How Plausible are Combat Mission Scenarios/Campaigns?

[Simcoe]

Seconding Cpt_Winters.

Great answers from everyone and I appreciate all the hard work everyone does in this community.

The gist I'm getting from everyone's answers is that Combat Mission is a compressed version of actual combat or as close as you can get to it.

A rifle company in real life may take six hours to occupy an enemy held town but in CM that would take an hour. The troops, toys and tactics are the same though.

Now, would you say some module's are more accurate than others? To me, Red Thunder comes across as most plausible because of the higher casualties and types of fighting that would occur(based on zero research mind you). I could be wrong but I often wonder how realistic the modern modules would be. In Black Sea, once air power came into play, would there ever be an actual battle? It seems like ground forces would only be there to mop up the smoldering remains.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Simcoe

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Winters said:

blown away (no pun intended) by just how bad I feel when told to avoid casualties in my mission briefing and I then proceed to lose a "man" 2 minutes in to the operation.  I can't even begin to express how that might feel in real life.

Yes, that is part of what makes CM so good.  The immersion.

[The_MonkeyKing]

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I'm trying to recall Patton's message. It was something along the line of the treeline provides less concealment than you think and no cover at all. Once the shooting starts its no different than being fully exposed.

In Finland we have lots of forests. The wood line is a bad idea but positions enough inside the woods (lets say at least 20m from the woodline) with clear keyhole fields of fire are the best. Woods also cover any move out of the positions.

[StieliAlpha]

On 11/9/2021 at 1:27 AM, Simcoe said:

Do battles in real life play out like they do in Combat Mission?

Are there parts that do and some that don't?

Are there certain modules that are more plausible than others?

If yes, what scenarios/campaigns are most plausible/realistic.

As a general remark: In another thread a long time ago, one of the professionals in this forum estimated that battles in CM play out about four times faster than on reality.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, StieliAlpha said:

As a general remark: In another thread a long time ago, one of the professionals in this forum estimated that battles in CM play out about four times faster than on reality.

Time compression is often the issue IMHO (it's massively exaggerated in my CM:SF Mosul scenario).  Most players don't wan't 'hours or days of boredom' interspersed with '10 minutes of madness', they want a nicely paced scenario that keeps them occupied from start to finish.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[landser]

On 11/9/2021 at 1:52 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

 the luxury of not needing to 'worry about tomorrow'

Agreed, and one of the series' biggest weaknesses. Until we have a campaign system that makes tomorrow important, it will continue along this trajectory. Operations in CMx1 were on the path to resolving this but were discarded for the narrative-centric, episodic system we have now.

As to the OP question, I'd say not very close. Pacing is compressed due to the time constraints, and casualty percentages are too high in most battles.

I find it interesting that there is a vein of thought here that CM players would make great trench warfare generals, throwing their pixeltruppen away to achieve victory. Casualties are inevitable in battle, but I'm sure I am not alone in making force preservation a paramount consideration in every battle, regardless of whether I need to worry about tomorrow.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, landser said:

Agreed, and one of the series' biggest weaknesses. Until we have a campaign system that makes tomorrow important, it will continue along this trajectory. Operations in CMx1 were on the path to resolving this but were discarded for the narrative-centric, episodic system we have now.

As to the OP question, I'd say not very close. Pacing is compressed due to the time constraints, and casualty percentages are too high in most battles.

I find it interesting that there is a vein of thought here that CM players would make great trench warfare generals, throwing their pixeltruppen away to achieve victory. Casualties are inevitable in battle, but I'm sure I am not alone in making force preservation a paramount consideration in every battle, regardless of whether I need to worry about tomorrow.

Interesting point that highlights a designers dilemma.  In CMCW we built in 'consequences' into both the US and Soviet campaigns.  The player does need to worry about tomorrow as losses carry over from one fight to the next.  We also added "a" and "b" versions of fights to reflect a win or loss previously and here we added support and position incentives and punishment.  Originally we had these settings as very realistic.  For example in this sort of war scenario logistics are going to be extremely strained and units cannot depend on reinforcements or replacements in a tactical window of a CM campaign.  The Soviet doctrine was designed for this specifically.  Then on play testing it became apparent that brutal realism will put most players behind a loss curve from which they will not recover.

So we design realistic campaigns that most players will only make it half way through...wee.  This required a lot of RRR balancing, particularly on the US campaign.  We left the Soviet March or Die campaign along the lines of the original and I do not doubt that it will be the least popular of the bunch based on feedback to date.

So the CM designers dilemma is that players want 'realism' and I am not being sarcastic here, this is a high end realistic wargame and level of detail is downright crazy sometimes.  This is attractive to die harder wargamers who don't want an RTS or broad chess-like abstraction.  But "real war" is not fair in the least (trust me).  So how does one design a realistic scenario/campaign that doesn't lead to grossly unfair end states that leave a player that has invested money and time completely and irreversibly screwed?

The answer is very carefully and accept the fact that you are not going to make everyone happy.  In CMCW, the Soviet campaign specifically, we went with two options, Standard which is more forgiving and "March or Die" where if you play loose and reckless you are not going to make it that far because the MRR you are fighting will be in tatters by the end...and we even dialed it back.

Now what I would like is the ability to make "tomorrow" operationally significant in a much broader context but given the current engine that ability to effectively create meta-campaigns is just not there.  Maybe on CMx3.

[Erwin]

The way to think about this issue is if a game and its scenarios was very realistic, then being really good at playing the game should make one eligible for a RL Company or Battalion command.  

As an experiment maybe contact DoD with one's CM xnt CM2 win record/qualifications and maybe they'll immediately commission you?  (Probably best to wait for the next war when there will be an immediate shortage of officers.)

[womble]

For my part, some of the "unfairness" of warfare could begin to be addressed by a combination of briefing and points allocation. It would (at least occasionally) be "fun" (of the serious kind that anyone who plays CM more than once or twice pretty much has to find attractive) to play a scenario which flat-out tells you up front, "You're screwed; do the best you can. Your level of victory will be based on how well you do compared to the half dozen people that playtested this for the designer."  (Or, if it's a historical scenario, compared to the performance of the actual forces involved". On the other side, even a cakewalk can be a challenge to "win", if the victory conditions require near-perfection in execution to "beat" the setup. I think the SF titles probably cover this sort of situation most often, since they probably have the widest disparity in force makeups, as a rule, but any of the settings can provide hopeless vs cakewalk scenarios to attempt to wrangle a scoring scheme that reflects "performace-around-the-expected-mean".

Similarly, scoring schemes can be, and are, used to reflect the need for force preservation in many scenarios and in campaign situations. Constraints like that do, however make the fun "more serious", and reduce the pool of people for whom they yield an acceptable return of fun per time spent.

[StieliAlpha]

3 hours ago, womble said:

For my part, some of the "unfairness" of warfare could begin to be addressed by a combination of briefing and points allocation. It would (at least occasionally) be "fun" (of the serious kind that anyone who plays CM more than once or twice pretty much has to find attractive) to play a scenario which flat-out tells you up front…

Yep, I remember a mission in the good old „Hidden and Dangerous“ with a briefing, which was outright wrong. Or better the briefing spelled out the plan, but on the way to the mission, preconditions completely changed for the troops. Irritating, shocking, but great fun to play!

 

[Redwolf]

8 minutes ago, StieliAlpha said:

Yep, I remember a mission in the good old „Hidden and Dangerous“ with a briefing, which was outright wrong. Or better the briefing spelled out the plan, but on the way to the mission, preconditions completely changed for the troops. Irritating, shocking, but great fun to play!

 

Also more realistic

[MikeyD]

The play style most favored by players, but also least 'historical' is 'meeting engagement'. A balanced meeting engagement is basically a chess game. But how often in the real world would you find significant opposing forces blindly stumbling on each other while on the march? I'd have to look to see the last time I made a meeting engagement scenario. I'm usually a defend/attack/ambush kind'a guy.

[Centurian52]

3 hours ago, womble said:

For my part, some of the "unfairness" of warfare could begin to be addressed by a combination of briefing and points allocation. It would (at least occasionally) be "fun" (of the serious kind that anyone who plays CM more than once or twice pretty much has to find attractive) to play a scenario which flat-out tells you up front, "You're screwed; do the best you can. 

I really like this idea. It could be really interesting to have a few scenarios that say upfront that you don't stand a chance of holding, but your goal is to hold as long as you can and inflict as much damage as you can, and then withdraw. For this sort of scenario you should have an exit zone available to your rear, and you should get points for every one of your own troops or vehicles you manage to exit, and points for every enemy soldier or vehicle you manage to destroy. It might also be nice if there was a mechanic where you got a few points for every minute you managed to keep the enemy off of the objective. I know I would have a lot of fun with this sort of scenario, but I can't speak for others (I'm a bit of a glutton for punishment).

This sort of scenario could fit really well into CMCW, in which you play as NATO border forces at the start of the war. These forces would have been hopelessly outmatched at the start of the war, and wouldn't have been expected to actually stop the Soviet advance, but rather inflict delays and casualties in order to permit the first real defensive line to be formed by the main NATO forces about 20km back.

[George MC]

6 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I really like this idea. It could be really interesting to have a few scenarios that say upfront that you don't stand a chance of holding, but your goal is to hold as long as you can and inflict as much damage as you can, and then withdraw. For this sort of scenario you should have an exit zone available to your rear, and you should get points for every one of your own troops or vehicles you manage to exit, and points for every enemy soldier or vehicle you manage to destroy. It might also be nice if there was a mechanic where you got a few points for every minute you managed to keep the enemy off of the objective. I know I would have a lot of fun with this sort of scenario, but I can't speak for others (I'm a bit of a glutton for punishment).

 

I used this set-up for CMFR Feierabend - fight a delaying action then retire when ordered. It's a tough one to fight.

[HerrTom]

41 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I really like this idea. It could be really interesting to have a few scenarios that say upfront that you don't stand a chance of holding, but your goal is to hold as long as you can and inflict as much damage as you can, and then withdraw. For this sort of scenario you should have an exit zone available to your rear, and you should get points for every one of your own troops or vehicles you manage to exit, and points for every enemy soldier or vehicle you manage to destroy. It might also be nice if there was a mechanic where you got a few points for every minute you managed to keep the enemy off of the objective. I know I would have a lot of fun with this sort of scenario, but I can't speak for others (I'm a bit of a glutton for punishment).

This sort of scenario could fit really well into CMCW, in which you play as NATO border forces at the start of the war. These forces would have been hopelessly outmatched at the start of the war, and wouldn't have been expected to actually stop the Soviet advance, but rather inflict delays and casualties in order to permit the first real defensive line to be formed by the main NATO forces about 20km back.

The first US Campaign mission in CMCW is exactly this and is great for it. Your job is to bloody the nose of the Soviet forward recce elements and then retire from the field before getting clobbered by the arrival of the forward element.  I was very disheartened to find it came from a different direction than I expected!

[semmes]

21 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So the CM designers dilemma is that players want 'realism' and I am not being sarcastic here, this is a high end realistic wargame and level of detail is downright crazy sometimes. 

I'm afraid I have to disagree -once again.

How realistic is modelling the trajectory of one bullet when it is completely unrealistic that the guy fired that bullet in the first place?
Hopefully a lot of people will agree that faster recon cycles would tend to a "higher end". How realistic are our expectations? and the actual game?

 

You can understand that it was hard to say no to a charismatic leader like Westerling. De Oost, Jim Taihuttu.  (Pun intended)

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, semmes said:

I'm afraid I have to disagree -once again.

How realistic is modelling the trajectory of one bullet when it is completely unrealistic that the guy fired that bullet in the first place?
Hopefully a lot of people will agree that faster recon cycles would tend to a "higher end". How realistic are our expectations? and the actual game?

 

You can understand that it was hard to say no to a charismatic leader like Westerling. De Oost, Jim Taihuttu.  (Pun intended)

Ok, so your position is that CM is unrealistic?  "completely unrealistic that the guy fired the bullet in the first place"...so you could you unpack that a bit? 

Recon cycles?  Again, not sure what you are talking about and at what level.

Every game is an abstraction but if you are going to claim "unrealistic" one has to prove that behavior is not match RL to a significant degree. 

[Ultradave]

The majority of the scenarios start at the point where the major recon has already been done. Your recon as the on-scene commander is more sniffing out exactly where along the treeline behind the river each individual enemy position is located. You've already been told the enemy is defending the river from the treeline beyond it (not exactly rocket science to figure that out, but just an example). So in game recon usually consists of sending forward a few scouts or a lead platoon to better spotting positions or to draw some fire to smoke out enemy positions. You already know they are there in front of you, and a decent commander will figure out the most likely locations too.

You've been told what to do and pretty much what to expect. In effect, you've been given your OPORDER and off you go (some are even written like that). 

Dave

[Erwin]

44 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

The majority of the scenarios start at the point where the major recon has already been done. Your recon as the on-scene commander is more sniffing out exactly where along the treeline behind the river each individual enemy position is located.

While that is the concept, we almost always start our CM battles with no info re where the enemy units or even strongpoints are located.  In every game I have played, one needs to do recon to locate the enemy.  Assuming the scenario provides sufficient time, sneaking around doing recon is the most fun part (imo) of a scenario, so not a problem.  However, have often wondered why 99% of the time, no info is given.

[Commanderski]

If people want realism they should join an army as that's the only place they will find it. No game is perfect as somebody will always find something to complain about.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

While that is the concept, we almost always start our CM battles with no info re where the enemy units or even strongpoints are located.  In every game I have played, one needs to do recon to locate the enemy.  Assuming the scenario provides sufficient time, sneaking around doing recon is the most fun part (imo) of a scenario, so not a problem.  However, have often wondered why 99% of the time, no info is given.

Well in large part because that is how tactical recon works.  Now for almost every CM title (with the possible exception of BS), recon is a process that builds a picture of the enemy positions, movement and intent.  Layers of recon are out and "bumping"; however, at the tactical level of CM you are not going to see (or rarely see) details, or at least the details that matter to you.  

As Dave point out, you are going to normally get "they are down there and looks like they are doing this".  Exact positions and capabilities would cost too many resources that are trying to cover the frontage of the Brigade or Division.  So figure out where they are exactly in the process of killing them is your job as tactical commander.  To give a tactical commander at the level of CM a full intelligence picture is not realistic or probable (with very few exceptions) in the least.  The only tactical level forces that get that high resolution intelligence pictures of that detail are SOF, and even then only for a discreet mission set.

Now there are exceptions.  Say you are second echelon and a bunch of troop already tried an attack (and failed), you are probably going to get more info than if you are the first wave.

[Ultradave]

53 minutes ago, Erwin said:

While that is the concept, we almost always start our CM battles with no info re where the enemy units or even strongpoints are located.  In every game I have played, one needs to do recon to locate the enemy.  Assuming the scenario provides sufficient time, sneaking around doing recon is the most fun part (imo) of a scenario, so not a problem.  However, have often wondered why 99% of the time, no info is given.

Sure, pretty much what I was saying, isn't it? You know roughly what's out there, and by looking at the map, can make some pretty good guesses as to where his assets will be or will be coming from, by putting yourself in his shoes. You have to develop the situation. Which, yes, is part of the fun.

IRL you'd do the same - map recon plus whatever ground recon you can do without exposing yourself before you are ready. And you'd plan TRPs on some likely spots for quick fire support response. In these respects, other than the time constraints, I think it's pretty realistic. Although under any circumstances you've got better intel than the real guy on the ground would, save say CMBS where you could say that your overhead views could be a broadcast from a drone. In WW2 though, possibly imperfect maps, lack of ability to get right up front to scan without getting shot in the process, maybe enemy fire support, all hinder the real life ability.

Dave

[BeondTheGrave]

58 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well in large part because that is how tactical recon works.  Now for almost every CM title (with the possible exception of BS), recon is a process that builds a picture of the enemy positions, movement and intent.  Layers of recon are out and "bumping"; however, at the tactical level of CM you are not going to see (or rarely see) details, or at least the details that matter to you.  

As Dave point out, you are going to normally get "they are down there and looks like they are doing this".  Exact positions and capabilities would cost too many resources that are trying to cover the frontage of the Brigade or Division.  So figure out where they are exactly in the process of killing them is your job as tactical commander.  To give a tactical commander at the level of CM a full intelligence picture is not realistic or probable (with very few exceptions) in the least.  The only tactical level forces that get that high resolution intelligence pictures of that detail are SOF, and even then only for a discreet mission set.

Now there are exceptions.  Say you are second echelon and a bunch of troop already tried an attack (and failed), you are probably going to get more info than if you are the first wave.

RE: Recon, in FM 71-2, the hasty attack description includes almost zero intel about enemy dispositions other than "Soviets thataway!" OTOH in the deliberate attack scenario found in the same manual the commander is suggested to use some prep time in infiltrating scouts to reconnoiter general positions. There they are able to establish a rough understanding of the enemy unit composition and the structure of the defensive belts thus allowing the commander the ability to better conceptualize his battleplan. This is for the initial attack, the attack against the second more distant objective occurs more closely to the hasty attack where the US commander has a poor understanding of Soviet dispositions and just has to do it all from the saddle. 

IMO, and I wasnt there, the biggest deviation from realism is the time compression. In the deliberate attack scenario from the above manual, the US commander has several hours to prepare. This would include creating a recon plan for enemy positions and executing it, infiltrating scouts, and having them report back. I've youtubers play through campaign games (I think CMBN has a few?) where mission one is just a light recon of enemy positions. Then mission two you get the full battle, having benefited from whatever intel you did or did not obtain. But making it one mission? Probably youd need more than the 3 hour time limit to play through it both the recon phase and the attack phase realistically, and TBH I just dont have that kind of time in my life for pixeltruppen  And like I said, this is assuming you have the time and the room for developing that kind of plan. In a march to contact scenario, you'll have to do it as you go. 

And as a second consideration: At least in the CMCW timeframe commanders were instructed to maintain a high level of initiative and self-sufficiency. It was assumed that battalions and brigades would operate out of contact of EAD for prolonged periods. Maybe an EW attack knocked blanketed the radio net. Or an airstrike hit the DivHQ radio truck. Or a missile hit and now DivHQ is orange and highly radioactive. All this is to say that even if there was info that HHQ wanted to pass down to the pixeltruppen level, they may not have the capacity. Moreover doctrine stressed that commanders in the battle area should not wait around for intel and instructions, but should rather move swiftly on their own initiative to exploit opportunities. These are principles that date back actually to the 1950s in the Pentatomic era (now that would make for a hell of a CM game!) but dont get fully nailed down until DePuy and Active Defense. 

[semmes]

"Recon cycles" as when you don't see what it is in front of you until the next cycle; people keep talking about 7 seconds.
I would say that being fired at and not taking cover is... zombie-shooter realism?

This is not a test.
I was testing that the AI was going where it was supposed to go and I decided to send a Rf coy through the woods; only 2 pl came under fire.
Firing from 300m away: 1 AT, 3 HMG and 4 sq -but only 3 LMG,  no snipers at all.

Total number of men in those units taking casualties / Total KIA. Total number of leaders-LMG-rifles / KIA.

Moving through the wood.

29/5    L             5/3           60%
            LMG       4/1           25%    So L+LMG=80% of the -somehow- "selected" less than 33%.
            Rf           20/1         5%
38/7    L             6/3          50%
            LMG       4/2          50%
            Rf            28/2       <10%
38/11    L            6/3         50%
             LMG      4/3         75%
             Rf          28/5       <20%
58/16    L           8/4         50%
             LMG      7/4         >50%
             Rf          50/8       <20%

In the wood, not moving not hiding,
61/22    L           9/4          >40%
             LMG      8/5          >60%
             Rf          44/13      <33%

We have less leaders/LMG so more rifles have to die, still...
Same, under artillery fire.
81/32     L           13/9        ~70%    (L+LMG=50% "selected" less than 33%, including an already fallen LMG.
              LMG      13/7        >50%     Highly intelligent munitions?)
              Rf          55/16      <33%
Realism beyond perfection.

Question:

-Is there any moderation in the AI arty or as soon as it gets ammo is going to waste it? Far too many rounds for two retreating platoons.
-Cannot the AI adjust/cancel a failed mission? For a player it is annoying to keep an eye over shoulder of the FO but the AI side is already stupid, maybe adjust mission after not seeing the second ranging round instead of wasting ammo?
I already provide limited AI ammo in the 7 reinforcements slots.

Realism? I am quite happy with a zombie-shooter.

Dig a hole in your backyard while it is raining. Sit in there while the water climbs up your ankles. Pour cold mud down your shirt. Sit there for 48 hours, and, so there is no danger of you dozing off, imagine that a guy is sneaking around waiting for a chance to club you on the head or to set your house on fire. Get out of the hole, fill a suitcase of rocks, pick it up, put a shotgun in your other hand and walk on the muddiest road you can find. Fall flat on your face every few minutes, as you imagine big meteors streaking down to sock you. Snoop around until you find a bull. Try to figure out a way to sneak around him without letting him see you. When he does see you, run like hell all the way back to your hole in the backyard, drop your suitcase and gun and get in. If you repeat this performance every three days for several months you may begin to understand why an infantryman gets out of breath. But still you won’t understand how he feels when things get tough. B. Mauldin.

[semmes]

Oh!

"That guy" could be an ammo bearer from an HMG taking pot shots at a target 800m away or he could be -while the whole platoon has been advancing towards a farm and they are lying down, waiting- that "that guy" is going to stand up, turn 90^o  left and shoot at... at making sure that the enemy knows where you are...

If you use "hide" they don't shoot, if you use "cover arc" and there is a guy with a SMG one meter away from that arc... 

Total realism?