CMx2 WWII Series

[JoMac]

Hello CM Gamers,

I'm also a longtime CMx1 gamer since 01-03' ( still play both BB & AK ). I visit the Forums from time to time to keep track of members Thoughts or Experiences with the CMx2 WWII series.

I have recently downloaded the CM:BN Demo v1.10 about a month ago, and still playing around with all the game mechanics. It appears that ( like CMx1 ) I will probably stick with Up to Reinforced Company size engagements ( at most ), as anthing bigger is just to much to handle ( and personally think outside the scope of CM )...It's beyond me that people play CMx2 anything bigger then this.

I have gotten use to the Inf & Armor ( movement, split squards, fire, etc ) and some of the Arty aspects ( still working on that ). However and for me, it seems Units have a to fast reaction & spotting times, the Inf firepower is alittle to high or accurate ( especially LMG's and more so SMG's ), while the Suppression Effects alittle to low.

It seems like in one turn, the enemy moves into view and half the squad gets cut down before continuing to cover, then the next turn or two the remaining squad in cover gets killed. Now, I know if playing against a human opponent the effects might be different, but the high casualty results will still be there for both sides.

if this was RL, then there will be no Vets to continue on to the next battle. I figure casualites up to %25 being high, while %10-15 the norm. I know Ballistics and other effects have been moddeled in more correctly, but just seems eveything happens to quickly.

In saying the above, what version should I get ? 2.0 or maybe just 1.11.

From what I've read in v2.01, the LMG effects have been increased ( not good ), but the Small Arms Suppression Effects increased ( good )...Does this mean more dead troops that will have nowhere to hide.

Your overall Thoughts, Opinions or Suggestions...

Thanx, Joe

[LukeFF]

The machine guns are now what they should be - weapons to be treated with the utmost caution.

[womble]

I think what you might be seeing is an artefact of the AI's limitations. It's not too shabby sitting still, but getting it to move infantry anywhere without getting shot to bits is a big ask. It's not so bad for the player, because they can have much more control over what sort of size of element they even risk out in the open in front of potential enemy gun muzzles. The AI sometimes just runs a series of entire squads across kill zones, with predictable results.

If it's happening to you, you might want to think about splitting scout teams off and tentatively probing forward until they get a reaction, with the rest of the squad/platoon in overwatch to lay suppression on any rude strangers that bother the two scouts.

[JoMac]

Hello womble,

Yeah, I figured that the limitations of the AI is causing it's high casualty count, and a human opponent will generally take a more cautious or serious appoarch. However, I still think from reading player's AAR's that Casualties are pretty high overall ( close to %50 and still functional ), and above the already high %25. I also, remember another player mentioning that Automatic Fire is alittle to high ( think he was referring more to SMG's then LMG's ).

In saying this, I will probably get and stick with v2.0 for now ( I just wont be able to get the other good stuff thats in 2.1 that should be in 2.0 ). This will give me time to test play Platoon vs. Platoon or above level actions ( against myself ) to see the casualty ratio and flow of play. May reduce the Moral & Experience levels by one to help achieve the desired results, maybe add a pause at the beginning of a waypoint ( never liked the instant move each turn...takes alittle tiime to issue an order every turn and for it to take place ), etc. I can't do this with the Demo, and will need to purchase the game...The above will hopefully give alittle more realistic Movement & Fire effects that I'm looking for. Then again, I can be completely wrong, and v2.01 will be closer to being right...Time will tell.

I guess CMx2 it's a complete turn around from CMx1, and will have to play accordinaly.

[tuhhodge]

In my opinion the time constraints on most battles generally force players to act too quickly, taking risks with units. But I do sympathise, Joe, because I have average casualty figures higher than in WWII despite trying to be careful.

[akd]

You might want to try the just released CMFI (v1.10/Gustav Line) demo, as it better reflects the current state of the engine.

[JoMac]

Hello Tuhhodge,

Yeah, that's what my fear is aswell...No matter how well you think your doing, the casualty ratio is still abit to high.

Actually, I think the Time constraints are failry good, especially for up to Reinforced Company size engagaments ( 1 hour for an Attack/Defense seems sufficiant, just not the the casualties you suffer from it. ).

Now, in saying the above, a Unit ( Squad or Platoon ) that runs into an ambush might still inflict say %25 or more casualties in the first minute or two of contact.

However, the overall running battle might not produce that same percentage of casualties throughout the rest of the battle.

I still remember the days of CMx1, when all the talk about how High or Low the casualties were...The end result being that the casualties seemed to be about right.

[costard]

The reality: longer battles, boredom, flies, only about 10% of the men on the battlefield actually firing their weapons with any effect, lower tolerance for casualties showing up in the unit global morale. Entertainment value close to zero.

The game: battles compressed in time, ~80% of armed men firing to effect (100% less cowering/pinned/broken units), no flies. Entertainment value much, much higher.

[JoMac]

Hello Akd,

Yes, I wil try out the CMFI Demo, and see how that works out...My guess, is that the casualties will be slightly lower due the more Mountian, Rocky Terrain rather then a change of game mechanics ( which I'm sure is about the same as CM:BN v1.10 ).

[John Kettler]

JoMC67,

The differences between CMBN 1.10 and 1.11 are significant, as seen here in the 1.11 Read Me,

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2044&Itemid=518

but the jump from that to 2.0 is enormous.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2047&Itemid=517

2.01 really brings it all together.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2060&Itemid=518

CMFI, as opposed to CMBN 1.10, is a radically different, more accurate and better gaming experience. That's what the 2.0 upgrade is specifically designed to do--bring CMBN up to CMFI standards, with 2.01 as the tweak cherry on top.

At the very least, bring CMBN up to 1.11 before essaying the CMFI Demo. That way, you can directly see what going from the latest CMBN version at the time to CMFI was like.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

I figure casualites up to %25 being high, while %10-15 the norm.

It varies quite widely depending on the army in question, its leadership, and the importance of the objective. But I'd guess that most of the time for Western armies, 5-10% casualties in one day would mark the breaking point in a company sized action. More than that and morale starts to break down for average soldiers and so can organization as crucial officers and NCOs get taken down. Just on a personal level, when my troops have taken over 5% cas in less than 20 minutes, I tend to call off the attack as I think that is what a real life commander would do. If defending, I would expect them to retire to a fall-back position if they have taken more than 10% cas. But I can think of instances where an objective might well be considered worth 50% or more. Or it could be a case where one side or the other has gotten its blood up and refuses to stop.

So like I said, highly variable and has to be examined on a case by case basis. But in general I'd say that, yes, the casualties that normally occur in a CM battle are unrealistically high. Costard might be right about a more realistic pacing in the game also being more boring. Could there be a way to pace it more realistically and still avoid boredom? If I find a solution I will probably patent it.

Michael

[Buzz]

"I can think of instances where an objective might well be considered worth 50% or more."

When?

[Michael Emrys]

"I can think of instances where an objective might well be considered worth 50% or more."

When?

Say you are desperately trying to prevent your parent organization from becoming surrounded and cut off. The enemy has to be held until the rest can be withdrawn from the pocket.

That is just one example. Consider the breakthough at Sedan. It was critical for both sides. If the Germans don't make it across in force, there is a real possibility that the Dunkirk pocket doesn't get created and the war drags on for another month or two with overall much higher casualties for everybody, but especially for the Germans.

Michael

[Buzz]

Thanks Michael. The idea of 50% or more KIA just sounds extreme but extreme situations may demand it.

[ridethe415]

However, I still think from reading player's AAR's that Casualties are pretty high overall ( close to %50 and still functional ), and above the already high %25.

I just played "Men in Suspicious Hats" in Gustav Line. In the briefing, there is a quote from a German soldier stating that they took the town with no casualties.

I, obviously, was not able to do so. Not 50%, but probably 30%...urban environments are brutal.

[JonS]

"I can think of instances where an objective might well be considered worth 50% or more."

When?

I think "who?" might be the more relevant question. Commanders were generally more willing to sacrifice subordinate elements in order to achieve objectives than subordinate elements were willing to be sacrificed.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

If you play very cautiously, very, and very slowly... casualties can often be brought right down to more historically accurate or normal levels.

People tend to play far more brutally, ruthlessly than real human commanders would. Historically battles for even small hamlets would often take two or three hours because of the careful, ultra cautious way the attack would take place. Trying at all times to minimise risk.

I tend to play that way... I go into the editor and often extend games from say... one hour to two hours. Also... play human v human live over two and half hour games. Flashes by as if just half an hour. Is very tense and exciting... but for long periods very little happens due to cautious play on both sides.

The casualties are not a result of the coding error, more the ruthlessness of us the players.. .

All very good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Freyberg]

Some scenarios score based on taking low casualties. It would be good if QBs could be set up the same way.

As for historical casualties, I wonder if the figures truly represent the kind of thing CM models. CM models only the troops in the heat of battle. I've read that casualty rates for these guys have remained quite consistent through modern history for a long time, but what has progressively changed is the decreasing number of men through history who participate in the intense firefight phase of battle. In modern war, this number is now very low relative to all troops in combat in some capacity, but for those men casualty rates are quite similar to other eras, and quite high.

I'm not sure the casualty rates in CM are unhistorical for the kind of intense engagement players like to play, simply that those very intense engagements were unusual.

[Blazing 88's]

Love my big ass battles... keep em coming community. ;P

[YankeeDog]

I think it's true that in CM are often higher than "real life". But I think this is mostly because CM is a *game*, not a life-and-death struggle. No one has to write letters home to pixeltruppen...

I don't think the recent model improvements, and specifically the changes to MG behavior, necessarily increase casualty counts. They will if you try to take out MGs by charging them across open ground. But if you're smart and adjust to a slower, more cautious style of play, with more "Fire" before you "Maneuver", then the new MG modeling can actually reduce total casualties.

There are also some larger, technical simulation issues which probably contribute to high casualty counts, but it would be VERY difficult to fix these in a way that would result in a game that people would find enjoyable.

For example, I think one major contributor to "extra" casualties in CM is that the game currently only models two levels of surrender: individual (i.e., a single soldier deciding he's going to drop his rifle and give up), and full-force, across the map surrender (either by the Computer Player automatically once casualties and condition reach a certain point, or by a human player deciding he's thoroughly beat and conceding to his opponent). But the AI commander of a Squad, Platoon, or even Company in the game does not have the discretion to order his entire command to break for the rear or surrender a position that has become untenable. This is something that happened quite a bit IRL.

To cite an example, this weekend I played a game where I hit an American Company-sized defensive position in a near perfect surprise attack from the flank. With about ten minutes still to play, I had either killed or captured nearly all of two rifle platoons, the HW platoon, the Company HQ, and the Company XO. What few men were left of these formations were broken and not really offering any resistance. The only coherent American formation left was a single rifle platoon reinforced with a couple of heavy weapons teams that was deployed on the opposite side of the map from where I executed my flanking attack. By this point, this platoon was badly outflanked and taking fire from some of my units, who were now set up in positions where American Company HQ *used* to be.

In this situation, the Lieutenant in charge of the remaining American platoon would almost certainly order his platoon to either (a) break for the rear, or ( surrender en masse. In fact, as German commander, I might well take the initiative and offer parley to the American platoon commander -- no sense in wasting bullets if I don't have to.

But there's no mechanism for this in CM. So I spent most of the remaining ten minutes of play blasting the crap out of the American holdouts, until I caused enough casualties that the AI did a global surrender. That's 25+ casualties that probably should have been either "routed" or POW, rather than KIA/WIA.

Unfortunately, it's hard to see how to fix this kind of thing. Programming an AI for pixel squad/platoon/company commanders to be able to read the overall tactical situation so they could "know", when to tell their commands to flee or surrender as a group would be a huge undertaking. And even if BFC could do this, players would probably find it really frustrating if an entire platoon that they were counting on to hold up an enemy attack for just a couple more turns suddenly threw their hands up en masse. Realistic, but probably not what most players want in a computer game.

[dieseltaylor]

YD - I understand your point but then surely your battlefield is not the total sum of a front line. Those hold-outs were preventing you rolling up a further flank off-board. That is how I am going to rationalise it : )

[slysniper]

The reality: longer battles, boredom, flies, only about 10% of the men on the battlefield actually firing their weapons with any effect, lower tolerance for casualties showing up in the unit global morale. Entertainment value close to zero.

The game: battles compressed in time, ~80% of armed men firing to effect (100% less cowering/pinned/broken units), no flies. Entertainment value much, much higher.

I agree, the game is not designed to be that realistic, and if it was - boring.

You would all find you could not make objectives because after about 10% of your men were wounded or dead, no one would be attacking anymore, they would just be sitting and staying alive to fight another day.

Once again, when will people realize we all want to play with hero's, no one really wants true realistic fights, even though they think they do. The game would fail, the company would fail and you not only would have a boring game, but no more of them would be coming in the future.

[YankeeDog]

YD - I understand your point but then surely your battlefield is not the total sum of a front line. Those hold-outs were preventing you rolling up a further flank off-board. That is how I am going to rationalise it : )

Sure. For any given situation, it's not hard to imagine a reason why a unit in a clearly impossible situation *might* continue to fight.

But the fact of the matter is, in the ETO at least, Squads, Platoons, and sometimes even larger formations sometimes gave up and raised a white flag when it was clear that continuing to fight was only going to mean taking massive casualties with little chance of causing significant harm to the enemy. You can certainly find cases where units kept resisting to the last man despite impossible odds, but on the other side you can also find cases where good-order and well-trained units threw up their hands after taking only modest casualties.

And you never see the latter in CM. Individual soldiers in CM will surrender eventually, but usually not until casualties of the parent unit have reached well over 50%, and units that had sustained fewer than 50% casualties definitely surrendered IRL. Fairly often, actually.

To reiterate, I do appreciate that this would be a very difficult thing to simulate; the AI issues involved are complex -- the AI for a given formation would have to have some way of considering whether withdrawal was a realistic possibility, whether there was any chance of the unit being rescued/relieved by friendly forces, etc. Further, even if BFC could get the AI issues right so that group surrenders happened realistically, many players would probably find it extremely dissatisfying to suddenly lose large chunks of their force to surrender, no matter how realistic. So I completely understand why this is not modeled in the game. But I do think its absence is one of the major contributors to inflated casualty counts. Certainly not the only contributor, but definitely one of the more significant ones.

[dieseltaylor]

I forgot to ask if the scenario is one where there are solid map edges so retreat is not an option. I was amazed when it first came out to see my panicked men bounce off the edge of the map and run back into bombardment.

[YankeeDog]

I forgot to ask if the scenario is one where there are solid map edges so retreat is not an option. I was amazed when it first came out to see my panicked men bounce off the edge of the map and run back into bombardment.

In the particular example I gave, solidity of the map edge was irrelevant; the platoon was in positions a good 300m from their friendly map edge, and while they did technically have a route to the back map edge, it would have involved crossing a large, open field I had covered by fire from multiple HMGs. Few, if any, would have made it through.

They actually would have had a better chance of escaping laterally, off the side of the map. They still would have had to get out of their foxholes and run across open ground through fire, but depending on what you imagine was immediately off the side of the map, this might have been the better route. If the platoon had attempted to flee in this direction it still certainly would have taken heavy casualties, but maybe some would have made it.

For situations where flight and breaking contact is a possibility, in addition to a "group surrender" option, a "group rout" option would also be great, though again the AI issues probably mean it's not practical. While many players disliked it, I thought CMSF's mechanism for handling routing soldiers, where they simply disappear from the map after a while, was actually a fairly elegant way of handling this.