The length of battles, were they really this short?

[spcwrnglr]

I was wondering, it seems the average battle length on CM is about 30 turns, give or take a few. Obviously, that represents only 30 minutes of combat, but so much happens in those 30 minutes.

I've read quite a bit of war history, and although I can't quote any evidence, I was always under the impression that battles lasted the better part of a day, if not longer. 30 minutes seems awfully quick for a village to be taken, or a combined armed assault to either be victorious or vanquished.

This is just my impression, does anyone know if individual battles in WW2 were really decided in such a short time span?

[Guest Michael emrys]

Might be better to think of them as firefights, several of which comprise a battle. Ergo, what we are seeing is only a part of a battle. Firefights *did* tend to be short due to ammo limitations and need to resupply. Since CM does not model resupply, the game ends at that point. You might think of operations as battles in the sense that I am using the word here, as you will note that at the beginning of each segment of an operation the units have been resupplied.

And as for achieving a decisive result in the time given, I think I'd have to agree with you that it is somewhat exaggerated in the game. It often happened as quickly as we are seeing here, but then often it did not. In places like the Hurtgen Forest, bloody slugging matches went on for days and only a few meters might be gained...or none at all. I'm not sure what the reception would be though for a game at CM scale that depicted that accurately. A lot of players might find that a real yawn.

Michael

[Maximus]

Well, I've considered the thought once or twice before myself. But as you said, a lot of stuff happens in the fore-mentioned time frame. Then you gotta look at the size of the battlefields themselves. In most cases we're talking about fields that are within 1 km x 1km.

So taking that into account, just how long would it take to traverse and fight across a battlefield of that size? Especially when you have to advance a good percentage of the way across the map before you make contact of the enemy?

------------------

Be sure and check out my texture mods on CMHQ.

Dave "Ol' Blood & Maximus Butticus" Molinarolo

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 08-25-2000).]

[Flipper]

well the battle at the north end of the arnhem bridge between grabner's recon battalion (about half of it no sp's) lasted about 2 hour's 120 turn's so I would say guess not.

[Sublime]

Closing With the Enemy

Michael D. Doubler

Chapter 4 Battles of Buildings and Cobblestones, page 105:

"The Actual capture of a village took only about an hour, but commanders needed several hours to coordinate artillery, mortar, tank, TD and infantry fire support and to brief their troops."

I think the time frame in CM is about correct, CM isnt modelling an entire battle or anything, its modelling a small tactical part of the battle.. i.e. The Assault on the small village of Plomville in Valley of Trouble back in the gold demo days...

[David Aitken]

The game is realistic, so if you can capture a village in 30 minutes or whatever, then you can capture a village in 30 minutes. You can't say "I thought battles lasted longer than this", because it's all dependent on the forces involved and the objectives sought. It's like asking the length of a piece of string.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Steve Clark]

Well, that would just be a good argument for making CM real-time, eh? That way you can compress hours of battle time into a short time frame.

NO, NO, I'M JOKING. I hate RTS games, I don't play 'em and I won't.

[jdl]

For some of my units the the length of the battle is'nt even one minute. I think the times for the encounters is about right. And in though some battles lasted days the actual time head to head combat went on was only minutes and hours each day.

[Midnight Warrior]

I would expact that the tempo of operations is a bit fast in CM verses real combat. The tempo of operations is not simply how fast can a man walk or run or how fat can a vehicle go but takes into consideration other factors such as orientation and decision making. One minute is not very long. In a typical game turn alot happens in that one minute. Often in real combat (but certainly not always) I would imagine it may take 5 minutes plus for what takes place in 1 min of CM. This is not bad in the gaming sense because a slower tempo of operations would take away from some of the excitement in the game play. I think some of the things that speed up the tempo of operations in CM are

1. In CM there is only one mind behind the mouse where when many men are involved it always takes longer to get things going in a given direction (like trying to get the family out the door and into the car).

2.In CM the risk of real bodily harm is simulated. Only ones pride gets hurt. Real danger would slow things down considerably

3. A CM player can spend as much time as he wants thinking about his move. In real combat stopping to think slows down the tempo of ops.

4. The player has near instant communication to recieve intel and give orders.

5, The CM player can waltz around the map board viewing it at various levels and perspectives.

------------------

March To The Sound Of The Guns

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

I would expact that the tempo of operations is a bit fast in CM verses real combat. The tempo of operations is not simply how fast can a man walk or run or how fat can a vehicle go but takes into consideration other factors such as orientation and decision making. One minute is not very long. In a typical game turn alot happens in that one minute. Often in real combat (but certainly not always) I would imagine it may take 5 minutes plus for what takes place in 1 min of CM. This is not bad in the gaming sense because a slower tempo of operations would take away from some of the excitement in the game play. I think some of the things that speed up the tempo of operations in CM are

1. In CM there is only one mind behind the mouse where when many men are involved it always takes longer to get things going in a given direction (like trying to get the family out the door and into the car).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a lot in what you say. I've had a nagging hunch all along that the time lags for distributing orders in CM has been greatly underestimated. At the platoon level, if a squad wasn't within shouting or hand signalling distance of the command group, it would entail sending a runner, or the lieutenant himself, to convey the message. As a consequence, there is a lot of inertia built into real-life operations, as it takes a while for upper level commanders to assess a new situation, make a decision, and then disseminating that decision down through the ranks. All this has been simplified (for the sake of game play, I suppose).

Another thing that is endemic to all wargames as a consequence of there being one brain that controls every thing (games featuring team play are excluded from this, obviously) is that our paper or electron armies enjoy greater cohesion than almost any real-life army ever did. Bringing an army into battle more often resembled flinging a bucketful of meringue than a spear.

Michael

[Lorak]

I agree with all the above post. I think as far as the Fireing time.. CM has it about right. It is the lag in battles that is missing.

example: In CM your guys are comming under fire in a house. So you decide.. they should move over here. click, click, done.

Real Life:

tom: damn sarge they are hitting us hard.

Sarge: give me a sec I'm thinking.

Bob: come on lets get out of here!

Sarge: ok, tom check the back for a route, Bob the east side.

Tom: clear here...

Bob: seems clear... we have some trees pretty close by.

Sarge: ok, Tom, Bob you hit those trees, Me and jonh will cover.. Lets move guys!!

As you can see there is lag time...

CM just cuts out the lag time on getting some crap done. It is one thing to get on the radio and ask where the hell bravo CO. is, and looking and seeing everyone.

Damn I ramble so much I amaze myself sometimes...

Sorry

Lorak

------------------

Proud commander of the CCT's Chinchilla Commando Teams

[Dr. Brian]

My experience is only through second hand accounts, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets (family, friends, co-workers).

Yes, some battles were short, very short, but for the most part, they could be quite long, i.e., the firefights.

A cowaorker years ago was in Vietnam, USMC 1st Sgt. Was up in I Corps. Anyway, he tells me they ran into an ambush/bunker complex. He thought the fire fight was maybe 10 - 20 minutes.

When he looked at his watch, it was 3 hours long.

The point? He had no idea that he was in combat for 3 hours. It must have been hairy, to lose time like that.

anyway, he found most firefights were extneded if it was an enemy effort.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[David Aitken]

Lorak wrote:

> example: In CM your guys are comming under fire in a house. So you decide.. they should move over here. click, click, done.

> Real Life:

tom: damn sarge they are hitting us hard.

[...]

But you can't "click, click, done" until you get to the next orders phase, which could be anything up to a minute. Then you have to wait out the command delay. The command delay simulates the time it takes for soldiers to do what you've given in your "real life" sample. If they're Crack troops they get moving quickly, and if they're Conscripts they take ages.

Michael emrys wrote:

> At the platoon level, if a squad wasn't within shouting or hand signalling distance of the command group, it would entail sending a runner, or the lieutenant himself, to convey the message.

Which is simulated by out-of-command squads taking longer to do anything.

Consider that CM simulates small-scale engagements. All your men are going to know their objective, and they're on a combat footing, so they're not going to be that slow. It's not like they have to wait around to find out what they should be doing. Sure, they do have to wait for specific orders, but they'll still have a general momentum towards the objective.

We've got to distinguish between levels of combat here. A battle can take any length of time (as I've said), depending on the forces involved and the nature of the objective. CM simulates smaller forces and smaller objectives, so it's not unrealistic for battles to be relatively short, and for cohesion to be relatively high.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Lorak]

David,

Thats why I Thing CM is pretty damn close.

In my exanple I pulled something that would be covered under the C&C delay. (Even thought that while I posted)... let me try to think of something more in tune with what I was trying to say.

Your squad has just entered and dispatched an enemy squad in a muti-storyed house. I think realisticaly you would sit for several min. to regroup before you moved to the next one.

Not like it is in CM. Where you clear out a house and next min, your running to the next.

It is those short Pauses that are left out.

Don't get me wrong. They shouldn't be there (go to the fridge between tunrs if you want to simulate this.) I'm just saying that I feel actual combat time for the same action would have taken longer. I'm not saying it is way off either.. Just a little bit.

Lorak

can you tell I'm dyslexic? damn my spelling sucks

------------------

Proud commander of the CCT's Chinchilla Commando Teams

[Splinty]

Actually I thought combat seemed to be over quickly,moving up to the battle seemed to take forever,that is however a subjective viewpoint

------------------

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Strat]

As was said earlier...it depends on the level of the unit. Conscripts and greens will take longer to do something simulating the platoon leader issuing orders for eactly what to do. Veterans and higher have experience, advanced training and can very well move from building to building without having to pause for orders each time from the platoon leader. The initial order has already been given. Of course they don't move to the point of being out of contact.

Strat

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Lorak wrote:

Michael emrys wrote:

> At the platoon level, if a squad wasn't within shouting or hand signalling distance of the command group, it would entail sending a runner, or the lieutenant himself, to convey the message.

Which is simulated by out-of-command squads taking longer to do anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come now. It doesn't begin to do anything of the sort. So far, I've noticed that being out of command only adds a delay of 7 seconds above what the delay would normally be. It takes longer than that merely to explain to a runner where you want him to go and what you want him to say when he gets there. Then he has to cover the ground, which could take half a minute under optimal conditions or five minutes or fifteen if he has to crawl under fire, pause, crawl again, etc. Then he has to locate the sergeant and explain to him what is desired.

I'm not particularly complaining about the existing arrangement...yet. As long as it is applied equitably to both sides, I can live with it. But I'll be damned if I'll call it realistic.

Michael

[jibbers]

Great Question.

From experience I can tell the the engagements are concluded too quickly.

Once hot lead and shrapnel starts flying around things definately slow down. As someone posted earlier, thoughts of survival/death lengthen the decision making process.

Combat isn't paintball.

J

[David Aitken]

I suppose there is a tradeoff here. In CM, the orders phases usually account for about half to three-quarters of your playing time, so once you've completed a battle, it will have seemed to take a lot longer than the actual total of the action phases. If we were able to save the entire battle and play it back (a much requested feature), we would be surprised at how quick it was.

For the purposes of gameplay, however, I think some of the orders phase time is factored in - so the action phases are maybe a bit faster than they really would be, to ensure that the game doesn't take forever.

CM battles may be quicker than they would be in reality, but playing the game is slower, so for the overall experience it pretty much evens out.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Guest MajorH]

Total elapsed time for an engagement ends up being compressed in most recreational wargames and we should be extremely thankful for it otherwise we would often be yawning through six to twelve hours to play out what typically gets done in a wargame in 30 to 60 minutes.

A previous poster was correct that the primary culprit is the absence of the many pauses that happen in the real world due to indecision, uncertainty, and the time it takes a person/group to observe, process, and react to any kind of battle stimulus.

Although the overall time for an engagement may be technically unrealistic that does not mean that the tactics and combat results of the engagement are unrealistic since the missing pauses can usually be reasonably assumed to work out to be about equally applied to both sides.

------------------

Best regards, Major H

majorh@mac.com

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MajorH:

Although the overall time for an engagement may be technically unrealistic that does not mean that the tactics and combat results of the engagement are unrealistic since the missing pauses can usually be reasonably assumed to work out to be about equally applied to both sides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless you're Bernard Law Montgomery.

Hi, Major. Nice to have your input.

Michael

[guachi]

My current PBEM against Robert Hall seems more akin to how real WWII combat might go. We have units in an urban area mere meters from each other and they are just sitting there.

So far the game has a nice feel to it as there is are enough pauses to give the game a tenseness to it. If this game was played against any other opponent, it likely would have ended in a few turns of nasty street fighting.

I highly recommend that players slow down their pace of play, it really adds to the game.

Jason

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi:

I highly recommend that players slow down their pace of play, it really adds to the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In one other thread BTS (Steve or Charles can't remember which) stated that they thought many people tried to do too much during one turn. After reading that I tried doing things the "right" way(slower, more recon, covering flanks more, etc) and have found that my winning percentage has increased dramatically.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Guest Michael emrys]

There you go!

While there is much to be said in favor of speed (putting and keeping your opponent off-balance), it has to be weighed against the necessity of keeping your own force together, mutually supporting, and not worn out.

Michael

[Hunter]

I have to agree with Michael and Major H that the pace of the game is much faster than 'realistic'. The game is great as it is, however, one way to make it more 'realistic' would be to insist on much longer pauses between order changes.

This would then have the problem of having many 1 minute turns where you were able to do nothing at all.

One solution to this would be to make the turns a lot longer, say 5 minutes. Believe me, not many orders get changed, even at the Platoon level, in less than 5 minutes. This would then require much greater coordination and planning in the attack.

You would then be forced to watch a whole 5 minutes of a firefight / assault play out, before intervening. The problem with this is the TAC AI probably can't cope with such a long time, and relies on player input more often.

I personally would much prefer to see this longer timeframe, along with much more realistic order delay depending on where the order was coming from, to where, using what equipment (radio, runner, landline, etc), and through how many levels of command. I think this would make a more realistic and more fun game, but YMMV.

Bruce