Jump to content

Best Battlefront Game for Smaller, focused battles...


Recommended Posts

Hi, as an old Avalon Hill boardgamer, I am excited to get into one of these titles. Which one is best for focused, smaller gameplay? I like to min-max everything, and huge battles get to be too much. Seems like Final Blitzkrieg is the way to go, as Red Thunder models the Eastern Fronts huge battles. Any advice? Thank you!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah! I think its funny that everyone has a different answer. I was going to suggest CM:Fortress Italy because the level of lethality is dialed down to 1943 levels.

If you're asking which title ships with the most 'small' scenarios, that's a tough one. I don't think anyone done a survey on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to say CMFI for me, but the best CM game is the one you are currently playing. 

As others have said, all the titles have large and small battles, which are sortable by size in the Battle menu. If you run out of smaller premade battles to play, the quick battle system has the options to play tiny and small battles, both which give very enjoyable fights with reduced unit counts.

The key to buying your first CM title is really easy. Preview all the titles on the store page and buy the one you are most interested in. Or better yet, just buy them all as most people here end up doing anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pick the one that interest you the most.

But if you want content, I would say your best bet is CMBN or CMSF2, since those two titles have so much more offerings as to scenarios that have been made by players.

So more likely will give you the most amount of small battles.

but you also will have the ability to make your own, I have used Avalon hill games to make  many of a battle or something similar. For head to head play with someone that you get along with, the options can be almost endless.

But if you go that rout, it does mean getting the big bundle with all the modules to get that content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of what title is the most *interesting* with small battles - in general, the later you go, the more stuff gets pushed down to platoon level. The russian platoons in cmbs are ostensibly similar to a syrian platoon, but have many more tactical options available to them. The same thing applies to the WW2 titles - later war formations have more depth to them in general.

In terms of the best small unit *content*, CMSF trends towards the smaller scale for the US side (Task Force Thunder has a lot of "take this scout platoon and do x"), and CMBN tends to be a little smaller than the later titles, but certainly not in every case.

CMBN also has the excellent campaigns "The Outlaws" and "The Devil's Descent", which are both airborne campaigns based around a single company, mostly using a platoon or two at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Hah! I think its funny that everyone has a different answer. I was going to suggest CM:Fortress Italy because the level of lethality is dialed down to 1943 levels.

If you're asking which title ships with the most 'small' scenarios, that's a tough one. I don't think anyone done a survey on that. 

I would support CMFI, but indeed only from a gut feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will disagree (strongly) with this statement, but in my opinion the scenario size 'sweet spot' is combined arms infantry company size. Put too few forces on the map and you're in danger of having one mistake lose you the game. Put too many forces on the map and it becomes like herding a flock of sheep. Others might argue you need to put a battalion of the map or don't even bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with CM has always been that the game allows you to make interesting decisions on the scale of squads and fire teams. It's tactically relevant where the Bren gun team goes in over a 24m frontage, and it's important to know where your rifle grenades are, or who's carrying the SMG. Then, at the same time, you can have throw 1,000 troops on the map, with attached armour and air assets.

It's certainly possible to micro-manage a battalion-sized force, but it takes a lot of time and mental effort to do so. That means that it can become overwhelming and intimidating due to the effort involved, or it can result in taking shortcuts, and not playing the small scale stuff optimally.

Reinforced company is certainly a sweet spot. I've been engaged with some larger battles (and it's easier to be engaged with a PBEM, but that's a whole different kind of commitment), but it's easy to feel that it's not worth the effort. I do like tiny-scale scenarios, platoon or squad level can be really interesting. You're correct that the game can be over with one mistake, but the trade-off there is that it doesn't take long to get there. I think one of the more relevant problems with platoon-level scenarios is that they are inherently limited in tactical depth - there are a limited number of options with most platoons, and a limited scope for what they can be expected to achieve.

Phillip Sabin is a history professor, who teaches a wargaming course. The games he uses to teach, and has his students design, meet some fairly strict criteria to be useful in the classroom, most notably that they are simple and short enough to pick up quickly and play repeatedly.

One of the major problems with wargame design in general (in any format) is the tendency towards "monster" games with thousands of counters which take hundreds of hours, which are difficult to play logistically - finding the time to commit, and finding an opponent who can also commit is difficult enough, but if you have something which is that large and difficult to arrange, it's very unlikely that you'll be able to play it repeatedly. If you can't repeat the game, there's no way to approach any kind of mastery.

So... yeah, small scenarios, played often are the best way to learn something like this, and the game/outside reading learning feedback-loop is the primary reason why I (personally) play simulationist games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, domfluff said:

So... yeah, small scenarios, played often are the best way to learn something like this, and the game/outside reading learning feedback-loop is the primary reason why I (personally) play simulationist games.

Id echo that sentiment but id also add that this is the primary reason i also like to play huge battles.

Once you know how to play well increasing the size adds an entire extra layer on top. because your small unit tactics still matter but they are now put into a greater context and managing an entire battalion sometimes forces decisions that on company level seem stupid but make sense in the bigger picture. So at some point you simply learn more from larger battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

It's certainly possible to micro-manage a battalion-sized force, but it takes a lot of time and mental effort to do so. That means that it can become overwhelming and intimidating due to the effort involved, or it can result in taking shortcuts, and not playing the small scale stuff optimally.

I completely agree with this. In general I prefer larger battles, but the administrative overhead of managing the large force can be a huge burden. I have no idea what I would do to mitigate that burden though. The only thing I can really think of is introducing some type of “formation move” where you can give simple movement orders to large formations. 
 

This is one of the things that I hope we would eventually see in an engine upgrade or something like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan of the combined arms infantry company size battles as well. Small unit action with a taste of some larger unit action as well. And, these battles can be finished in an hour or two, depending on how deep your planning goes during the fight. To answer the original question though, I would submit, as others have, that small unit actions can be found in just about all of the CM games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The size of the battle does not matter, I like them all.

Personally I like them small because I then become invested in what happens to each unit. Every unit, becomes important to the success of the mission. I am watching the men's ammo, every weapon lost on the battlefield and that if it needs to be recovered and so on. ( I get down in the dirt and see every detail of the battle and see what the game has)

But playing large scale battles, you can detach yourself from that micro managing and focus on large scale maneuvering and playing for key terrain and positioning. Losing a tank is not a win or lose issue. Its, did my 6 tanks gain the firepower fast enough to take out the 3 enemy tanks, were my losses acceptable. also its not so much about did my unit save ammo as have I saved a company or platoon in reserve to come in fresh with a full load of ammo and take over the fight, while my initial units go back and resupply and recover a little before having to reengage in the fight. 

So if you get my drift, each level of combat has its good and bad points.

I think some people try to play big battles like they play little battles, it creates too much work and it does take the fun out of it.  I do it myself, but only when I am competing against some one else. Vs the AI, I like to stop the micro managing and give the AI a chance and enjoy the larger battles by not overthinking the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2020 at 8:27 PM, MikeyD said:

Hah! I think its funny that everyone has a different answer. I was going to suggest CM:Fortress Italy because the level of lethality is dialed down to 1943 levels.

If you're asking which title ships with the most 'small' scenarios, that's a tough one. I don't think anyone done a survey on that. 

I agree CMFI is probably the most forgiving combat wise so would recommend most for a new player getting used to the games. I would say CMBS is the least forgiving in bad moves or luck, and so a bit more challenging.  Personally, I prefer smaller company size scenarios too, but I don't think any one game has more. All the games have a mix they come with, but plenty of small user made scenarios out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2020 at 11:21 AM, RepsolCBR said:

Co-operative multiplayer would be a nice option for large/huge scenarios...😁

 

Here is a concept I put together a long time ago for ideas of how such a game might be. If this were implemented I believe the Real Time player community would grow exponentially. Basically each player controls a platoon, and sees only what his units see so it is how Iron mode would shine. The commander role player/players would control those smaller units, but would see more, and so would be coordinating the effort of the players controlling the main combat units. Also, the game would have observer slots for each side for just watching, or training for new team players. Teams (clans) would emerge for Real Time play, and would bring entire new aspect to the game.

 

Edited by Vinnart
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...