campaign on this forum, share AARs, etc., others will enjoy reading about it and you'll attract more interest from good opponents who share your excitement.

Good luck!

[Dave85]

It would definetly be awesome. My main problem with CMBN is that the campaigns are too short, too scripted and too few. Going strategic would eradicate this problem. Another issue that might arise though, campaigns, as they are, are generally better then quick battles vs AI because the AI side has been very well deployed by the designer. The game has no real AI as such. In a quick battle the enemy seem to just walk all their troops on one or two axis of advance (usually tanks down one road, inf down the other) and just let you line them up and slaughter them.

It would be a real challenge for the campaign designers to get round this IMO

[poesel]

IIRC BFC has stated that they will never do the OP layer (which IMHO makes sense business wise).

But if they never will do that why don't they create some interface to CMBN so that the fans can do it?

Dumping troop data into a file after a battle ends and the ability to read said file back in to start another would well be enough. If that file has some sensible text format the data could be manipulated as necessary for the OP layer. I doubt it would take long until the necessary tools would be written by the fans. That would create a lot of attraction for CM.

[Thomm]

IIRC BFC has stated that they will never do the OP layer (which IMHO makes sense business wise).

But if they never will do that why don't they create some interface to CMBN so that the fans can do it?

Dumping troop data into a file after a battle ends and the ability to read said file back in to start another would well be enough. If that file has some sensible text format the data could be manipulated as necessary for the OP layer. I doubt it would take long until the necessary tools would be written by the fans. That would create a lot of attraction for CM.

I had a chance to work with 'raw' OOB data kindly provided by Steve (I wanted to make some kind of automatically generated document from it). Even though I did not even go down to the level of individual soldiers, I can assure you that this data is massively complex. I assume that the same applies to potential import/export routines.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Broadsword56]

The data import/export ability would be tremendous, if that were ever possible.

Bookkeeping between operational and tactical layers is a task, but not always a huge one. Operational board wargames often state that the scale of a unit counter (say battalion) is "X to Y men," abstracted into strength points, and the game mechanics themselves use some type of cohesion hit/step loss in combat results. So a soldier-by-soldier and vehicle-by-vehicle tally in an op-tac campaign is neither necessary nor really possible.

What I do is set some sort of reasonable formulas beforehand to convert unit strengths in a boardgame to CMBN strengths, and vice-versa. This depends on the game being used, of course, but here's what I use for Balkoski's "Saint-Lo" (West End Games, where counters are battalions and companies):

---

7.0 Unit strengths

7.1 Companies -- Company counters in the boardgame range from 1 to 4 points at initial strength, and represent approximately 100 to 200 men. So, for companies entering a CMBN battle, the units are purchased with reduced strength from CMBN's standard TO&E levels as follows:

1 pt = 100 men = 50% reduction from TO&E

2 pts = 125 men = 30% reduction

3 pts = 175 men = 10% reduction

4 pts = 200 men = 0% reduction

7.2 Battalions -- Battalions in the boardgame range from 11 to 5 points at initial strength, and represent 400 to 800 men. So, for battalions entering battle:

11 pts = 800 men = 0% reduction

8 pts = 700 men = 10% reduction

9 pts = 600 men = 20% reduction

7 pts = 500 men = 30% reduction

5 pts = 400 men = 40% reduction

4 pts = 300 men = 50% reduction

---

[tdogg]

Great Idea Broadsword, unfortunately I would get frustrated with tedious book keeping. It is disapointing that BF is against a strategic layer, but making BF more friendly to 3rd party software and eliminate the book keeping could be a major improvement.

I like the idea of import / export senario information, I think increasing the QB functionality to accept senario import / export info and generate playable battles could be the next best thing to a built in strategic layer. It would take major upgrades to the QB system like an auto map generator and an AI plan generator. All players would benefit from these QB improvements not just people using it with 3rd party games.

Noob, If you still need another player for your campaign, I'm game....looks interesting.

[JonS]

It is disapointing that BF is against a strategic layer

Given their past performance in this area I think it's a bit disingenious to say they're 'against' it. I think you'll find they're all for it, as soon as they can find someone prepared to pay for it.

[StoneAge]

I had a chance to work with 'raw' OOB data kindly provided by Steve (I wanted to make some kind of automatically generated document from it). Even though I did not even go down to the level of individual soldiers, I can assure you that this data is massively complex. I assume that the same applies to potential import/export routines.

Best regards,

Thomm

What format was the raw data in xml, proprietary or something else?

I'm guessing that exporting it into an xml file is a large chunk of work and they don't want to just export the raw data as somebody may be able to re-engineer the data to open turn files.

[noob]

Noob, If you still need another player for your campaign, I'm game....looks interesting.

Ok tdogg, i've sent you a private message explaining what i need you to do.