killmore Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I hope this is not a duplicate post... Since small battles cannot make a difference in the war how about making an internet app that will create a front line where hundreds of people can play each other and this way change the course of history. Similar things were done for "Heavy Gear" and "TA boneyards". I have done similar thing myself for the Xwing Aliance. While I could do similar things for Front Line it would take huge amount of time (like months since I am full time software enginer and have other things to do) and I would need a lot of help (maps and code) and including Java servers etc... Over all it would be nice if BTS could do it not us players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Now here's a man that fails to grog his relative insignificance in the universe... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 Someone could create something like this (we have no interest in doing it), but I think you underestimate the coordination that would be needed to create a Frontline type situation. And in any case, say you got 100 people together, they all fought at, say, 10am August 21st, 1944 until 11am. Uhm, do you realize how many 100 man battles you would have to fight before you could change history. A couple thousand Sorry, but I really think you are just trying to fit a size 16E double wide foot into a Size 9 shoe. No matter how you try to shoehorn it in, just ain't going to fit You need to really look at how wars were fought and adjust your scope of combat effects down many notches. Star Wars and Heavy Gear have no relation to reality, so that might be part of the problem here. The war against Germany in the NW ETO took just about one year to complete. In that time frame there were probably hundreds of thousands of battles at CM's scale, most of which were just as important as the next. Think about it. The US lost, what, 80,000 men in the Bulge and the Germans about 120,000 in about a month's worth of heavy combat (somewhere around that). In a CM battle you might lose a couple hundred in a large assault type engagement. Seeing as these weren't the norm, think of how many battles it would take to adequately sample the combat in just the Bulge? CC4 is trying to do that, and I don't think historical minded person is buying it as anything other than a game gimick. Not that this is a BAD thing, but it certainly isn't remotely realistic. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted November 11, 1999 Author Share Posted November 11, 1999 I would not want to force 100 players to play at the sime time. I would just make sure play every front "sector" had a battle done on it during that day (hour, turn, whatever...) So person would be able to play couple of sectors if needed. And it could take multiple days... Only after all sectors were played the consequences of the moves would be put into effect and next "macro turn" would start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted November 11, 1999 Share Posted November 11, 1999 I think one of the points Steeeeve is making is that because of CM's scale, it would probably take weeks (if not months) to game out even a single DAY of your front-line campaign. The ice caps will have melted and there won't BE a northwest Europe by the time your campaign reaches Berlin. Combat Mission is a tactical-level game, it's not a good fit for the sort of operational or grand strategic challenges you seem to crave. It's nice to see your enthusiasm, though. Leland J. Tankersley [This message has been edited by L Tankersley (edited 11-11-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 I've always liked the idea of a larger "meta campaign" or whatever it's called; however, I'd have to agree with BTS that trying to use CM to run the war is simply not possible. How would you even begin to determine troops movements, intelligence, strategic and tactical air support, logistics, etc, etc. At best, it would be nothing but a vague approximation. However, on a smaller scale it might be a lot of fun. Say for instance that you use CM to simulate the fighting of a single division over the course of a few days or weeks. I'm planning on trying something like that myself by using a board game (haven't decided which one yet) to use as the larger map. Where a battle is to occur, I'll use CM to resolve the combat and determine results. The board and counters will simply be used to get an overall picture of the situation and determine where the fighting will occur. Of course. I'm looking for a game thats scope is of a single division or less hopefully. Even at this scale, I anticipate that it will likely take me months to complete a game which itself will be just a vague approximation. Still, it should be fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBlaster Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 I'm planning the same thing as Prizl. I already did that with a friend using SP2. I worked quite well I might add. The operational part was very abstract of course, but we just used a regular map with icons on transperant plastic. We decided how supply was factored, movement ranges, equipment type etc. It was a lot of fun and we'll do it again with CM Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossfire Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 I don't see why people oppose it so much. Heck - I don't mind even Normandy-Berlin "abstraction". It seems to me that too many times I hear "Unrealistic" on this board as an excuse. Common we need fun too! Pure simulations tend to be dry and boring and they don't sell well. Realism does not sell as many games as fun factor. I love the idea even if it would take away some reality out of the game. We can argue all day about what is and not realistic and people have done it before. Extremely accurate simulations appeal to very few players and therefore just don't sell well. Think of the profit guys. Accounts of Ultima online sell for thousands! Think what account of general would sell for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 Crossfire, I can understand your point, but I disagree. To my thinking, using Combat Mission to simulate the scope of Wolrd War II (i.e normandy to Berlin where your actions somehow dramatically alter the war) is like trying to use a tac hammer to pound in a rail road spike. The scales are just so far off that it's not even remotely realistic. Realism is the whole concept behind Combat Mission. It's the crux of the game. Granted, it's not truly realistic in the sense that people are going to die when you paly this game, but that's not the intention, nor does anyone want that level of realism. However, they do want realistic tactics to yield realistic results and provide a true flavor for this scale of combat in the ETO during the Second World War. There are already games that allow you to send Tiger tanks down Pannsylvania avenue so to speak and let you alter the course of the war. They are Panzer General, Steel Panthers, and a host of others. To me, and I'm sure many others, the fun IS the realism. Why make yet another watered down wargame when the market is flooded with them already? I'm just truly gald the best and most realistic wargame I've ever seen is available for the Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossfire Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 Are u saying that without being forced to loose a game/campain as germans you cannot enjoy the game? Does realism means to you that allies must win the war? That sounds like CC3 to me. All games like that are fundamentally broken. I can simply escape from all engagements in CC3 are still win the war as Red Army. Where is the fun in that? What is the point of loosing my men ? Why bother? Games seem to force you to play when you have even chances to win. But thats not always true. Someone mentioned that it is hard to find historical engagements where both sides had even chances. TRUE! See I want an unpredictable game where sometimes you just slaughter the other side other time you will get nailed badly. No games with predifined path will ever do that. But with "unrealistic" front line, and hundreds of player with different equipment and size of forces it will be possible. And no I don't want PG (mainly due to graphics). I would not mind a PG-1 like front line! Realism is NOT equal to FUN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamup Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 Crossfire, you're looking at a completely different scale here. To be realistic (which to many people here is almost synonymous with fun) the Germans must lose, since they did in the real war. BUT, this is almost totally invisible at CM's level. A company-level battle to capture a village is basically the same regardless of which side is winning the war. In any given engagement, the Germans have more or less the same chance of winning as the Allies. And to answer your Russian analogy, sure! A specific company refusing to fight would not alter the course of the war. The problem is not in CM, it is in all the other wargames that try to make out that victory/defeat in this one small battle will actually change the war somehow. It won't. And, IMNSHO, if you need for your actions to have an effect on the whole war to enjoy the game, it's your priorities that are warped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Deych Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 You know,there is really no need why this has to be limited to either "Hill X near Village Y" or "WWII-1939 to 1945". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerLeader Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 The strategic or operational progress of the war aren't really the preoccupations of a company or battalion commander, let's face it. A Wehrmacht captain operating in Southern Russia in 1944 probably wouldn't care a lot if he were told that the Russians have started a massive offensive against Army Group Center... Commanders at that specific level, and therefore CM players, are probably more preoccupied with the survival of their battalion in the campaign! Poor performance in any game of this level should have some nasty, important consequences, not on the military situation but rather on you personally(degradation; less confidence from superiors, etc.) As many people have already said, realism is the ultimate goal of any wargame. When I play Operational Art of War with the Germans in 1945 I know that I can't win the war anymore. But I don't care about that! Being able to re-enact the war realistically at any level is already a fascinating enough experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossfire Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 So you are saying that the purpose for german commander is to have the best german battalion slaughtered in May 1945? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerLeader Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 crossfire, Your purpose should always be to do your best, even in a hopeless situation. In that specific example if I do my best then maybe the Allies will only get to Berlin in June...Or maybe they'll suffer extra casualties on their way...I'd be satisfied with that, and then next time I'll try to do even better, etc. But I'll never be able to win the war! Germany's situation was hopeless! I'll just do my best, even though I know that at the end my troops are going to be defeated anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 crossfire, I don't understand how your last post relates to the discussion above. CM is _not_ modeling the entire war. It's providing a capability to model tiny little pieces of the war. At CM's scale, as stated in the FAQ, it is entirely possible to have realistic (or even historically-based) scenarios in which the Germans have the advantage. I personally don't mind scenarios that are unbalanced -- it can be a nice challenge to try to pull out a win from a crumbling situation. But CM _is_ a game, and usually play balance is an important concern when building games (as opposed to models/simulations). [And don't let's delve into the whole boring "is game X a simulation of warfare or not" debate.] If you're asking why the Germans kept on fighting after the war was pretty clearly lost, that is outside the scope of a game like CM by a couple orders of magnitude. I've got nothing against grand strategy or political strategy games; it's just that CM isn't concerned at all with the larger strategic situation except from a scenario design standpoint [e.g. realistic unit formations and experience at different periods, and historical situations and engagements]. If you want to come up with an alternate history where Germany had more manpower reserves and more wartime production and fuel available and build a bunch of scenarios taking place in that environment, there's nothing stopping you -- knock yourself out. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted November 12, 1999 Author Share Posted November 12, 1999 The question is does anyone think that front line for 100 players would be cool? (Forget Normandy-Berlin) Or is that not realistic? And therefore no one should attempt to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or is that not realistic? And therefore no one should attempt to do that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ehrm ... I don't think it's realistic to expect that such a venture would succeed. I make no statements one way or another about the realism of this approach to modeling engagements larger than CM can handle. It's a neat idea, but I have serious doubts that it could be pulled off in a satisfactory way. Coordinating that many people is a huge chore, and I thing the frustration level would rapidly outpace the coolness level. I don't think that realism arguments are valid for convincing you not to try something, EXCEPT that if a lot of people are turned off by the "unreality" you may have problems attracting enough participants to bring your idea to fruition. Personally, I'd recommend you hold off until CM is released, and maybe cut your teeth on a campaign involving say a few players per side and see how that works before you jump feet-first into your 100-player monstergame. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerLeader Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 Killmore, How would you model the entire command structure? With 100 players each side, you'd need not only battalion commanders, but also regimental commanders, brigade commanders, maybe even divisional commanders. How would they play? How would they receive information? By emailing all the battalion commanders? Or maybe you do not wish to use the command structure at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossfire Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 Good somebody (PanzerLeader) agreed that he/she wants to change history. Berlin in June - that is a measure of success! And why not? That all you could achieve in CC1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 The closest thing I can think of for a similar endevour to this would be some of the scenarios and campaigns that are conducted online for Air Warrior and Warbirds (two outstanding WW2 air combat online simulators). Assuming that there was even an engine that could handle this incredibly daunting task, (can yous ay manhatten project?) you would have to overcome certain obstalces/limitations. First forget about doing a campaign, even with a 100 players each running a company (so you can keep things moving!) that's less than 25 battalions (if you include support troops plus higher level commanders etc) which is a division on division (with a little extra). Air Warrior and Warbids have an advantage in that it's a flight simulator, all the planning, preparation, training and practice occurs before H-Hour begins, and then it's all air time. If you die that's it, see ya. Coordinating a 100 players giving orders would have to be done versus a realtime timer say you have one minute to give your orders or more but if you aren't ready tough ****. Anything less and the entire operation would bog down over weeks and months of churning through a day's worth of action. There would need to be some sort of replication of the chain of command and communications system. (Airwarrior has this built in with flight maps and a four channel radio system.) In fact this would be teh TRUE VALUE and what would set the experience apart froma regular CM game. This way BCs and Regt Commanders could pass info up to division and visa versa and those commanders could direct what they have done, as well as control fire support assetts and reserves etc. I can think of one thing very remotely similar on a ground level and that's a TACOPS online CPX. But in that case the players are merely working off of maps and commo and various sytem generated inteliegnce and similar reports while the PC does all the fighting. IN an adaptation of this you would have player staffs in similar positions using similar tools while other players (manuever element commanders, carry out orders) The process would be huge in undertaking and require a lot of MATURE players to commit to hours of online presence just to fight a modest division sized battle for a short period of time. What's the payback? Well having participated on flying, running and leading some of the Airwarrior scenarios from pilot level all the way to force commander, they are incredibly satsifying undertakings. You have to do much the staff work required of actual commanders. (which 99% of the participants want no part of) and it requires weeks of practice and flying to work as a team. Still the tactical planning, leadership and after action hot washes are incredible. And its something to see all your hard earned effort go to waste when you crash on take off, but the tension and excitement are bar none. Similarly the preparation organization of the chain of command and communication procedures, expectations, scheduling and work that goes into making this happen is both tremndous and satisfying. Players running companies can get the sense of being part of a bigger pictures and between battle days all participate in their own closed BBS where tactics and what went right/wrong are hashed out. No doubt this will illict crticisms/comments but anyway there you have it. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted November 12, 1999 Author Share Posted November 12, 1999 Well, I am not sure If I could explain that right... I would not make it complex on the first try. Think simple!!! 1) Player can play any battle on his side during the "turn" - that means multiple CM battles if he wants to. 2) Player decides which adjacent enemy sector he wants to attack. If he wants to surround enemy sectors he can email and cooperate with other player. - Not my problem. 3) Replacement points will be given by AI based on sector importance and possibly player performance. Hey - here is a trick - we could simply offer more points for more strategic sectors. 4) Command structure. Well maybe none. Since we just have a large engagement not Germany-Allies war... Say this is a total mess without anyone in control. That happened too. 5) No sector/units belongs to any particular player. We do not want to spend days waiting for someone to comeback from holidays. 6) I guess units might belong to specific player and he could use them in any sector. - Yes it is not realistic. If you guys start to complain that is not realistic - I agree. I think it would be non realistic fun... It might give you a feel for larger battle where you are only a part and your actions matter somewhat. Hey you can come up with interesting ideas yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted November 12, 1999 Author Share Posted November 12, 1999 As stated before. There will be no hour of meeting when everyone has to play. Just pick a sector that has not been played this turn and defend it or attack from it. You will get very different expriences in different sectors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 Certainly an interesting thread. Your comment, "Since small battles cannot make a difference in the war...", strkes me as wrong. Small battles are exactly what makes the difference. It is when small units (Plt/Company/Battalion size) fold or hold that breakthroughs or defeats are made. Consider the soviet doctrin to massively bombard a wide front, attact on a wide front, but poor all reserve into whatever weak are they discover. It comes down to smaller units breaking in or holding out. Your idea to have a large front battle is fine with me although CM doesn't sound like the best fit. Perhaps Steel Panthers 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted November 12, 1999 Share Posted November 12, 1999 I kinda like Killmore's idea of "picking a battle with a vacant command spot." Players wouldn't have to stick with one battle type; that was something I misliked about SteelPanthers: it was sorta easy to get into a rut where missions were mostly defend or attack for a long time. I'd get sorta bored with the "set up your 88s on a hill and wait for the British to charge their CrusaderVs across a mile of desert terrain." 4 battles in a row ending with most of an armored battallion smashed out in front of my guns gets boring. However, I agree that attempting to fit CM into a grand-strategic frame will entail difficulties. Smaller-scale campaigns (Aachen, Caen, Falaise) might work better. As to how to implement them, don't look at me. I have enough going on just making sure I do the things I need to get paid. DjB DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts