Jump to content

Christmas Bone


Recommended Posts

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).

Not necessarily big maps are needed for that. Only a highly unbalanced battle with tanks on one side and only infantry on the other side.

Evne the biggest big map a few kilometers wide would not change the fact, if both sides are balanced well, that the defender will always have his tanks available after a few minutes while in reality things took hours or even days and this cannot model the biggest CM map.

Therefore I believe we need a system that allows scenario designers and players to call for (tactical or operational) reserves, optionally with the cost of victory points.

If such a system could be offered - maybe even for campaigns - then these kind of battles could be modelled perfectly.

Since CM allows for asymmetrical victory conditions, there is no need to make balanced battles at all. Nevertheless this possibility IMO is used way too seldom and everyone - designer and player - is still fixated on balanced battles like it was necessary with the old CMx1 system.

This fact probably is enhanced because scenario decriptions in the scenario list are so restricted and therefore give the player not enough info what he could expect from a battle - and therefore probably everyone meets at the average in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 628
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

These are really only issues for the players who care a lot about playing historically and using historical tactics and OOBs and maps. Everyone else (probably most players) will just enjoy the new theatre and content and continue playing as they always have.

If you want to simulate Stalingrad in CMx3 the challenges of densities and mapping will be greater than if you've got various types of fluid battle situations on the steppes.

For me, personally, the best way to grapple with the new reality of the Eastern Front will be to put it to the test. I'll soon be setting up a hypothetical 2-day campaign of German Panzer Division vs. Soviet Tank Corps using a boardgame (Panzer Command), where the setting is the Chir River and steppes SW of Stalingrad. Time will be Spring 1943 to minimize TO&E issues and be able to play with the default Bagration summer season. With company & battery sized counters and the hex scale at 500m, I'll see how the engagements come together -- the ranges, force sizes, densities, etc. Then I'll have to look at the best way to translate them into CMx3 terms for PBEM play once I have that game and editor. It's a "problem" I look forward to exploring!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very happy about the large maps...we should have such problems! Hopefully with the performance enhancements it will be easier to cut master maps into smaller maps, the current process is tedious IMO with large maps.

Playing on large maps invites larger forces. Then you have to manage very many units. It would be nice to be able to take the AI planning module in the scenario editor, and apply it to troops on your own side. This would allow one to fight bigger battles while gaining some assistance with the managing of so many unit orders. Even better if you can do this on the fly in the actual game. Meaning designate "Orders" groups (like AI groups) for friendly forces, paint Plans on the map and give some of the same options as the AI order. then you can control many companies of troops in this fashion, jumping in where needed.

Or of course simply enact coop...problem solved!

:D

Los

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. I'm with you there. Just don't kid yourself that these battles have much to do with WWII. They're more like 1990s/2000s combat, that happen to use 1940s equipment.

In many situations yes. Many others less so. But heck we could be hyper critical and say that about all of them.

Time compression, casevac, ammunition expenditure per KIA on and on.

Nothing wrong with small maps in themselves, just the tactical options open up or are different with larger ones. And my largest hope is for some kind of player input for an operational scope. Alas, all hopes are on an ap that looks like it'll require manual transfer of data. In the meantime some large map based operations will be appreciated. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing on large maps invites larger forces. Then you have to manage very many units. It would be nice to be able to take the AI planning module in the scenario editor, and apply it to troops on your own side. This would allow one to fight bigger battles while gaining some assistance with the managing of so many unit orders. Even better if you can do this on the fly in the actual game. Meaning designate "Orders" groups (like AI groups) for friendly forces, paint Plans on the map and give some of the same options as the AI order. then you can control many companies of troops in this fashion, jumping in where needed.

Los

That is outstanding idea. Set plans at start. Amend plans by calling Orders group with company/platoon HQs.

HQ out of contact or MIA, then no orders for them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the setting is the Chir River and steppes SW of Stalingrad. Time will be Spring 1943..."

First, nothing wrong with a set piece of a tank corps vs a Panzer division just for fun and balance. Second, like the operational play through idea to find typical match ups. But FYI, the fighting along the Chir river actually occurred from late November to December 1942. By even January 1943, the front had moved on (after Little Saturn kicked off in December really), and by the spring of 1943 we are in late backhand blow stuff, and the front line is clear over at Kharkov, hundreds of miles to the west and west northwest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the setting is the Chir River and steppes SW of Stalingrad. Time will be Spring 1943..."

First, nothing wrong with a set piece of a tank corps vs a Panzer division just for fun and balance. Second, like the operational play through idea to find typical match ups. But FYI, the fighting along the Chir river actually occurred from late November to December 1942. By even January 1943, the front had moved on (after Little Saturn kicked off in December really), and by the spring of 1943 we are in late backhand blow stuff, and the front line is clear over at Kharkov, hundreds of miles to the west and west northwest.

Thanks Jason. Your Eastern Front expertise is greatly appreciated and I hope you'll share this again with the forum in the run-up to Bagration. I had a field day recently, reading through your old CMx1 threads on how to handle infantry on the steppe.

Yes, we know this about the historical location of the front in Spring 1943. That's why I said it's a hypothetical (or fictional, if you prefer) operational scenario. The Panzer Command boardgame does have several historical scenarios covering the real Chir battles of Nov-Dec 1942.

But the boardgame also comes with a cool "scenario generator" -- like the QB function in CM -- that increases its FOW and replay value. Players can dieroll and/or choose to set various parameters (game length, scenario size, initiative, force purchases, reinforcements, and type of scenario -- meeting engagement, setpiece battle, escalating attack).

Using Panzer Command as an op layer and playing one of its historical Nov-Dec historical scenarios seems problematic because CM Bagration will have a summer 1944 setting. I wish the boardgame covered later times and places, but the latest time period covered by the scenario generator is Spring 1943. So we can get plausible seasonal terrain without needing a winter+snow mod, if we generate a boardgame scenario with the latest possible time period.

Also, the farther back one gets from the CM Bagration time period of Summer 1944, the more TO&E problems I think we would have in trying to translate Panzer Command company/battery units into CM Bagration setups. IIRC the Soviet forces in particular changed a lot after 1942. So the generated scenario in Spring '43 seems like the best option. And by using real terrain of a real place, we get the immersion and map realism benefit that we wouldn't get from generic maps -- even if the battle is hypothetical/fictional.

Speaking of TO&E, I'd love to see some posts or links detailing exactly how a German panzer division and Soviet Tank corps TO&E may have changed between Nov-Dec 1942 and the Bagration era of summer 1944. Making changes within the CM editor is usually fairly simple --usually just a matter of substitutions (I don't imagine we'll have much use for Panzer Command's Mark I and II tank counters, but the boardgame also has Mark II, Mark IV long barrel, and Tiger I. Soviet tank counters exist for T34/76, BT-7, KV-1, T-60, and T-26). But the research is the real pain to know what needs changing.

I'm trying to learn whether there were any fundamental restructurings or weapon introductions between '43 and '44 that would totally wreck my time-shifting plans. Even then, I usually find it possible to "play around" those types of problems because as a campaign goes along, we can pick and choose which of the boardgame situations to set up in CM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or set up this battalion's subsequent battle later in the day after it succeeds/fails to reach its initial objectives.

If this is as described a set piece battle, and this is the lead battalion in the attack, in all probability there would be no subsequent battle for it. Win or lose, it would be pretty well expended just trying break the German line. Instead, the next echelon battalion would go forward to continue the battle until either a breakthrough occurred in this sector or somewhere else.

Possibly a breakthrough would be recognized beforehand as unrealizable in this area and the battle would be intended as a demonstration to fix the enemy in place and prevent or at least delay the enemy from shifting reserves to the breakthrough sector. In which case, the combat might be less intense and fewer casualties taken. But I'm not sure how much fun players would find that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using Panzer Command as an op layer and playing one of its historical Nov-Dec historical scenarios seems problematic because CM Bagration will have a summer 1944 setting. I wish the boardgame covered later times and places, but the latest time period covered by the scenario generator is Spring 1943. So we can get plausible seasonal terrain without needing a winter+snow mod, if we generate a boardgame scenario with the latest possible time period.

Also, the farther back one gets from the CM Bagration time period of Summer 1944, the more TO&E problems I think we would have in trying to translate Panzer Command company/battery units into CM Bagration setups. IIRC the Soviet forces in particular changed a lot after 1942. So the generated scenario in Spring '43 seems like the best option.

Or you could just wait a couple of years for the '42 family of DM:EF to come out and have BFC do all the work for you. And you get a far more authentic representation of the event thrown into the bargain.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broadsword and I have had no shortage of interesting and tense situations in our campaigns all of which have veered from the historical. Witness our current battle for Son where the German defenders have been reinforced with a battalion size kampfgruppe to disrupt the allied timeline. We are quite aware of the actual state of the front at the time of the proposed EF campaign. It isn't like neither of us has read any eastern front history. However rather than be deterred, it seems far more fun to go ahead and take advantage of the Op layer capability now rather than wait for CM EF 1942 which could be several years.

Folks really need to stop worrying about whether everything matches up exactly historically. Hell if things are always done that way you'll rarely get any fog of war. HPS has both a Minsk 1944 and Kharkhov 1943 game however the game doesn't have any real C2 component. Hence our preference to use the Panzer Command system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's the distinctive chit-pull activation and command-control mechanism of Panzer Command and its descendant, the Grand Tactical System, that make those games so excellent for CM op layers, despite the limitations.

I looked over a lot of possible boardgames to use when CM gets to the Eastern Front. Very few seem to have the right scale. Many of the ones that have the right scale use generic/geomorphic maps. The only other one I really think would make a great CM companion is Streets of Stalingrad (also company level counters, 500m per hex). But I'd want to wait first and see how CMx3 improves urban fighting and/or adds features and objects that would make S-grad maps and scenarios work well. The unit density issues mentioned in earlier posts are also a major issue there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy-peasy, except for the "wait a couple of years" part!

Yeah I figured. :D. It was hard enough waiting to do MG AND having to avoid the St Lo battles involving FJ troops. I think we can be excused this time for using the tools at hand. Besides if it works well we can redo it in a few years with a better handle on handling the C2 aspect. (And maybe utilizing CM version 5.0.) Heh heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broadsword56 - understood. The TOE changes would happen in 3 main areas - AFV mix, light armor, and artillery support stuff.

In the period you are describing, the Russians would have about a 3:2 mix of T-34/76s to T-70s - about 90 T-34s and 60 T-70s in a typical tank corps. They would have little light armor - just a motorcycle recon battalion with a few BA-64 MG main armament armored cars, and at most a few lend lease halftracks for AA or their HQ sections. Most of the recce would be on motorcycles or light trucks - they don't yet have the scout cars and US built halftracks that come much later in the lend lease stream.

For artillery support, it is thin, just trucked 76mm ATGs (in an antitank regiment) and 82mm mortars in the 6 battalions of motor rifles (one per tank brigade plus 3 in the motor rifle regiment, with the former mostly riding the tanks). The recon is a 7th and pioneers an 8th infantry type battalion in the corps. The formation would also have Flak, at least a 37mm and HMG formation and sometimes an 85mm AA battalion as well. (Supposed to, didn't always have them in late 1942, did by mid 1943). The lucky ones would get an additional artillery support formation in the form of motorized 120mm mortars or rockets; rockets would be mostly a one or two uses affair, however. (Not a lot of reloads).

As for the Germans, their AFV mix is about 50% Panzer IV longs, 30% Panzer IIIs with 50L60, 10% Panzer IIs (in the Panzer formations but tactically used as organic recon), and 10% Marders. StuGs are not yet numerous because the changeover of the Panzer III chassis production lines have not yet occurred. Similarly, Marders are still a Panzer division item in that era, not yet an infantry division item. A typical Panzer division would have fewer Panzer IVs than a typical tank corps had T-34s - say 60 Panzer IVs, 30 Panzer III longs, 12 Panzer IIs and 14 Marders.

The Germans partially make up for their lower divisional full AFV count with more gun-armed light armor. The light armor formations are one battalion of the Panzergrenadiers, 1 company of the recce and another of the pioneers (average), or 5 armored companies total, plus a PSW company in the recce and 2 armored weapons companies in the Panzergrenadiers and the recce. Those have SPW 251/9s with short 75mm guns, and others with 81mm mortars (SPW 251/2s). The PSWs would basically all be 20mm main armament. But overall, the German Panzer division has a lot more light armor than the Russian tank corps.

Another TOE difference for the Germans is that their artillery is still making the transition to having one battalion self propelled with Hummels and Wespes - many divisions would still have all their guns trucked. The output of those vehicles really only takes off in 1943. Still the German Panzer division has more artillery and heavier tubes than the Russian tank corps. In infantry, it gets only 4 battalions in the Panzergrenadiers, plus 1 each in recce and pioneers, so there it is lighter. (An SS one has the same 6 + 1 + 1 that a tank corps has, though organized differently, of course). The German division would also have towed AT, heavy and light flak in company sized formations, on top of the div arty; all the infantry formations have their 81mm mortars of course.

I hope that helps with your operational layer design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as Sburke says once these actions are cast in the umbrella of a campaign, they become much more dramatic. One could play very short length Fights that could create small delays or problems which have great ramifications in the campaign.

At Lanzerath during the Bulge, the I&r platoon was just a speed bump in any game that portrays actions in company's or above. But even that "one turn delay" prior to overrun threw the time table awry.

The "art" in the operational layer if the campaign is divining what might be those little interesting events that need to be teased out and gamed.

Sidebar:

Frankly in many of the campaigns we play which I GM I assign one side with more disadvantages. Nothing's fair. Then we see how that command team deals with the crappy end of the stick. I might stack one side with all the players with military experience and the best troops but operating with limited intelligence in enemy territory, give the other side the numbers but make sure the guys on that team don't really get along well together ( this creates great friction) and less well trained troops. No one feels particularly thrilled with their lot. It ends up being not so much who won but who learned something about the boots thie historical commanders walked in.

Anyway back to TO&E , based on whatever the Bagration TOE ends up being, it would be possible to create relative match ups that would translate and work from PzC. Just lock a bunch of smart guys in a room...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

Great news all around. Excited to get back to the Ost Front! Two quick questions:

1. Will some form of ammo dump be available for infantry only formations? The way you described it, sounds like its linked to vehicles (trucks, halftracks, ect.), so an infantry only formation wouldn't have that flexibility. Could there be somekind of 'ammo dump' that can be provided/purchased for infantry only formations?

2. Will QB 'Combined Arms' be coming back? This thread goes into details on it: BFC: Any plans to bring back "QB Combined Arms"? If no current plans, any plan for future iterations to bring it back?

Thanks for the bone and look forward to more!

Chad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Will some form of ammo dump be available for infantry only formations? The way you described it, sounds like its linked to vehicles (trucks, halftracks, ect.), so an infantry only formation wouldn't have that flexibility. Could there be somekind of 'ammo dump' that can be provided/purchased for infantry only formations?

Interesting. I got the feeling that the ammo dump was mostly for infantry ammo. Steve talked about the advent of the feature meaning you don't have to bring the AT platoon's trucks knocked down to Conscript-Poor-Minus2 in order to have resupply for your GroPos; you can't buy trucks full of vehicle ammo, currently, so it wouldn't make any sense to tout it as a truck replacement if it was only for vehicles. It was the ammo levelling thing that applied to both vehicles and infantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Will some form of ammo dump be available for infantry only formations? The way you described it, sounds like its linked to vehicles (trucks, halftracks, ect.), so an infantry only formation wouldn't have that flexibility. Could there be somekind of 'ammo dump' that can be provided/purchased for infantry only formations?

It is linked to vehicles and only those which are organically assigned (i.e. not Independent Vehicles). Both sides have the ability to purchase "Supply Platoons" which consist of trucks with small arms ammo. You can use these to simulate higher level motor pooled transport and/or rear area supply trains. If you don't want the trucks themselves, delete them and retain the Ammo Dumps.

2. Will QB 'Combined Arms' be coming back? This thread goes into details on it: BFC: Any plans to bring back "QB Combined Arms"? If no current plans, any plan for future iterations to bring it back?

No plans. It's a major undertaking to get this to work acceptably and "Mixed" does most of what is needed. Though I agree some more time spent on chain of command organization would be a good thing.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies and answers Steve!

Both sides have the ability to purchase "Supply Platoons" which consist of trucks with small arms ammo. You can use these to simulate higher level motor pooled transport and/or rear area supply trains. If you don't want the trucks themselves, delete them and retain the Ammo Dumps.

That works. Being able to manage ammo is huge in most of my games, so this will add great flexibility.

No plans. It's a major undertaking to get this to work acceptably and "Mixed" does most of what is needed. Though I agree some more time spent on chain of command organization would be a good thing.

Thanks for the clear cut answer. Just to put a bug in your ear, would be nice to have it - so add it to the list of the other 10,000 'would be nice' things.

Thanks again for the replies.

Chad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a "would love to have" it would be great to be able to call on reinforcements - at the cost of a Victory Point penalty...

IIRC CM1 Campaigns/Operations had three levels of reinforcements - each would be automatically activated and brought on map if one's situation became bad enough. IIRC there were Battalion, Regimental and Divisional level reinforcements available - all triggered by the player doing increasingly poorly.

IIRC, if you were doing well, these reinforcements were never triggered and would not arrive. Unfortunately, I cannot recall how the scoring was affected by these reinforcements being triggered. It was a very sophisticated concept made useful by the fact that one could have huge scenarios in CM1 - eg a regiment of infantry plus a battalion of armor plus dozens of other asssorted AFV's.

Am really hoping that CM2 East Front will be a return to those sorts of challenging scenarios where mobility and armor become predominant. Am getting very bored with the mostly infantry slog battles we have had in CMBN and CMFI.

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...