How to defend?

[Mord]

Chaotic indeed. I have to fight the tendency to concentrate on one or two platoons or tanks and leave the rest of my units to fight for their own lifes. It is almost impossible to keep an eye on all units. Things are happening so much faster than in CM1, the advance of tanks for instance. They look like Formula 1 cars to me sometimes, it's great to see, but it leaves little time to react.

Unless you are playing RT I can't see how it's impossible to keep an eye on all your units. 60 seconds in CMX1 is the same as 60 seconds in CMX2. The best way to play for me, is I divide the battlefield into sectors. Either drawing a couple imaginary lines down the map, maybe into thirds...or by hotspots involving various firefights. I start at one spot on the map view the turn, go to another spot do the same and so on and so forth. I rarely have ever missed anything. And if something cool happens well, then I watch it from many angles!

Mord.

[Mord]

I think CMx2 is more of a tank game than CMx1. Despite, or perhaps because of, infantry 1-1 modeling I find infantry to be significantly less useful than in CMx1.

That's funny. I find them 10x more useful and way more interesting. I always felt CMX1 was a tank oriented game and the infantry were secondary.

Mord.

[Vanir Ausf B]

More interesting, I agree. But they seem more vulnerable, particularly to explosives. By contrast, artillery is more flexible and the smaller calibers at least are more lethal than in CMx1. Tanks are more resilient (crews less willing to bail), no longer get "shocked" when taking a casualty, are more accurate and benefit from increased HE lethality. Infantry do have more ammo than in CMx1, but they have had their ability to fire AT rockets from the cover of buildings taken away and bear the brunt of the increased HE power.

In CMx1 QB PBEMs I purchased infantry heavy forces. Infantry was the queen of the CMx1 battlefield, with armor and artillery playing a support role. It seems to me that armor is now the dominant arm of the battlefield with infantry mainly just there to flush out hiding enemy units so the HE chuckers can win the battle.

At least that's my impression. I haven't actually started PBEMing in CMBN yet so it remains to be seen if my planned armor heavy QB picks will hold up when put to the test.

[womble]

... the...problems...with CM2 over CM1 are...a result of loving the huge combined arms maneuver battles, and not liking the small infantry-focused scenarios.

...CM1 enables me (and others like me) to more efficiently and pleasurably play the huge scenarios with 3 battalions assorted infantry on each side with several companies of tanks and other vehicles.

Eventually, maybe we'll be able to do that in CM2. But, I predict that due to the increased detail/granularity and lethality of CM2, any huge scenarios will take a looong time to complete and be hard work to play well/carefully. The scale and abstractions needed to play on that scale is where CM1 still shines.

You're probably right. There's a scale difference of about 2.5:1 between the two games. The linear ground scales is 20:8. The number of infantry units is about 4:10. (The number of infantry entities actually modelled is probably closer to 8:1, but that doesn't impact the management much).

Perhaps if you take that into account when setting up your forces, you'll enjoy the game more? Your proportion of points spent on armour would increase over someone who was prepared to slog through stacks of infantry, but you could certainly take a Battalion of infantry (similar number of elements to manage if you split your teams to 3 Bttn of CMx1 troops) and a company of tanks, though you'd have to do like the DungeonTiger and Ian Leslie did for the 20k-pointer they are AARing on the forum at the moment, I think; tank companies are expensive.

You would still need to consider the ground scale increase, which is what makes cover depth relevant.

Another approach might be to not split your squads, giving you roughly the same number of infantry elements per Battalion, and consider the terrain in blocks of 4 (or 9) tiles. Then you'd be playing a squad level game on a grid of 16mx16m (or 24mx24m) squares. Much closer to CMx1. You'd probably have to design some maps on this basis, with enough large enough clumps of concealment to not always have your squads with a team exposed, since most maps are designed with more detail to take advantage of the finer grain. Sort of a "retro" sparse map look.

[JonS]

huge scenarios with 3 battalions assorted infantry on each side with several companies of tanks and other vehicles.

Remembering, of course, that CMx1 had absolutely zero (0) tank organisations.

[sburke]

Unless you are playing RT I can't see how it's impossible to keep an eye on all your units. 60 seconds in CMX1 is the same as 60 seconds in CMX2. The best way to play for me, is I divide the battlefield into sectors. Either drawing a couple imaginary lines down the map, maybe into thirds...or by hotspots involving various firefights. I start at one spot on the map view the turn, go to another spot do the same and so on and so forth. I rarely have ever missed anything. And if something cool happens well, then I watch it from many angles!

Mord.

I look at it by organization. I go first at the Company level to view how how the overall positioning of the entire company is, then I cycle through at the platoon level and finally the Co assets to see how they fill in and support the platoons and then on to the next company (assuming there is more than one). I feel it has the added advantage of making you pay close attention to your C2 status.

That's funny. I find them 10x more useful and way more interesting. I always felt CMX1 was a tank oriented game and the infantry were secondary.

Mord.

Not sure about the characterization, but infantry certainly LOOKS more interesting now so I think I spend more time checking them out than I ever did in CMx1.

Rankorian's ideas reminded me that the increased problems I have with CM2 over CM1 are primarily as a result of loving the huge combined arms maneuver battles, and not liking the small infantry-focused scenarios.

I need to emphasize that am not trying to convince folks that CM1 is superior in all ways, it's that CM1 enables me (and others like me) to more efficiently and pleasurably play the huge scenarios with 3 battalions assorted infantry on each side with several companies of tanks and other vehicles.

Eventually, maybe we'll be able to do that in CM2. But, I predict that due to the increased detail/granularity and lethality of CM2, any huge scenarios will take a looong time to complete and be hard work to play well/carefully. The scale and abstractions needed to play on that scale is where CM1 still shines. I also know that there are many here who enjoy and want small infantry-based battles. ...And that is the basis for 90%+ of the disagreements and misunderstandings here.

Erwin please don't take this the wrong way, it isn't meant to be a bitchy snide response. There is nothing wrong with liking CMx1 better. There is no magic one size fits all wargame and there is nothing to say that for person X CMx1 is /isn't a better game than CMx2. It is all a subjective choice. If you find CMx2 to be more frustration than fun, then hell play CMx1. Life is short, there is no reason to butt your head up against something you find you aren't enjoying.

There will likely be a day when Computer processing power is such that running a battle that large runs just as smooth as a squad level battle. Whether it won't simply overwhelm you in units is another question, but perhaps there will be additional UI info that will make it all more manageable. Anything is possible, but in the meantime play what is fun for you.

[Mord]

Not sure about the characterization, but infantry certainly LOOKS more interesting now so I think I spend more time checking them out than I ever did in CMx1.

Probably because of things we've discussed before like their ability to NOT target only one unit, as well as them not all breaking, surrendering, fleeing at the same time. Leaders are no longer the last to die which can effect the overall command. The splitting of various teams not just two groups that get penalized because their firepower modifier is halved. The ability to get MG and mortars crews across the map without it taking half the game.

Mord.

[Aragorn2002]

Unless you are playing RT I can't see how it's impossible to keep an eye on all your units. 60 seconds in CMX1 is the same as 60 seconds in CMX2. The best way to play for me, is I divide the battlefield into sectors. Either drawing a couple imaginary lines down the map, maybe into thirds...or by hotspots involving various firefights. I start at one spot on the map view the turn, go to another spot do the same and so on and so forth. I rarely have ever missed anything. And if something cool happens well, then I watch it from many angles!

Mord.

I do play realtime actually, since I think that is the most realistic. Having said that, I probably should consider playing turnbased games. I used to love watching the battle from all angles playing CMBB and CMAK. Don't know why I don't do that anymore. Especially since CMBN has so much more eye candy to offer.

[Erwin]

sburke: I keep saying that I enjoy playing CM2.

I happen to be in a CM1 tourny right now at WeBoB where both sides do have several battalions plus a lot of armor and we're all having a "blast". But, I definitely want to get back to some unfinished CMSF, CMBN and CMFI campaigns. Alas, time limits etc...

My comment was regarding my impression that each iteration of CM2 seems to get harder and more time-consuming (to play well).

Maybe I play the CM2 system differently to you. My subjective "victory conditions" are that one needs to win the game with x<5% casualties to record a good win. Winning the objectives but suffering 10% is pyrrhic at best. More than 10% is a loss in my book regardless of what the game system result screen says.

And getting these results in CM2 (even vs AI) is usually very hard and getting harder it seems.

And Aragorn... not to start a new flame war or anything, but RT gives you god-like powers of instant reaction of every unit you control, which even today's military can't achieve. That's why Real Men play WEGO.

[A Canadian Cat]

The best way to play for me, is I divide the battlefield into sectors <snip> or by hotspots involving various firefights. I start at one spot on the map view the turn, go to another spot do the same and so on and so forth. I rarely have ever missed anything. And if something cool happens well, then I watch it from many angles!

Totally the way I play big battles too. I have that large 20 000 point "quick" battle DAR going here "http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105660" that battle is still very much in the recon and move to contact phase but it will get more interesting soon I am sure. But even now that is exactly how I am playing it. There are four separate actions on the go right now. Two are very quiet but there is a bit of fire exchanged between recon elements. Plus a third is looking like contact is imminent. In that battle I have over two battalions of units (check out the thread to see the force composition - do not want to give too much away to my opponent here). It does take an hour or so to play a turn with all those units.

If you divide the battle into chunks you can handle it with a bit of patience. I have also arranged things so that two of my current PBEM games are platoon sized or less to help compensate for the time I need to spend on the big one.

[A Canadian Cat]

Another approach might be to not split your squads,

I usually operate in a compromise way in this regard - at least for large battles. When my infantry are moving to contact the squads stay together. Once contact is closer then I split some squads to allow for some forward elements - still not all of them. Then once the pointy end hit something then I start splitting squads as they move to take action / cover. This way I am not herding three times the number of cats right from the start and only take the added pain of more units to manage gradually as needed.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

And Aragorn... not to start a new flame war or anything... [snip]

That's why Real Men play WEGO.

Great way to not start a flame war!

Seriously, if you don't want to start a flame war, don't say stuff that belittles people who have different preferences/points of view. It's fine to say, "I prefer WEGO and here's why" (which is what the rest of that paragraph is, and to which I do not object in the slightest), but if you're not trying to start a flame war, then don't say inflammatory stuff.

OK, that's my rant for the day.

-FMB

[Broadsword56]

My subjective "victory conditions" are that one needs to win the game with x<5% casualties to record a good win. Winning the objectives but suffering 10% is pyrrhic at best. More than 10% is a loss in my book regardless of what the game system result screen says.

Wow, Erwin, those really are some tough subjective victory conditions you're setting for yourself. To each his own, but I tend to look at things in light of what I've been able to learn about WWII and casualties/unit cohesion:

For a U.S. battalion in NW Europe with an attack mission, the "breakpoint" (when a battalion typically couldn't continue attacking and would have to switch over to defense, or get relieved, etc.) was somewhere around 15% casualties*. That's 15% of the total battalion TO&E (which includes all the cooks, medics, HQ personnel, etc., that aren't represented in CM). But because the vast majority of those casualties were concentrated the rifle companies, it means the actual casualty percentage breakpoint in the units we're playing with in CM would be quite a bit higher than 15%.

Battalions on defense, of course, could take more punishment before breaking. Which also makes sense to me.

(* A gross generalization, of course -- cohesion can depend on who gets hit, since the loss of one good officer at a key moment might devastate a unit, and the time frame of the losses -- since losing a lot of men in an hour would hurt a unit's combat effectiveness more than the same number of losses stretched over days or weeks.)

[womble]

...I have over two battalions of units...It does take an hour or so to play a turn with all those units.

Cripes. It takes me an hour to do a turn with a company... :-/

Not that I begrudge that time; it's all "time playing with toy soldiers", and whether any given screen entity represents 2, 10 or 10000 men doesn't make much of a never mind to me

[Aragorn2002]

Great way to not start a flame war!

Seriously, if you don't want to start a flame war, don't say stuff that belittles people who have different preferences/points of view. It's fine to say, "I prefer WEGO and here's why" (which is what the rest of that paragraph is, and to which I do not object in the slightest), but if you're not trying to start a flame war, then don't say inflammatory stuff.

OK, that's my rant for the day.

-FMB

Let's keep it civil and relaxed, guys. This has been a very informative and interesting thread so far, please let's keep it that way.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Let's keep it civil and relaxed, guys. This has been a very informative and interesting thread so far, please let's keep it that way.

Will do. Was trying to calm it down myself but I don't think I did a very good job.

-FMB

[Erwin]

Interesting point re casualties Broadsword. Are you saying 15% is "acceptable"? (Or, does anyone have info on what sort of casualties would be considered "acceptable" for the front line combat troops that CM features?)

And FMB, the WEGO vs RT debate has been going on for so many years I hoped everyone saw it was a joke. I often forget that not everyone has good English. So, my apologies for getting your knickers in a twist.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

And FMB, the WEGO vs RT debate has been going on for so many years I hoped everyone saw it was a joke. I often forget that not everyone has good English. So, my apologies for getting your knickers in a twist.

Heh, no worries. It worked the opposite way for me--I was so sick and tired of the WEGO vs RT debate that I automatically assumed you were 100% serious. I also wasn't in a great frame of mind when I posted, either. No hard feelings either way, then!

-FMB

[Broadsword56]

Interesting point re casualties Broadsword. Are you saying 15% is "acceptable"? (Or, does anyone have info on what sort of casualties would be considered "acceptable" for the front line combat troops that CM features?)

No. There just wouldn't be any overall way to say what was considered acceptable. It's just so relative.

I suppose it would have depended on what the commander's objective was, the how intensively he was expected to pursue it, how much time he had to achieve it, and the resources available to achieve it.

For example, I'm in a battle now where a US battalion + assets has force-marched to try and make a lightning grab of a village strongpoint that -- if captured -- would open the highway to Saint-Lo and might be the last chance for the US to win this campaign. The command's "acceptable" casualty levels for a battle like that would be much higher than if the situation were a probe to find and fix the enemy, a rearguard action, etc. But no matter how many casualties the commander would "accept," there's a limit to what flesh-and-blood soldiers can endure. And that's where the cohesion breakpoint -- 15% (or whatever the percentage really would be in a CM unit) -- comes in.

In our operational campaigns using CM, we've set the cohesion breakpoint of attacking battalions at 35-40% of personnel, and defending battalions at 70-80%. Is that realistic? I don't know. But incorporating these sorts of factors does seem to push battles in more realistic directions than ones where players can fight to the last man.

If you don't have an operational level to set up these situations, one way to do it is to just think a bit more before setting up a HTH battle about what the wider context and storyline could be - just make one up -- and then adjust the supply, forces, etc., to simulate that. In battles vs. the AI, well, the situation and victory conditions are already set up for you.

Some of what was "acceptable" was culturally influenced...

In Normandy, I've read, American infantry units tended to break off attacks sooner than German units would -- if the going got too tough, they'd rely on ample armor and artillery, and had air superiority.

The British are sometimes said to have been especially casualty-averse, because with a more limited manpower pool they didn't have the resources to keep replacing troops this late in the war at the rate the Americans could. Monty and British commanders of the WWI generation were especially keen not to repeat the wholesale slaughter of that war. Others might say they just fought "smarter," using their artillery and combined arms better and more often than the less experienced Americans.

With Germans or Soviets, you've got troops fighting under a dictatorship, which could and did press their troops harder and more often. Even after patriotism wore off as a reason to keep fighting, their fear of military discipline kept them fighting and obeying orders as long as they feared that discipline more than the enemy.

[Erwin]

"there's a limit to what flesh-and-blood soldiers can endure...'

Yes, I was hoping there was some researcher here who had some % figures like that... Am sure that sort of thing must be calculated at GHQ.

[JonS]

No, Broadsword56 is right: it depends. Extreme examples abound.

The first wave landing units on all five D-Day beaches were expected to suffer MUCH greater cas than they did. 116 INF came close, with A Company losing 96% before their feet were dry, but 116 INF remained functional

9th Armd Bde was sent out onto the front face of Mitiyera Ridge on 2 Nov 1942, with Montgomery expecting it to take up to 100% losses. It didn't get quite that bad - by the end of the day the Bde still had 24 operational tanks. Out of 105. The Bde remained functional.

After the Brigade's action, Brigadier Gentry of the 6th New Zealand Brigade went ahead to survey the scene. On seeing Brigadier Currie asleep on a stretcher, he approached him saying, 'Sorry to wake you John, but I'd like to know where your tanks are?' Currie waved his hand at a group of tanks around him, replying 'There they are.' Gentry was puzzled. 'I don't mean your headquarters tanks, I mean your armoured regiments. Where are they?' Currie waved his arm and again replied, 'There are my armoured regiments, Bill.’

[sburke]

Accepted casualty rates in the West could sometimes be ridiculously high as well. The fighting in the Huertgen was as about as senseless a meatgrinder as there was and it didn't stop US commanders from just throwing division after division in. I won't even start on Italy.

[Broadsword56]

"there's a limit to what flesh-and-blood soldiers can endure...'

Yes, I was hoping there was some researcher here who had some % figures like that... Am sure that sort of thing must be calculated at GHQ.

Well Erwin, FWIW, I took that percentage figure from a Defense Department study called "Casualties as a Measure of the Loss of Combat Effectiveness of an Infantry Battalion." It was done during the Cold War but analyzed data from all the US battalions engaged in WWII. You can find it online, if you really want to geek out on this topic:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0059384&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

IIRC, the study pretty much concluded that there could be no universal measure of the relationship between casualties and cohesion level, but they did identify various factors affecting the relationship between the two, and how "breakpoints" could vary depending on the type of mission, how long the unit had been fighting, etc.

[Mord]

Maybe I play the CM2 system differently to you. My subjective "victory conditions" are that one needs to win the game with x<5% casualties to record a good win. Winning the objectives but suffering 10% is pyrrhic at best. More than 10% is a loss in my book regardless of what the game system result screen says.

And there in lies the rub...It's about personality not reality. We are talking 1940's not 2000+. If you had 100 guys, 5% would be 5 casualties! To break it down in the simplest of terms, that's a single Sherman brew up with no survivors.

I completely get your judging yourself by how you played/losses compared to the final tally but man, that's extreme. That's extreme for CMSF. You've set yourself up for failure before you hit the go button. I am all about playing to win but it's the ride that's most important and when you set the bar beyond reach you are doomed.

So, basically most of these discussions have boiled down to CMX2 isn't as fun (IE:is more like work) as CMX1 because you can't achieve battlefield statistics that would be hard to accomplish in real life?

Mord.

[John Kettler]

We certainly know what kind of casualties are acceptable when a "Hold at all costs" order is issued to a defending force or Stalin decreed "Not one step back," just as we know what it means when an attack order from the Commonwealth side of the house has "at all hazards" included in it regarding seizure of some vital objective by a particular time. In either case, as long as the military task is fulfilled, HQ will be quite happy.

In between those extremes lie a host of gradations, themselves affected by all manner of factors, such as operating environment,supply status, fatigue levels, experience levels, casualties recently taken or not; soldier morale and motivation, leaders or lack thereof, sleep adequacy, particularly for leaders; belief in the cause, or lack thereof, countervailing factors, such as field tribunals and barricade(?) units.

Taking but one of these, sleep for the leaders and the led, let's look at what a U.S. Army study from the mid 1980s found regarding the functionality of a rifle platoon after 24 hours without sleep.

The GIs were found to be 80% as effective doing infantry combat tasks as their baseline rested performance. Not bad. Surprisingly good, in fact. But what of the platoon leader? His baseline performance fell off a cliff, going from normal to a shocking 25%! Now consider that good officers always see to their men before themselves, as Field Marshal Slim so eloquently and emphatically put it in Burma

"I tell you as officers, that you will not eat, sleep, smoke, sit down, or lie down until your soldiers have had a chance to do these things. If you hold to this, they will follow you to the ends of the earth; if you do not, will break you in front of your regiments."

This is reproduced from the full length article here, to which I commend your attention

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/mipb/1997-2/courtney.htm

"Houston, we have a problem."

This sleep deprived officer performance collapse was probably NOT generally known of, let alone compensated for, during World War II. To be sure, there were some savvy NCOs who saw to it that the "Old Man" got some shut eye, despite his wanting to tend to the men. So, now we can have a really hot unit, with the men nominally fatigued, as per above because of extended combat, forced march or what have you, but the HQs could quite reasonably be modeled, in such a scenario, as being significantly down in several areas, as a way of representing the effects of sleep deprivation. Sound decision making and sleep deprivation do NOT play well together!

I think what I've outlined might be a good way to nuance the game, and it helps make comprehensible some of the terrible mistakes great commanders have made historically.

Napoleon at Waterloo

http://amolife.com/personality/great-people-sleep-less.html

"Low sleep diet did not translate well to Napoleon's military skills. Some contemporaries attribute his errors at Waterloo to sleep deprivation."

http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/Waterloo/Water-8.htm

"It is night. Napoleon 's sleep is often interrupted by the arrival of messengers. At 1 o'clock in the morning, he mounts on horseback and under heavy rain, he reconnoitres his outposts, accompanied by general Bertrand."

This is conducive to good decision making how?

Consider Lee at Gettysburg. An absolutely brilliant commander, thus a high HQ rating, but look at the operational degradation factors. (Fair Use)

http://www.historynet.com/robert-e-lee

"In June, Lee again led his troops in an invasion of the North, this time striking into Pennsylvania. He was not well, physically or emotionally. The symptoms of heart disease were becoming evident, and the general still grieved the death of his 23-year-old daughter, Anne Carter Lee, the previous October. He had also lost his "right arm," Stonewall Jackson, who had been mortally wounded by his own men at Chancellorsville."

Additional details

http://civilwarmed.blogspot.com/2008/06/medical-department-18-lees-health-at.html

Abstract from Dr. Mainwaring's article, cited in piece at link immediately above

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1542842

Given time and energy, I could doubtless cite many more examples, but I think I've made my point. Because HQs are separately modeled from the units they command, we now have a way to depict loads of things we never thought much about before. If the troops are tired and in bad shape, then imagine what shape their "fearless leaders" must be in! Not only do tired and/or unwell, distracted leaders make lots more mistakes, but they execute more slowly than their better rested and/or healthier selves, thus missing opportunities to a) smash the enemy or at least limit the damage some ill judged action, already under way at their behest, is likely to cause. This explains how brilliant leaders can fail catastrophically when it matters most.

Regards,

John Kettler