Squad-level or what?

[Marko]

On the front page of http://www.battlefront.com I read the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Combat Mission is the ULTIMATE simulation of Company level WWII combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that this was a squad-level game. The base unit is the squad, right? Shouldn't the description be based on the base unit?

Marko

[Guest Big Time Software]

Eh, now you are getting into one of the worst gray areas of wargames; definition of scale...

We have gone back and forth on what to call Combat Mission. Yes, the lowest unit is a Squad/Team, but the scope of each battle is usually measured in platoons and companies. To call CM a "squad" game brings up SL/ASL and CC images of what the game's scope is like. This is not the correct picture to paint. So, keeping this in mind, what do you think we should call CM? Tough one, isn't it?

Steve

[Rhet]

Marko, I think what they are trying to get across is that the engagement level is on the order of a company. To call it a squad level game would conjure up something like Commandos.

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

Rhet

[Marko]

I agree it's a tough one. Here's my feeling on the issue. I think that the smallest unit of simulation is more easily defined than the scope of simulation. The smallest unit in CM is the squad/team. But it's up to the CM scenario designer to determine how big the battle will be. He might want only a couple of squads involved on either side. Or he might make it a battalion! Of course, his upper limit is defined by the game designer.

In other words, the smallest scale is set in stone, while the scope of each battle varies. Since I would rather base the game description on an invariant game element, so I would call CM a squad-level game, and Commandos a human-level game. Actually, I would call Commandos something else, but there may be children viewing this.

Marko

[Brian Rock]

I'd describe it as a WWII tactical game that lets players simulate a range of battles from platoon-sized skirmishes up to battalion level actions. Of course the original is pithier... and close enough for me.

Unlike Marko I tend to think the scope of potential battles is more important than the size of the units commanded - but I take his point.

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

I think we should say CM kicks <FONT COLOR=#FF000>a§§</FONT> and takes no names.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 05-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

John, good suggestion but it doesn't answer at what scale CM kick's ass

Marko, one problem we have with using "squad" all the time is that it is so tightly associated with Squad Leader and more recently Close Combat. The games are really very different, and do not wish to be tagged to either of them.

But in the end there are two ways of defining a game scale. There is lowest unit size and then there is force scope. Personally, we fall into the "scope" camp. You will never have a game based on a single squad, so we feel it is wrong to call it "squad level". The smallest sized battle you will ever have will be at least platoon size, but since these will be rare, calling CM a "platoon" game is wrong too. Battalion is also something that we should avoid because it is the upper limit just like platoon is the lower limit. This leaves us with "Company Level".

Since there are two ways to describe CM, we are thinkig of stating: "Combat Mission is a company-level simulation in which the units are squads, teams, and individual tanks and guns." This should get the message accross to both camps

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-19-99).]

[Marko]

BTS wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Marko, one problem we have with using "squad" all the time is that it is so tightly associated with Squad Leader and more recently Close Combat. The games are really very different, and do not wish to be tagged to either of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very understandable. Market perception is something I hadn't considered. Your subsequent description of Combat Mission is a good compromise between the two camps. Anyway, I doubt that CM will ever be successfully pigeonholed, except perhaps, as one damned fine game!

Marko

[Pixman]

Call it whatever you want, but to say that CM is not the same in scale as SL/ASL is, in my humble opinion, flat wrong.

The pieces in SL represent rifle squads, crewed weapons and their crews, individual AFVs, soft vehicles such as jeeps, kubelwagens and deuce and halfs, individual airplanes. The terrain represents multilevel individual buildings, trees, stone walls, hedges, wheatfields, shellholes, etc.

When I look at the screen shots for CM and read all of these posts, what do I learn? That the units and weapons are scaled to the exact level listed above and that the negotiable terrain is identical as well. There is even all that excitement about the shadow of the Jabo coming over and taking out the AFV. Where is the difference in scale?

With regard to scenario size, the typical CM scenario also sounds to be about the same as in SL -- 10 to 20 squads per side, 5 or so crewed weapons and anywhere from 0 to 20 AFVs and soft vehicles. Again, where is the difference?

I understand the desire to distinguish your product from SL/ASL and the CC suite. Especially given the early team-up with AH and the obvious flaws in CC. However, the one place you cannot do that is in "scale". From a command standpoint (the perspective from which this wargamer views a game), SL/ASL, CC and CM are virtually identical in scale. Why? Because no matter which I play, the units I give orders to are squads, crews and individual vehicles (and in SL/ASL airplanes). The fact that the 3 game systems all carry out the orders and resolve their effects very differently has nothing to do with scale.

I applaud all of BTS' efforts to distinguish CM by making it more historically accurate, more realistic in terms of AI and combat resolution and most importantly of all -- (re)playable. But scale? You won't convince me. CM is a squad level game if there ever was one. And man am I looking forward to it!

With regard to BTS' request for suggestions on how to describe a game's scale, here's my .02. I believe that scale should be defined as the smallest unit modeled in the fighting. Civil War Generals 2 (a game obviously familiar to the CM designers, and a damn good one I might add), offers battles at the "brigade" and "regiment" levels. This terminology is based on the size of the units in the fight and seems to cause no confusion. One caveat, CWG3 will be multi-scaled. That is, it will have a strategic level where whole army decisions as well as sociopolitical and economic decisions will be made (you can be Lincoln or Davis). At the same time, it will still allow battle at the regiment and brigade levels (although Impressions is moving to a real time engine instead of the IGOUGO system of its 2 predecessors). If I had to print something on that box or a promo web page, I would call it "multi-scaled" and describe it as both Strategic and Tactical. But, no matter what, I would make very clear the size of the units commanded in battle. To stay consistent then:

"CM is a tactical simulation where each player commands squads, crews and individual vehicles in battle."

By the way, I recognize that nowhere in this diatribe did I address "time" scale. Again, from my command perspective, I really do not care about the time scale of the simulation. For me, time is defined as how long it takes me to issue my orders and complete a turn (or the same factors for my opponent if he is an even worse slowpoke than me).

Pixman

[Pixman]

Quick follow up to my previous post. It is clear that if you added the words "company sized" before "battle" in my description, it would be almost identical to the description Steve submitted that appeases both camps. Like Marko, I think this dual approach works fine. But CM will still always be a squad game to me!

[Guest Big Time Software]

The problem is that there is no right or wrong way to describe a game's scale. Some choose to base it on the lowest unit, others chose to base it on the scope. Close Combat really should be called a "Soldier Level" game or at most "Team Level" if using the lowest unit definition, but most people think of it as "Squad Level". Road To Moscow technically is a company or battalion level game if you go by lowest unit, but really is a corps or army level game in terms of scope. Same for something like War In Russia, where the lowest unit is a division, but it really is a game about armies.

In the end it doesn't matter what we, or anybody else, calls it in terms of scale. It is only a label. The game will be the same if you call it Soldier Level or Army Group Level

Steve