How Plausible are Combat Mission Scenarios/Campaigns?

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, semmes said:

"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?

Ok, first I have heard of "7 seconds" but it is clearly not true when I see an M60A3 spotting and shooting in less time than that.  So not sure where this is coming from.  As to zombie shooter realism...again really not clear on this but it highlights the counter point we hear far more often "my troops are cowards and won't get up!!"

14 minutes ago, semmes said:

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.

O...K.  So I am going to go with language barrier here.  I think "it" is a test, the problem is that I am not sure "of what" exactly.  I think you are arguing that casualties are too high because the troops march to happily toward death?  

So my first question on your results is: how many casualties occurred on troops that were on the ground?  If you are seeing behaviour where that company keeps marching while all that firepower opens up at really close range then we have an issue.  Troops that die while hugging the ground in this situation are not "zombies" they are fully suppressed and being butchered because their commander has no idea what he is doing.

[aside: that is a LOT of firepower.  You basically have a reinforced platoon with artillery support.  Hammering a rifle company at 300m, which means someone did not do their job because that is ambush range.  Woods may provide cover from being spotted but they do not do much with 3 HMGs(!)  in fact wood fragments probably make the problem worse, let alone artillery.  This company barely has enough combat power to take this on as a hasty attack, particularly if they are unsupported]

22 minutes ago, semmes said:

-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.

Uh, ok, let's change the subject. I am not sure how exact a science you think artillery is but once a fire mission is called, short of friendly troops getting caught up in it (and history shows even then stopping the guns is difficult).  Once a fire mission goes in, the rounds are coming.  Adjustments all take time (varying, based on the period). Not sure what you are looing for, some sort of instant 1-800-arty correction?  I am sure we could work on TACAI and arty (some features I would like to see there) but I am really not sure what you are proposing.

27 minutes ago, semmes said:

Realism? I am quite happy with a zombie-shooter

Ok, and we are back to this.  I am going to try and translate this as "TAC AI could be better" and to this I wholeheartedly agree, all TAC AI can be better...it is why we call it artificial intelligence.  But we also do not want some sort of bizarre version of warfare either.

7 minutes ago, semmes said:

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?

Gotta be honest this conversation feels like playing tic-tac-toe with a chicken...interestingly random.  I am going to go with "Hiding works but I have had some issues with Cover Arc.  TAC AI does not weigh the value of the targets before firing resulting in giving away a position for very little gain."   

Well ok, and here we are back to "realism".  Fire control in the real world is incredibly difficult.  It may surprise you but heavily armed teenagers scared/excited out of their minds tend to take initiative in whether to fire or not.  Worse this initiative effect is dynamic based on a whole lot of factors - experience, leadership, recent events, time of day and fatigue.  Regardless, duly noted but I suspect CM is far more realistic than you are comfortable with in many aspect but we can always improve.

[womble]

23 hours 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!

 

Hopefully the actual victory point assignments and levels were reflecting the situation as it pertained rather than the... misleading briefing.

[StieliAlpha]

1 minute ago, womble said:

Hopefully the actual victory point assignments and levels were reflecting the situation as it pertained rather than the... misleading briefing.

IIRC, the campaign brought the player nicely back to the original objectives. Just on a „detour“. 
H&D was a very early „realistic“ first person shooter with some micro tactical options. Basically one was leading a small group of British Paras in Special Op‘s.

In this campaign, the job was to fly to a city, find a person, guide him to the extraction point and leave by river boat. Things went wrong, when the plane was shot down on the way. The team was scattered widely, had to reform, find their way to the target person, etc.

[semmes]

[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?}
I was talking about those "cycles" -not recon units- and what realism they provide... that's all.

Oh!, you saw one M60... people around here usually ask you to test it... and provide... and all that. Yes, I have seen that too -and an invisible tank in front of me too.

By "cowards" I think you mean "training" and that should be "always".

What I was testing was where the AI was going... The 2 pl was a kind of "let's see what happens while I wait"...
Yes, you are missing the point. I am quite happy wit the number of casualties -not that much with them moving while under fire- but maybe we agree in the out of proportion KIA among leaders and LMG, specially those due to mortar/tree fragments.
I was not testing that but I couldn't but notice it.

300m... "really close range". Yes, I think we have an issue here.
"being butchered because their commander has no idea what he is doing"... then, how realistic is the AI that allows that to happen? They are not zombies, they are suicidal.

"not seeing the second ranging round"... the fire mission has not started.
Proposition: if the FO does not see any of the first 2 ranging rounds the AI is going to adjust that mission -before it happens, all by itself. Meaning 5, 10, ... meters around that area or cancel it if it cannot see any other point around to order the mission -and announce it, like reinforcements. Probably the same thing we all do, not that difficult. 0+0=0, no visible rounds=adjust/cancel mission -or even just cancel.

I am afraid you missed the point... again, realism compare to B. Mauldin.

Yes, I am able to talk about 2 things in the same conversation -specially when it is in writing- and there are situations -I would say we agree in this- when it doesn't make sense to fire -non realistic- unless suicidal, again.

 

It takes 16.000 dead to make a Major-General. Joffre.

[Splinty]

5 hours ago, Commanderski said:

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.

Of course in the Army all soldiers do is complain! lol

[domfluff]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, first I have heard of "7 seconds" but it is clearly not true when I see an M60A3 spotting and shooting in less time than that.  So not sure where this is coming from.  As to zombie shooter realism...again really not clear on this but it highlights the counter point we hear far more often "my troops are cowards and won't get up!!"

The reference to "seven seconds" is the spotting cycle - as in, the check from the unit to see if it spots any other units. We know this is variable based on distance, so "seven seconds" isn't actually accurate either.

It also won't be "seven seconds to see the target", since the time will be more universal than that - sometimes you'll get unlucky, and the spotting cycle might be at the worst possible moment, but most of the time it'd be unnoticeable. This system does imply that the worst possible case for spotting would be a small target moving very quickly, towards something mostly blind (buttoned up armour) - if you Fast move a jeep towards a Tiger, starting out of Line of Sight, sometimes that will produce results that look a bit ridiculous, and sometimes that won't. Either way it's an edge case.

The reason for this is to reduce CPU load - if you only check every x seconds, then that'll reduce the amount of CPU calculations you need to make significantly.

[A Canadian Cat]

2 minutes ago, domfluff said:

The reason for this is to reduce CPU load - if you only check every x seconds, then that'll reduce the amount of CPU calculations you need to make significantly.

@domfluff's explanation of how it works and why is correct.

I would like to add that universally shortening the spotting check cycle will not in and of itself make units spot better. If we could hypothetically check spotting every second all that would do is reduce the edge case silliness that we all dislike because there would now be chances to spot stuff that follows along with the changing battle field better. However, the basic design of the game - to simulate soldiers either noticing or not noticing the enemy would remain unchanged. Again as @domfluff mentioned there is flexibility in the spotting cycle now when enemy units are close together and that has significantly helped reduce some of the edge cases.

I think a lot of the time people are under the mistaken impression that "your favourite tank" not noticing "your worst enemy" is a result of a flaw in the game but it is not! The game is designed to simulate units in combat and our inherent imperfections as humans. So, even if the evaluation of who sees what can be nearly real time the game is literally designed to simulate your soldiers *not* noticing things.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, semmes said:

Oh!, you saw one M60... people around here usually ask you to test it... and provide... and all that. Yes, I have seen that too -and an invisible tank in front of me too.

Well the problem is more that people come on the forum and complain and don't do any testing nor do they back up any of their arguments with actual facts...but moving on.  I am still not sure how your "spotting cycles" is unrealistic if we are seeing a range of spotting times from near-immediate.  Again, you are not articulating the problem...you are simply re-stating your position.

1 hour ago, semmes said:

"being butchered because their commander has no idea what he is doing"... then, how realistic is the AI that allows that to happen? They are not zombies, they are suicidal.

Ah, so you want the TAC AI to have more agency?  Disobey orders, run away and decide to go in the opposite direction?  Sure that would be very realistic, too realistic but then of course I could just send the enraged customers to you for a coherent explanation.

1 hour ago, semmes said:

Yes, I am able to talk about 2 things in the same conversation -specially when it is in writing- and there are situations -I would say we agree in this- when it doesn't make sense to fire -non realistic- unless suicidal, again

Ok, well let me be the first one to break it to you, and I say this in the spirit of brotherhood and kindness...no you cannot.  In fact I am having real trouble following you on one train of thought let alone multiples.  We are pretty much at the point where I want to break the doll out and say "show me where CM hurt you" because right now I cannot figure out your logic in any of this.  You position is loud and clear "CM not realistic - zombie something", it is how you arrive on that point that is eluding me.

Anyway, I think we are at the point of "Thank you for purchasing our product and we hope you enjoy it.  Any questions or concerns please forward them to customer support"

[The_Capt]

23 minutes ago, domfluff said:

The reference to "seven seconds" is the spotting cycle - as in, the check from the unit to see if it spots any other units. We know this is variable based on distance, so "seven seconds" isn't actually accurate either.

It also won't be "seven seconds to see the target", since the time will be more universal than that - sometimes you'll get unlucky, and the spotting cycle might be at the worst possible moment, but most of the time it'd be unnoticeable. This system does imply that the worst possible case for spotting would be a small target moving very quickly, towards something mostly blind (buttoned up armour) - if you Fast move a jeep towards a Tiger, starting out of Line of Sight, sometimes that will produce results that look a bit ridiculous, and sometimes that won't. Either way it's an edge case.

The reason for this is to reduce CPU load - if you only check every x seconds, then that'll reduce the amount of CPU calculations you need to make significantly.

Cool.  But it must be variable because if the sighting pings like sonar every X seconds, would we not see multiples of that as a pattern in individual spotting tests?  For example if a lone M60 is spotting a T72 at 500m.  It pings at X, missed the spot and then ping again 7 second later, misses, pings again at another 7 seconds.  I should be seeing X plus a multiples of 7 and I am not sure that we do.

Makes perfect sense on CPU load, and in RL.  No human can scan everywhere all the time.  We have patterns of observation while scanning too.  They happen to be more erratic but there are patterns. 

[domfluff]

Yep, is variable (and we don't know all of the variables).

Is fine. It definitely represents a limitation of the system, but no more than the existence of a map edge or any other contrivance of wargaming.

 

[semmes]

Please remember I started this after your:

On 11/10/2021 at 2:37 PM, The_Capt said:

this is a high end realistic wargame and level of detail is downright crazy sometimes

I do agree with your "sometimes", realistic...
If they fire at you and you don't take cover... that is a zombie-shooter. Bullets finding leaders and gunners moving through a wood, doesn't help.
Or... coming back to cycles, a moving invisible tank in front of a PzF team is not realistic, right? So, if it is not realistic sometimes it is not realistic, right? You could just as well have said "most of the time realistic wargame", right?

 

But now comes an ignorant hot-headed young man who flies from Boulogne to Ulm, and from Ulm to the middle of Moravia, and fights battles in December. ?

[Ultradave]

A couple of comments.

I think for CM the realism is in several things:  1) You are required to make a lot of the same plans and decisions as a real life commander would. 2) Employing real life tactics of the time will created similar results to real life. 3) There is a lot of realism in armor and ballistics.

"Unrealisms"  1) Time compression, as discussed 2) No real "breakpoint" of friendly forces were after say, 30% casualties, they just stop in place and won't attack any more. (individual units will, but the company/battalion as a whole won't - you can run them into the ground. 

The cancel/adjust a fire mission that the FO didn't see an adjusting round for:  in real life there is a procedure for that (you had doubts? ). A lost round a) could have been a dud, b) hit wet ground so the explosion was hard to spot, or c) truly been lost, hitting way off location, either through the fault of the FDCs firing data (less likely), or the FO giving bad coordinates (more likely). In that case, it's usual to fire an adjusting round to the center of the sector of fire or "safety box" and adjust from that. The FDC knows roughly where the FO is, and can fire a round on their own data that the FO should see, preferably a time round so it's up in the air and easier to spot. Then continue adjusting. That is really canceling the first mission and beginning a new mission from scratch because it's calculating new firing data. This doesn't really happen in CM because you click on a location on the map (essentially your map reading skills are top notch without error). For the AI, you would think the same thing would hold - that their map reading skills are good and they won't fire way off. But sometimes adjusting rounds go weird places. Happens in real life too. 

Dave

[chuckdyke]

14 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

The cancel/adjust a fire mission that the FO didn't see an adjusting round for

A lot of shortcomings here. Especially when we play other nations eg the Soviets. Their HQ's can communicate with what you call their FDC. In CM we don't use field telephones, flares, signals such as torches, whistles or bugles. I use instead the tentative network of the FDC in the came. Platoon makes contact but doesn't have a radio, instead calls a short mortar mission. Their official FO or Regimental HQ who have contact with the FDC can see by the "Go To Spotter" feature what is happening Once the adjust mission comes up, his HQ can cancel the mission and send reinforcements instead. The fact that there are no radios doesn't mean there are no other means of communications. Just a little protocol we call our house rule. The problem is when you play PBEM with somebody. Something for Engine 5 maybe. Regards 

[JoMac]

Even thou CM's casualties may be at least 2x that compared to RL due to Game Mechanics, Player Input, etc (no matter how conservative you play)...It's still a fairly realistic game to be enjoyed. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by JoMac

[semmes]

I have many doubts... but I don't doubt that whoever is taking decisions for CM is a businessman, not a wargamer.

9 hours ago, Ultradave said:

 in real life

nigelef.tripod.com  RAorg.htm

And we already have a thread with a serviceman explaining artillery fire.

0+0=0. Giving the AI a hand in no wasting ammo?, maybe even the players?

 

Too forward to wear ties, too far back to get shot. B. Mauldin.

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, semmes said:

I

And we already have a thread with a serviceman explaining artillery fire.

 

Ok, feel free to ignore everything I said, then, if you think I'm just repeating other info. I, however think it's useful to compare how the same in game mechanism is handled in real life. Sometimes it's spot on, other times it's greatly abstracted. Knowing what really happens can provide some perspective.

(BTW, that was probably me. I'm the artilleryman)

Dave

 

[semmes]

Then thanks for explaining the same thing twice...

and somebody else could obtain perspective from that web.

 

The cavalry didn't even have the satisfaction of failure. Baker-Carr 1917.

[SimpleSimon]

Outwardly just about all of them are entirely plausible. What is often asked of the player however is usually pretty silly. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Ok, feel free to ignore everything I said, then, if you think I'm just repeating other info. I, however think it's useful to compare how the same in game mechanism is handled in real life. Sometimes it's spot on, other times it's greatly abstracted. Knowing what really happens can provide some perspective.

(BTW, that was probably me. I'm the artilleryman)

Please keep posting.

4 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

Outwardly just about all of them are entirely plausible. What is often asked of the player however is usually pretty silly. 

Please stop posting.

[chuckdyke]

14 hours ago, semmes said:

0+0=0. Giving the AI a hand in no wasting ammo?, maybe even the players?

 

The AI is as realistic as the sandbox is and must be regarded as such. I suggest find a human player to share your talents with. The manual is clear about this. 

[domfluff]

On 11/12/2021 at 12:07 AM, Ultradave said:

"Unrealisms"  1) Time compression, as discussed

I'm not really sure where this idea comes from.

I'm currently playing a game of the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame (http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/britisharmy1956.htm) using https://www.map.army/

That's a professional, declassified ruleset, made for training and planning. It abstracts most of the tactical-level stuff into single rolls, but is very explicit on movement and planning times, engineering times for various tasks, and other, division/corps level concerns (as well as having a lot of data on tactical nukes, because 1956). The data for all of that came directly from WW2 - most of it is as applicable now as it was then, but it will certainly be applicable for WW2 combat.

In that system, an attack where the smaller force is a battalion or combat team (about two companies), the expected time for the battle is 2-4 hours. That matches very well to Combat Mission.

That time is not inclusive of the pre-battle planning times (a basic battalion attack with artillery support might take three hours to set up), nor the reorganisation after a successful battle, which would take up another hour, but the actual-combat part seems to match up well, and covers what you'd see in CM.

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

expected time for the battle is 2-4 hours

Sure, but the typical CM scenario is 1 hour. It's the minority that are longer. 

[ASL Veteran]

2 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Sure, but the typical CM scenario is 1 hour. It's the minority that are longer. 

Really the time compression is more a factor of command and battlefield friction than anything like 'a battle lasts x and in CM it lasts y'.  Command friction is greater the farther back in time you go, so the effect of the player telling a squad to move to house x and they move immediately is far greater when radios aren't as prevalent (or even GPS tracking).  That's assuming the one taking the orders actually understands the commander's intent or that the commander actually has an accurate picture of what's happening.  The other aspect of time compression is that soldiers are generally not going to be as brave as they are in CM.  In CM you order a squad to take a building, but in real life maybe the squad leader and one dude get to the building and the rest of the squad ... well doesn't advance quite as far so to speak lol.  If a human being takes a bullet, it's permanent and if a pixel soldier takes a bullet, he just gets reloaded.  If pixel soldiers acted 100 percent like real soldiers nobody would have fun playing Combat Mission.  Just imagine how much outrage would be spilled across these forums if your T34 crew bailed out just because a Tiger was beginning to aim at them or when your Sherman crew bailed out because it was hit by a rifle grenade.  People who don't want to die a horrible burning or splattered death aren't so quick to move when you tell them too and if the commander has to move things through the chain of command with the subordinate interpreting orders and what they mean (something that also doesn't happen in games) well then you get a whole variety of behaviors that either can't be simulated or in some case it wouldn't be a good idea to simulate because nobody would want to play that boring game where nothing does what the player wants them to do.  Maybe co play if it ever gets to CM could simulate some of that though, but we don't have co play yet so .....

[LukeFF]

On 11/12/2021 at 5:10 AM, Ultradave said:

Ok, feel free to ignore everything I said, then, if you think I'm just repeating other info. I, however think it's useful to compare how the same in game mechanism is handled in real life. Sometimes it's spot on, other times it's greatly abstracted. Knowing what really happens can provide some perspective.

(BTW, that was probably me. I'm the artilleryman)

Dave

At this point, I wouldn't pay too much attention to @semmes. He has an agenda that he isn't going to budge from, based on how he's responded in recent discussions here. 

[IICptMillerII]

Why anyone is still engaging with the incoherent rambling troll is beyond me. Might be time to take Warren's advice and just say "thank you, come again."

How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real? Erwin Rommel (probably)

On 11/12/2021 at 5:43 PM, domfluff said:

I'm not really sure where this idea comes from.

I'm currently playing a game of the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame (http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/britisharmy1956.htm) using https://www.map.army/

That's a professional, declassified ruleset, made for training and planning. It abstracts most of the tactical-level stuff into single rolls, but is very explicit on movement and planning times, engineering times for various tasks, and other, division/corps level concerns (as well as having a lot of data on tactical nukes, because 1956). The data for all of that came directly from WW2 - most of it is as applicable now as it was then, but it will certainly be applicable for WW2 combat.

In that system, an attack where the smaller force is a battalion or combat team (about two companies), the expected time for the battle is 2-4 hours. That matches very well to Combat Mission.

That time is not inclusive of the pre-battle planning times (a basic battalion attack with artillery support might take three hours to set up), nor the reorganisation after a successful battle, which would take up another hour, but the actual-combat part seems to match up well, and covers what you'd see in CM.

I agree. I'm also confused by that claim. Its true that sometimes scenario designers put very tight time limits on battles, and I understand that a lot of the time it is the time limit that makes the battle competitive. That, and there is an argument that because the player has a gods eye view of the battlefield, it grants a higher level of situational awareness that allows for faster decision making than what might happen in real life.

That said, there is nothing in CM that actually compresses the time. 1 second is 1 second, 1 minute is 1 minute, etc. I think this is another one of those things that come down to design. There can easily be battalion level actions on a 2-4 hour time scale that play out very realistically. 

Beyond that, I think it might be another way for people to handwave away high casualties. It's always easier to blame the game than the player.