The official CMPzC Operations "how to" guide

[kensal]

Noob,

Have we had any breakthrough on the important issue of finding pretty girls in bikinis who will walk around and hold signs above their head that say "Axis Turn 04", etc.?

Can't we ask GAJ to modify the H2HH to add this crucial feature?

[BletchleyGeek]

So, if a player whose PzC turn it isn't, loses a CM battle, your programme would move that players PzC units off the hex they recently occupied, then, move the attackers PzC units onto the vacated hex, and, also move any units that are occupying adjacent hexes to the vacated hex, if hex stacking limits are breached by the retreat of the losing units off the hex, and, do all this so as to allow the player whose PzC turn it is to save the new deployments as part of their PzC turn, just prior to generating the PBEM file to be sent to their opponent ?

?

Yes, the sequence is:

1) Declare the CM combat.

2) "Resolve" the CM combat, determining losses for participating units and retreats/advances.

3) Modify the attributes of the attacking and defending units according to 2)

4) Save the resulting situation into a btl file, so operational play for the phasing player can continue from within PzC.

Right now I'm working on a simplistic graphical user interface so one can select units, and apply combat results without having to meddle with the command line. And also, of course, to enforce Stacking and flip Victory locations ownership.

Some observations & questions regarding the system:

1) In order to count losses, I think that setting up 'Destroy Unit' objectives for each PzC on-map formation with a value of 100 works quite well, and makes losses assessment painless. The problem comes with Exit Zones. That changes the meaning of the 'Destroy Unit' objectives, making them useless for counting casualties (since if the whole of a force doesn't exit the map, what you get is a 0 or 100 score). In my playtesting with FO, we're using Cease Fire and Surrender to do away with withdrawals through Exit Zones. Cease Fire is for the attacker, and it's overtly declared. The defender has to accept the Cease Fire within 10 minutes. Surrender is for the defender and is unconditional, of course.

2) I see a problem with the way PzC unit attributes are translated into CM attributes. Fatigue level modifies the Quality (displayed as Morale by PzC) rating of units, which is a static value and prescribed by the OOB. Disrupted, Broken, Low Ammo and Low Fuel effects, also affect the displayed morale value. So I find that the current mapping into CM soft levels can be refined, as I find them not to be faithful to the operational PzC model.

This would make it more complicated to arrange forces by hand, but it would be quite easy to automate.

I don't have an actual proposal yet, but the basic idea would be to map the OOB Morale levels into Experience and 'Maximum' Motivation levels. Fatigue would then erode the 'Maximum' motivation level as well as the typical Fitness and Leadership levels. I'd leave Disrupted and Broken flags out of this, and use them just at the operational level (the penalties conveyed by Disrupted are quite apparent, as they reduce the available MP's and the ability to take part in assaults, and Broken units do not have a ZOC, and are, for all intentions and purposes a mob of fleeing men with no military value).

For instance, an US Para Coy is rated in PzC as having Morale B. I'd say that a reasonable mapping would be to consider those forces as Veteran, with High Motivation as their Maximum Motivation level and a Leadership level of +1. A US Para Coy with a Fatigue level of 200 (i.e. two thirds of the Maximum fatigue of 299), would be rated as having Low Motivation, Leadership -1 and Low fitness. Of course, worse units (say, the German Ost Companies, with Morale rating of F, would start with much less brilliant stats).

The idea is that units generally start at high levels of readiness and cohesion, but when they go down, they all hit the same bottom (Experience being the exception, as it is an static attribute in this system).

3) The Low Ammo effect is quite important for the operational layer. I'm currently tinkering with a rule that states that if the attacking force spends more than 50% of their ammo, they get flagged as "Low Ammo". This can be easily assessed by having a Friendly Ammo Level objective set to 50%.

[noob]

I have revised the following page: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/home/combat-mission/cm-battle-set-up

[A Canadian Cat]

I just read your update and I have a question / concern about your travel mode entry. An 2 x 8 tile area for setup is pretty small. You mention that units arrive one platoon or four vehicles at a time. Does that mean you expect that CM reinforcements will be used? If so that should probably be called out in the rules. But even if you are using reinforcements to setup a battalion of infantry and a company of tanks in the 2x8 setup zone will likely not work very well.

The way reinforcements work in CM scenario editor is you place all the units for the battle and then designate when they arrive. Given that you cannot place units on top of each other I fear it will not be possible to create a scenario to fit the attacking force in the setup zone.

Plus consider this a battalion would easily be 4 x 4 + 1 platoon sized groups (three infantry companies of three platoons plus an HQ plus weapon company plus the battalion HQ units). That is 17 arrivals at a minimum spacing of 5min between arrivals it will take 85min for just a battalion of infantry to arrive. I am not sure if that is what you want.

When I drove convoys we did drive in packets of 4 or five vehicles separated by driving distance - 4 or 5 seconds depending on speed (we were encouraged to have more than the driving school 2s between us). But our packets were not 5min a part - much less than that.

I suggest that the depth of the setup zone for traveling be lengthened to 24 tiles and allow three groups (either platoon of infantry or four vehicles) to arrive at one time. Thus the same battalion would take 30min to arrive. It would be wise to experiment with the width of the setup zone as well.

[noob]

You mention that units arrive one platoon or four vehicles at a time. Does that mean you expect that CM reinforcements will be used? If so that should probably be called out in the rules.

It does mean reinforcements have to be used, and I will add that to the guide, thanks for pointing it out.

I suggest that the depth of the setup zone for traveling be lengthened to 24 tiles

I agree that the set up zone needs to be increased, however 24 tiles is too much. 16 tiles should suffice, and three tiles wide.

allow three groups (either platoon of infantry or four vehicles) to arrive at one time. Thus the same battalion would take 30min to arrive.

Three platoons is a company, and if there are three companies in a battalion, the battalion would take 10 mins to arrive, with one company on the map at the start, one arriving at 5 mins, and one at 10.

[A Canadian Cat]

My bad for forgetting one group starts on map but it is not just three companies each company has an HQ plus there is a weapons company, plus the Battalion HQ and sometimes an engineering platoon.

[noob]

My bad for forgetting one group starts on map but it is not just three companies each company has an HQ plus there is a weapons company, plus the Battalion HQ and sometimes an engineering platoon.

I would have the company HQ's come on with the companies, the weapons company that I forgot mention would come on last, and there would be no Battalion HQ, as they aren't represented in PzC. Therefore, it would be 20 minutes to get a battalion on the map not 15.

[noob]

@Ian Leslie - I have added the changes you mentioned to the guide. Thanks for the input.

[noob]

I have revised this section: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/panzer-campaigns/pzc-fortifications

[noob]

I have revised this section: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/panzer-campaigns/how-pzc-unit-status-translates-to-CM

[noob]

2) I see a problem with the way PzC unit attributes are translated into CM attributes. Fatigue level modifies the Quality (displayed as Morale by PzC) rating of units, which is a static value and prescribed by the OOB. Disrupted, Broken, Low Ammo and Low Fuel effects, also affect the displayed morale value. So I find that the current mapping into CM soft levels can be refined, as I find them not to be faithful to the operational PzC model.

The PzC morale rating is confusing, as in the PzC oob editor, it is classed as Quality. However quality, IMO is a hard factor, i.e. an Elite unit is still an Elite unit even if it gets its butt kicked. So one could use the starting PzC Morale rating A - F as an indicator of quality, with quality being a hard factor, which would then translate to CM as Experience. However, that creates an unrealistic level of uniformity among the CM units, so I use the Typical setting for the CM units, and dispense with the PzC Morale as an indicator of CM Experience.

Then, we are left with the PzC Morale level as an indicator of CM Motivation, however, given the time frame of most PzC scenarios, I regard motivation as a hard factor, and not susceptible to short term combat effects. Therefore, I research the forces in the scenario in question, and try and get a handle on how the troops felt about their situation at that time. This gives me an idea of how to set their CM Motivation. A good example is the 12th SS Pz Div at Caen, these troops were fanatical, and therefore would be set at CM Fanatical for the duration of the PzC scenario, irrespective of any combat effects they sustain. So, in conclusion, I do not regard PzC morale as anything other than an indicator of the combat power of the unit in relation to PzC ranged firing. The only relevant information in the PzC unit info screen as regards CM battles, IMO, are the PzC fatigue level value affecting CM Fitness, the PzC status of disruption and broken affecting CM Leadership, and the PzC Low fuel / ammo, and Isolation status effecting CM Supply.

[noob]

1) In order to count losses, I think that setting up 'Destroy Unit' objectives for each PzC on-map formation with a value of 100 works quite well, and makes losses assessment painless. The problem comes with Exit Zones. That changes the meaning of the 'Destroy Unit' objectives, making them useless for counting casualties (since if the whole of a force doesn't exit the map, what you get is a 0 or 100 score). In my playtesting with FO, we're using Cease Fire and Surrender to do away with withdrawals through Exit Zones. Cease Fire is for the attacker, and it's overtly declared. The defender has to accept the Cease Fire within 10 minutes. Surrender is for the defender and is unconditional, of course.

As far as I'm concerned, getting rid of exit zones is heresy The whole point of exit zones is to get out of the "map is a prison" effect which makes the CM battles unrealistic in that respect. Using your method is a step backward IMO, especially when the only reason it is being used is to make casualty counting easier, which isn't a problem IMO. What if the defending unit has blown forces it wants to exit, but still wants to fight ? Does it have to hide them ? I personally wouldn't go near a CM operation that did not have EZ's.

[noob]

Based on some good advice from Kohlenklau, I am currently re organising the pages in the guide. I am also re writing some pages, which will be numbered, and added to the guide as they are completed.

[Broadsword56]

As far as I'm concerned, getting rid of exit zones is heresy The whole point of exit zones is to get out of the "map is a prison" effect which makes the CM battles unrealistic in that respect. Using your method is a step backward IMO, especially when the only reason it is being used is to make casualty counting easier, which isn't a problem IMO. What if the defending unit has blown forces it wants to exit, but still wants to fight ? Does it have to hide them ? I personally wouldn't go near a CM operation that did not have EZ's.

I respect your rules and reasoning entirely. But there is another way to look at it:

Every WW II platoon, company, battalion, etc., always operated within a defined sector.

If a CM battle map is created to contain that sector for the unit that's operating in it (including room for a rally point in case of failure) and if the CM battle length represents the time frame of an op order to that tactical unit, then the unit must either succeed or fail to accomplish its orders within the scope of those orders.

In that situation, exiting and exit zones are not necessary (unless the mission itself is to exit the map somewhere, like an escape or a penetration mission)

If the battle deteriorates so much that the force needs to leave the map, the owning player ought to stop the battle there and take matters back to the op level -- that represents the unit's commander asking higher HQ for permission to withdraw and/or a new set of orders. If the prevailing force wants to exit the map to press an attack, pursue, etc., same thing -- that's the end of the tactical cycle and it's time for a new operations decision.

Heresy in noobland, maybe, but another valid way to play.

[sburke]

The other aspect is having EZ's makes every defense essentially a holding action. Your troops will always be looking over their shoulder when the reality is they may not have permission to withdrawal at all.

We all have our own perceptions as to how to handle this and that I think is one reason the campaign layer may never truly exist integrated into CM. Broadsword and I play based on a general agreement for what we are looking for. We operate based on an agreed perception of what the implications of events were at the OP level and their impact on our battles. In at least two - La Luzerne and Hamel Vallee, I was in a position where either my ability to withdrawal was constrained by terrain, unit cohesion and lack of mobility, or I was simply in a hold at all cost position dictated by higher command. In those cases an EZ made no sense, I had to fight until my position was either untenable (and surrender) or the allies called off their attack. We do not play by the typical CM casualty levels and that alters everything about the game, which in our eyes is the point of having an op layer. In those battles where I did have an option to withdrawal I have actually done so I think once and we did a bit of figuring to understand based on the specific battle what the impact was on those units that withdrew. That can vary greatly depending on the state of an attacker, their ability to pursue, the terrain, the timing etc.

You are trying to create an actual rigid set of rules to allow anyone to have an OP layer with as little book keeping as possible. Both are equally good things, however I am sure you will have battles w/o an EZ. What are the mechanics in game if a unit is surrounded?

[noob]

The other aspect is having EZ's makes every defense essentially a holding action.

The operational situation will determine the type of defence in a CM battle, not EZ's.

Your troops will always be looking over their shoulder when the reality is they may not have permission to withdrawal at all.

Considering the player will play all CO roles, he can give himself permission to withdraw.

You are trying to create an actual rigid set of rules to allow anyone to have an OP layer with as little book keeping as possible.

Correct. Once the "framework" is finished, players can hang anything they want from it, but this whole system was built around the concept of allowing players to exit units after a set time.

however I am sure you will have battles w/o an EZ. What are the mechanics in game if a unit is surrounded?

A defending force always gets an exit zone, where it is situated is under review. If the defending force is surrounded, it has to fight it's way though the encirclement to get to the exit zone, or wait for reinforcements.

[sburke]

A defending force always gets an exit zone, where it is situated is under review. If the defending force is surrounded, it has to fight it's way though the encirclement to get to the exit zone, or wait for reinforcements.

Interesting.... that sounds like the makings of a good scenario if one already doesn't exist.

[noob]

Every WW II platoon, company, battalion, etc., always operated within a defined sector.

There's always a compromise between gameplay and realism, and in this case, EZ's allow another level of gameplay without any artificial restrictions, apart from the thirty turn rule.

Heresy in noobland, maybe, but another valid way to play.

Ok, heresy was a bit strong, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that anything else was invalid, I was just a bit surprised that the use EZ's could be questioned, given how obvious to me they are when it comes to creating more choices for a player in a CM battle.

[noob]

I have revised this page: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/home/combat-mission/cm-battle-victory-conditions

[noob]

I have added this page to the guide:

https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/home/combat-mission/cm-battle-extension

The method described will be used for all CMPzC operations I am running at the moment. If the method proves to be satisfactory, it will be retained, if not, it will be changed.

[noob]

Please disregard the above post, the page has been removed. This page is now the relevant page: https://sites.google.com/site/cmpzch2hoperations/home/combat-mission/cm-battle-victory-conditions