CMPzC CM Battle Set Up

[noob]

The biggest headache I have had regarding CMPzC, is how the PzC hex areas, and units, translate to CM battle maps. My original method was to use large CM maps (2000 x 2000m and above), and to allow the attacker to bring more men into the CM battle than the defender i.e. PzC assaults from different hexes against a single hex. However, using big maps, and allowing the attacker to achieve a numerical advantage of 3:1 or more in a single CM battle, will result in CM battles that are too big IMO. Battles with up to 4 or more battalions, are not only system intensive, but also could be a chore to most players, which could reduce the appeal for most players. Therefore, I have decided to change the way the CM battles are set up. From now on, only units from one hex can assault another hex.

Below is a diagram showing how I was going to create the CM battles, and how I intend to in the future. Each hex represents 1000 x 1000m.

Before

Now

With the CM set up areas corresponding to the diagrams below, given that the CM map can be at least 1500 x 1000m to 1500 x 2000m to be functional. The green strips are exit zones.

It is obvious that now CMPzC CM battles could allow the defender to have an equal force size to the attacker. This, on the surface seems problematic, and counter intuitive, however, as long as the attacker has a deeper overall PzC force pool, the defender is forced to choose between a defence in depth, with the potential for gaps in the line, or a continuous, but thin, line. Therefore, the CM battles will consequently be battles of attrition, with the attacker grinding down the defenders forces with successive CM battles, where the attacker can replace combat weary units more readily than the defender. Also, because of the hex stacking limit, there can be no more than one battalion, plus support, per side, making for more manageable battles.

Please feel free to comment.

[A Canadian Cat]

It is obvious that now CMPzC CM battles could allow the defender to have an equal force size to the attacker. This, on the surface seems problematic, and counter intuitive, however, as long as the attacker has a deeper overall PzC force pool, the defender is forced to choose between a defence in depth, with the potential for gaps in the line, or a continuous, but thin, line. Therefore, the CM battles will consequently be battles of attrition, with the attacker grinding down the defenders forces with successive CM battles, where the attacker can replace combat weary units more readily than the defender. Also, because of the hex stacking limit, there can be no more than one battalion, plus support, per side, making for more manageable battles.

Please feel free to comment.

In other words to have have a 3:1 force advantage for the attacker really ends up fighting three CM battles and grind the defender down. Or as you pointed out go around the large force and through a hole in the defense.

The only problem I see is this: As a defender, I have a battalion force concentrated in one hex. The real life reason that I would be uncomfortable with being by passed is the threat of being attacked from two or more directions at once. Your plan eliminates that threat so I might just go a head and let that enemy force move past me (I realize there will be operational ramifications but on a shorter time frame I know that I cannot be attacked by a battalion from the North and a company from the East and a Company from the West). Because I know this I can face one attack at at time and I am in a much stronger position than I would be if there was a threat of being attacked from three directions at once.

[noob]

In other words to have have a 3:1 force advantage for the attacker really ends up fighting three CM battles and grind the defender down. Or as you pointed out go around the large force and through a hole in the defense.

That's correct, if PzC units make their way around the side and rear of enemy PzC units, they can Isolate them, which affects the ammo levels in any CM battles fought, and reduces the Isolated units PzC combat power as well, and also makes them more prone to "Disruption", which further weakens the affected unit.

The only problem I see is this: As a defender, I have a battalion force concentrated in one hex. The real life reason that I would be uncomfortable with being by passed is the threat of being attacked from two or more directions at once.

I disagree, I would say being bypassed represents more of a threat to ones supply line, than the threat of being attacked from two different directions, and PzC models that supply line threat.

Your plan eliminates that threat so I might just go a head and let that enemy force move past me (I realize there will be operational ramifications but on a shorter time frame I know that I cannot be attacked by a battalion from the North and a company from the East and a Company from the West). Because I know this I can face one attack at at time and I am in a much stronger position than I would be if there was a threat of being attacked from three directions at once.

No method is perfect, but the alternative is not practical, as the CM battles would be too big IMO. Anyway, the best thing is to try it, and see how it "feels", and then, as long as I pick a scenario where the attacker has at least a 2:1 numerical advantage, the defender is vulnerable. There's a simple way to check a PzC scenario for force balance too, so it's easy enough to find a scenario with the right attack /defence ratio.

[A Canadian Cat]

I disagree, I would say being bypassed represents more of a threat to ones supply line, than the threat of being attacked from two different directions, and PzC models that supply line threat.

Oh I understand the supply thing I am just concerned that without a realistic threat of being attached in more then one direction it might change the way the whole battle is fought.

No method is perfect, but the alternative is not practical, as the CM battles would be too big IMO. Anyway, the best thing is to try it, and see how it "feels",

Yep, trying it out is exactly what we should do. I'll sign up when ever you get there.

[noob]

I am just concerned that without a realistic threat of being attached in more then one direction it might change the way the whole battle is fought.

That's true, both sides will always have secured flanks (map edges) in every CM battle, and the defender will always know the direction of their attacker, and their maximum headcount, which means the surprises will have to come at the operational level :- ) So, from the attackers POV, each CM battle will have to be viewed as a chapter in a larger CM battle (continuation battles in case of contested maps) where attacking will be more akin to using a chainsaw, rather than making rapier like thrusts. Also, CM battles will probably not be resolved in one go, so continuation battle However, even a 1000m wide CM map allows for some lateral manoeuvring.

Yep, trying it out is exactly what we should do. I'll sign up when ever you get there.

Nice one.

[kensal]

There is an operational disadvantage already inbuilt into behaviour which works against massing too many troops into a single CM battle - having taken Buron with a battalion attack, the Glens suffered over 40 casualties from a PzC artillery strike - so is part of the answer factoring in a casualty element into the operational victory conditions to prevent overloading a CM battle - and instead allowing the CM players to designate part of their force as reserves which may or may not, at that player's option, be committed to the CM battle (ie. if needed) but if it is used, creating a much bigger target for PzC artillery.

Is there a way around this which involves a decision regarding the use and deployment of units which lies between the PzC and CM rules?

[noob]

There is an operational disadvantage already inbuilt into behaviour which works against massing too many troops into a single CM battle - having taken Buron with a battalion attack, the Glens suffered over 40 casualties from a PzC artillery strike

Losing that many casualties wasn't to do with stacking, it was to do with the amount of artillery the Axis used. There is no collateral damage, so even if you only had one company on the Buron hex, you would of lost the same amount of men, but they would all be from one company, not spread between four.

[BletchleyGeek]

Losing that many casualties wasn't to do with stacking, it was to do with the amount of artillery the Axis used. There is no collateral damage, so even if you only had one company on the Buron hex, you would of lost the same amount of men, but they would all be from one company, not spread between four.

Activating the Alternative Indirect Fire resolution optional rule might not be a bad idea at all. That rule basically changes artillery usage so one is targeting hexes rather than single units, doubling the hard and soft attack values of the firing artillery and then resolving fires for each unit in the hex separately, with a modifier applied depending on the size of the unit.

What I have never really understood about that rule, though, is whether the assessment of 'size" is something absolute (tied to the stacking values in the scenario parameters) or relative (between units in the same hex). Nonetheless, experience (and very old guides on the subject) seem to point that the smaller the unit, the harder for artillery to have an effect at all.

[BletchleyGeek]

Regarding the multi-battalion battles problem: according to the PzC operational level rules, the number of stacking points for the assaulters cannot exceed the stacking limits of the target hex. This kind of takes into account limitations in reasonable force-to-space ratios when in the attack (1 hexside is 500m, a 2-hexsides cut is about 850m, 3-hexsides cut corresponds to 1000m, etc.).

Why don't just forbid CM battles which aren't valid PzC assaults?

Strictly enforcing stacking limits, and a slightly more lethal artillery, might work well enough to avoid those huge battles.

[noob]

Activating the Alternative Indirect Fire resolution optional rule might not be a bad idea at all.

I agree.........

[noob]

Why don't just forbid CM battles which aren't valid PzC assaults?

I do, it's in the manual.

Strictly enforcing stacking limits, and a slightly more lethal artillery, might work well enough to avoid those huge battles.

Stacking limits are enforced by the PzC game, and can be modified to whatever value one wishes. In the case of my rules, I recommend reducing the stacking limit to 600 - 700. This, along with the one hex versus one hex only rule, means that no CM battle can have more than a supported battalion per side.