Guest Big Time Software Posted September 12, 1999 Share Posted September 12, 1999 I spent some time this morning at an ecological plot in a near by nature center. They have one hectare (sp?) divided up for cataloging tree growth, flora, etc. Once every 5 years they will log EVERYHING in that area. Lots of work! Well, interestingly enough, the area was divided up and marked off into 20mx20m squares. I felt like I was IN Combat Mission I was sitting in the middle of this thing, in thick woods, on the side of a mountain slope. The most striking thing was... 20mx20m is REALLY SMALL. I mean, as in, 1 squad small. Putting more than 2 squads in such a small space would be a bad idea under fire. There really isn't room to be deployed safely. OK, so what does this have to do with anything? Anybody that thinks that 20mx20m isn't a good size for a tile at CM's level should go out and mark their own 20mx20m plot and see for themselves. It is perfect Just thought I would share! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted September 12, 1999 Share Posted September 12, 1999 Uh, 5.8sq m. per man of a 12 man squad and 7.1sq m. per man of an 8 man squad. That is crowded. Too crowded. No wonder arty wrecks such havoc. SPREAD OUT GUYS! KEEP YOUR INTERVALS! It is a strong arguement for implementing half squad manuevering at the earliest opportunity. One foxhole with 2 men every 20m alined along a squad front would be crowded for many actual setups. Squad and platoon leaders had their work cut out fighting troops like that, but they did do it. Ok so we have a way to go before hardware catches up with reality as we would have it. Until then CM will have to do . Lets see, a two man foxhole might occupy a space of maybe 0.76 m x 1.82 m. or 1.38sq m. so our 12 man squad dug in via CM standards would occupy 16.60sq m out of 400 sq m. or 4% of the space. Well maybe it is not so bad percentage wise. However placed on a front of 20 meters there would hardly be room for all 12 guys, virtually shoulder to shoulder. Not much point in placing GIs in depth for their alloted 400 sq m. when you need every weapon firing forward. Perhaps it would go for a squad in an all around defence, but usually that formation goes for whole platoons at a minimum. Poor Steve, makes a point of showing how fine the CM battlefield is divided up and some jackass uses the point to complain about something else. Well never mind our squads soon get thined enough for obvious reasons and will better fit their alloted space. Spread out! Hell sarge, this virtual soldier is glued to his icon and can't. Oh, well, the glass I prefer to look at is half full, or in terms of other computer gaming opportunities, at least 9/10 full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 12, 1999 Share Posted September 12, 1999 The 20mx20m tile simply defines the terrain, and I feel that it is the prefect size to simulate terrain. Don't forget that the footprint of a unit is different than the underlying terrain. There are no ridged rules about how many units can be where and in what part of what tile. Its center is tracked by fractions of a meter within a 2mx2m subgrid. And if I am not mistaken... the figures you are using are for a modern day squad, not a WWII one. Big difference Using WWII weapons a 20m front is about all a squad could handle. Average frontage for a Company on the attack was about 200m, with 2 platoons forward. This means about 100m per platoon, or roughly 30m of frontage per squad, including space between each squad of the two platoons. Defense was generally 2 to 3 times this in general terrain, much less in urban. Foxholes were generally dug for 2 men as well. Steve P.S. A skirmish line for a squad was suppose to have each man spread apart by about "5 paces", or roughly, what, 3m? This means roughly 27m for a stnadard 10man German squad (2 men on the LMG). This also fits in with above. [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-12-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 My apologies for keeping this exploration going. I just read from a WWII text where the "book" squad frontages in an attack ranged from about 45 meters to 68 meters. I would suppose that in actual practice the range would go past those marks in both directions ie, larger and smaller. Sixty eight meters would cover parts of 4 20 meter tiles. On defense a full strength squad in foxholes abreast would have to stagger them to avoid digging a trench within a 20 meter length. Not neglecting to pay attention to your reply, do I see you saying that in CM a squad could be distributed over more than one tile in effect? The combination of 2x2 subtiles within the standard 20x20 is giving me a little trouble visualizing the effect upon troop distribution. On one hand you don't seem to be tracking each individual soldier so what the role of the 2x2 play isn't clear to me. Your notation of my squad size being modern was probably picked up from the lower end 8 man figure. That was picked out of the air of memeory of Fionne's AARs rather than any book. I now seem to recall a 10 man figure picked up later from somewhere else. Anyway I had in mind squad sizes from the US WW2 text from 12 men on down depending on attrition, national TO&Es and speciality function. I suppose some speciality squad might even exceed that. By the way, the US rifle squad was broken down into a leader, asst. leader, light machine gunner and assistant with ammo carrier, and 7 riflemen. The interest, that prompted all this plaver from me, was that it did not seem that half squad functionality should be automaticly degraded when they were separated in order to cover a slightly larger frontage in 2 tiles. That is certainly close enough to remain in command control of the squad leader. If that implies a possible larger frontage than 40 meters, all the better for surviving indirect fire and bringing maximum fire to bear on a target(s)while taking advantage of available cover. I also had in mind fire and manuever tactics which seem to me to need a little more than the rather small 20 meter tile or perhaps even a pair. All that is necessary for control is to be in view of the leader or a subordinant in his view to obtain hand and arm signals. I really have no quarrel with abstracting squad functionality as is necessary here and what the heck, who am I to bitch anyway If I can't code, draw on superior exprence and resources to do up my own version of CM using surperior hardware sure to become available a long time from now? By the way, what about the short attention spans of guys who get bored as AAR action slows so very realistically for reorganization etc.? Should be good for sales as only hands on and personal anxiety for their own decisons could keep them going over a momentary slowing. This fits in so perfectly with accounts I have read as momentarily the battlefield gets quieter, the troops take a moment undercover for a drink or a minute or two of a drowse before sarge calls for another advance. And what is the fate of that Sherman Fionne and Martin are dealing with in that patch of woods? Gee, I would buy tickets for action like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I just read from a WWII text where the "book" squad frontages in an attack ranged from about 45 meters to 68 meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My figures came out of the WWII German Squad tactics training manual, and they seem to disagree with yours, which are much larger. Having just seen, in an exact way, what 20m looks like in woods, I have to tell you that I don't see how a 10 man squad could ever effectively physically cover 68 meters with WWII weapons (I have fired many of them myself, including the Kar98k, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, MP38/40, Thompson, MG42, and several pistols). It is possible that we are talking about 2 different kinds of frontage. The kind I think you might be talking about in places is area of responsibility. If so, this is distinctly different from physical occupation, but totally related. This would mean that a 10 man squad would physically occupy about 30m of linear space but would be responsible for more than that, say something like 40m-60m. The force would then shift itself, left and right, as needed to keep the area in control. This is totally within reason. As far as how things are tracked in the game, squads are abstractly treated when it comes to deployment. Individual men are tracked in terms of weapon and ammo, but not in terms of where their feet are planted. A squad's simulated footprint depends on action and terrain for the most part. Denser the terrain, the more in motion, the less the footprint. A squad can only be in one terrain or another, not more than that. Since terrain and squads are both abstracted, this isn't a real problem from a realism standpoint. In fact, the double abstractions keep realism functioning because neither one contradicts the other. Exact terrain and abstract squads, or exact squads and abstract terrain, would present serious realism problems for simulation. And then of course there are all the hardware limitations of being exact The squad's current terrain is determined by the 2x2 subgrid. So if you have a squad towards the middle of a 20x20 tile, it is about 10m away from a neighboring tile. If it was on the edge, it would only be 2m away. It is actually finer than that since we track the position of units within a 2x2 subtile down to fractions of a meter, but it is the 2x2 that determines the terrain. Therefore, you don't have the traditional binary "squad is in tile A, moves once, and squad is now in tile B" problem for movement. This is also very important because each 2x2 meter subsquare has its own height information, which is also tracked by by fractional meter lengths in between elevation points. Finally, some tiles are made up of different terrain types, like a road going through woods, or a wall going through a field. This means you actually have to be x meters behind the wall to get security form it, not just in the same tile. As far as penalizing the player for 1/2 squads, we do think it is fair in cases where 1/2 squads are spread farther apart than what the normal squad frontage. The training of a squad was to act together as a whole unit and to use weapons together in concert, not to run around in mini fireteams. So if you want to extend your frontage, you can by splitting up your squads. But they will NOT be as effective as if they were all in the same place. If you really think that shouting and arm signals is going to work as well over the din and confusion of combat along a 68m frontage as it would 20m, think again Plus, Combat Mission is at a high enough level of simulation that you shouldn't be needing to use 1/2 squads for much more than scouting and outpost duty. A typical game gives you a full company or more to command (Fionn and Martin each had about a battalion), with all the support weapons and vehicles you would expect. Squads can fire on the move, which simulates sub squad leap frogging tactics, so that is all handled for you (i.e. no need to micro manage half squads). As far as casualties from artillery, the numbers check out and appear to be quite normal for a battle of this size in WWII. Artillery caused about 3 out of 4 casualties on the battlefield. Fionn and Martin, for all the losses each has taken from artillery, haven't exceeded this rough figure. In a single turn? Sure, especially for Fionn. But over the rest of the game it has all evened out as the artillery has largely fallen silent. Fionn is also bunching up too much Uhm... I think that about covers your posts CM does abstract the squad (has to), but it isn't as abstract as one might think. In any case, it acts in conjunction with the rest of the game system very well, and in the end produces a very realistic outcome. FAR more realistic than any other wargame out there. And as you have seen in the AARs, it isn't just the shooting stuff that is simulated well, but also the problems of C&C and general cohesion. I can't think of any game that has ever forced me to get my act together or pay the piper so much as Combat Mission does. Fionn would, with a tear in his eye, totally agree Steve P.S. Martin's Sherman is dead meat. You'll find out VERY soon what I mean. And it will surprise you too! [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-13-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 Dear Steve ! As you bring up the tile topic again, I have a very innocent question: Can the user edit individual 2x2 subgrids or can (s)he only place pre-fabricated 20x20 tiles ?! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 Thomm, the quick answer is "no". The long answer is contained in a BIG thread with the title of "education" or something like that. Try the BBS' Search feature and see if you can find it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted September 13, 1999 Share Posted September 13, 1999 Thanks, Steve ! For some reason this is what I wanted to hear !!! Regards, Thomm "I can see clearly now !" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 Thanks Steve, the key info in your reply was contained in the abstraction element it seems to me. Avoiding an excess of micromanagement does make sense as long as accuracy of portrayal is preserved which you assure me is the case and perhaps more strikeingly demonstrated the AARs. As my wife said about eating mountain oysters, the oysters were fine but the mountain was a little steep. Sometimes I imagine that I have a hair in my throat and start to dig at it and only make myself sore for my trouble. I think you have made the digging rather more profitable than that to me for my effort. The squad frontage I gave was for an American 12 man sqd. not German. (So ten men did fit for the Jerries.) My resource was a 1944 ROTC manual which no doubt was derived from the service manuels of the time. D. MacAuthur signed the foreword. I think my converting the 50 to 75 yards to meters may have made it seem like I was speaking German. The same book gave the company frontage as 200 to 500 yards and platoon as 100 to 200 and THIS WAS ON THE ATTACK. It also gave spacing specifications for various squad formations. Squad columns to cover a total of 60 to 100 yds (depth)at intervals of 5 to 10 yds. The squad diamond to cover 20 to 30 paces frontage and 40 paces in depth, which is a little closer to putting it all in a 20 meter tile. A skirmish line fully deployed most likely to cover more frontage, as in the 50 + yards previously mentioned. I have read of how sometimes units on the defense were placed covering far more front than the "book" called for, foxholes very far apart. WOW, that 20 meter grid is sure being put through some paces, somebody out there must have worked overtime for sure. Steve, I just was taking you at your word that, it was small, and it IS. (now read very small print and somewhat facetiously--- too small for a squad, sometimes.) One last thought on command and control, while 68 meters may be pulling the squad a bit thin, 45 should not. In the din of the battlefield, arm and hand signals could be the only way to communicate. It also insures a higher measure of security for unspotted units. Of course a leader can pass the word to individuals, when they are close enough verbally where necessary. Particularly when outlining a plan during a lull or as necessity dictated and opportunity affords. I can imagine the possibility of a few occasions when half squads not separated too far for effective control could profitably operate. I personally would not like to have to manage a CM field full of half squads. But where I could fit such a configuration to a need it would be desirable -- I think. At this point you are the expert, so I defer to your decision. A final thought on CM. It is getting too close to its publication date to take too seriously all questions that might impinge on that objective. It is certainly and demonstrable a most worthy product already and greedy folks like me having been given a taste of real quality are just driven out of their minds looking for more and more and - - - - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 Hi Bobb, Don't worry about keeping the discussion going. I am enjoying it One of the FANTASTIC things about talking WWII tactics and equipment as it relates to Combat Mission is that it DOES relate to Combat Mission! There is no WWII game in existance that I could sit down and talk about applying squad manuals and my pile of armor books in any serious way. I would have to talk in abstractions and compromises all the day long. Although CM is not a 100% realistic simulation of WWII (nothing ever will be!) we can at least talk about real world things in a meaningful way. When we look at the ROTC manual and the German squad manual we see that they aren't all that different. The Germans wanted things a wee bit closer in theory (i.e. 3m per man vs. the ROTC call for about 4 per man), but the frontages for a Company on the attack are similar (200m ideal), though it could go up to about 500m if all three platoons were abreast. But again, this doesn't mean that each and every guy was evenly spaced out. Such disciplined spacing simply doesn't happen in the real world. And the tougher the terrain, the less spacing out works. While in the woods the other day it was clear how easy it would be to lose 3 or 4 men 20m away and not know what the Hell happened to them. Having played alot of paintball (a poor simulation of warfare in general) I saw just this sort of thing happen all the time. Guys 10m away would sometimes get hit and all I knew was that someone else got them. And knowing this kind of information is critical for one's own survival So the more you spread out, the less likely you are going to be able to react to problems. On the other hand, the less you spread out the greater the chance that you will get flanked. Judging from wartime photos and films I would say that generally guys decided that safety in numbers was the way to go. You are correct that in some cases 1/2 squads could act on their own for a desired purpose. That's why CM allows this. But since a squad's firepower is partly derrived from the cohesion of fire from its mix of weapons, there MUST be a penalty for splitting your men up. Obviously the penalty should be in relation to how far away the two halves are form each other (i.e. 2 meters is the same as being together, 50m is a different story!), but we have a much more simplistic system to discourrage splitting squads as a rule. So, keep your squad as whole if you want it to behave as a fully coordinated unit, split them if you want to perform certain specialized tasks (recon or outpost missions) which require greater distances. As far as defences being spread out REALLY thinly at times, this can be done with 1/2 squads. But again, you will lose cohesion and the 1/2 squads will not be as effective as if they were bunched together. Think of it this way... would there be a difference attacking one house with 12 men in it than attacking 2 houses each with 6? You betcha. Could they still communicate with each other? Maybe. But could the do it as well as if they were all in the same house? No way. That is the penalty for divided squads. We expect that the German player in the Eastern Front version is going to have to fight with a LOT of 1/2 squads. And like the real life German Army, they will suffer a lot of casualites during first contact because they were too spread out. It's going to be a real bitch for them Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 All points well taken, I suppose the nub is narrowing to just how far can effective control be exerted without significant deterioration within the simulation abstractions necessary to the game design. Obviously terrain and lighting are both material along with training and experence. While I have not been favored with much of anything of real experence, I have watched a trained group of men in a point patrol situation being well controled in silence as they advanced carefully in extended formation. The terrain was a mixed bag of motts and strings of dense follage and openings that varried from trails to openings running sometimes 100 to 300 meters. The ground relief where I observed was not too insignificant but otherwise consisted of some ravines and low hills maybe 50 to 70 meters between extremes. Their formation was more or less a squad diamond and extended variably from 20 to 40 meters abreast and somewhat longer. At moments, it got squeezed into smaller configurations as it passed a choke point. I believe that such a formation could be directed to split into two formations on line on a wider frontage and advance useing effective advancing fire or even split and still be under direction of the leader as long as he was able to communicate with both parties either visually, or personally via himself or runner in a matter of less than a minute or so. My own training in squad tactics was so wanting that I shudder to think what that level of "expertise" would have ment in combat. The level of control there was about equivalent to a sandlot football huddle. I think one point you have made is that in order to simulate troops spread too thin, the loss of control applied to half squads should work well. Right now in all the preminance of my game design experence of zero I can't for the moment think of anything better. The simulation of tactics and terrain in CM certainly places limitations on dealing with the smaller formations. I am just grown a little envious of the exactness of manuever of individual armored pieces when I envision squads in action. I would like to place a half squad on either side of an obstruction to place coordinated and somewhat convergent fire on a target(s) gaining such advantage in LOS, flank protection against surprise, and the capabibility of advancing one element SLIGHTLY separated from the other without the loss of control penality. Or at least with only some penality. Green soldiers would likely suffer in comparison to experenced ones. On most occasions, squads acting in platoon actions would do so as such. But where one squad is off on an open flank or sent ahead on point or in support of the point such cordinated half squad action may well be appropriate. The thought of greeness provokes me to a little consideration of the nature of green troops. Not all green troops are equal. Some were better trained, some very well trained and some abominably trained. Among the very well trained were the Rangers and paratroops. Some divisions were better prepaired than others as time,leadership and degrees of disrupted organization permitted. Yet they all also gained experence in combat usually to become better honed if not too replacement riddled. I suppose again the reality of game design may limit the full range of simulation of reality. Oh, crap. here I am debating BETA issues with out any beta experence. I am shutting up now and will leave such matters in better hands to the considerable relief of anyone concerned or otherwise looking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 Bobb, What you are talking about when discussing greenness are the differences between Conscript Green and Regular Generally speaking it is accepted that a unit which hasn't seen combat can be rated as conscript to regular. Conscripts die quickly and suddenly while regular troops perform adequately. So, that discrimination in ability in units with no combat experience is in already (as it is in most games). Cheers, ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 I'll pick up on the training/experience thing first. Ideally we would have perhaps four settings to determine troop "worth" on the battlefield; training level, physical fitness, cohesion, and willingness to fight. But while slightly more realistic, it would drag down gameplay and would also introduce a few more variables into scenario making than we would like. So instead we have one setting with these variables: Conscript Green Regular Veteran Elite Crack Although each name means something different to each person out there (I am sure), in game terms each is just one shade better or worse than the one next to it. Regular is where your average, well trained and slightly experienced troops belong. The Allies should see nothing lower than Green for any of their units, and probably nothing higher than Elite. Germans have the full range open to them. HOWEVER!!! Elite and ESPECIALLY Crack should be used very, very, very rarely. For example, Whittman's Tiger could be Crack, but the rest of his gang probably no better than Veteran or possibly Elite. And in a general battle maybe only one or two units would qualify as Elite (probably none in the average. There are NO Elite or Crack units in Fionn and Martin's game for example). So, you want very well trained, but fresh off the boat inexperienced troops? Make them Regular. Same boat, standard training? Make 'em Green. Different boat coming up from Italy with hardened troops on top of good training, make 'em Veteran. That one unit that has fought for 3 years and retained enough men to keep the knowledge alive, bump 'em up to Elite. Every once in a great while someone is crazy and can kill with a stare, they should be Crack. Something like that Now, back to the split squad thing... You will be moving around multiple platoons for the most part, so the need to have guys split up all over the place is not really necessary. At times it will prove usefull and beneficial, and splitting squads will work for you. If you want to split a squad so that it can cover two firing arcs, no problem. But to really make a difference you WILL HAVE TO spread them out. A 10 or 20 degree difference isn't going to do much for you. You need to be firing at right angles or greater to really cause pain. This requires your split squad to be much farther apart than a few meters. Point here is that nearly all the situations where 1/2 squads are beneficial are also those that involve moving the halves too far away for coordinated use of weapons. The one exception I can think of is putting two 1/2 squads back to back to get 360 defense. But although communication would be OK here, the two halves weapons could not be brought to bear on the same target, so the knock down in firepower cohesion is still justified. Shesh... that was a lot longer than I thought it would be Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-14-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 Thanks a lot guys, your patience has been exceeding. Would those back to back guys suffer any effectiveness discount in addition to halving their fire power which is a mater of course or additively none at all, but simular to an undivided squad with multiple targets? Troop quality representation -- better than I understood, fine job there, so many topics that I forget some details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 14, 1999 Share Posted September 14, 1999 No problem at all! Good, insightful questions are always a pleasure to answer. This is a complex game, simulating an even more complex reality, so it is no wonder that it takes a couple of back and forths to find the end point In the situation of 2 half squads being back to back, they will still each be more brittle than if they were in one piece. This can be justifed realistically, but even if not, it is something that doesn't warrant an exception to the rule. However, note that if you truely need to fire in two directions at once, then two half squads will probably be less likely to flip out than a single squad getting shot at from two opposite directions. So it can be argued that the penalty is not an issue in this rare case. And by rare, I don't think any of us have ever needed to do this kind of back to back last stand tactic. Yeah, the range of quality settings is amazing to see in action. Fionn has both Vets and Green guys (Martin can tell Fionn ) and the difference between the two on the battlefield is painfully clear. And Fionn's Vet StuG probably won at least one tank duel because of its better rating. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 15, 1999 Share Posted September 15, 1999 I put a test together on a flat field in which one Elite FJ platoon + 2 flamethrowers was defending (from foxholes) against an entire US assaulting company ( Regular) The US mortars did a lot of damage to the elite unit but when the smoke finally cleared (after the US company managed to get into hand to hand fighting range) the FJs had lost 13 men and the Allies over 130.. THAT's the difference a few grades makes. At long range the superior firepower of the Americans kep the Germans pinned but at close range 2 bursts from an elite FJ squad would reduce a US unit to half-strength and panic it. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted September 17, 1999 Share Posted September 17, 1999 Fionn - if you have a chance (so many games, so little time)it would be interesting to redo the FJ scenario with half squads. It might also be interesting to double or triple the defender's frontage and redo the action with squads and 1/2 squads as well. PS when you're finished shoot the US CO for total ineptitude. Frontal assault across open ground against a prepared position - sheesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 17, 1999 Share Posted September 17, 1999 FWIW I did the reverse of that scenario. One elite platoon attacking a dug-in company. (I removed the mortars etc from the company just to make it a bit fairer). The FJ platoon suffered something like 80% casualties but again achieved over 100 kills. The grades make a huge difference. just see the difference between green and vet in my game with Martin for example. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts