Jump to content

Christmas Bone


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are also interesting spotting issues - if the infantry spots an enemy unit that the tank doesn't see, does this spot get conveyed to the tank? I.e., if there is infantry hidden in a hole 50 meters away, do the desantniks need to deal with it themselves, or can they say, "Hey, comrade tank commander, there are some fascists hiding in a hole 50 meters to the right; can you take care of them?"

Just area target it and be done with it. No spotting issues there!

Realistically of course you'd have to convey the information somehow for the tank to take action, which would take time. The same problems cropped up in the western front, especially in bocage where close infantry-tank cooperation proved difficult. In the end they attached telephones to the backs of Shermans to facilitate direct communication, but even that wouldn't have been as efficient as what the omniscient player can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning tanks desants, did you see my post #3 on what I turned up in Russian tanker memoirs?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112914

HSU Dmitry Loza talked in his Defending The Soviet Motherland about how intimate the relationship was between his tank crew and the tank riders. The tank riders habitually worked with and for the men of their tank. The men ate together and looked after each other. A loss was a loss no matter whether a tank rider or a tanker. An entire squad of tankodesantniki rode on Loza's tank, not half a squad. Of course, the odds of having said squad at or near full strength aren't good, either. I think people seriously underestimate how many men you can put on a tank. There are period pics galore showing AFVs on the move festooned with men, though not attacking cross country.

Having been right next to a WW II T-34/85 and in a Sherman 76mm, there's quite a bit of room up there, especially with the massive grab irons fitted in the Russian case. Loza talks about communicating with the tank rider squad commander, who clung to the back of the turret. I went through all the I Remember infantry accounts, and the closest I got to a tankodesantnik account other than what I already described was of a guy (infantry company CO, I believe) whose unit was exploiting a breakthrough. When bullets started flying, he dismounted and his men promptly got off the tanks, after which the dismounted tank riders screened the column against the much feared Panzerfaust armed infantry.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really love the idea of huge maps, particularly if they are *not* crammed full of troops. Like a recon battle on a 4km by 8 km map where you have maybe a company are are probing for weak spots.

(Maybe followed up by larger battles as both sides reinforce)

Battles where you have to protect your trucks and HTs because it would otherwise take an hour to move from one location to another. Battles where having reserves is important because the map is too large for you to just shift existing forces to cover. Maps where breakthroughs and strongpoints are signficant. Maps where artillery is important, but does not have the godlike power it has on smaller maps. Maps where extremely common things like dropping harassing fire on key roads/intersections is sometimes the best use of your arty. Maps where there actually *are* key roads and intersections...

Exactly, the larger maps and wider scope really adds more dimensions to the tactics.

Check the 12,000 point AAR in the main forum for a glimpse of a larger than average map and forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vincere and Andrew H.,

One thing that larger maps will provide is considerable defanging of artillery, there being so much more ground to cover, so many more places to hide. As things stand now, in Small and Medium battles, artillery can wreak havoc out of all proportion to its typical formation size and relatively meager ammo allotments per gun.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vincere and Andrew H.,

One thing that larger maps will provide is considerable defanging of artillery, there being so much more ground to cover, so many more places to hide. As things stand now, in Small and Medium battles, artillery can wreak havoc out of all proportion to its typical formation size and relatively meager ammo allotments per gun.

Regards,

John Kettler

Sounds good to me.

I guess smoke for covering flanks will be more viable too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember x-large maps is an option, not the new default. Foot infantry walks at about 5km an hour. That could make for some mighty tedious gameplay if forces are too far apart and are forced to hike the distance. I still recall some old CMBB maps that I never did locate the enemy for all my wandering and patrolling. There are circumstances where x-large maps should shine. 88s versus heavy tanks, for instance. Armor-heavy maneuvering, extra-long fields of view. But 'ideal' infantry vs infantry map size will probably stay about the same. Because bigger is not always better. Russian tank infantry carries PPSH. PPSH has a range of 200m. Not much utility trading shots on a 5km deep map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember x-large maps is an option, not the new default. Foot infantry walks at about 5km an hour. That could make for some mighty tedious gameplay if forces are too far apart and are forced to hike the distance. I still recall some old CMBB maps that I never did locate the enemy for all my wandering and patrolling. There are circumstances where x-large maps should shine. 88s versus heavy tanks, for instance. Armor-heavy maneuvering, extra-long fields of view. But 'ideal' infantry vs infantry map size will probably stay about the same. Because bigger is not always better. Russian tank infantry carries PPSH. PPSH has a range of 200m. Not much utility trading shots on a 5km deep map.

+1 to this. The maximum map size is just a tool to expand the possibilities. So, imagine an x-large map where at the forward edge of the battle area the opposing infantry are still only around 300-500m apart. Now you could use all that additional space to simulate a whole defensive system in depth, with other echelons that the enemy has to attack through. Position mobile armored reserves a good way back, ready to respond to the enemy penetrations. So instead of one gigantic continuous action, you might end up with several different smaller actions at different places and times around the same map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember x-large maps is an option, not the new default. Foot infantry walks at about 5km an hour. That could make for some mighty tedious gameplay if forces are too far apart and are forced to hike the distance. I still recall some old CMBB maps that I never did locate the enemy for all my wandering and patrolling. There are circumstances where x-large maps should shine. 88s versus heavy tanks, for instance. Armor-heavy maneuvering, extra-long fields of view. But 'ideal' infantry vs infantry map size will probably stay about the same. Because bigger is not always better. Russian tank infantry carries PPSH. PPSH has a range of 200m. Not much utility trading shots on a 5km deep map.

Yes, but the right game set up could see recon units employed in their role of force recon rather than local action recon.

I see and take your point though. That said some larger maps would break down into smaller sub actions, like the 12k AAR, with flanks supporting neighbours; reserves having more prominence; and mobility really showing it's worth.

But infantry being my favourite arm, I hear you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 to this. The maximum map size is just a tool to expand the possibilities. So, imagine an x-large map where at the forward edge of the battle area the opposing infantry are still only around 300-500m apart. Now you could use all that additional space to simulate a whole defensive system in depth, with other echelons that the enemy has to attack through. Position mobile armored reserves a good way back, ready to respond to the enemy penetrations. So instead of one gigantic continuous action, you might end up with several different smaller actions at different places and times around the same map.

Feed in reserves, and ammo- Sounds like a damn fine operation campaign to me. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the right game set up could see recon units employed in their role of force recon rather than local action recon.

Ya, although that's more than possible on the older "smaller" maps too. What you're talking about is a matter of scenario design, not scenario parameters.

That said some larger maps would break down into smaller sub actions

I don't quite think that people understand just how dense WWII battlefields were. The area represented by Pete's superb Oosterbeek master-map, for example, in 1944 contained three divisions worth of troops within it's confines. Recall that CM C2 only goes up to battalion level. While you can probably use the editor to cram three division's worth of troops onto Pete's Oosterbeek map, you shouldn't kid yourself that Der Hexenkessel is being modeled in any particularly authentic way. A CM battle on that scale is technically possible, I suppose, but would be absurd.

To take another example; during Op ASTONIA (Sept 44, clearance of Le Havre) the lead Brigade pushed three infantry battalions, plus a ton of supporting armour (Churchills, AVsRE, Crocs, Shermans, Flails, Kangaroos, SP-AT, etc), through a frontage barely 500m wide.

These are not particularly extreme examples, and both of them can be fully represented without even pushing the limits of the older, smaller max map size.

Large maps do undoubtedly offer scope to do some interesting things, but it's worth remembering that many of the things they allow are either wildly anachronistic (because generally force densities were too high to allow it and front lines were usually continuous so there simply was no 'open flank' for recce to go swanning around), or the number of units required to honestly represent all the units present would make for an unplayable mess. CM is, I think, the wrong platform to be attempting anything much bigger than a battalion-group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never too early to start pi$$ing people off.

As soon as I buy the new East Front CM game I will be busy as a beaver modding it to play a winter east front battle. I bet I can have it out in a week or so.

That is the nuckin' futs kind of guy I am. Understand my world.

This post sponsored by Arrogant Bastard Ale. 7.2% Alc. Vol. Drink responsibly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large maps do undoubtedly offer scope to do some interesting things, but it's worth remembering that many of the things they allow are either wildly anachronistic (because generally force densities were too high to allow it and front lines were usually continuous so there simply was no 'open flank' for recce to go swanning around), or the number of units required to honestly represent all the units present would make for an unplayable mess. CM is, I think, the wrong platform to be attempting anything much bigger than a battalion-group.

Good analysis. On the other hand, if we ever get to North Africa, large maps with relatively low unit densities will make for some interesting situations.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing the X-large maps would be excellent for is MASTER MAPS. One honkin' big historical map of an area then subdivide it into discrete overlapping (reasonable size) engagements. Back for the CMSF Brit module I remember doing two scenarios set in Adra - the far west end of one map was the far east end map of the other. I don't think anyone ever noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, although that's more than possible on the older "smaller" maps too. What you're talking about is a matter of scenario design, not scenario parameters.

I don't quite think that people understand just how dense WWII battlefields were. The area represented by Pete's superb Oosterbeek master-map, for example, in 1944 contained three divisions worth of troops within it's confines. Recall that CM C2 only goes up to battalion level. While you can probably use the editor to cram three division's worth of troops onto Pete's Oosterbeek map, you shouldn't kid yourself that Der Hexenkessel is being modeled in any particularly authentic way. A CM battle on that scale is technically possible, I suppose, but would be absurd.

To take another example; during Op ASTONIA (Sept 44, clearance of Le Havre) the lead Brigade pushed three infantry battalions, plus a ton of supporting armour (Churchills, AVsRE, Crocs, Shermans, Flails, Kangaroos, SP-AT, etc), through a frontage barely 500m wide.

These are not particularly extreme examples, and both of them can be fully represented without even pushing the limits of the older, smaller max map size.

Large maps do undoubtedly offer scope to do some interesting things, but it's worth remembering that many of the things they allow are either wildly anachronistic (because generally force densities were too high to allow it and front lines were usually continuous so there simply was no 'open flank' for recce to go swanning around), or the number of units required to honestly represent all the units present would make for an unplayable mess. CM is, I think, the wrong platform to be attempting anything much bigger than a battalion-group.

Been a while since I looked seriously at force to space ratios and densities but not everywhere was so densely packed.

I do not dispute the specific examples. Yes there were many operations where forces concentrated for attack and the density was quite extreme, on paper and on the ground.

However,

1. the front lines were not all joined up from Leningrad to the Caucasus. There were thin areas, and gaps. In some areas the only road or rail decided the place of battle.

2. I'm sure you know full well that the when a regiment etc is attacking then not every swinging dick is at the pointy end all at the same time.

3. East front, and Patton's charge for a while, there were plenty of open flanks and space for meeting engagements after break through.

Agreed about Battalion level- it's the max I'd take CM, perhaps reinforced with flavour.

That said, for me I think the best use of the larger maps could well be the chunking and creativity adaption to make some kind area that an operation could possibly swing back and forth over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. the front lines were not all joined up from Leningrad to the Caucasus. There were thin areas, and gaps. In some areas the only road or rail decided the place of battle.

No dispute. Although, there's a reason those areas had low force densities and/or hanging flanks: there was nothing worth fighting for there and/or there was insufficient infrastructure to support larger forces. Which kind of gets into circular argument - usually the only places were force densities were low and flanks were open were places where is was impossible or unprofitable to have higher force densities or to send anything on a wide flanking movement.

2. I'm sure you know full well that the when a regiment etc is attacking then not every swinging dick is at the pointy end all at the same time.

No dispute.

3. East front, and Patton's charge for a while, there were plenty of open flanks and space for meeting engagements after break through.

No dispute, except that it doesn't logically follow that "therefore the map for an ME needs to be huge." It's quite possible to do a good ME on a 500x500m map.

Agreed about Battalion level- it's the max I'd take CM, perhaps reinforced with flavour.

No dispute. Pretty much no Bn-level unit went into battle in WWII 'complete but naked', certainly not in the 1944-45 timeframe anyway. Attachments and detachments were the norm, and don't need 'flavour' as a justification (although I do like to add in oddball thingys now and then just because :D )

That said, for me I think the best use of the larger maps could well be the chunking and creativity adaption to make some kind area that an operation could possibly swing back and forth over.

Yeah, but you have to weigh in the ~5 hours per square-km needed to make the map in the first place. Ruthlessly pruning map size can save a lot of effort in the editor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the new map sizes available, may I suggest that BFC seriously consider giving a "follow the leader command".

Plotting movements for bn size battle or operations takes you easily 30 minutes per turn, unless you are on the defensive side.

Re-watching the action for each unit may take you another half an hour, but that I may consider the entertainment side of the game. Repetitive plotting however, becomes just tedious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the new map sizes available, may I suggest that BFC seriously consider giving a "follow the leader command".

Plotting movements for bn size battle or operations takes you easily 30 minutes per turn, unless you are on the defensive side.

Re-watching the action for each unit may take you another half an hour, but that I may consider the entertainment side of the game. Repetitive plotting however, becomes just tedious.

Steve has said it's on their list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger map size is here simply as an option. It will certainly not be the norm for the stuff you see on disk. In fact, we're not planning on anything close to that size for any one battle. What we are doing is using the large map size for Master Maps which we are then chopping down for the Campaigns' individual battles. Which is why we aren't spending time, now at least, making features that cater to much larger maps. Similar to how we have not prioritized making features to support 4 hour long battles or multi battalion fights (both possible for years already).

BTW, the Soviets on the offensive had a 9 up 1 back approach vs. the usual "western" 2 up 1 back. Meaning, in the west 2 battalions would be forward and 1 held back in reserve, while the Soviets would put 8 battalions up front and 1 held back in reserve. The thinking was to overwhelm local defenses with a sea of bodies and then send the tanks in after while the remaining infantry mopped up pockets of resistance. High casualties from this strategy for sure, but they did win the war so obviously it worked.

Bagration is pretty easy to find examples of super densely packed forces. In several sectors a Rifle Division had 1500m to 3000m of frontage. That's roughly 500m-1000m per Regiment, or 133m to 333m per Battalion on average which in turn means a company frontage of 50m - 100m. That's dense!

Relating this to a big square map, that's the equivalent of frontage for roughly an entire Rifle Corps plus at least 2-6 Brigades worth of armor. On the German side would be roughly 1 division.

Of course this is not the usual situation for the Eastern Front. It was for a large scale set piece offensive. And it's exactly why the Germans lost so badly. Wherever the Soviets wanted to break through they did. Break through enough places and no front can hold.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bagration is pretty easy to find examples of super densely packed forces. In several sectors a Rifle Division had 1500m to 3000m of frontage. That's roughly 500m-1000m per Regiment, or 133m to 333m per Battalion on average which in turn means a company frontage of 50m - 100m. That's dense!

Steve

That really puts this map size discussion in perspective. Huge maps in Bagration are for master-mapping purposes. But the actual maps to be played on would/should probably end up *smaller* than many people are playing on now -- if players want to simulate the historical densities and frontages and not have to command more than a battalion-plus-assets.

So, for example, a playable battle might have a scenario map of 300m to 500m wide and 1,000m or more deep, using the map boundaries to represent your unit's frontage and operating sector. But because you cut this strip from a master map, you can also set up the battles of the adjacent battalions to play separately. Or set up this battalion's subsequent battle later in the day after it succeeds/fails to reach its initial objectives.

Isn't that a CM campaign? Well, it can be if you want to build one and work within the constraints of the campaign editor. But you can also just play the battles and use some other means to decide what happens next.

I can see Bagration stimulating the player demand for more campaigns, and for the various experiments in third-party operational layers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Russian depth, they were also the first and so far the only army in history to put an entire army group in operational reserve without assigned frontage. They were flexible about deployments at all scales, not formulaic, in other words. Their success was not due to putting everyone on line all the time, since they simply didn't.

As for its effectiveness when it was done, overloading the front with just infantry fails bloody without proper prep work from other arms - above all to neutralize the defending artillery grid. Second to ensure paths through obstacles and good intel on where the defender positions are, in detail. You can put a regiment on 500 meters, but if the defenders just put the fire of 5 battalions of artillery on the same spot in response, you just bleed more. Rifles won't hurt howitzers 10 km away over the horizon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger map size is here simply as an option. It will certainly not be the norm for the stuff you see on disk. In fact, we're not planning on anything close to that size for any one battle. What we are doing is using the large map size for Master Maps which we are then chopping down for the Campaigns' individual battles. Which is why we aren't spending time, now at least, making features that cater to much larger maps. Similar to how we have not prioritized making features to support 4 hour long battles or multi battalion fights (both possible for years already).

BTW, the Soviets on the offensive had a 9 up 1 back approach vs. the usual "western" 2 up 1 back. Meaning, in the west 2 battalions would be forward and 1 held back in reserve, while the Soviets would put 8 battalions up front and 1 held back in reserve. The thinking was to overwhelm local defenses with a sea of bodies and then send the tanks in after while the remaining infantry mopped up pockets of resistance. High casualties from this strategy for sure, but they did win the war so obviously it worked.

Bagration is pretty easy to find examples of super densely packed forces. In several sectors a Rifle Division had 1500m to 3000m of frontage. That's roughly 500m-1000m per Regiment, or 133m to 333m per Battalion on average which in turn means a company frontage of 50m - 100m. That's dense!

Relating this to a big square map, that's the equivalent of frontage for roughly an entire Rifle Corps plus at least 2-6 Brigades worth of armor. On the German side would be roughly 1 division.

Of course this is not the usual situation for the Eastern Front. It was for a large scale set piece offensive. And it's exactly why the Germans lost so badly. Wherever the Soviets wanted to break through they did. Break through enough places and no front can hold.

Steve

I'm sure you can cite many examples of high density combat/ battles during Bagration and the war that supports the 'maps are more historical if kept small argument'. However, even a cursory review of even the major headline grabbing operations reveals that this would be cherry picking. I really doubt that you, JonS, MikeyD, Michael Emrys, and many other CM regulars wouldn't be aware that these super high densities are concentrations for significant breakthrough attacks. Or Urban/hardpoint combat.

The breakthroughs grab the headlines, but the follow up combat was diverse and over a longer duration. During which example of whole divisions if not whole Corps* slipping through the 'lines' were not uncommon. Not to mention all the peripheral engagements, and several large scale break-in and out attempts.

*Of course the divisions slipping through west were not so whole any longer.

My point is that using a large map with some room for tactical manoeuvre while obviously not the accurate portrayal of every combat- it's equally accurate, if not even more common to reject any claims it be anachronistic.

And more to the point, for some of us more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a playable battle might have a scenario map of 300m to 500m wide and 1,000m or more deep, using the map boundaries to represent your unit's frontage and operating sector."

As one of those who are looking forward to East Front games because of the size of the maps and (finally) the opportunity for armor-focused mobility battles and campaigns on a near operational level (battalion-regimental) I really hope that scenarios are much larger. The current CMBN/CMFI scenarios tend to be repetitive head-on assaults without opportunity for flanking manueuvers by armored columns looking for weaknesses. I think that is what most of us East Front fans are looking forward to (which is currently only practical in CM1 and which is why CM1 is still so popular).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"a playable battle might have a scenario map of 300m to 500m wide and 1,000m or more deep, using the map boundaries to represent your unit's frontage and operating sector."

As one of those who are looking forward to East Front games because of the size of the maps and (finally) the opportunity for armor-focused mobility battles and campaigns on a near operational level (battalion-regimental) I really hope that scenarios are much larger. The current CMBN/CMFI scenarios tend to be repetitive head-on assaults without opportunity for flanking manueuvers by armored columns looking for weaknesses. I think that is what most of us East Front fans are looking forward to (which is currently only practical in CM1 and which is why CM1 is still so popular).

Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself. The maps can't be big enough. Until then CM1 is still very much on my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...