Jump to content

WIP: New companion op-layer game for RT


Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...

So has there been any progress in the campaign?

 

How are you translating the various damage levels from PC to CM?  I see that you are using (very limited) hide commands to cover suppression, but how are you treating cohesion and step losses?

 

I would imagine that cohesion (and suppression) would affect leadership, fitness, motivation, and maybe experience more than actual casualties, although cohesion losses do affect PC attack strengths.  Step losses, according to the PC rules, represent an approximate 25% loss level, so that would seem to be fairly straightforward.

 

Basically there are a few loss levels (for a 2 step unit) before being eliminated, which we can define by the PC rules as approximately 50% or more losses and broken.

 

1.    Suppressed

2.    Cohesion 1

3.    Cohesion 1 Suppressed

4.    Cohesion 2

5.    Cohesion 2 Suppressed

6.    Step Loss

7.    Step Loss Suppressed

8.    Step Loss Cohesion 1

9.    Step Loss Cohesion 1 Suppressed

10.  Step Loss Cohesion 2

11.  Step Loss Cohesion 2 Suppressed

 

Note of course, that any cohesion or suppression hits that a unit has when it takes a step loss are retained, so it is quite possible (in fact more likely than not) to move on this scale non-linearly. 

 

I would argue that suppression should affect leadership and experience - suppressed units are less likely to fire, and less effective when doing so.

 

Cohesion should affect fitness, leadership, experience, supply level and motivation to a degree, although some losses should be applied to represent those who are not fighting for whatever reason - off dealing with wounded, conducting battlefield admin and resupply, etc, or just cowering in their holes.

 

But what levels should one use to represent the above PC loss stages?

 

And perhaps more importantly, how do you translate CMRT losses to the PC system?

 

Thanks for the hard work!

 

Chris

Edited by Christian Knudsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last battle just finished up a couple days ago and was a night fight.  It felt more like a submarine simulation, I had too few men in the dark in a forest with a Russian armored force with SMG escort pushing for a gap.  I sent out multiple AT teams that essentially moved like submarines, going by sound contacts trying to hunt the Russian "Capital ships" (armor, while avoiding "escorts" (SMG teams).  The Russian force was a battered but determined group having to make their way past minefields and push forward in the dark.  Fascinating and very different battle.

 

End result the Germans were able to maul the Russian armor, but took additional losses they could not afford while the Russians pushed forward a good way towards their goal.  We are anxiously awaiting the next chit draw.

 

If you look at post #24 the Blue circle on the top left is the approx position of the Russian breakthrough force.  The Germans hold almost everything between the Rail lines.  If the Russians win the chit draw, the Germans will likely get pummeled the following morning turn.

 

Lord knows what that is going to mean next for the Germans.  Until now it has been a grueling grind of a campaign, once this line collapses I suspect the Germans are gonna face some bruising fights ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sburke: Thanks for posting about our latest battle. Once I get Turn 9 and the single Night turn completed, I'll post another summary here of the overall operation "for all you folks watching at home."

 

@chris: Great questions!  I'll tell you how I handle it the personnel/casualty translation between layers, but this may or may not be to everyone's taste. 

 

Let me preface it by saying that when you use a boardgame system like the GTS, you'll always have lots judgment calls to make about things like this. That's because Cohesion Hits simulate casualties and losses to unit cohesion, all in one. There simply is no ironclad set of policies that will cover every situation and objectively reflect the reality of CM in the boardgame, or vice-versa. So I use some general rules, and then look at every battle as if I'm a forensic historian -- using any knowledge I have about the historical campaign, doctrine, and common sense as  I try to interpret what story the pixels are telling for translation into cardboard (or Cyberboard). This fuzzy logic is a big reason why op-tac campaigns turn some players off, I think. It goes back to the schism between wargamers of an engineering mindset, who prefer games where things are objective and transparent, and those who favor "design for effect" and are perhaps more wiling to tolerate imbalances and anomalies in games as part of the cruel fortunes of war.

 

You're correct about the 11 possible situations of a unit in Panzer Command. But to keep things simple, I like to view it this way:

 

Consider 40% personnel losses as the threshold for a unit to be eliminated. (Extrapolating from the 15% threshold that the Pentagon found tended to be the case in American WW II rifle battalions, the actual losses among the front-line rifle companies for that figure would be closer to around 40%.) Elimination doesn't literally mean dead, just that the unit is combat ineffective, not able to perform its mission anymore, and shattered as far as this campaign's time frame is concerned.

 

In Panzer Command, 4 Cohesion Hits eliminate a unit. (It gets 2, the third one flips it over to its last step, and then since it retains its original 2 Cohesion Hits, a third hit will kill it).  If 4 hits = 40% losses, then I treat each Cohesion Hit as equivalent to 10% losses.

 

But 10% of what number? In Bagration, the German units were lucky to have even 50% of their paper TO&E strength at the start of the campaign. That usually was true for the Soviets, too, but before Bagration they made a big effort to beef up the manning levels in unites slated for that attack.

So I usually start my Soviet units with 70% of TO&E. CM doesn't let you reduce personnel strength below half, and that's OK because it's more realistic to start consolidating depleted platoons and companies into single, more effective formations.

 

Even these policies should leave ample room for judgment calls. It's documented that a unit's ability to sustain losses and keep fighting also depended on other things, such as morale and leadership, or even its particular mission at the time. I just eliminated a German heavy grenadier company that took its fourth Cohesion Hit, because it had just been close-assaulted by a fresh Soviet Guards SMG company. The attack was in dusk, from a flank where an entire Soviet regiment was bypassing them. And this German unit had already had quite a busy and rough day. To quote from its battle log (a text note that travels with the counter in Cyberboard):

 

----

4th (Heavy) Company
1/195 Sturm Regiment
78 Sturm Division
XXVII Corps
---
Battle history:
1100 hrs, 23 June: Despite being cut off, this unit's Opportunity Fire destroyed final step of adjacent SU-152 unit from 11 Gd Mot Inf Div that was in Hex 4707 and was trying to deploy from the forest track into fighting formation in the open.
1500 hrs, 23 June: With 195 Sturm Reg leader defying Hitler's standing orders, the unit attempts to break out of encirclement to the SW. Opportunity Fire costs it 1 Cohesion Hit, but it succeeds and regains friendly lines in Hex 4809.
But, in the Peat Bogs,  it ran into a battalion of the Soviet 40th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment that was flanking the German line. Their opportunity fire caused the German company to suffer its 2nd and 3rd Cohesion Hits and thus lose a step. But it avoided suppression and made to Hex 4710, where it formed a refused flank on the extreme right of its regiment's line.
At that point the unit was down to about 35 men.
Turn 9 (evening 23 June): Assaulted by 1 SMG/167 Gd in Hex 4710 during the Soviet flanking attacks in the Peat Bogs. Lost final step and eliminated.

 

On the other hand, sburke had a German Sturmpioneer company that was heavily engaged throughout Day One. It was consolidated to a single remaining platoon, but because it fought from trenches and bunkers I let it fight longer and harder. It managed to repulse an attack one last time before finally succumbing to elimination. Here's its battle log:

 

---

Sturmpioneer Company
195 Sturm Regiment
78 Sturm Division

XXVII Corps 

 

23 June, afternoon: Suffered 1 Cohestion Hit (10% casualties) in the Battle for the T Junction. In the second wave Soviet attack that afternoon, this company lost a further 13 men (19%) for its second Cohestion Hit. Occupies woods fortifications in Hex 4508 with its remaining 56 men.
Then, after the battle but still in Turn 6, direct fire of MG Co/171st Reg causes it to lose its 3rd cohesion hit, and the unit loses a step.
---
Sturmpioneers made their final stand in trenches in Hex 4508 on the right flank of the Single-Track Railway, fending off a MG company and hanging on by their fingernails. 
While they beat back the attack, they lost 25 of their remaining 56 men and were eliminated as a combat-capable force.
-----
 
It's stories like this, as they develop, that make op-tac campaigns so rewarding and entertaining. You start to get a sense of the human character of a unit. My particular favorite is this little German dismounted AT platoon that turned heroic and performed far beyond what might have been expected:
 
---
Tank Destroyer Platoon/14th (Antitank) Company
481st Grenadier Regiment
256th Infantry Division
VI Corps
 
23 June, 0915 hrs: Reinforced battle for Hex 4506 fortified position. Saw light combat, cleared casualties and evacuated position with the StuG company.
23 June, 1100-1300 hrs: Tremendous valor holding the fallback defensive position at Hex 4507, despite artillery barrages and assaults by Soviet SMG and SU-76 units. Suppression by SMG unit removed by Rally event at 1300 hrs, further illustrating this unit's superior leadership and toughness.
23 June, 1300hrs: Repelled 3-round Close Assault by Soviet SMG company of 1 Gd Inf Div, with no casualties.
In its final action, the platoon infiltrated the swamps to harass a Soviet armor-infantry column as it moved up to attack the Single-Track Railway on the afternoon of 23 June. But the swamps provided insufficient cover, and the teams were hunted down and wiped out by Soviet SMG-equipped tankodesantniki troops. Still, their presence slowed the momentum of the attack and wore down the infantry enough that it was unable to reach the RR and accomplish its assault mission.
----------------
 

Bottom line: For all the numbers and factors involved in a board wargame, using it with CMRT in an op-tac campaign often feels more like "playing with army men in the backyard" (and as much fun, too) than something objective and quantifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic post Broadsword! 

 

It really seems like you are conducting what I would call a "narrative" campaign - as interested in creating and telling a story than in playing a game. 

 

Your approach (which I fully agree with, BTW) is one that my local group of gaming buddies tries to follow whenever possible.  Rules are necessary and great, but play second fiddle to our feeling of "what makes sense".  While we usually have one fellow who acts as GM, rules questions are reached by consensus amongst the players based on common sense and experience - playing, not winning, is the objective.

 

Thanks again

 

Chris

Edited by Christian Knudsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right you are, Chris.

 

It's all about the journey...especially since a fully fledged op-tac campaign can take a year or longer to play out, depending on how regularly you play and how often you pause the op action to stage battles in CM.

 

Having a group play sounds wonderful. I've never had the courage to tackle that, because doing a campaign my way is hard enough without having to manage other players with differing interest levels and real-life commitments. I find it simpler just to solo the op layer, answering only to myself, then invite opponents to fight HTH battles from it at my own convenience. I've been blessed by having some super patient, skilled, and sportsmanlike opponents for years now, and one of them is usually available to rise to the occasion. The tradeoff for the opponents is that all they have to do is show up and play. As long as I do good briefings and help them stay abreast of what's happening in the larger operation, they can feel a part of it without the responsibility of managing the details. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further comment re: Translating suppression and other factors...

 

Chris wrote:

 

I would argue that suppression should affect leadership and experience - suppressed units are less likely to fire, and less effective when doing so.

 

Cohesion should affect fitness, leadership, experience, supply level and motivation to a degree, although some losses should be applied to represent those who are not fighting for whatever reason - off dealing with wounded, conducting battlefield admin and resupply, etc, or just cowering in their holes.

 

Leadership, yes. If the leaders are hunkered down in their holes, too, concentrating on survival and without situational awareness, then they've stopped leading. So if a unit is suppressed in the boardgame and is entering a CMRT battle in that state, I knock down the leadership rating to -2, and also worsent its starting motivation. Also, the unit has to start the action on HIDE and keep a temporary, very small fire arc for the first several minutes. After that, I let the owning player lift the arc and issue any orders. 

 

But experience should not change from suppression. Their training and battle-savvy doesn't disappear, it's part of who they are. Some games even make suppressed units harder to kill, because once they go to ground they make tougher targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We mostly play miniatures stuff, actually - stuff that can be played in an evening or a day.  I am fortunate to have a friend that has been collecting and painting minis and various miniatures rules for almost 30 years, with a now astoundingly vast collection.  Over the years we have played everything from fantasy to ancients to near and far future combat, in every scale from individual skirmish to brigade.  Aside from that, my boardgaming is far too limited by kids and cats to sustain anything over an evening.  My copy of Fire in the East went into the box shortly after i got hitched (my wife was unwilling to turn the living room of our apartment at the time over to the Ostfront, for some reason) and has, lamentably, stayed there.

 

Thanks for amplifying your thoughts re suppression - makes more sense than just the hide/ambush combo.  As for penalizing experience, I included it more as just another way of penalizing the suppressed troops; my thought was that this would be the most direct way to reduce their ability to hit the enemy!  On reflection, however, I think you may have the right of it - after all, suppressive fire must be maintained throughout the assault both on the objective and in depth, as I was taught as a young section commander.  Penalizing experience would create a heavy effect without actually having to maintain the suppressive fire.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of kicking a suppressed horse...

Curiously enough, the greener the troops in CM, the more likely they are to pop up and fire wildly or reveal their position, or panic and flee -- none of which is good for their side, but the opposite of suppression (cowering and pinned in place, not returning fire).

 

Green CMx2 units behave very much as I would expect: poor fire discipline, target overkill happening all the time, etc. Panicking and fleeing might well be influenced - it is a matter of the "cohesion" of the small unit, besides leadership and morale.

 

"Quality factors" from other games are hard to translate into CMx2... mostly because often those factors make little historical or practical sense, since they're highly influenced by the expectations of the game designer and the playtesters. In other words, are the combination of historical or contemporary sources of varying quality and "balancing".

 

Not to say that CMx2 isn't influenced in a similar way, mind you :) I just think that here these "soft factors" are more straightforward and make more sense than those I find elsewhere.

Edited by BletchleyGeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sitrep on my Bagration op-tac campaign:

Day 1 (23 June) has ended. Here are the positions at the end of the night turn (Turn 10).

 

The full view (this hexmap represents all the Soviet campaign master maps, arrayed in their actual locations):

full_view_situation_end_night_turn_10_23

 

The Soviet campaign objective is, within 3 1/2 days, to:

1. Cut the Orsha Highway (the light gray N-S line, at the far left of the map).

2. Pocket as many German troops as possible (killing them is secondary - the goal is to race west and stop for nothing).

 

The Soviets have turned the German right flank at the second main defensive belt, and threaten to penetrate it in two other locations. Current weather condition is rain.

 

Let's take a closer look at the active sector:

zoomed_view_situation_end_night_turn_10_

 

B: A German AT battery and infantry rearguard have been cut off an bypassed since 1500 hrs. They will be capitulate if they're still cut off after 24 hours.

 

C: A very thin German screening line in this marsh area continues to be under heavy attack, but it continues to hold due to its fortified positions.

 

A: A second German pocket is forming between the embankments of the single-track rail line. It's covered by a 37mm flak battery (F), A fortified 75mm PaK with supporting infantry company on the N side, and an infantry-armor force newly arrived in a village at the S of the perimeter (a Nashorn company and Sturmgrenadier company, indicated by the unit symbols). 

 

The Soviet flanking spearhead is led by the 167th Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment. Under the cover of darkness and rain, it has methodically advanced to the S and SW to bypass the German railway position. On Day 2, It could continue along the mapedge to attack the  78th Sturm Division's line of communication (the road leading S from Asintorf), or it could hook NW behind the railway position to cut it off. The advancing Guards would have to contend with a German 88mm flak position (E), which has survived air attack and continues to defend the German E-W axis of movement in that area.

 

The 195th Sturm Regiment's artillery (D) has been mounting up during the night to retreat to safer positions in the rear. 

 

Should the weather clear by morning, the Soviets are expected to resume heavy division- and corps-level artillery barrages on all the German positions, as well as air-to-ground attacks. But the Soviets have very little armor left at the front -- a depleted SU-152 company, just N of the railway position, is the only formation left. The rest got chewed up in the Day 1 breakthrough attacks. 

 

The biggest asset the Germans have now -- besides the rain -- is the swampy and wooded terrain in this part of the front. The ground that the Soviet flanking force is advancing over is impassable to vehicles. In fact, the only real firm, dry ground for Soviet armor to advance on lies along the railway line (A to E), and then through the key road junction of Asintorf.

 

The Soviets have 24 hours left to open this crucial corridor. That's because the 2nd Guards Tank Corps -- a huge and powerful force -- arrives as a reinforcement on the night of June 24. If the Soviets are still bottled up in the marches by then, the tank corps will have nowhere to go.

 

The Germans have to hold another 24 hours before they are reinforced, too. The 14th Infantry Division is Army Group Centre's only remaining reserve, and it will be arriving about the same time as the Soviet 2nd Guards Tank Corps. It's essential for the Soviets that they have the tanks through the Asintorf line, and well on their way toward the Orsha highway by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Broadsword

 

Very nice stuff. This work of yours is seeming to me to be the sophisticated college student "big sister" to my "school kid" CMPzC fledgling efforts!

But the more the merrier I say. :D

 

I really liked those battle logs. Kinda made me sad at the end when the lil' antitank zug got "hunted down and wiped out"...

Were they the Green "B" in the above and the wiping out didn't happen yet?

Or ANOTHER lil' AT zug headed towards the same fate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I was thinking the same thing, kohlenklau. Still, while we joke around a lot regarding our leaders' personalities and back stories, your Op layer situations and the players' battle strategies attempt to follow the historic situation and outcomes close enough to have fun and make it historically interesting. Maybe a better comparison is that Broadsword is making a documentary a la The World at War; you're doing the Hollyweird version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked those battle logs. Kinda made me sad at the end when the lil' antitank zug got "hunted down and wiped out"...

Were they the Green "B" in the above and the wiping out didn't happen yet?

Or ANOTHER lil' AT zug headed towards the same fate?

 

The little dismounted panzerfaust platoon you're referring to was wiped out in that afternoon attack.

 

The little green "B" force is a platoon (-) rearguard and Pak75 unit in fortifications, and it's been mostly a quiet island in a sea of red for the past day. Those landsers are smoking their last cigarettes, writing their last letters home, sharing a few hoarded sausages, and pretty much resigning themselves to a parade of shame through Red Square sometime in the next few weeks.

 

But there is one little dismounted panzerfaust platoon -- a sister unit of the one you were so fond of -- it's under that "2CH" marker between A and B.

Here is its battle log:

---------

1/1/Antitank Battalion
195 Sturm Regiment
78 Sturm Division
XXVII Corps
 
Battle record:
Broke out from cut off position with 2 Company (point "B" on the map) on afternoon of 23 June, ending in Hex 4708.
Suppressed in firefight in evening of 23 June, but rallied from suppression on Night Turn 10 and was still holding the flank in 4709 with 1 Cohesion Hit. Then another firefight with a company of the 40th Gd Inf Regt reduced it to two 2 Cohesion Hits.
---------
We're probably talking about barely a full squad of men now. They're actually in a screening position that's very annoying to the Soviet advance, and which hampers their freedom of movement as they try to flow around the German flank. Unfortunately, the night passed without the AT guys being able to make it all the way back to the railway perimeter. Their only hope would be if the rain continues into morning (which gives big negative penalties to direct fire and makes artillery spotting harder, too), Otherwise, one more good push by the adjacent Guards would likely finish them off.
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...