Combined Arms ??

[Guest Bob]

Hi fellows,

Will Cold War have a Combined Arms setting? 

Watching heavy tanks blast each other gets boring fast!

I have not played the game since CMBO days, I am sure it has improved a lot!

Thank you,

Bob

[Sprocketman]

Combat Mission has infantry modeled as well, and most scenarios have a mixture of infantry + vehicles.

[Bil Hardenberger]

7 minutes ago, Guest Bob said:

Hi fellows,

Will Cold War have a Combined Arms setting? 

Watching heavy tanks blast each other gets boring fast!

I have not played the game since CMBO days, I am sure it has improved a lot!

Thank you,

Bob

Hey Bob... really what you describe is a scenario designer issue, not a game limitation.  There are tons of examples of combined arms scenarios in all of the Combat Mission games.  Some people really enjoy a good tank v tank scenario, so there are plenty of those and maybe its unfortunate that most of what gets shown off are those because tanks are sexy. 

For examples see my BETA AARs for CM Red Thunder and for CM Fortress Italy(Gustav Line)

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, Guest Bob said:

Hi fellows,

Will Cold War have a Combined Arms setting? 

Watching heavy tanks blast each other gets boring fast!

I have not played the game since CMBO days, I am sure it has improved a lot!

Thank you,

Bob

This title is probably the high point of what land combined arms was capable of, beyond that we move into AirLand, then Joint and now multi-domain battle.  So the use of infantry, armor, artillery/rocket, along with enablers such as AT, AD and engineers are pretty much central to all the core content we have developed.  The game is capable of armor or infantry only battles, we have been beating out the Light Inf orgs recently and I am really liking the M151 TOW, but that is not the core design intent.

We actually go beyond combined arms and lean heavily into AirLand as airpower is also in just about every scenario (I say "just" because there are exceptions).  So CMCW takes the player to the doorstep of the digital battlefield but no onto it (even with limited EW).  It is about as Combined Arms as one can get before the environment and events forced that definition to change.

[akd]

10 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Hey Bob... really what you describe is a scenario designer issue, not a game limitation.  There are tons of examples of combined arms scenarios in all of the Combat Mission games.  Some people really enjoy a good tank v tank scenario, so there are plenty of those and maybe its unfortunate that most of what gets shown off are those because tanks are sexy. 

For examples see my BETA AARs for CM Red Thunder and for CM Fortress Italy(Gustav Line)

I think Bob is asking if the QB force picker will allow combined arms units with both mech infantry and tanks.  The answer currently seems to be that under the Combat Force Mech Infantry selection, tanks are excluded, even if the original formation in the editor is combined arms, but with the "Armored" selection, you get intact combined arms units with both tanks and mech infantry.

Edited March 8, 2021 by akd

[MikeyD]

If there's anything you want and don't see there's always the prospect of make-your-own scenarios or Quickbattles. If you want an all infantry battle in heavy fog across a forested hillside its just a couple clicks away. If you want close-quarters urban fighting on a moonless night that's just a couple clicks away too. M113 APCs vs concealed anti-tank gun emplacements on a rainy day? That's doable.

[Guest QB - selection]

Hi fellows,

Yes, I should have said QB.  In CMBO they had a QB setting for combined arms that forces each player to select a balance of forces between armour, artillery, infantry, etc.  Do they have that in Cold War?

With respect, I never enjoyed playing the scenarios.

Thank you,

Bob

 

[A Canadian Cat]

42 minutes ago, Guest QB - selection said:

Yes, I should have said QB.  In CMBO they had a QB setting for combined arms that forces each player to select a balance of forces between armour, artillery, infantry, etc.  Do they have that in Cold War?

None of the CM2 games have that feature. There was plenty of discussion about it after CMBN was released. The CM2 games have a mixed setting for QB which lets you pick whatever mix of force you like. In the modern games infantry have several AT options that can make it painful for an opponent to try to go all tank in a QB. The best cure for people who like to try to win with an unbalanced force is to kick their hinie with your balanced force :-)

The problem with the combined arms (aka force spending limits) was the problem of wasted points - I am short just a few points to get another tank, what do I do with those wasted points. The mixed force solves that problem - I can just get that additional tank an spend a tad less on something else - no wasted points.

IMHO the mixed setting is superior since it lets people actually select the forces they want and learn the value of a good combined force choice and not be forced into a box that someone else thinks makes a good combined arms force mix.

[Guest Disagree]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

None of the CM2 games have that feature. There was plenty of discussion about it after CMBN was released. The CM2 games have a mixed setting for QB which lets you pick whatever mix of force you like. In the modern games infantry have several AT options that can make it painful for an opponent to try to go all tank in a QB. The best cure for people who like to try to win with an unbalanced force is to kick their hinie with your balanced force :-)

The problem with the combined arms (aka force spending limits) was the problem of wasted points - I am short just a few points to get another tank, what do I do with those wasted points. The mixed force solves that problem - I can just get that additional tank an spend a tad less on something else - no wasted points.

IMHO the mixed setting is superior since it lets people actually select the forces they want and learn the value of a good combined force choice and not be forced into a box that someone else thinks makes a good combined arms force mix.

I disagree!

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, Guest Disagree said:

I disagree!

Care to elaborate?

[zmoney]

9 hours ago, Guest QB - selection said:

Hi fellows,

With respect, I never enjoyed playing the scenarios.

Thank you,

Bob

 

That’s interesting as I’ve never enjoyed QB’s. But I do tend to play solo matches. The scenario design has changed dramatically since the CM1 days. There are so many more options for designers to use. The game has changed a lot since the first series so you can’t really fall back on your memories of that in order to sway your decision on this game. They are totally different games in the way they play. 

[A Canadian Cat]

On 3/8/2021 at 6:20 PM, Vacilllator said:

On 3/8/2021 at 5:18 PM, Guest Disagree said:

I disagree!

Care to elaborate?

LOL it's OK. It's an old debate. He's said his piece and I've said mine. Steve will make the final call. Or perhaps he already has since CM2 games don't have that feature

[Vacillator]

18 minutes ago, IanL said:

He's said his piece and I've said mine.

That's fine Ian, I was just unsure if the Guest making the point was the same one.  Guests posting is fine by me (if a little new?) but tracking threads needs a bit of naming consistency.

It's not a biggie anyway .

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL I didn't notice they were different guests. Yeah, it is new and not very conducive to having a conversation. Ah well.

[Thewood1]

I think guest names change with every post.  At least that's what I can deduce.  It is difficult to create any consistent dialog.

[IMHO]

On 3/8/2021 at 9:21 PM, The_Capt said:

We actually go beyond combined arms and lean heavily into AirLand

And what exactly be the AirLand contribution to the game as compared to "good ol'" off-map fire support except for Air Support missions could sometimes (or always) be spoiled by AA defense assets? Just a "mission success rate" qualifier would have done the very same job Air support does in CMxx as of now.

Edited March 12, 2021 by IMHO

[The_Capt]

37 minutes ago, IMHO said:

And what exactly be the AirLand contribution to the game as compared to "good ol'" off-map fire support except for Air Support missions could sometimes (or always) be spoiled by AA defense assets? Just a "mission success rate" qualifier would have done the very same job Air support does in CMxx as of now.

Well, first, response times for the US demonstrate a level of integration beyond earlier titles.  Second, tac aviation’s ability to fire ATGMs puts air support in a different league.  Finally, ICM by air is not only deadly but smarter than artillery support.  The AD calculus requires deeper integration of the all arms team as well.  About the only thing not simulated is the Deep Battle aspects but those can be simulated in a campaign as operational effects.

[IMHO]

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

ICM by air is not only deadly but smarter than artillery support.

1. Agree with what you said yet it somehow does not make a different game mechanics for me. May be something's wrong with my take on the game  
2. I don't have CMCW yet it sounds like DPICM would have just walk CM's arty barrage just one step close to RL - big or small  That IS deadly to armored units IRL.

Edited March 12, 2021 by IMHO

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, IMHO said:

1. Agree with what you said yet it somehow does not make a different game mechanics for me. May be something's wrong with my take on the game  
2. I don't have CMCW yet it sounds like DPICM would have just walk CM's arty barrage just one step close to RL - big or small  That IS deadly to armored units IRL.

It may change once you get your hands on it.  It is a lot by feel, and this title simply feels different in a bunch of ways that add up. The mechanics for calling air support are identical to other titles but feel more deadly.  It was noted by testers that even against AI in single player airpower was punishing if you did not plan for it.

ICM.  Yep, pretty deadly if you get it lined up.  Here is an artillery study done in 1983 on pg 2-21 you get a handy chart (people should read the whole thing, it is pretty fascinating) 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a131493.pdf

ICM is the real world is about 2-4 times more "deadly" (the military has about as many definitions for 'kill' as Inuit do for snow) than conventional M107 HE.  In-game we are probably looking at approx 2-3 (we landed on a middle range) for US, less so for Soviets as their tech lagged.  This is given environmental conditions etc.  Basically DPICM does more system damage and in-vehicle damage to passengers, so it is particularly good at stripping away infantry support.  Tanks are harder to kill of course. 

[IMHO]

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Tanks are harder to kill of course

1. ICM should have no troubles with disposing of with the tanks shouldn't they?
2. You're aware the old US Army calc for HE damage on the armor was a grave underestimation don't you? There was a thread some years ago where I posted the test range results.

PS Gosh I've been to this place for well over 20 years by now. I remember I opened an account with CMBO discussion with my first post-grad job  

PPS Just as much as you are

Edited March 12, 2021 by IMHO

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

1. ICM should have no troubles with disposing of with the tanks shouldn't they?
2. You're aware the old US Army calc for HE damage on the armor was a grave underestimation don't you? There was a thread some years ago where I posted the test range results.

PS Gosh I've been to this place for well over 20 years by now. I remember I opened an account with CMBO discussion with my first post-grad job  

PPS Just as much as you are

There is mixed evidence on tanks and ICM, some reports say something like 10 hits but a single on the engine deck could also do it.  Tanks can die but are more likely to take damage.

Yep, HE calcs were short changed but we really do not have good studies from this era (if anyone has detailed HE vs armour studies from Arab-Israelis or Iran-Iraq, don’t be shy).  I have personally seen an 155 HE fragment lodge into the back deck of a 113 at about 250ms so I have no doubt at closer ranges we would see a lot more damage.  Hell a couple jugs of home made HE will flip a carrier and screw up a tank.   But in the end we are still at best guess.

Yep, 20 years...kinda went by fast.

Edited March 12, 2021 by The_Capt