How Plausible are Combat Mission Scenarios/Campaigns?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

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.

It's a rare occasion that we are in total agreement. 

[ASL Veteran]

9 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

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)

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. 
 

Yeah, interacting with Semmes is a complete waste of time.  As far as the time compression thing goes - I mean time is obviously not compressed in a literal sense lol.  I don't think anyone claims that.  The compression is that an action in real life takes say 4 hours, but in CM it takes say 1 hour for a variety of reasons.  Can you find real life actions that only take 3 hours to 'complete'?  Sure.  Would they take three hours to complete in CM?  Unlikely.  Now this 'compression' is less pronounced in CMBS, especially for US forces, than it is in WW2 for example.  Modern armies simply have better and more robust means of communicating / transmitting orders, better maps, better means of spotting the enemy, better overall situational awareness than any commander would have in WW2. 

Essentially almost every scenario that I've made for Combat Mission is a recreation of a battle that actually happened.  Sometimes I have better information available than other times, but in essence I can mostly compare 1 to 1 between what actually happened and what happens in Combat Mission.  The scenario that I had the most information for was probably 'Wax Museum'.  I had a book that was a first hand personal account from the German side, a book that was a first hand personal account from the American side, I had an overview of the battle as a whole from a third source, I had about the best sources of information available for any WW2 battle I've ever recreated in terms of unit strengths and composition (hint, most of these units were not at full strength and several American platoons had squads detached for duty elsewhere).  I can say with a high level of confidence that battles happen in CM for WW2 faster than in real life probably by a factor of about 4.  So what takes four minutes in real life would take one minute in Combat Mission.  Obviously some things like troops walking across a certain field is going to be one to one in terms of time expended, but the way orders are transmitted and carried out are simply not represented in CM the way it happens in real life.

Casualties are also higher in CM than they would be in real life - at least for WW2, I can't speak to modern - and I believe that it's a combination of factors rather than one thing and I believe that 'time compression' is a factor, but not the only factor.  Now, can I find WW2 battles that had a similar level of casualties than what are produced in Combat Mission - sure.  I have run across a few.  Does that mean that CM is perfect in every way in terms of casualties?  No, I don't think so.  Does it bother me?  No, not at all.  To me its irrelevant and I'm not sure why people complain about it.  I do think that some things could be tweaked though and I have made an effort to bring those things to BFC's attention.  In some cases it comes down to game limitations, and in other cases it will be a function of 'game vs reality' and how much to you want to tilt the scale to one side or another. 

One great example is troops moving at night - if you are walking around on a moonless night and you are trying to get to the church by passing through the woods - well if you can't literally see the church from where you are beginning your trek then what are the odds that a squad will end up walking around in circles in the woods not really knowing where they are or where the church is?  If you can't see a landmark then even if you have a map it's difficult to get your bearings and as shown on the Mythbusters (great episode by the way) it's almost impossible for a human being to walk in a straight line.  Naturally squads in Combat Mission don't have that problem.  You just select the squad and click on it's destination and presto the squad goes there regardless of whether they are doing this on a clear sunny day and they can see the church tower, of if the fog is so thick they can't see more than 50 meters.  Do gamers really want to select a squad, click on the church, and then have the squad walk around in circles?  Raise your hands if that's a game function you want implemented.  No hands?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  

[Redwolf]

3 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

You just select the squad and click on it's destination and presto the squad goes there regardless of whether they are doing this on a clear sunny day and they can see the church tower, of if the fog is so thick they can't see more than 50 meters.

Sadly CMx2 has neither fog nor woods that would restrict vision to 50m anymore 

Couldn't resist, carry on...

[Ultradave]

By time compression what I had in mind was more along the lines of being given a shorter time to accomplish tasks than might be the case in real life. Of course, one can always rationalize that by orders from on high that x,y,z must be accomplished because either something else has to happen on time, or the enemy would make use of massive reinforcements after that time limit. Works fine for me. 

Dave

[ASL Veteran]

3 hours ago, Ultradave said:

By time compression what I had in mind was more along the lines of being given a shorter time to accomplish tasks than might be the case in real life. Of course, one can always rationalize that by orders from on high that x,y,z must be accomplished because either something else has to happen on time, or the enemy would make use of massive reinforcements after that time limit. Works fine for me. 

Dave

I think that's a different discussion - not really related to the time compression issue in my opinion.  There have always been complaints about 'time limits' or 'the countdown clock' or whatever they want to call it when complaining about it.  This isn't an issue of 'reality vs game' in terms of 'I would have more time to do x' but rather an issue of a scenario being a completely independent entity or action that is totally disconnected from anything around it.  

The easiest one is the constant request for blowing bridges.  Totally not needed.  Why?  Because in a real action the time that the bridge is blown is the time the action ends for the most part.  Obviously there are some exceptions where alternate crossings are available, but if no alternate crossings are immediately available and you give the player the option to blow a bridge at will then the player will simply end the scenario whenever he wants to.  So if we don't give the player that capability then you can just assume that the moment the bridge is blown is the moment the scenario ends.  If the scenario lasts an hour then the bridge is blown in an hour.  Simple.

The other assumption is the player just assumes that their battalion / company / platoon whatever is just operating in a vacuum with no regard to what their commander wants done, what's happening in front of them, behind them, or on their flanks.  Yeah, if a company is operating in a vacuum then you could have all day long to accomplish a mission.  However, what if you are defending a position and one hour after your battle starts the unit on your flank breaks and runs - well then you are going to be forced to withdraw.  That doesn't happen in a scenario because it happens in a vacuum.  The only limit imposed upon the player is the time specified by the designer of the scenario / players of a quick battle or what have you.  In my opinion, no time limit at all is just as 'unrealistic' as having a time limit.  Now, there are certainly cases whereby a designer puts a lot of time pressure on a player (I can think of one campaign designer in particular) but that was his choice by design.  He increased the difficulty level by limiting the time - and that's fine - that's what he wanted to do.  For someone to then make a blanket statement that all time limits in scenarios are unrealistic or unjustified based on a few scenarios or campaigns with strict time limits is simply not true.

Once again though - I think this is a completely different discussion and unrelated to the time compression aspect of the game.

[womble]

2 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

I think that's a different discussion - not really related to the time compression issue in my opinion. 

I think they're related. Simply because results can be expected "faster" in CM than in real life, designers might have a tendency to allow for that in their scenario design, so the 6 hour reduction of an occupied village (in RL) gets shoehorned into a 90 minute-to-2 hour scenario constraint for CM.

[BornGinger]

On 11/9/2021 at 6:55 AM, Bulletpoint said:

For example, coming across a hilltop, real infantry could easily find just the right spot where they could observe the other side without exposing themselves. In CM, you have to advance at least 8 metres at a time, so you often up in situations where either you're on the wrong side of the hill (can't see) or you're on the wrong side of the hill (you're exposed).

I have mentioned some time ago that I'd like the action squares to be smaller, for example 4 game m2 (2m x 2m) instead of 16 game m2 (8m x 8m). This would make it easier to place your pixeltroops on more functional positions instead of having them on a position where they can't do what you intended or are too visible to the enemy.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8x8>16. 

[ASL Veteran]

4 hours ago, womble said:

I think they're related. Simply because results can be expected "faster" in CM than in real life, designers might have a tendency to allow for that in their scenario design, so the 6 hour reduction of an occupied village (in RL) gets shoehorned into a 90 minute-to-2 hour scenario constraint for CM.

To some extent that might be true, but most designers don't know how long something would / did take in real life.  They are simply setting the time allowed to be what that designer expects to give an average player the ability to complete the mission 'in game terms'.  Thus the time compression issue isn't present so much as the designer has to apply a time scale to a scenario that is appropriate for the player of the 'game' as the battle plays out in the 'game'.  Now some players are more cautious than others and thus some players will move more slowly than others so you have to come up with something that is reasonably achievable for most players.  However, you can't just add time to accommodate the lowest denominator.  The downside to adding more time is that many players look at a scenario time limit and simply don't play it because the time limit is too long for what they want to do (most PBEM players prefer shorter time lengths because of how long it takes to play something in real life) so you can't just add time without any consideration for what the players are willing to accept.  In most cases the forces for both sides are so depleted before a two hour time limit is reached that it really makes no difference if there was more time available since the forces the player commands are incapable of further action (which sort of goes to the increased casualty thing).  The bottom line for me is that the more 'realistic' you make the game the slower it's going to play because the harder it is to kill the enemy the longer it takes to complete the mission.  At some point the player will just get frustrated because it takes too long for them to achieve what they want to achieve and the game has become boring for them or too much of a time investment for them to participate in.  

 

[Simcoe]

I think the timer is one of the best aspects of CM. It's such a great way to relax or restrict your battle plan and serves to add more variety between scenarios. 

To me, the only downside is when your plan is wrong you don't have enough time adjust your forces. By the time you move them to the correct flank you have 20 minutes left. I don't mind restarting at that point but it can feel gamey at times.

[MikeyD]

The original question was how plausible CM scenarios are.
This is a difficult question because it involves a multitude of scenario authors across multiple titles ranging across 15 years (or however long its been), all working to differing concepts of what a 'good' scenario is. Its like pointing to a library and asking how good the books are inside. The question's too general to give a specific answer to.

Is CMSF2 'Al Huqf Engagement' a plausible scenario? Players certainly consider it entertaining and requiring some tactical finesse to win. You could argue that an inf platoon wouldn't get themselves into that predicament. Well, nothing is stopping the player from withdrawing at the first shot fired and not engaging. Its a 'plausible' course of action but not much fun.

Is CMSF2 'UK The Mouse Trap' a plausible scenario? Its certainly a peculiar scenario but does anything in that scenario strain the bonds of credulity?

Ah, talk about 15 years ago, how plausible is this scenario? An old CMSF 3rd part scenario named 'Lone Star Shopping Plaza' involving a Stryker Brigade sent to quell a riot by drunken Marines at a Austin TX shopping plaza on the 4th of July. Plausible? Not at all but its great bloody fun!

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by MikeyD

[Erwin]

12 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

most PBEM players prefer shorter time lengths because of how long it takes to play something in real life

I don't know how you figure "most".  Most complaints I see on these forums are that scenario length is too short so that one rarely has the time to do things like recon carefully and behave more like in RL.  

If anything most scenarios are too short and force one to take highly risky precipitous actions - which in turn lead to higher casualties than in RL.

Those of us who enjoy larger scenarios (3+ sq Km) need 2-2.5 hours to play.  George MC is one of the finest designers to offer many scenarios and campaigns that all feature that sort of length and map size.

[ASL Veteran]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

I don't know how you figure "most".  Most complaints I see on these forums are that scenario length is too short so that one rarely has the time to do things like recon carefully and behave more like in RL.  

If anything most scenarios are too short and force one to take highly risky precipitous actions - which in turn lead to higher casualties than in RL.

Those of us who enjoy larger scenarios (3+ sq Km) need 2-2.5 hours to play.  George MC is one of the finest designers to offer many scenarios and campaigns that all feature that sort of length and map size.

Most PBEM players.  A 2 hour long scenario can take as much as a year to complete PBEM, therefore shorter scenarios are preferred over longer ones generally speaking.  You also don't want to spend six months playing something only to then have your opponent disappear in the middle of the night.  Just look at the size distribution of scenarios and Quick Battles that are recorded at the Blitz.  Feel free to modify your remarks after looking that up.

[Commanderski]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

George MC is one of the finest designers to offer many scenarios and campaigns that all feature that sort of length and map size.

++++1

[BornGinger]

17 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

8x8>16. 

I was on a night shift and put the blame on that instead of blaming my lousy maths teachers in school. Because it can't possibly be me who was thinking adding instead of multiplying without being too tired to do it right.

Edited November 15, 2021 by BornGinger

[MikeyD]

Suggestions to boost scenario 'reality' often fall under the category of 'Be careful what you wish for'.

Very long scenarios run into the problem of ammo depletion. If you're compelled to relieve your men halfway through and substitute fresh forces the question arises why didn't you start the scenario at the halfway point?

Very large maps create their own problems, especially if it involves foot infantry. Average walking speed is 5km/hr. A 3x3km map is about 4.5km corner-to-corner. That implies spending a lot of time watching pixeltruppen walking. Depending on the war, the theater of operations, and the battle, a 3km wide front might expect to see a large fraction of an infantry Division covering it. Which is more forces than most players are willing to juggle.

On the scenario design side, building useful AI movement orders require the ability to anticipate what the human player is likely to do. The bigger the map and longer the time, the more difficult that becomes. I've played scenario where the opposing forces entirely missed each other. More commonly, I've seen human players simply wait until the AI has run out of movement orders then attacked the static enemy. That's the downside of a scenario that's too big and too long.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

A 2 hour long scenario can take as much as a year to complete PBEM

Aaargh - am playing 2 large scenarios with Probus.  He better get his skates on!  

Am calculating a reasonable 4 turns/week, that's 30 weeks for a 120 minute game...

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

Just look at the size distribution of scenarios and Quick Battles that are recorded at the Blitz.

Thanks for warning us large scenario fans to stay away from The Bliitz site in that case...

[BornGinger]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Average walking speed is 5km/hr. A 3x3km map is about 4.5km corner-to-corner. That implies spending a lot of time watching pixeltruppen walking.

That's the reason why it's good to use halftracks and lorries. If there was motorcycle platoons or at least motorcycle teams among the Special Units section, or what it's called, we could use them as scouts before the lorries and/or halftracks with soldiers roll into an area. The movement will go quicker on huge maps and the motorcycle scouts will hopefully have spotted any enemy troops lying in waiting for an ambush. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by BornGinger

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, BornGinger said:

halftracks and lorries.

Add AFV's that is why I prefer FB and RT/FR above Battle for Normandy. TBH lorries use them more as mobile ammo dumps. The US made 600000 jeeps sometimes I wonder where are they? 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, BornGinger said:

If there was motorcycle platoons or at least motorcycle teams among the Special Units section, or what it's called, we could use them as scouts before the lorries and/or halftracks with soldiers roll into an area. The movement will go quicker on huge maps and the motorcycle scouts will hopefully have spotted any enemy troops lying in waiting for an ambush.

Jeeps! 

Or Kubelwagens.

Not that I am actually against the idea of motorcycles (& Combos) TBH.

[MikeyD]

Some players don't want to play an hours long historically precise reenactment of the liberation of Brest (though that does sound like fun), they just want to spend 20 minutes shooting at stuff before their favorite TV show comes on. In that context, 'plausible' only extends to the scenario's ability to get the player immersed in the moment. Often lighting and weather conditions play a bigger role in immersion than  relative death totals and pistol lethality stats. If a battle's set in a snowstorm at dusk I'm sold no matter what the force makeup and backstory. 

[LongLeftFlank]

On 11/12/2021 at 1:53 AM, The_Capt said:

Gotta be honest this conversation feels like playing tic-tac-toe with a chicken... 

Sigline worthy!

... Re the OT, I almost exclusively design (when I can) scenarios that faithfully recreate very well documented tactical infantry actions.

I find the game engine delivers quite satisfactory results in general if the player is required to care about things like friendly casualties or the endurance of his troops (Green troops start to break down after a few minutes of rooty toot, which seems quite realistic, but then you as designer need to provide a fresh wave).

P.S.  Who wouldn't enjoy the liberation of Brest?

... or as a British radio announcer once said a little too quickly on an ad spot "Always ask for the Best in Bread...."

Edited November 27, 2021 by LongLeftFlank

[chuckdyke]

Inside a minute he can cross the average map to deliver messages. The MG is just for fun.

[civdiv]

On 11/11/2021 at 4:15 PM, 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.

Actually, most of us bitched even after we joined the military, just about different things.

I haven’t read this whole thread yet, but I would point out that the most unrealistic aspect of this game series is the Borg spotting; once one unit can see something, everyone then can see it (as in YOU are everyone because you have control over everyone). So your scout spots the Panther, and your Sherman knows where it is and moves to find a keyhole to engage. And it is close to instantaneous. And it is also an unavoidable mechanic.

Then there is luck, which is also present on the real battlefield, combined sometimes with skill, or the lack there of. You might want to rage quit when the M8 kills your Tiger from behind, but you let it get behind you based on lack of skill or lack of luck. And we know it MIGHT have happened once in real life. Or the burst of 40mm flak that missed my half-track going long, but slaughtered a hidden FO team that the Germans could not see.

CM gets it right better than anything else I have seen out there but it is far from perfect. But that is inherent in a game/simulation.