CMRT - BETA AAR - Soviet Side

[AttorneyAtWar]

The local commander, a veteran of many battles, has thrown the rule book out the window. The tanks will be unbuttoned as much as possible.

Lets hope there are no political officers around!

[c3k]

Excellent! Rather than sneaking about we finally have a an of attack!

Urra.

[Baneman]

...

My trucks loaded with Pioneers (two squads) and half of my support weapons (3 HMGs and 3 mortars) will follow the tank riders and support any action as required.

...

Ooh, quick question, if I may - can HMG's and mortars and their ilk also ride tanks ?

A technique much used in CMx1 since there were never enough tanks for everyone and they would fatigue the fastest.

I'm getting the sneaking suspicion, that CM2, with its greater fidelity, wont allow such teams, but I am hoping to be wrong, being a gamey bastage etc...

[Erwin]

In CM at least it seemed like Pioneers had weak firepower and were mostly useful with their charges. I understand why one would use em as a reserve in the game. But, aren't they supposed to go first in RL(as in "Pioneers")?

[Bil Hardenberger]

In CM at least it seemed like Pioneers had weak firepower and were mostly useful with their charges. I understand why one would use em as a reserve in the game. But, aren't they supposed to go first in RL(as in "Pioneers")?

Erwin, I only brought them to mark mines and clear obstacles.. hopefully they won't be needed. Pioneers should not lead the way.. they are too valuable as support units to be wasted in that fashion.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct. Pioneers should only lead the way when the way is already determined to be blocked. And that is the role bland infantry plays

One of the easiest ways to force a player to use strict Soviet Doctrine is to add a "command level" to the game. In this the player would have to commit forces to specific missions according to timetables. Then, in the tactical play, would be required to stick to the plan. Two problems with this from our point of view:

1. It's a lot of work to make a command layer to the game that is sufficiently detailed and tied into the tactical layer to work as it should.

2. Hardly anybody would want to use it Reason being that the tactical portion of the game is where the excitement is at, so players would not be too happy to be forced into rote execution of abstract orders made before the game started.

Still, it will be interesting to see how Bil's handling of forces plays out. The recon behavior is actually pretty much textbook Soviet doctrine. Though in ideal circumstances such recon would be done prior to the attack itself. And here again we get into a game vs. real life thing. In real life this battle would start with Bil already committed to specific courses of action based on whatever intel he managed to accumulate from prior contact and observation. Great for a classroom exercise tool, not good for a game.

Holding back the Pioneers is good Soviet doctrine as well.

Bil's only "voluntary" divergence from Soviet doctrine is his tank force. He's saying that MAYBE he'll use them for the main push, MAYBE he'll use them in case of emergency. In Soviet planning this decision would have been made ahead of time, with it being one or the other. If tasked with an unanticipated threat to a flank, then it would sit there and do absolutely nothing until such a threat materialized. If it were instead tasked with the main axis of advance, it would do that even if a threat materialized in an unexpected direction.

This is not to criticize Bil for his handling of his forces. He's doing what he should be doing given the constraints of the game and the potential rewards of Western style "flexibility" that comes with it. He would be a fool to do anything but what maximizes his chances of winning on game terms, not theoretical 70 year old doctrine.

For those unfamiliar with Bil's other AARs... a hint...

Bil is no fool

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Though in ideal circumstances such recon would be done prior to the attack itself.

I was tempted to design a scenario for CMBB where at the start of the game Soviet recon troops had infiltrated German lines and were holed up where they could observe without being seen in return. I wonder now if somebody will take that idea and run with it.

Michael

[Baneman]

Anything on the question in post #228 ?

Understand if it's "still not decided one way or the other."

Cheers

(I'll shut up now)

[akd]

Ooh, quick question, if I may - can HMG's and mortars and their ilk also ride tanks ?

A technique much used in CMx1 since there were never enough tanks for everyone and they would fatigue the fastest.

I'm getting the sneaking suspicion, that CM2, with its greater fidelity, wont allow such teams, but I am hoping to be wrong, being a gamey bastage etc...

MMGs were transported on tanks (see Bessonov's Tank Rider) and should be able to in the game, but there is currently a bug with Soviet MMG movement and loading.

[Battlefront.com]

I was tempted to design a scenario for CMBB where at the start of the game Soviet recon troops had infiltrated German lines and were holed up where they could observe without being seen in return. I wonder now if somebody will take that idea and run with it.

You can also have "pre battle intel" cranked up for the Soviets. That means no matter where the German player sets up his units, there's a chance of them being spotted right off the bat.

MMGs were transported on tanks (see Bessonov's Tank Rider) and should be able to in the game, but there is currently a bug with Soviet MMG movement and loading.

What he said It wasn't so much a bug, though, but an either/or coding choice to have the wheeled MMGs either be treated like other MMGs (i.e. disassembled and carried) or like ATG/IGs (i.e. pushed around). We went with the latter, however the properties that go along with the animations, TacAI, towing vs. riding, etc. meant that they could not do the sorts of things MMGs need to do. And so we are switching behavior to that of other MMGs. Unfortunately there is no ability to mix and match specific behaviors without a huge amount of work, which we don't feel is worth doing.

Steve

[Andrew H.]

I was tempted to design a scenario for CMBB where at the start of the game Soviet recon troops had infiltrated German lines and were holed up where they could observe without being seen in return. I wonder now if somebody will take that idea and run with it.

Michael

Wasn't there a CMBO (or maybe CMBN) scenario like this with a few US paratroops hidden behind the enemy lines (or maybe just far advanced and hidden), and a larger US force coming on to link up with them and fight a German force?

Though in ideal circumstances such recon would be done prior to the attack itself. And here again we get into a game vs. real life thing. In real life this battle would start with Bil already committed to specific courses of action based on whatever intel he managed to accumulate from prior contact and observation. Great for a classroom exercise tool, not good for a game.

I like how recon works in the game, even though the player's godlike knowledge makes things somewhat unrealistic - IRL, a commander would send the recon teams into the woods and both would be completely out of contact from each other until the teams returned. Navigation was always a problem, too; elements were always getting lost, and they would not have any idea where other mobile elements were. (This was not just a recon-in-the-woods problem - there are occasional mentions in the "Three Battles" Green Book of attacks being delayed because a company got lost and couldn't find its starting line/the rest of the battalion).

Still, I think the results of the recon mostly work out correctly, just more quickly. But I'll be very interested to see how the the split squad morale penalty plays out.

[Glubokii Boy]

One of the easiest ways to force a player to use strict Soviet Doctrine is to add a "command level" to the game. In this the player would have to commit forces to specific missions according to timetables. Then, in the tactical play, would be required to stick to the plan. Two problems with this from our point of view:

1. It's a lot of work to make a command layer to the game that is sufficiently detailed and tied into the tactical layer to work as it should.

2. Hardly anybody would want to use it Reason being that the tactical portion of the game is where the excitement is at, so players would not be too happy to be forced into rote execution of abstract orders made before the game started.

This is pretty much what i was aiming for when i suggested in 'the new feature thread' in CMFI that perhaps a new feature could be to increase the variation of how OBJECTIVES could be fullfilled...

The only concreate idea i mentioned was the ability to asign certain objectives to certain units in the editor...If the right unit completes the objective gives full points and if an other unit does it will give reduced points or non at all...

Combine this with (i think it was Womble that mentioned it) OBJECTIVES that has a timelimit to fullfill...and i think something like you mentioned above could be possible...

but then again...maybe you are right with your point nr 2...Nobody would want to be restricted in the way they deploy their troops...personally i think it could be a nice feature and give some variaty...

[Vanir Ausf B]

This comment of yours made me think about to what degree commander's personalities were able to impose themselves over doctrine. I'm reading at the moment George Nipe's "Decision in the Ukraine: German Panzer Operations in the Eastern Front, Summer 1943" and I just came across the discussion of the Totenköpf SS division "personality"

That is interesting. I had recently considered picking up Nipe's Blood, Steel, and Myth: The II.SS-Panzer-Korps and the Road to Prochorowka but passed on it. I'm going to go back and get it and pick up Decision in the Ukraine also.

[Collingwood]

One of the easiest ways to force a player to use strict Soviet Doctrine is to add a "command level" to the game. In this the player would have to commit forces to specific missions according to timetables. Then, in the tactical play, would be required to stick to the plan.

My memory on this is a little hazy, but IIRC Steel Panthers had an (optional) command system.

It was basic and effective and worked like this: before units could move, they had to be assigned one or more command objectives marked on the map by their hq/leader. They could move toward that objective without straying too far from the direct path (unless routed or panicked).

Alterations to the command objective could be made each turn, or every few turns depending on the quality of leadership. Better command = more objectives can be assigned and altered, poor command = less objectives and longer waits to alter objectives.

This worked fairly well, in that it meant forces with good leadership with more command "points" were flexible with plan alterations and could react to changing circumstances during the battle - whereas the alternative was slow to react, inflexible and cumbersome maneuvering.

The first time I used it I found it frustrating and limiting, but once I understood what was being attempted by the system I enjoyed it.

[Sergei]

My memory on this is a little hazy, but IIRC Steel Panthers had an (optional) command system.

This was Steel Panthers 3: Brigade Command (and SPWAW based on it's engine), specifically.

[Baneman]

I remember that Steel Panthers system. It worked pretty well and was a good way to give the AI a chance to (temporarily at least) unhinge your otherwise inexorable attacks.

[Vark]

Trouble was, it was based on a simple calculation, if you were moving toward an objective (within a cone, radiating from the obj. flag) you would pay no command points. All you had to do was set the objectives at the enemy baseline and you had far more flexibility.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, and that gets us right back to the sorts of problems we had with CMx1's waypoint based Command Delays. In the right circumstances it worked great, but too often it didn't work well at all. I remember the same thing with Steel Panthers' system, though it is admittedly a fuzzy memory.

Steve

[Bil Hardenberger]

My forces are organizing for their assigned tasks, in KT3 this last turn I get two sound contacts on enemy infantry in the woods (one contact might be moving as the contact was fleeting). I am setting up to hit them, but want to give them one more turn to see what they do. I have the SMG team in the woods, the rifle team coming into the edge of the woods, and the LMG team in a support position on the river bank.

I also am moving the OT-34 up into a position near the end of KT1. I want him to hear the sounds of tanks in this area. I have a mortar setting up in the opposite treeline.

We might actually have an exchange of fire in the next turn.

[AttorneyAtWar]

My forces are organizing for their assigned tasks, in KT3 this last turn I get two sound contacts on enemy infantry in the woods (one contact might be moving as the contact was fleeting). I am setting up to hit them, but want to give them one more turn to see what they do. I have the SMG team in the woods, the rifle team coming into the edge of the woods, and the LMG team in a support position on the river bank.

I also am moving the OT-34 up into a position near the end of KT1. I want him to hear the sounds of tanks in this area. I have a mortar setting up in the treeline on the opposite treeline.

We might actually have an exchange of fire in the next turn.

"I want him to hear the sounds of tanks"

Haha psychological warfare, I love it!

[Andrew H.]

I also am moving the OT-34 up into a position near the end of KT1.

We might actually have an exchange of fire in the next turn.

I'll say. Nothing exchanges fire better than an OT-34.

And even with just sound contacts, you can use "area fire".

[Bil Hardenberger]

Andrew, I see what you did there.

[Grisha]

You can also have "pre battle intel" cranked up for the Soviets. That means no matter where the German player sets up his units, there's a chance of them being spotted right off the bat.

Excellent, Battlefront! Can a scenario have that assigned a discrete percentage value, like say 60%?

[Pete Wenman]

Excellent, Battlefront! Can a scenario have that assigned a discrete percentage value, like say 60%?

I think this has been in since day one, but yes intel strength can range from 0-100% in 10% increments

P

[YankeeDog]

Yeah; pre-battle intel has been a scenario design option since CMSF.