Operational Companion for CMBN [in progress]

[Tank Hunter]

Hey guys

A while ago i followed couple of discussion on the board regarding the operational layer for CMx games. In some of the posts people were mentioning VASSAL which is a computer game engine used to transfer original board games into computerized versions that people can play against each other. This got me thinking. Can we use this engine to create something that can be used together with CMBN? I spent the little free time I have for the last 3 weeks trying to understand VASSAL and I'm now at the point where I have decent skeleton that can be built on for CMBN.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

As you can see above the map is standard hex (~1.2km/hex) showing standard US Battalion being deployed just north of Carentan. The idea is to have players use this board to track their CMBN battles. The plan is to come up with some rules in order to simulate battles if desired. It will also feature supply routes that players must maintain and protect.

All the units will have parameters directly applicable to CMBN. Players will modify these parameters depending on the outcome of the battles. Just to clarify, there will be no AI, the idea is to use this for keeping track of your battles against your opponents and provide the idea of a bigger picture. Players will have to setup certain house rules and follow them. First step is to release US and German army along with a manual. If popular I will try and see this through and may add other forces (UK,SS etc..).

It will of course be free of charge. Questions? Ideas?

[mjkerner]

Oh...my...God! Where are Broadsword, sburke, and Noob?

This is fantastic, Tank Hunter!

[The Steppenwulf]

This has been discussed many times and something I pondered over a long time when I first discovered CM:BN. Also, I understand that a BF endorsed attempt at an operational CM game was developed for CMx1. The problem is not that there isn't an external game that can be used to simulate the higher operational dimension. On the contrary there are many. In fact there is actually no need to use another game as a vehicle for the operational layer, one could merely use a map and some operational symbols with a basic art editor and move symbols around on a map. And all this without the territorial abstractions of hex boundaries.

No that isn't the problem, the issue is this; the current CMx2 file format does not provide the capability to edit an ongoing battle. This creates an insurmountable difficulty because a player is unable to reinforce his forces in the middle of a battle. This means every battle (whether it be a scenario or a QB map) in CM is a separate event; it is isolated from the dynamics of a wider operational front -or actions across multiple maps.

There are a number of CM enthusiasts who have made an operational layer work by conveniently ignoring this element of an operational battle (as mjkerner alludes to above) - which is fine if one is willing to accept such limitations and be happy with an abstracted concept. However, for me such a shortcoming leaves much to be desired. :-(

[sburke]

not far away. The problem with an op layer is how to apply it in such a way that you don't fight a bunch of short battles of no consequence. No offense but when Noob first showed the OP layer using HPS games, the AARs listed here were basically these rapid movement by scouting units to escape the map that lasted just a few turns. I was hoping to see how it progressed, but no further AARs were posted.

Broadsword has taken a different tack of playing the OP layer game and only invoking CM if there were a critical point or specifically interesting battle that came up. Right now we have this huge fight going on for a ridge line and we have been able to factor in committing or not reinforcements from the op layer as part of the CM fight. It makes a very tough decision about using the reinforcements or not as there will be repercussions.

I have the TCS board game Screaming Eagles in Holland (available on vassal) waiting in the wings, but primarily I am using the rules and to some extent the map for planning only. I hope to run the entire thing in CM. At it's scale this does seem possible.

I'll be curious to see Broadsword's feedback. As the person running the campaigns I would think that feedback would be more relevant to you than mine.

@Steppenwolf I would love to see a file generated at the end of a CM battle to generate an OoB for a followup, but Broadsword has been pretty good at integrating that in even for Op layer events that affect a units fighting strength. It is not an exercise for the faint of heart, but the results have been really really fun. The best gaming experience I have ever had by far.

[Broadsword56]

This is brilliant. I'm thrilled to see others picking up the torch and developing various ways to add an op layer to CMx2.

I use Vassal exclusively (actually, Cyberboard and Zun Tzu as well) to play my op layers. I never punch a counter or set up a table, because I have no room for that and I like the fact that the e-modules are so portable, turns can be logged, map graphics exported, etc.

If someone has the time and inclination to fight every battle of an operation in CM and track it on VASSAL, more power to them. The other great thing about Tank Hunter's project is that it gives you a perfect 1:1 continuous method for bookkeeping to track units and their losses during the campaign.

My personal preference is to use e-modules of existing board wargames, because:

1. Many battles in an operation don't make fun or interesting CM experiences. Life's too short, so I prefer to pick that desperate last stand, that flanking action, that fight for the vital crossroads, and save CMBN for those.

2. Some CM players seem to view the op layer as a nuisance, to be simplified as much as possible and kept to a minimum so most of the time can be spent in CM. I don't see it that way. I love traditional wargames and always have. The state of the wargame art is better than ever. And there are plenty of great games that have e-modules and play at the scale that I've found to be the "sweet spot" of op layers: counters that represent companies to battalions, hex scale 250-450 meters.

3. Good wargames provide all the aspects that, to me, give the operational level its character: command-control, logistics, realistic levels of artillery, airpower rules, glider and paradrop landings, weather, etc. lots of games do this really well, so why reinvent the wheel?

The only point I'd take issue with is the notion that using an e-module of a traditional wargame makes every CM battle an isolated event. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The op layer sets the stage for every CM setup, and every CM result has consequences when translated back into the op layer.

I look at the turn cycle of the op game as a representation of the OODA loop -- the operational decision cycle. If the time scale of the op game fits well with CM, then each operational move represents a new decision cycle by the higher level of command. It's no more an abstraction than CM having WEGO turns.

Example: The op layer sets up a battle where a German company, outnumbered 1:4, defends a fortified village crossroads. The battle plays out in CM and after a while things, go badly for the Germans. If you're the German player, you might feel you should now have a way to retreat off the map or bring in reinforcements from elsewhere, but see it as a flaw that there's no provision for that within the CM scenario.

But here's how I look at it: In this battle for the town you're a company commander. Decisions about moving brigade assets around are above your paygrade and are made at the operational level. You've been ordered to defend this village, and those are your orders for the next hour (or however long the op game turn scale is). So you can either continue trying to carry out your orders until the last man or the CM battle clock runs out, or declare it a failure and end the CM battle, which moves the action back to the op layer. Then, on the op layer, you can try to retreat the company -- which represents the company appealing to higher HQ for permission to withdraw, and receiving new orders. The point is, you don't get to take those actions within CM. To me that's more realistic. If things happen within CM that create a crisis for the operation, too bad -- your enemy has just gotten inside your decision cycle. You'll have to accept the consequences until the action returns to the op layer, and then in the next op turn hope your your command staff grasps the changed situation and can react to it in time, that the resulting orders reach your units, and that those units do what they're supposed to do.

The only thing needed with a traditional wargame and its Vassal module is an Excel spreadsheet, so you can track your CM battle results and casualty percentages dor each battle. It's detail work and can get tedious, but for me it's way easier than trying to learn how to create custom modules for Vassal.

Good luck with this project! It seems to be what a lot of players have been wanting for a long time.

[The Steppenwulf]

Taking the example provided above: Friendly German units on the flank a mere hundred metres to the right of the village, on another map, cannot, if successfully positioned -that in itself is circumstantial - then bring their fire to bear on the village- assuming they had LOS - until the time of the current game is up when of course we would have to include such a force as a reinforcement or widen the map boundaries itself to include them. Even so, we are not considering that such a RL tactical dynamic would force an allied attacking force to consider their own counter-moves to such circumstances-not at the end of an hour or more but within the scope of the present action. This is what I mean by abstraction of territory.

Broadsword I agree, at least in the sense that the shorter the operational decision moves the less abstracted the time lapse would be. Which is why WeGo is not too much of a compromise (it is only one minute after all) but let's imagine a WeGo move were three minutes long, not just a single minute, we the players would surely feel considerably more compromised by that level of abstraction. This is why the WeGo analogy is a nice one it illustrates my point better than the one you raised it for.

See, I'd say 15 or 20 mins response time would be acceptable for a decision making at a regimental level (equivalent to your minute WeGo) but this is hardly a practical time scale for fighting large operational affairs. This is what I mean by an abstraction in terms of time. To have to wait an hour for my tanks to finally arrive on my opponent's left flank when they, unknowingly, have already moved unopposed through enemy territory on their own map is excessive. Compounding this problem in any example is the fact that we have two separate but operationally simultanaeous events which we the player must solve in synchronism if we wish to avoid an abstraction of the sequence of events. After much deliberation, I have concluded the only way to practically achieve this is to play multiple battles by multiple players, over 4 hours not 1, with updates and outcomes being fed in a sychronised format, otherwise we cannot replicate the dynamic nature of the battlefield at an operational layer - further abstraction necessary.

I realise, as I extrapolate my personal view here, it can be perceived as being negative and overly critical of other's efforts to make something work. Forgive me, that's not my intention. I can see that some players can make it work for them and it's commendable that there are some great minds within the CM community who are able to condense the ideas into something resembling an operational exercise. I'm just tryng to be realistic about the whole issue for the benefits of others who might not be aware of the limitations ("why hasn't it already been done?"). Without the means to modify the .bts save file (which is the technical doorway), we must accept the considerable limitations of what we can currently simulate. What the player considers realistic and acceptable enough for them is a matter of personal opinon/satisfaction. I only wish someone had saved me the time when I was considering the issue by providing me with an explanation of the technical connundrum that I now understand.

[Tank Hunter]

The problem is not that there isn't an external game that can be used to simulate the higher operational dimension. On the contrary there are many. In fact there is actually no need to use another game as a vehicle for the operational layer, one could merely use a map and some operational symbols with a basic art editor and move symbols around on a map. And all this without the territorial abstractions of hex boundaries.

True there are many games out there that can be used but I have so for not seen one that is directly related to CM. Players have to do their own interpretations of the pieces and try to translate these into CM context. My idea here is to provide unit counters with the same characteristics as they have inside the game. In the screen above each unit has a certain value for Experience, Leadership, Headcount and so on. All units also have properties that show how much equipment they have. Number of tanks, mortars, MMGs and so on is all in there. When the battle occurs the players just have to look at their pieces and set up the units in CM accordingly. When the battle is finished you just have to look at the end screen and adjust your losses in Operational Layer. Units characteristics may also change based on the outcome of the battle.

The general idea here is to keep all the tracking and bookkeeping in one place rather than use excel sheets and own interpretations of rules that are designed for a specific board game.

No that isn't the problem, the issue is this; the current CMx2 file format does not provide the capability to edit an ongoing battle. This creates an insurmountable difficulty because a player is unable to reinforce his forces in the middle of a battle. This means every battle (whether it be a scenario or a QB map) in CM is a separate event; it is isolated from the dynamics of a wider operational front -or actions across multiple maps.

Not necessary true, the idea above is to be able to set units in support role where they cover adjacent hexes but also to have units as Tactical Reserves, these reserves can be thrown into the battle if they are close enough. By setting up scenarios rather than QBs you could also decide when the reinforcements should appear. Either that or throw them into the battle directly. There are limitations of course but a certain ability to reinforce is still there. In a perfect world CM would have access to the whole operational map so that units could be aware of their surroundings.

There are a number of CM enthusiasts who have made an operational layer work by conveniently ignoring this element of an operational battle (as mjkerner alludes to above) - which is fine if one is willing to accept such limitations and be happy with an abstracted concept. However, for me such a shortcoming leaves much to be desired. :-(

There will always be limitations in all systems unfortunately. We just have to accept what we have now and work with that and hope that someday something may surface that will do the job much better.

[kipanderson]

Tank Hunter, hi,

This is a superb idea, a more focused tracker that also does the bookkeeping all in one place .

I too have developed ways of doing this, using the very flexible editor in Panzer Campaigns games. But your effort looks so good because of the closer focus on CM.

I wish you all the luck with this and will be following very closely. BTW one can always resolve some of the clashes at the operational level using one’s own system of choice. For example the formulas in the Dupuy books. Then only resolve some battles by using CM.

You are developing what looks like a great tool however people using it.... !!

All the best,

Kip.

[Broadsword56]

@Steppenwulf -- We agree on a lot of points. But 20 minutes for a regiment or brigade HQ decision cycle? Today yes. But in WWII? No way, I say. Factor in things like the Normandy bocage or the chaos of war, and I think that's even less plausible.

In WWII (on the US side) battalion commander was the highest-ranking officer with a CP or vantage point close enough to the fighting to actually see some of the combat in real time. Regiment or Brigade HQ might as well have been on the moon for all it mattered to the average company or platoon in the thick of it.

Also, that example of the nearby company joining in overlooks the existence -- and importance of -- unit boundaries in operations. Games already make it far too easy for players to make troops move and shoot wherever they want, and respond too quickly. That adjacent company in your example has its own objective and it's on AO to worry about. Unit histories are full of examples where a formation saw possible enemy over in a friendly unit's adjacent sector, but didn't shoot because either they couldn't be certain it really was enemy, or because they didn't know where the friendlies were and didn't want to risk fratricide in a fast-changing battlefield.

[The Steppenwulf]

@Steppenwulf -- We agree on a lot of points. But 20 minutes for a regiment or brigade HQ decision cycle? Today yes. But in WWII? No way, I say. Factor in things like the Normandy bocage or the chaos of war, and I think that's even less plausible.

In WWII (on the US side) battalion commander was the highest-ranking officer with a CP or vantage point close enough to the fighting to actually see some of the combat in real time. Regiment or Brigade HQ might as well have been on the moon for all it mattered to the average company or platoon in the thick of it.

Also, that example of the nearby company joining in overlooks the existence -- and importance of -- unit boundaries in operations. Games already make it far too easy for players to make troops move and shoot wherever they want, and respond too quickly. That adjacent company in your example has its own objective and it's on AO to worry about. Unit histories are full of examples where a formation saw possible enemy over in a friendly unit's adjacent sector, but didn't shoot because either they couldn't be certain it really was enemy, or because they didn't know where the friendlies were and didn't want to risk fratricide in a fast-changing battlefield.

These are all first class points Broadsword. My thoughts:

1) Tactical decision cycles at Reg/Brig level

This is a pivotal question. What evidence do we have of the WW2 experience? My argument is based on an estimation that a radio update from Battalion HQ (who, yes, are in direct contact with the ground situation) to Brigade HQ for our C/O to make a decision that 3rd Battalion can actually stand down, contrary to the previous order of attack, and then relay that new order by radio to the 3rd Batallion C/O.

I went with 20 mins as a safe bet because my guess is that it would actually even be less than that. When a company C/O can call in Artillery by radio in around 10 mins with fairly complex data exchanges I don't find my estimation to be off the scale. However, admittedly I have nothing firmer to base my claim on. I hope that we can have some evidence contributed upon which we can resolve this point one way or the other. It's an imperative consideration for any discussion on tactical operational warfare for a CM game.

2) You are quite right to raise the question of operational boundary lines. Even more so because it is another critical factor in our discussion. I have also previously considered this point when thinking about how to make CM work at the OP level. Again my guess (which seems entirely natural to make) is that it is the natural terrain features and objectives that normally dictate operational boundary lines not the edges of a map. There are ways to circumvent this apparent problem through careful map dimension design that could cover this anomally. Nevertheless, it still doesn't solve any situation where a direct order is passed from Brigade HQ to a recently disengaged 2nd Battalion to use their mortars in support of 1st Battalion for example. This dynamic cannot be replicated in a CM battle - or rather during the actual course of one (assuming that my perspective of the Reg/Brig decision cycle is correct).

I welcome any rebuttals, thoughts or feedback on my points. And, I'm quite happy to change my view about all this - find some peace of mind over something which found me pulling my hair out over the .bts files. Also, I must stress that I think Tankhunter's effort here looks particularly neat & I will follow this project's development with the utmost interest.

[Erwin]

The above makes for a fairly complex operational level. Many of us would be happy with the sort of abstracted operational level like in the CLOSE COMBAT series. My sense is that at the operational level one is at a 2 star+ general officer level and simply ordering such and such division(s) to a location is all one needs to know.

[sburke]

See, I'd say 15 or 20 mins response time would be acceptable for a decision making at a regimental level (equivalent to your minute WeGo) but this is hardly a practical time scale for fighting large operational affairs. This is what I mean by an abstraction in terms of time. To have to wait an hour for my tanks to finally arrive on my opponent's left flank when they, unknowingly, have already moved unopposed through enemy territory on their own map is excessive. Compounding this problem in any example is the fact that we have two separate but operationally simultanaeous events which we the player must solve in synchronism if we wish to avoid an abstraction of the sequence of events. After much deliberation, I have concluded the only way to practically achieve this is to play multiple battles by multiple players, over 4 hours not 1, with updates and outcomes being fed in a sychronised format, otherwise we cannot replicate the dynamic nature of the battlefield at an operational layer - further abstraction necessary.

I realise, as I extrapolate my personal view here, it can be perceived as being negative and overly critical of other's efforts to make something work. Forgive me, that's not my intention. I can see that some players can make it work for them and it's commendable that there are some great minds within the CM community who are able to condense the ideas into something resembling an operational exercise. I'm just tryng to be realistic about the whole issue for the benefits of others who might not be aware of the limitations ("why hasn't it already been done?"). Without the means to modify the .bts save file (which is the technical doorway), we must accept the considerable limitations of what we can currently simulate. What the player considers realistic and acceptable enough for them is a matter of personal opinon/satisfaction. I only wish someone had saved me the time when I was considering the issue by providing me with an explanation of the technical connundrum that I now understand.

I can't speak for others, but no I do not consider the points you raised to be negative or overly critical. Broadsword and I have gone back and forth over a lot of this including the issue of availability of reinforcements and how to include forces that may have contributed flanking fire. In our current battle we had variable reinforcements show up on the map in a position where the player can decide to commit them or not.

As to higher level decisions being incorporated I'd say 20 minutes is excessively fast. Higher command would first of all have to be made aware of the situation, come to a decision, formulate plans, issue them to the forces involved and then have them familiarize themselves with the plan etc. The TCS system has a pretty interesting setup that incorporates command staff capabilities into a decision cycle. The primary staff element is at BN level. Command decisions formulated w/o a BN staff suffer a penalty for lack of resources. The primary remaining issue is having a battle where there isn't so much an issue of flanking fire. Screaming Eagles fits the bill fairly well. The mechanics can be easily adapted to anything you want to do. All you need is a map and OoB.

Regarding synchronized battles, Broadsword and I have discussed an option on this, but so far haven't seen a need to implement. Personally I lean more towards an Op layer that is regimental in scale. Most of the op layers I have seen so far tend to be much larger, divisional and corps. In that case I think Broadsword's method makes for a good compromise. The save file becomes less an issue at this scale as units would have some time to refit and re arm between battles.

[Jaeger Jonzo]

Great work tank hunter, be great to have an op layer to give more meaning to the cm fights, just what this great sim needs.

[The Steppenwulf]

I can't speak for others, but no I do not consider the points you raised to be negative or overly critical.

The BF forum is full of sensitive souls and aggressive types alike (as we are all aware). In this light I sometimes read my post back and think I might be misunderstood.

Broadsword and I have gone back and forth over a lot of this including the issue of availability of reinforcements and how to include forces that may have contributed flanking fire. In our current battle we had variable reinforcements show up on the map in a position where the player can decide to commit them or not.

Yes I experimented with this idea, shaped as it is by the current game mechanics. I'm curious, do you leave uncommitted reinforcements standing around then on the map for the duration of the rest of the battle. And if one makes the decision not to commit them can one later change one's mind?

As to higher level decisions being incorporated I'd say 20 minutes is excessively fast. Higher command would first of all have to be made aware of the situation, come to a decision, formulate plans, issue them to the forces involved and then have them familiarize themselves with the plan etc.

A Brigade Commander does not need to need to pass his battalion management decisions up the chain of command. Once he receives and accepts his objectives and the resources available are agreed and allocated to him he proceeds as he sees fit. Unless something goes badly awry, requiring additional resources, or perhaps advice, his only communication up the ladder will be a progress report/update.

The primary remaining issue is having a battle where there isn't so much an issue of flanking fire. Screaming Eagles fits the bill fairly well. The mechanics can be easily adapted to anything you want to do. All you need is a map and OoB.

Interesting point, sounds like it would work pleasingly well. I did mention in my previous post how such issues can be circumvented - this is similar but one I've not thought of.

Regarding synchronized battles, Broadsword and I have discussed an option on this, but so far haven't seen a need to implement. Personally I lean more towards an Op layer that is regimental in scale. Most of the op layers I have seen so far tend to be much larger, divisional and corps.

Of course this is logical and I agree. Brigade level is the next command level above which CM caters. Theoretically, this basic construction could be expanded but one would need multiple players each commanding a brigade to make up a division. A single player commanding a division and all it's component units is unrealistic and too inconsistent with CM gamplay in my view. Moreover, I think we'd all agree that multiple players each commanding a battalion is best for workability and the experience of command consistent with CM gameplay. From my experience of playing a broad range of multiplayer games (board games as well as computer games), I have always found that more than four players on each side, and for all kinds of reasons, the game enters a dangerzone of becoming unmanageable and some degree of disintegration normally ensues. Four is definitely a magic number for multiplayer game design or eight in total.

[sburke]

Yes I experimented with this idea, shaped as it is by the current game mechanics. I'm curious, do you leave uncommitted reinforcements standing around then on the map for the duration of the rest of the battle. And if one makes the decision not to commit them can one later change one's mind?

They are on the map to allow you to decide if you want to commit them, however if you don't they are not counted against you. It takes a certain amount of points at the op layer to commit a force. If uncommitted you retain those points and the unit itself is still available for any other battle generated in that time frame at the op layer. Broadsword is much better at explain that process.

[JohnO]

I see some people mention about using VASSAL, would Generic Campaign Control System (GECCOS) work as well? It was used during CMMC4 a long time ago.

[Broadsword56]

They are on the map to allow you to decide if you want to commit them, however if you don't they are not counted against you. It takes a certain amount of points at the op layer to commit a force. If uncommitted you retain those points and the unit itself is still available for any other battle generated in that time frame at the op layer. Broadsword is much better at explain that process.

Good explanation, sburke. To elaborate -- it's a Variable Reinforcement system, for want of a better term.

Let's say you're playing happily along at the op level and see a situation for a promising CM battle in a 1200m x 1200m area, with a battalion plus assets on the German side making an attack on a weakened US company.

You draw the "box" for your battle boundaries, and anything from the op game that's within that box will appear it its place on the map. BUT... The scenario is also constructed so that units from just outside the battle boundary also get included in the CM scenario OOB. They're designated in CM as reinforcements, with their arrival times based on a their prorated movement allowance in the boardgame -- i.e., if it would have taken the unit half its MA to reach the edge of the CM battlefield, and if the boardgame and CM scenario time scale is 90 minutes, then its arrival time would be halfway through the battle or 45 minutes in.

But here's the key: Although these reinforcements show up in the CM battle, they're not REALLY there. If the owning player doesn't move or shoot with them (or if they're not shot at or closely approached by the enemy) they will go back to their original boardgame locations when this CM battle ends, as if they never came here at all. BUT if the owning player does commit the variable reinforcements to battle, then they function normally in the CM fight, and go back into the boardgame in their finishing location from the CM map.

The op game we're using right now (Operation Dauntless) actually has operational VP costs for activating certain types of reinforcements. So, for example, I just committed B/24th Lancers from their arrival holding area at the N end of the map, because the British desperately need more armor in the fight. But I'll pay for it in VPs when the game returns back to the Op layer. Sburke has an SS tank company he can use here too, which arrived on the E mapedge to represent an asset loan to Panzer Lehr from the 12SS Pz sector across the Bordel rover. If he doesn't use it, this company will be placed back over in the 12SS sector of the op game when this battle is over.

Now here's the important part: It takes a certain amount of friendly imagination and a spirit of trust with your opponent to make this sort of system work. Because it's ripe for abuse, and could lead to wildly unrealistic situations. When I made the OOBs for this CM battle, I had to think carefully about which offmap assets or reinforcements these commanders might realistically have been given access to, in order to achieve this specific mission in this 90-minute ops cycle. It would have been dead wrong to give each player access to every boardgame counter whose movement allowance would have allowed it to reach this battle area! Wrong because it would have once again put operational decisions into the tactical game, and let the CM commander too easily make decisions above his paygrade.

[Broadsword56]

I like sburke's comments about using op games that have regimental scale.

The challenge with those, of course, is that the hex sizes and time scales get unwieldy for direct translation into CM battalion battles. But sburke came up with an ingenious way to handle that, too.

I'll let him explain it in more detail if he wants to. But in essence, it involves making one master map for the (say 4km) hex, and using a combination of submaps and objectives to create a branching mini-campaign that represents the regiment's turn (which in a game like Ardennes '44 would be 8 hours for the daylight turns).

[sburke]

I like sburke's comments about using op games that have regimental scale.

The challenge with those, of course, is that the hex sizes and time scales get unwieldy for direct translation into CM battalion battles. But sburke came up with an ingenious way to handle that, too.

I'll let him explain it in more detail if he wants to. But in essence, it involves making one master map for the (say 4km) hex, and using a combination of submaps and objectives to create a branching mini-campaign that represents the regiment's turn (which in a game like Ardennes '44 would be 8 hours for the daylight turns).

Heh heh, well it is still conceptual, but it is sort of premised on the old CMx1 operation and really isn't anything new to be honest. If the idea pans out into anything interesting I'll post then about it.

[Fizou]

mjkerner & sburke,

Im sure noob will fill in himself as he is still working on the CM & PzC combination. We had a couple restarts of the campaign that was shown on the boards and finally decided to put it on hold as noob wanted to work out a few problems before continuing.

Me and a few others took what noob started and put in to practice in CMFI with PzC Sicily 43. It works great. The rules are keept to a minimum and there is no need for an umpire.

To avoid battles that would only last a few turns we are doing the following.

1. Player on the PzC assault turn declares as many assaults as he can and chooses to.

2. The defending player accepts the assaults he wants to fight in CM. The ones that the defender dosent want to fight in CM are automatic victories for the assaulting player.

3. All CM battles have exit zones, units exited before 20 minutes have elapsed are counted as casualties. Units exited before 30 minutes has passed but after 20 minutes has passed suffer a morale penalty. Units exited after 30 minutes are treated as normal.

[sburke]

@Fizou, would love to see a bit of AAR showing both the battles resolved at CM level and impact at the op layer. Yeah I know it can be a bit of add'l burden, but am very interested to see how that is going. I liked the fact that HPS OoB is so easily edited and that makes record keeping so much easier.

[noob]

As Fizou has mentioned, i am still in the process of finishing a "how to" guide for using PzC in conjunction with CM to allow players to play operational CM battles.

Fizou and some others are playing a version of the system, and from watching that, i have started making many modifications, and i am close to coming up with a finished product.

Once i have completed the guide, i will post a link to it on these forums, and also run up a demo operation with operational and tactical AAR's.

[pnzrldr]

You guys have been watching too many Total War Rome II trailers!

FWIW your decision-cycle question's answer is 'it depends.' It depends on how well trained and experienced your BDE/RGT is, what their disposition is (deployed over how big a frontage? In contact? C2 from an established HQ/TOC or on the move? Where is the BDE CDR? Summoned to a DIV CG conference? etc...) Even today, BDEs have great difficulty with this. AFG and Iraq are poor testing grounds too, because C2 in a COIN environment has few similarities with what goes on in a high tempo fight. As our Army tries to 'get back into this high intensity thing' at our combat training centers, we now labor under a host of controls intended to support COIN and minimize risk and collateral damage, but which hamstring agile decision making. Think like routine calls for indirect fire taking 30 minutes+ to get cleared. The same problems - developing agile, mission-based orders that allow subordinates to use initiative and yet provide for flexible support - are what our Army strove towards back in the 90s. We will get back there, but it will take time.

My recommendation for working this concept in CM2 is to keep your efforts discrete - in a nice little box. WWII had fights of so many different echelons that there is not a clearly definable break between tactical and operational. Nowadays that break occurs above Division, btw. Even your average tactical wargame at the counters = companies level will feature a couple hundred tactical events per scenario. Working out how each is decided and what gets resolved in CM will be key. In reading up on historical material for scenarios, I was struck by just how much of the average unit's war was NOT resolved in tactical engagements. It is amazing how many total casualties (people and equipment) were caused by artillery fires that had nothing to do with supporting an attack or defense - just day to day shelling. Figuring out how to 'fight' but still have some combats generate a CM scenario is what will be challenging.

[Broadsword56]

Great post, pnzrldr! Your expertise is a real asset to the forum and to this thread.

What I take from your post: All wargames are abstractions, and there's always going to be a certain level of abstraction we have to make when deciding where the tactical and operational events will happen in these two-level campaigns.

When you say. "I was struck by just how much of the average unit's war was NOT resolved in tactical engagements," I've seen this too in what I've read.

And this is why I've become such a fanatic about using more than just CM when I play. Good operational wargames make CM a more realistic tactical game too -- because so much of what determines the nature of a tactical battle (including whether the battle should even be fought) happens above that companies/battalion level. And it makes CM so much more exciting when the tactical battle has a larger meaning and will have consequences for the way the operation unfolds.

"Be creative, use your imagination" is the most helpful thing I think I can share with anyone contemplating doing op-tac campaigns. By that I don't mean one should make it all up and have fictional battles on fictional terrain. What I mean is, don't obsess about having perfect 1:1 translation between the op game and CM, because that's impossible. Think of yourself more as an umpire or an interpreter -- and just try to use CM to faithfully portray the stories that you think your op game is telling you.

We've found that "soft factors" in CM units can add up to significant aggregate effects in the way battles play out -- and yet, if you use an existing wargame as your op layer, you'll almost always have to set these factors yourself by looking at the op level and deciding what they should be in each instance. Is that battalion fit, or shouldn't they be "weakened" from having moved all day to make a hasty attack at 1700 hrs? What should that "disrupted" marker or those "2 suppression hits" markers from a boardgame mean for the CM unit's motivation and command levels?

These questions are a matter of "fuzzy logic," and are highly situation-dependant. So they may be repellant to those who want a more precise and objective system with total control and the ability to micromanage. And in situations with multiple players or a competitive, tournament environment, it's natural to want a clear set of rules to prevent unfairness and cheating.

But there's no limit to the number of ways you can enhance CM with an operational layer -- the "how" isn't as important as just having one, so you can start enjoying the enhanced realism and scope it will bring to CM for you.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

And this is why I've become such a fanatic about using more than just CM when I play. Good operational wargames make CM a more realistic tactical game too -- because so much of what determines the nature of a tactical battle (including whether the battle should even be fought) happens above that companies/battalion level. And it makes CM so much more exciting when the tactical battle has a larger meaning and will have consequences for the way the operation unfolds.

Exactly... context and more context adds hugely to the fun. That is why I rate the CMMC Normandy game headed up by James Bailey some ten – twelve years ago as the greatest wargame of all time. Never even played a CM game within it. Was in a staff role. But setting up the clashes and waiting for the results to roll in was great.

To me these games are firstly operational, secondly CM. But we are very lucky to have CM to use to resolve them at all.

All the best,

Kip.