Questions for Steve (General PBEM) #4

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, time to start up a new one. Last one was getting up to the 135k danger limit.

When we last left off (As the War Turns ) we were having a debate about "compressed" time in CM. This has largely turned into to "unrealistic coordination" discussion. There is at least one person (or two) that thinks that having too much knowledge about the action in the game makes the game go faster. I have countered this by saying that increased battlefield knowledge does not mean that a set reaction is going to happen (i.e. faster actions). Extra knowledge might actually cause you to act slower out of caution you should not realistically have.

What everyone should agree on is that CM does allow the player (human or AI) to coordinate units in a semi unrealistic manner (i.e. as überlord over all on one side). While this is true of CM, it is also true of every wargame out there. No solution to this so far as we can tell, except to have text reports come back and tell you how good/bad your troops did. And that would suck as a game

However, CM has much more reaslistic Command and Control than any other game that we know of. This might not be coming through in the AARs because neither Martin or Fionn are talking about how x unit has got this delay, or y unit is running away out of control. Lots and lots of stuff is happening like this. The whole Fog of War aspect of CM is so advanced that it can actually cause players to do the WRONG thing based on the WRONG information. I can think of NO game that does this to the degree CM does.

In fact, Fionn is waiting to launch the next phase of his attack so that he can reform his C&C cohesion. His units are scattered and that is killing his combat effectiveness (personally I think it cost him near a platoon of infantry so far...). I can think of very few games that force a player to think about stuff like this and PUNISH the player for not paying attention.

So on with the debate

Steve

(PS, Stephen, watch out for hitting the back and then forward buttons in your browswer. If you do this while doing a reply it will double post. Happens all the time)

[Larry Marks]

Steve, is there a Command and Control penalty for a squad that attaches itself to a different Platoon HQ(not its own)? Also, will bridge demolition and repair be possible in the final game? Too bad Moon can't blow the bridge. Thanks.

Larry

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Larry,

Squads can not be reattached. We felt this was unrealistic at CM's scale. Platoon cohesion is more than just a guy with a radio set and a couple of bars/pips on his shoulders. It comes from working closely together. So when a squad runs off with another platoon, outside of its own HQ's C&C radius, it will suffer a penalty for movement. Teams, on the other hand, are automatically under the command of the closest HQ in range. Delays outside of command range are far less than squads. Delays are also dependent on the experience level.

No to bridge reconstruction. Too involved and well outside of CM's scope. Bridges can be destroyed by artillery and tank fire. It is also possible that Engineers can blow a bridge with satchel charges (or we hope to get this in).

Steve

[Doug Beman]

hhmmm...I think maybe Steve/Charles misinterpreted a question of mine. I wanted to know if a player can tell, with just one click, if one of his own vehicles can see an enemy (not "can a player tell if an enemy can see one of his vehicles")

This is for those times when, say, some infantry can see an enemy tank, and you want to know if one of your tanks can see it; do you have to attempt to draw a LOS line to it?

DjB

[Pixman]

Doug:

I trid to clear this up with Steve once. He has been responding to a lot of mail and drinking a lot of beer (aren't I the pot calling the kettle black?! ), so let's forgive him this time.

One more time Steve/Charles -- we want to know which enemy units any one of our guys can see. NOT, which enemy units can see one of our guys.

Please don't give me an excuse to drive up to Maine and draw a picture!!

You both are great. I am just laughing because I was wondering how long it would take for Doug to come back on and figure out that his question is still not quite answered.

Our breath is officially baited.

------------------

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Pixman]

Steve: I know this battle is keeping you very busy. I posted a question in a thread titled: "Nationalities: Morale/breaking/rallying" that you may have missed. If you get the opportunity, please respond. If the near beta release work has got you too swamped, no problem. Based on what I have seen so far, I know you guys will get around to answering me eventually.

Thanks for all you do.

------------------

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Rick]

I thought I'd weigh in on the time flow debate.

I agree with Steve. If the time flow is off it is by a minor amount (say 0.5%). Combat occurs very quickly in the modern era, especially when tanks are invloved. This situation has become more dramatic over time, according to evidence from the Arab-Israeli wars, Desert Storm, etc. As far as assuming we're a battalion commander and limiting us to what a battalion commander could actually do in WWII, that is the one thing I want CM to be unrealistic about. The model I like is to assume platoons and vehicles are largely acting on their own initiative but strangely enough they all use my brain for their decisions. Limiting us to what the Battalion CO could do in WWII, would be boring. I don't want to give maybe one or two general commands and then just sit and watch. If I want to sit and watch I'll rent Saving Private Ryan. Maybe a Desert Storm era simulation that limited the game player in this way might be interesting, improved communications and intelligence allowing you to do more. Still, even that seems unlikely.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ah! OK, now I get it Doug Someone else asked about knowing if the enemy spotted you recently, so I musta had that in mind.

The answer is no, you don't know what unit spotted what enemy unit. You have to draw LOS to see if it can be hit. However, much of the time a quick look at the terrain will let you know. BTW, even if we had individual unit spotting info (huge, major UI problems) you would STILL need to use LOS tool. The reason is that if that tank you just spotted with your only unit goes behind a house it is now out of LOS. However, we don't immediately remove the marker from the map so the enemy will remain spotted (for a time) even though your unit can actually draw LOS to it. In short, spotting and LOS are not necessarily linked at any particular moment.

Thanks Pixman

Rick, we agree completely. And making a game that treats C&C realistically would require enlisting in an armed service, rising to the rank of Captain or Major, then hoping for a real war. Baring that, games like Combat Mission are as close as someone is going to get to reality. Sure, we think there are ways to make CM's C&C treatment MORE realistic, but we can't do everything at once

Steve

[Rick]

Wargames are fun, but I wouldn't want to fight in a war just to make a realistic one. Besides, if I want to be limited to only what a particular commander can do, rather than having control over all my sides forces, there are RTS games that do that kind of thing. Maybe a turn based game that took this approach might be fun if the individual units represented individual units, your whole force was a squad or platoon, and you were the Squad leader or Platoon Leader/Sgt. At higher levels of simulation I want more control than the Bn Co would have, or whatever the appropriate level would be.

Another way I think about the situation is there are some things about the way wargames have been until now that we don't want to change. Most aspects could stand improvement, but some, I at least, want to remain the same.

[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 08-28-99).]

[Doug Beman]

Thanks for the answer, BTS. That's kind of what I thought things would be like, and I can believe that having each unit give a report of every enemy it can see would require no few lines of extra code.

I also like that the marker stays in place even if the enemy unit skips behind a house.

"Well Sarge, this bigass German tank came tearing up main street and cut behind the schoolhouse. We haven't seen it since. I dunno if it's still there."

DjB

[Guest PatB_TGN]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Well Sarge, this bigass German tank came tearing up main street and cut behind the schoolhouse. We haven't seen it since. I dunno if it's still there."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL

That bigass German Tank makes a lot of noise. There's one entire aspect of the game that's lacking in the AAR's, Sound. I'll see about getting some of the 'battle ground sounds' up at TGN.

You'll be able to hear the Tank 'move away' or if it stops, then the tank sound effects just cease...

-Patrick

[Ben Galanti]

Steve,

A quick question that I think got swallowed up in another thread... What are all the 'generic units'? So far we've only seen a generic tank and halftrack. Do all vehicles fall under one of these two catagories before being ID'd? Specifically, Martin is seeing Fionn's Puma as a halftrack.. Is that just a misidentification by Martin's troops?

[Vetch]

Well, I've been lurking around here for a couple of months now watching the progress and just couldn't stand it anymore. Kudos to Steve and Charles for all their great and thoughtful work up to this point. I really respect your thought processes and decisions as to what's been implemented so far and how it's been done. I've been so hard up for my new AAR fix that I've taken to rereading all the reports for the previous turns over at TGN. While I was doing so I noticed that during the now famous showdown where Fionn's Stug took out Martin's Jumbo, the Jumbo had just been given the "Withdraw" command seconds before. I have no problem with your explanation that this tank was lost to the 1% critical hit chance, but I was just wondering if you checked the "Withdraw" code when you were looking at this just to make sure nothing funny was going on.

I also notice that it's become difficult for our two intrepid alpha testers to keep up with the insatiable demand for AAR's. If you need another alpha tester or two to start another game to keep those reports coming I'd be more than happy to offer my services...

Keep up the good work!

Vetch

[cannon]

I started this thread in Martin's, but I thought I should move it over here to maintain FOW. About that 50 cal. vs halftracks, neither Martin nor Fion have mentioned any halftracks taken out by one. Martin has had a couple of 50's blazing away on his southern flank with lot's of halftrack targets in view. Based on the chart that Pat referenced it looks like he would have a damn good chance of taking out several halftracks. I would think he would make them high priority targets with his 50's. However, Fion doesn't seem very concerned about 50 cal fire stopping his halftrack advances either. My question is whats going on down there. I know we're just getting a slice of the action. Have any of his halftracks been destroyed by MG fire? Are they too suppressed to be effective? Does MG fire just kill the crew and leave the vehicle ok?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Robert

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ben, there are three unique generic models for vehicles, but there is more variety with the actual guess displayed in the info panel (i.e. "M4 Medium Tank?"). The three models are Wheeled Vehcle, Light Armor, Med/Heavy Armor. We are using the generic HT to represent the Puma 'cause although wheeled would most likely be identified as an armored vehicle (that gun is a dead give away ).

Hi Vetch and welcome! Nah, the Withdraw order itself doesn't do anything to the armor and balistics stuff. No order does. Things like vector and velocity obviously matter, but the order itself is a non-issue. Martin was just VERY unlucky. We have read about many such lucky hits, including a bazooka shot taking out a Panther from 200m+ (up in a building, Panther still, the guy LOBBED the round onto the top of the vehicle IIRC).

Not sure Cannon, but Martin's .50cals are, from what I remember about 800m away. So hitting the HT from the front simply won't work. Hitting it from the side would, but I'm pretty sure Fionn hasn't given him many chances. I do know that Fionn has lost about 3 gunners from various small arms fire. A hit from a .50cal has a pretty good chance to whack the vehicle, not just kill the gunner. A .30cal would only be able to get the driver or a RARE freak hit to disable the vehicle. So I don't think anything is wrong here, but we will keep an eye on it.

Steve

[Dave]

Steve,

Are you and Charles happy with the way the alpha version of CM is performing so far in Fionn & Moon's battle? Is it's performance where you thought it would be, better, or worse?

[Doug Beman]

Is there hand to hand fighting in the game? At the rate those two are going, it'll be bareknuckles in the living room.

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dave,

I think our most common response to the AARs sums it up nicely:

"Dude, we made that?!?"

Yes, we knew we really had something good here. Have for over 1.5 years. But you know, until we had Martin and Fionn start slugging it out were really didn't understand how REALLY good it was. Sure, we enjoy bashing stuff in it, and sure, we think it feels right and realistic. But Fionn and Martin have gone absolutely nuts over the thing. The didn't even sleep the first weekend we gave them a copy. I am not kidding (well, neither did we, as there was a PBEM bug mid game for them ).

Fionn even admitted to us that he didn't think that the game was as good as we said it was before he saw it (healthy skepticism from someone who has seen lots of Alphas and Betas), but he will now tell you that after playing it CM is far BETTER than we said it was As an Alpha, it is certainly the best one I have ever played. This says a lot (I fell asleap WHILE playing an Alpha one time. Woke up and the mouse was still in my hand too!).

As far as the bugs and stuff, there have been a couple noted, and 2 that had to be fixed before the game could continue, but other than that no problemos that we didn't know about (i.e. stuff that isn't in yet at all).

In sort, we are all smiles over here. Tired smiles, but smiles none the less

Doug, yes, there is hand to hand combat, including fist fight sounds. Been LOTS of that in the last couple of turns as Martin cleans out the last enemy positions in the village.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-29-99).]

[Mike D]

Steve,

I'll forwarn you this is a loooooooonnnng post (that's what happens when I have a whole Sat. and Sun. without any battle reports to read so you only have yourself to blame ).

I'm picking this up from a while back on one of the earlier "Questions for Steve (General PBEM) threads where I asked about the possibility of including conditional reinforcements in CM. Your answer to this question was:

"Mike, the reinforcement conditions are quite simplistic (on purpose). There are 5 slots for each side, along with a corresponding marker for the map. Any number of units can be put into each slot. The slot has a turn to come into play and a percentage chance of that happening. That is about it. We didn't want to make it more involved because that would be unrealistic at CM's scale. If you had support it would either show up or not. Unlike TOAW (more strategic level) there is no time at CM's level to have variable forces come in due to variable situations."

I understand your point here. CM's time scale is so short that it wouldn't make much sense to have reinforcements arrive due to varying conditions on the battlefield since an average game only lasts, say 60 min. OK, that sounds reasonable to me. So my next question becomes what about campaign games???

Let's say a campaign is to cover 3 days w/ 2 battles per day, 6 battles total. Let's also assume that between the two battles each day there is a 2 to 3 hour break before the start of the next battle where both sides can rest, regroup, redeploy and most inportantly receive reinforcements. Also, after battles 2 and 4 there is a full night of rest prior to starting the subsequent battle the next day. This campaign is meant to model an attack by a German Panzer division on mixed US forces of infantry supported by some armor, AT and other elements in the Ardennes in late 1944. Since we know for the most part that CM is really designed to only handle battalion sized, or slightly larger engagements, I the scenario designer, give the Germans an SS PzGd Inf. Battalion w/ a supporting medium tank co. and a heavy tank platoon + other units to start the game. They also get standard reinforcements along the way. The Americans start out with only a std. Inf. Co., an Eng. Platoon., a Hv. Weap. Platoon, 2 57mm AT guns and 2 tank destroyers + other misc. support units including a few bazooka teams. They also receive standard predetermined reinforcements along the way. The Germans objective over the 3 days is to drive down a main road leading toward Bastogne, first securing a key road junction (battle 3 map 3) and further down the road taking a strategic hamlet overlooking the next valley (battle 6 map 6) which will be needed as a base of operations for further strikes on Bastogne itself.

The first of the six battles starts on day 1 and lasts 60 min's/turns. Like the current game being played out here on the board things don't go well for the Americans. In fact it goes about as bad as anyone can possibly imagine. Due to a combination of horrendous bad luck and a couple of bungled decisions on the US players part all of the US forces are nearly obliterated and the Germans advance virtually unscathed.

As part of the 2nd battle reinforcements I as the scenario designer have given the Americans a much needed medium tank company and another full inf. company along w/ 2 additional tank destroyers to bolster their depleted forces. Of course this was a pure guess on my part as far as what they should get, or might even need for that matter. The Germans only receive some minimal reinforcements (again, pure guess work here). The 2nd battle of day 1 begins and the gods of war once again don't shine on the Americans. They are once more virtually wiped out and the Germans advance virtually unpunished (lose 2 squads and 1 med. tank). The road lies open to the first of the two major objectives which sits in the middle of map 3 for battle 3, namely the key cross-roads junction.

Now I as the scenario designer figured that the Americans shouldn't have needed much in the way of reinforcements between battles 2 and 3 since the terrain they were defending in the second battle on map 2 was fairly defensible and they should have been able to at least defend it for most of the 60 min's/turns of this battle before withdrawing and inflict some significant losses on the Germans in the process. In fact, if they were lucky they might have even held the Germans right here. But alas, I guessed wrong. So for turn 3 I had only given the US player a minimal amount of additional reinforcements and having assumed that the Germans probably took some fairly heavy losses gave them another platoon of medium tanks and a reduced strength infantry company to aid in their assault to take the road junction. Once again, pure guess work on my part as the scenario designer.

Battle 3 now starts and the American are annihilated by the overwhelming German force that has survived Battles 1 and 2 and also just received significant reinforcements prior to the third battle in the campaign. And here I'll stop my little example and get to my first point.

Is this realistic??? Well, that depends. For one thing such an outcome is certainly possible in real life so we can't say that it is totally unrealistic now can we? On the other hand, however, I would strongly argue that if the US higher level command (regiment/division) knew about the situation in this sector after the 2nd battle and that the key road junction was now in serious jeopardy (the loss of which would cut-off nearly a regiment of US infantry fighting the Germans to the S.E. by the way) then they bloody well would have sent some strong reserves there to try and stop the Germans, right? So you say well Mr. Scenario Designer, just edit the scenario and give the US some adequate reinforcements between battles 2 and 3. Problem solved.

OK, let' say I do just that and edit the scenario as follows. The US gets an entire medium tank co., a TD platoon, and a reinforced co. of inf. prior to the beginning of the 3rd battle to defend the road junction. Whew, now they can defend the key road junction and have a fighting chance, no? Sounds great, right?? No more problems, right??? Well, maybe so, and maybe not……… It certainly would have worked for the battle as described above. But,……………..

Now we replay the scenario and just for the hell of it let's say the US commander now is an expert wargamer and the German player is a novice just to make things interesting (not that the exact same thing couldn't occur if both players were of equal skill of course). Battle 1 starts and the heavily outnumbered US forces fight a brilliant withdrawing action. They take virtually no losses and inflict some serious casualties on the Germans including knocking out 3 med. and 2 heavy tanks for the loss of only 1 of their own.

Now the 2nd battle starts. But this time it's the Germans that are in trouble. They've already taken more losses than they should have in the first battle and received virtually zero reinforcements for battle 2 (whoops, looks like Mikester the scenario designer guessed wrong once again). The Americans on the other hand have preserved almost their entire starting force from battle 1, and have also received some significant reinforcements as noted above. The battle starts and the Germans advance a short distance and are then butchered taking heavy losses. They take 3:1 losses vs. what they inflict on the US force and their advance is totally stalled. As a result the next battle, battle 3, starts on battle 2's map instead of battle 3's map (I think this is how the campaign works, right?).

The Germans get some much needed reinforcements before battle 3 (looks like I guessed right here, but then I really had no idea what would happen so it was just pure luck that I guessed "correctly") and the US player only receives minimal reinforcements as previously described. Battle 3 starts on map 2 and the Germans have a little better luck, but once again are stopped cold, this time in the middle of the map. Onwards to battle 4 of 6 where the Germans are still stuck on map 2 (The orginal Kampgruppe commander has already been shot by the Gestapo for incompetence by the way ). For battle 4 I'd only given both sides some marginal reinforcements so the US side remains strong facing a weakened German force having to advance through tough terrain. Again here I'll stop.

Question, in real life the German divisional/regiment higher command would have probably committed some additional reserve reinforcements to the battle prior to battle 3 starting on the 2nd map, right? They certainly couldn't afford to let their drive down a main road to a major objective like Bastogne get stalled. No, they couldn't. And after further getting bogged down after battle 3 and still being stuck in only the middle of map 2, when they should be starting map 4 (where the 4th battle would nominally begin) I would highly suspect they would send in even stronger reserve reinforcements vs. what I the scenario designer had guessed might be needed which in this case was virtually no reinforcements for both sides prior to battle 4.

So my question is this: How can I as the scenario designer possibly guess in advance what reinforcements should be allocated to such a sector for each side in between each of the 6 battle segments of the campaign when I have absolutely no idea what to expect as to the outcome of each of these segments. It seems to me that reinforcements between such actions/battles covering a number of days would largely be based on what was going on in that sector for each of the respective sides. For example, if I were the American regimental commander in the first example I gave I think that I might very well have sent more reinforcements from my reserves to this sector after seeing what transpired at the end of battle 2 and knowing that holding the road junction for battle 3 on map 3 would be extremely important as previously noted. Since there is a full night of rest between the end of battle 2 on day 1 and the start of battle 3 on day 2 it seems logical that the US commander would have had plenty of time during the night to send strong reinforcements to this area as opposed to the weak one's that I as the scenario designer had guessed would be adequate.

My next point is this: Should I as the scenario designer in a campaign game spanning a couple of days worth of action played out over several individual CM battles even be trying to guess at all as to the reinforcements / local reserves that higher level German and US command might deploy in between such a battles??????????

My answer is that I think not. There is absolutely no way for me as the scenario designer to accurately guess what reinforcements should realistically be allocated to either side in between the various battles because I have no way of knowing what is going to happen. No matter how hard one tries there are just too many variables involved in such an equation to even begin to try and guess. Granted, after playing the game over and over again and making adjustments to the scenario reinforcements over and over again some sort of an "average" quasi play balance equilibrium might at least be reached; but is this really realistic in and of itself??? Well we could discuss that one for a long time and never come up with a satisfactory answer I would imagine. I'll just leave it at, no, since my intention as the scenario designer was to simulate a German attack. So even if I had managed to tweak the scenario reinforcements on each side so that all things equal out most of the time (something that I think would be impossible to do in the first place I might add) then I've more than likely turned what was intended to be an attack scenario into what for all intents and purposes would be a meeting engagement of relatively equal forces. Worse still, I can easily see that it is likely that no matter how I guess, if things do go badly for on side or the other due to luck, poor decisions, etc. that the campaign game might quickly become unbalanced and probably much less fun for both parties involved.

So back to my belief that there is some necessity for conditional reinforcements. In my view this would be a much more realistic way for me as a scenario designer to simulate the allocation of reinforcements from higher level command reserves based on the unfolding of events as the forces fight through the individual battles. What I'm thinking here is say that the Germans get stuck on map two after battle 2. Then a condition could be set that would recognize they are now fighting battle 3 on map 2 instead of map 3 and allocate additional reserve forces 2 them to get them going again. If they continued to stay stuck on map 2 after the 3rd battle then they would get even heavier reinforcements prior to battle 4 (now being fought on map 2 instead of map 4 like it should be) to simulate German high command throwing strong reserves in to help break loose the situation. On the flip side the conditional reinforcements for the US player after the 2nd battle might actually end up being less (2nd ex. above) than what I had originally given them to reflect the regimental commander saying, "hey, those boys are doing all right up there on map 2 and due to the total uncertainty of what is going on in our divisional sector division command has told me to not commit any of my reserves until it is absolutely necessary." Other conditions based on % total losses, key objectives taken/not taken by the end of a given battle, and other factors might also be used to determine what, if any, reinforcements might be allocated to either side vs. me trying to guess what should be given to both sides; which again, in my view, isn't a very realistic way to simulate the deployement of higher level reserves as reinforcements to a given sector based on what is actually going on in that sector.

Would such a system be perfect??? Most likely not. Would conditional reinforcements bring us a step closer to the reality of how I believe reserves were actually committed in real life as reinforcements in a given given sector over time? I believe the answer to the question is yes. In addition I think that such a system would also provide some form of what I'll call "dynamic play balance" in that each side would receive reserves/reinforcements between the battles of a campaign to help even out the situation which again I think is more along the lines of realism assuming that such reserves were available in the first place. As a higher level regimental/divisional commander I think you would rarely allow a situation in a given sector (simulated here by a CM campaign) to deteriorate to such a point over several battles that a major stall of your offensive was starting to happen (like the German 2nd ex. above), or a major breakout was imminent (like the US 1st ex. above) in a given area. The end result of having conditional reinforcements to simulate the deployment of reservese between battles would therefore accomplish 3 things in my view:

1) My job as a scenario designer is made much easier in that I can more accurately and realistically deploy reserves to either side between battles based on how the series of campaign battles are actually going vs. pure guess work.

2) The liklihood of having a given scenario turn into a rout is greatly diminished since the game will automatically adjust both sides forces (via how many and what type of reinforcements they receive from reserve pools in between the battles) to some extent based on actual events unfolding during the campaign. This allows for a more realistic commitment of higher level reserves to the campaign and also keeps both sides in the game which in my opinion makes for a funner, more interesting game too.

3) Together with the non-conditional reinforcement capabilities already included in the game (which I assume includes the ability to deploy reinforcements based on a percentage chance both during a given battle, as well as in between games/battles of a campaign) I think the the addition of conditional reinforcements will help "round out" the set of tools available to the scenario designer to allocate reinforcements/reserves to both sides in a more realitic manner.

Sorry this post is so bloody long, but then you probably know who wrote it without even having to read the name.

Regards,

Mike D

Aka Mikester

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe.. Mike, you are breaking your own record here

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So my question is this: How can I as the scenario designer possibly guess in advance what reinforcements should be allocated to such a sector for each side in between each of the 6 battle segments of the campaign when I have absolutely no idea what to expect as to the outcome of each of these segments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you don't have any idea about what to expect as an outcome. But this is even more true than you think. You don't even know that it is going to be 6 battles, for example, nor do you know what terrain the battle is going to be fought on. So the "problem" is bigger than you realize.

Say I am on the attack and beat the snot out of you in battle one (could happen CM then decides to move the map back to a spot where you have an excellent defensive position. Battered but not beaten, you put up a great fight and cause me a lot of casualties. End result is that I still win, but the battle ends with you still having a decent chunk of your forces in the same positions you started out in. Next battle the map only moves a bit. You still hold that defensive line, but this time you get reinforcements. Now you are stronger. I get some reinforcements, but was punished too much, so I basically sit out a battle and nothing much happens. Next battle I get something and you get something, I attack with my brains fully engaged and kick you out of your positions...

See, who knows what will happen. The point here is that we don't want either side to get reinforcements based on losses simply to balance the game. If you screw up and can't make good on your mistake, you will lose. Therefore our reinforcement system makes sense. Either your higher ups allocate reinforcements or they don't. In real war the importance of the battle has little to do with reserves some times. Poor saps defending Remagan Bridge found this out "the Americans are coming over the bridge!! What should we do?!?" "Hold them of course" "With what, we need reinforcements" "Der Fuhrer is confident you can make do with what you have" Reinforcements did come, but only after the bridge was firmly in US hands and significant forces were on the other side. Germans lost, plain and simple.

The Campaign designer should simply keep an eye on the total number of points being racked up by the units being purchased. If he thinks it is going to be a tough defensive battle, then give the attacker a higher percentage over the defender. Is this a good indication of fairness? Considdering the attacker could loose ALL its armor on the first turn of the first battle, or hold onto the same armor for 4 or 5 battles, it is as good as can be expected.

BTW, a CM Campaign will likely not go for more than about a day and a half's worth of fighting. I doubt you will ever see a game that goes through two night turns. So multiple day issues aren't.

Still, nobody has beta tested a campaign yet, so the Jury is still out on our design. Right now we see no need to change it as the same system is in the single scenarios right now (i.e. each side gets stuff or doesn't, with no regard to progress or status) and works very well.

Steve

[Doug Beman]

Way back when sometime, BTS said "we will not have campaigns that reward the player's incompetence, or even sheer bad luck, with additional forces." I don't remember offhand all the reasons they gave, but I agreed with their decision, because it forces players to make good decisions (and good decisions can often form a bulwark against bad luck) I'm fully aware that I am constantly going to curse this decision as I play campaigns, since I'm not the best commander in the virtual army, but knowing that I gotta do it right the first time will, hopefully, make me better.

To echo what BTS said about "either they allocate reserves or they don't," I think Bastogne is a good example of that. Despite the importance of this town, the Germans didn't allocate appropriate forces until it was too late. The Americans, OTOH, rushed whatever they could get their hands on there as fast as it could go.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 08-29-99).]

[Oly]

Steve: I'm usually able to keep up with all of the posts on this board, but with this battle going on, it's been really hard. I can't even imagine what it's like on your end! I just have a quick question about the ice covered river. Could Martin use artillery or tank fire to break up the ice and keep the advancing Germans from crossing the river (as the Americans did) and force Fionn's troops to cross at the bridge? I would think that this would greatly impact Fionn's advance. If this question has been covered elsewhere, please let me know. Thanks.

[fatherof4]

Oly,

In an earlier post in the Topic: Questions for Steve (General PBEM) #1, Steve said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We treat ice as being frozen enough for troops to pass over, but not tanks or other vehicles. My tank drivers manual staes that a 20 ton vehicle needs 16 inches of ice and a 46ton vehicle 2 feet of ice to drive over. Rivers aren't going to provide this very often in NW Europe.

No, artillery can't break up ice. We decided that ice that is thin enough to have a roughly 10mx20m stretch broken up is too thin to be walked on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope this helps.

[Zackary]

Mike,

I understand the two big reasons you want a system of condition-triggered reinforcements: (1) improves game balance, and (2) potentially reflects real world reinforcement decisions. Such a system would be nice to use once in a while, but I don't think should be the norm.

First, it punishes success. If you kick my tail in battle 1 and battle 2, why should you be robbed of your victory because of my incompetence (which is the net effect of giving me big reinforcements to offset my losses)?

Second, you posit that this is a sector gone bad for the army with the unexpectedly large losses. When I play these squad level games, I generally posit that the results in my sector are emblematic of the entire engagement. (It's not much fun to kick the snot out of your opponent, only to find out that your army was creamed on the rest of the battlefield, and therefore ordered to withdraw; your accomplishments therefore counting for naught.) Thus, if you put it to me in the first two battles, I globalize that to your army putting it to my army in the overall battle. Thus, my HQ is equally strapped across all sectors and has no additional reserves to give to me.

The fact of the matter is that your army's mission changes with critical battlefield successes or losses. In your example, if the Yanks put it to the German attackers in battles 1 and 2, then the German mission in battles 3-6 likely changes from capturing the key cross-roads/town, to defend against the Yank counter-attack.

I would write a little more, but I have an incomplete view of how victory points are earned, so I'll just leave it at that.

In conclusion, I understand what you are trying to accomplish with a system of conditional reinforcements and I think it would be fun to play the game that way occasionally, but I would oppose using that system as the norm (or at all in tournament play).

------------------

Zackary

[Dar]

Steve:

In turn 12, was one of Martin's infantry teams fired on with a Panzerfaust while it was in the open or in a building? I've read of German infantry using the Panzerfaust against infantry in buildings, but was it effective against infantry in the open?

LOVE the grenade-tossing sequences! Are there hand-to-hand, bayonet-slashing, entrenching-tool-hacking sequences, too?

Just curious,

Dar Steckelberg