I need some therapy

[rocketman]

Over the years one thing has remained a constant when it comes to gaming - I always come back to CM-games. No matter what other games might capture my attention, CM is always there.

But there is one aspect of the game that I, despite years of play, still dread - the set-up phase. I greatly enjoy reading the briefing, looking at tactical maps and so on to get my imagination going, and I look forward to seeing the map.

But once I get there and see a "swarm" of units to place, devise a plan, look for avenues of approach, and so on, and try to figure out what each unit should do - I simply lose focus. I either look for a smaller scenario that is more straight forward or I end up making a hasty plan more or less to get it over with and get the action started. Often to poor results.

So, my fellow brothers in arms, can you do som "therapy mind trick" on me to maken me appreciate the set-up phase as an enjoyable and challenging aspect of the game. One that I won't mind spending an hour on.

I want to take on the big scenarios, but never do.

Any ideas are greatly appreciated. Now I'm off to start a new scenario. We'll see how that set-up goes...

[Holman]

Well, there's a real difference between setup on attack and setup on defense. A defensive setup might make or break your game, but attack setups (with exceptions, obviously) are sometimes just a matter of forming task groups with an idea of where they will be headed first. It's uncommon for a CM scenario to start with the attackers already under fire.

If you're looking for a big scenario, give "Carbide Carbide" try. It's a large map but not an overwhelming number of units. It might whet your appetite for bigger things.

[JoMac]

Rocket,

Just stick with small Scenarios like I do...Platoon up to Reinforced Company in size ( actually the later is already big enough as far as I'm concerned ).

Joe

[Blackcat]

"If you're looking for a big scenario, give "Carbide Carbide" try"

Wholly agree with that suggestion. "Carbide, Carbide" is one of the best scenarios I have played in Combat Mission through all its iterations.

I also agree with Mr. Martyr's suggest that set up on the attack need not be to onerous. Get down to ground level and have a good look at the terrain, work out a rough plan of attack and which units will be responsible for which parts of it - recce, mainforce, diversionary attack (if any) and reserve and group them in the set up areas accordingly.

C3K did a superb AAR over on the Normandy thread a few weeks ago, in which he set out his thought processes for an attack, well worth a read (as is just about anything he posts, even if just for the laughs).

[noob]

When it comes to setting up, a general rule would be to split all infantry squads into SMG and LMG teams. then put the SMG teams in terrain offering short LOS, and the LMG teams in terrain offering long LOS. Never have a squad containing both SMG and LMG, otherwise, either one will always be in terrain unsuitable for its design. Place AT guns in places offering the longest LOS, preferably a keyhole position, down a road etc, basically, use them to deny enemy tanks areas of open ground.

Basically, when you look at a map, think of matching the correct weapon type with the correct terrain. However, there will be times when you are forced to use weapons in terrain they were not designed for, it is then you will know that you are probably losing

For defence, it's always a good idea to put up a spotting screen of binocular guys, while keeping the bulk of your forces at the centre rear, then try and concentrate, and counter attack the weakest part of the attackers front once you have defined it. Sitting in prepared positions is a bad idea with CM artillery in the mix.

[Lt Belenko]

The dreaded setup.

For scenarios: I figure the designer put some thought in to troop placement so I just start entering orders.

For QBs... yup the dreaded setup. Poor offensive setup can be overcome by maneuver, I just figure where's he's at where I need to get to and seek cover along the way.

For defense: A few pickets out front. A MLR - (main line of resistance) and reserve. With luck the reserve can shift without getting mowed down while moving.

[Childress]

When it comes to setting up, a general rule would be to split all infantry squads into SMG and LMG teams. then put the SMG teams in terrain offering short LOS, and the LMG teams in terrain offering long LOS. Never have a squad containing both SMG and LMG, otherwise, either one will always be in terrain unsuitable for its design.

The recent Primosole Bridge scenario illustrates this conundrum. It features a big, wide open map but the attacking British paratrooopers are heavily armed with Stens which were close range weapons.

[noob]

The recent Primosole Bridge scenario illustrates this conundrum. It features a big, wide open map but the attacking British paratrooopers are heavily armed with Stens which were close range weapons.

Then the men were put in a bad spot, where their weapons were inadequate for the terrain they were in. However, if they have a lot of heavy weapon suppression fire available, then it could be possible to get them, and their Stens, into a close range fight as quickly as possible, for their sakes

Most scenarios I have played have squads that can be split into two teams for different ranges, so at least half the weapons will be initially useful

[Boo Radley]

Yeknodathon years ago said, "The set up portion of a CM game is like flower arranging for guys".

The one thing I know is that no matter how I set my guys up, it will be wrong and they will all Die-A-Lot.

[Stele]

I have to agree that sometimes this is one of my gripes; it is definitely not a game breaker but it is something that I will have to set some time aside for studying my units, possible plans of action, contingencies, etc. This can be the most in depth part of playing a game that can lead to rewarding results.

[A Canadian Cat]

So, my fellow brothers in arms, can you do som "therapy mind trick" on me to maken me appreciate the set-up phase as an enjoyable and challenging aspect of the game. One that I won't mind spending an hour on.

OK here is my mind trick - don't do it all at once. If I start a big senario on the attack say for example. I break down the process into steps.

1. Organize by force - get each company in one place get each platoon in the company organized a little. Etc etc.
   
2. Spend some time looking at the terrain and your avenues of approach, look at how the defender will likely use the terrain.
   
3. Spend some time thinking about your plan.
   
4. Organize the units you need into the groups you need to execute your plan
   
5. Issue orders.
   

What that means is you can stop after each step. Save the game, exit the game turn off the computer, do something else. Then when you are ready come back. If you only spend half an hour at a time it will not seem so daunting.

With a really large force you might save and come back multiple times even in step 1. In fact I find real value in stepping away while doing step 3.

Yes, I know this can make the elapsed time long but hey you can either find away to do a good job of setup or stick to small scenarios.

Good luck.

[Michael Emrys]

I agree with ian about how to go about setting up. One thing that would help a whole lot is that many maps really need a much larger set up area for the attacker, one having greater depth. I often find my units crowded against the back edge of the map in a most inconvenient way. It is also unrealistic if you are trying to set up a flying column as your formation.

Michael

[Freyberg]

How about instead of setting up for a QB - create a scenario. Then, since the effort you put into setup isn't wasted as others can play it, it may feel less arduous.

[A Canadian Cat]

One thing that would help a whole lot is that many maps really need a much larger set up area for the attacker, one having greater depth.

Agreed. I often have a convoy with an awkward L shape to it due to restricted setup space.

[slysniper]

OK here is my mind trick - don't do it all at once. If I start a big senario on the attack say for example. I break down the process into steps.

1. Organize by force - get each company in one place get each platoon in the company organized a little. Etc etc.
   
2. Spend some time looking at the terrain and your avenues of approach, look at how the defender will likely use the terrain.
   
3. Spend some time thinking about your plan.
   
4. Organize the units you need into the groups you need to execute your plan
   
5. Issue orders.
   

What that means is you can stop after each step. Save the game, exit the game turn off the computer, do something else. Then when you are ready come back. If you only spend half an hour at a time it will not seem so daunting.

With a really large force you might save and come back multiple times even in step 1. In fact I find real value in stepping away while doing step 3.

Yes, I know this can make the elapsed time long but hey you can either find away to do a good job of setup or stick to small scenarios.

Good luck.

Good Advice

And if you are not doing steps like these, then you really are lacking the mind set needed for playing these type of games well.

The set up portion of the game is likely the most important part of the game even when placement of units seem to not be important.

You should have made plans for the battle , no matter what type of situation you are in and you should have thought about the enemy and what their most likely actions will be. With that you should always be placing you units in positions or groups to perform what is needed with your plans or what you expect the enemy to do.

Not doing this means you are playing games and reacting to what is happens to you in the battle, instead you should be acting before the enemy does and forcing action and dictating reaction by the enemy. In other words, those that can preplan good battle plans will dictate the battle and the victory. You hear many players say that their battle plan goes to hell in the first few turns. Look at the AAR of good players. They have a sound plan , have the units placed to perform that plan and when things go wrong in the plan, they adjust, modify and correct as needed. but in general they stick with the plan and many times have already planned the adjustments they would do when things dont work out smoothly.

That is the mind set of a tactician and until you start learning to enjoy the task of set up in the game, then a tactician ye are not.

[Broadsword56]

Slysniper makes the best observation yet.

I've increasingly tried to think more like real staff and do prebattle analysis and orders (at least in my head) but I still don't think I've achieved the level of it that would make me the best CM player I could be.

What's important isn't reaching some ideal of what a "proper" commander does; it's striking a personal balance between the work factor and fun factor so that CM is still a rewarding and entertaining experience for you. Everyone's comfort zone will be somewhere different on this continuum.

Still-- some people will hate planning so much that the most basic planning seems to spoil their fun completely. That's OK, but I have to wonder why they're playing CM in the first place. Because the planning and tactical commanding are really the heart of what the game's all about.

The only analogy I can think of is with a strategic Civil War game I once bought, by AGEOD. Critics raved about its depth and great AI, etc. And I really thought it was the coolest game ever on its subject. But I just could never get into planning my war finances, deciding wich states should raise new regiments, etc. So guess what -- I stopped playing the game because I knew it just wasn't for me. And I didn't complain to the forum or the company to ask them to help me find ways to enjoy the game, because I knew it was my personal taste that was the issue, not their product.

[Seedorf81]

When there's an infantry battalion, with ammo replenish possibilities because of the presence of trucks, carriers, jeeps, sdkfz's, I want to distribute the ammo before the battle starts.

In order to do that, I will have to split nearly all units, fit 'm into the carrier/jeep/truck with the appropriate ammo and put 'm back on the right place again. That business alone can be an irritating click-fest, that doesn't have to do with tactical planning or being a great commander but takes up a lot of time.

When I want to play CM, I usually want to get some fight going and not being busy for ages with splitting units, and positioning them in good positions while being sure they are in C2 (which in huge battles can be an headache in itself). Not to mention the time it can consume to be sure that every unit has the right line of sight/field of fire and has enough cover possibilities.

I'm no Bill Hardenberger, I'm an impatient person that wants to get going and maybe this is the same with Rocketman?

To state that one wonders why I play CM because I for instance would like smaller battles and/or a swifter way to get into a fight, baffles me.

IMHO it's the combat that counts (What's the game called again?)

[Boo Radley]

A mix of trucks, jeeps, halftracks and tanks on a narrow road, bordered with thick woods. Lots of squishies, all facing different directions and totally out of contact with each other.

On a huge map with limited time.

Knowing (just knowing!) your opponent has a preplanned arty attack waiting to drop on you on turn 1.

Oh, and it's a Rune scenario.

These are things which convince me my karma is all screwed up.

[sburke]

These are things which convince me my karma is all screwed up.

And here we were thinking it was because you resided in the cesspool.

[Michael Emrys]

These are things which convince me my karma is all screwed up.

Yes, it's all true. You've missed your place in life. You should run off to the Ozarks to raise pigs and never sit in front of a computer again. You'd fit right in.

Michael

[Boo Radley]

I could tell all your kinfolk how you're doing in the Oregon Home for the Chronically Old.

[Pandur]

I find when there is "real" work to do in the setup phase, other then acquiring ammo, the scenario designer messed up in a way.

a battalion should be already sorted into company´s, and platoon into platoons and tank groups into tank groups.

if anyone tried one of my few scenarios he knows what i mean. my units are sitting neatly in the setupzone and you see what you have at a glance. no sorting needed, just deploy where you want.

[Broadsword56]

I find when there is "real" work to do in the setup phase, other then acquiring ammo, the scenario designer messed up in a way.

a battalion should be already sorted into company´s, and platoon into platoons and tank groups into tank groups.

if anyone tried one of my few scenarios he knows what i mean. my units are sitting neatly in the setupzone and you see what you have at a glance. no sorting needed, just deploy where you want.

Even better: A designer can deploy the units within the steup zones, to give the player one version of a good deployment that can be played right out of the box. Then it's easier for players to tweak it to their liking by shifting a few units around. Or the players can start from scratch and make their own deployment if they want to spend the time.

[John Kettler]

rocketman,

Not only do I hear you loud and clear, but the problem is worse on my end. You've probably seen references to my tactical brain not working, which is why I haven't played CM in quite some time, despite having the time to play. Partially this is because of my brain injury, but it's also a product of enormous stress, too. The other night, I thought I might be able to finally play CM, but was completely undone by the overwhelming specter of all those units requiring positioning. And this was a small battle! Still, it's progress, in that I did go so far as to start up the game, read the briefing, look at the map, open the map and attempt to get started.

Am glad you started this thread, seeing as how the suggestions received are very much on point. Maybe I should play a QB vs AI instead of a battle?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

I could tell all your kinfolk how you're doing in the Oregon Home for the Chronically Old.

You'd be lying. But hey, it's what you do.

Michael