Guest kip anderson Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 Hi, People's views on how long scenarios should be will differ, I suspect a lot.My view is that although the two scenarios in the demo were very well balanced the number of game turns available was unrealistically few.Although at the operatioal level war may be a "race of the swift" from what I have read at the tactical level it is infact a very careful and methodical business.Michael Doubler in his book Closing with the Enemy (the best book on WW2 tactics I know)makes it clear that US forces soon learnt not to rush attacks, to do things slowly and carefully. In the two scenarios I was forced to suffer far heavier casualties in order to beat the clock. Of course I still enjoyed them as the game system and the AI are of such high quality it would be hard not to enjoy them. The realism of CM is stunning. One possible way round all this would be that on the Results Screen there should not only be View Map and OK buttons but also a Resume Game button. I am not suggesting this for CM1 but maybe a later version. All the best, Kip. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 What you're thinking of could be VERY well modelled using campaigns IMO. CM's campaign system is set up to allow you to play the campaign however you want. I.e. you can rush in and be a heavy-casualties but objective capturing glory boy (like me ) or a more methodical player (like you) with limited objectives in each battle seeking positional advantage prior to the assault. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kip anderson Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 Fionn, thanks for the reply. Yes I am greatly looking forward to the Campaigns and to building my own scenarios. CM is a superb game system, its the realism of the system that puts it in a world of it's own. At the moment I don't play any wargames because I don't consider the other games realistic enough, that will change once CM is out. All the best, Kip. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted November 18, 1999 Share Posted November 18, 1999 Hey Kip! Scenario length is at the option of the scenario designer. Occasionally a shorter time frame is used to force one player to take chances. This is often done since that side may have a preponderance of forces that with enough time could simply sit back and pound the opponent to death. Being pushed causes the stronger side to have to do things with urgency. This is not altogether unrealistic. In history commanders were often urged to "get moving," "take that hill," "you're holding up the battalion," etc. It can be a good tool, if properly used. Once one gets the feel for it in CM, it can be used well. Wild Bill ------------------ Dirctor of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Hi Bill, I didn't know you hung around the forum ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 I try to be where the action is, even if I'm a little late, Fionn. Besides, if you're there, its gotta be good... Wild Bill ------------------ Dirctor of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Geez Fionn! How much You paying 'ole Bill there?!? Madmatt out and wishing he has someone that appreciated him like Fionn does! [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 11-18-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Yes, too often there were those commanders of higher rank who led from the rear and forced combat, often micromanaging tactics from off the battlefield. I very much hate playing a scenario of those "hurry up and die" types. But, it is not unrealistic.s There were a couple or so divisions who upon the inititive of their own division commanders trained especially for the night attack. Yet too often this capability was wasted as they were rushed into action from corps level, which was totally blind to what was happening on front line tactically. If I am not mistaken (Fionn?), the 30th and 104th Wolfhound divisions were examples. When they were simply given their objectives and allowed to tackle the elephant using their own planning, they excelled. Otherwise, casualties tended to run higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Unfortunately my specialty is German equipment, land, sea and air not US units except insofar as I read about them and UK units etc to get a handle on Germany's enemies. I do know what you are talking about though although I cannot confirm the divisional numbers. I have read similar claims and have read of extensive cross-training being undertaken by specific battalions and regiments and similar specialisations being identified. E.g. Some of the engineering units in the European theatre were recognised to be specialised in particular aspects of their wide-ranging job description. E.g. some were deemed to be excellent road builders and by simply tracing their locations and orders you can find the main divisional or corps supply and advance routes at any given time ( little tricks like that really help you when reading books in identifying EXACTLY how the military actions were conducted.) Most books will tell you that the "US drove towards St Lo" or something similar BUT this drive was spearheaded by certain divisions down certain routes at different times and this often is missed in the history books. A knowledge of specialist units and which units were perceived to be best at what can do a hell of a lot to help you determine the military details of the advance which are missed by most books. Can you tell that I have a pet peeve about history books which completely disregard any talk about main axes, subsidiary thrusts etc etc. Without knowing what labels the commander of the day gave to each thrust etc you lose a lot of the flavour of what was going on. Anyways, to cut a LONG post short, I do know many units specialised and cross-trained. Some US units would definitely have adopted the German night attack philosophy but generally speaking the US preferred to fight at day where its materialschlecht worked better. Of course, a US unit attacking at night was against what the Germans expected US units to do and thus a night attack was likely to be even more effective than would be expected. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted November 19, 1999 Share Posted November 19, 1999 Wild Bill! How nice to see you here. I had just run across a post of yours re: the CM editor that made even more excited CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts