Do you want CM2 to be a different type of game?

[M. Bates]

Just asking this, because the aspects of CM1 are quite a bit different to CM2.

In this first game, the Allies are advancing and pushing back the Germans, it is a very mobile, "fluid" kind of game, which is fine.

But in CM2 the two sides were digging in a lot, partly because of their conditions, and also because of the way the war was going. So will CM2 be simulating this type of trench warfare?

[This message has been edited by M. Bates (edited 09-24-2000).]

[David Aitken]

CM2 won't be a different type of game, but it will simulate the different scenarios found on the Eastern Front. There will be a good few improvements and new features, so, for example, there might well be trenches. CM2 will differ in this way, but essentially it'll be the same game.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Just asking this, because the aspects of CM1 are quite a bit different to CM2.

In this first game, the Allies are advancing and pushing back the Germans, it is a very mobile, "fluid" kind of game, which is fine.

But in CM2 the two sides were digging in a lot, partly because of their conditions, and also because of the way the war was going. So will CM2 be simulating this type of trench warfare?

[This message has been edited by M. Bates (edited 09-24-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. The east had some dug in fighting, but it was probably more Blitzkreigey than the late war in the west.

The west had some dug in fighting, too. I guess it's a matter of the scale of CM. Since it can handle Battalions, and such, it would seem pretty fine to have a scenario focus on a specific area of a specific battle(like the tractorworks at Stalingrad, for instance), and not deal with long, drawn out entrenchment(as CM's time scale is 120 minute battles, max). In a scenario for CM2, you could have an attack on a fortified line just the same as in CM.

Just because the conditions and tactics may have been different when dealing with armies, etc, doesn't mean that there was that much of a difference between an assault in the east than the west. You just tend to throw more men casually into it in the east(if you're Russian). The goal is still to overrun the enemy position.

Trenches could be added, though, easily if they acted like foxholes graphically(but provided greater cover when the game crunches turns).

But were trenches common in the east? The idea that they were seems to go against German doctrine at the time(mobility, mobility, mobility), though I must confess I'm not sure one way or the other.

I know there was a lot of use of rubble in the city fighting, and foxholes are a dime a dozen, but trench warfare seems so... World War I.

[Guest barrold713]

Not to quibble a point but we would have to consider what the term 'different' might mean. (<---inserted so this didn't sound contentious)

IMMO, the experience and feel of the game has to remain the same, only enhanced by the advances brought by technology and the combined knowledge gleaned by the thousands of hours of play time CM has received.

The differences besides the obvious in weaponry would have to account for terrain, defensive structures, size of the battles, and the flexibility to adapt so that the game is more than CM with T-34s.

The question of whether CM2 can satisfy the huge appetite in the community to recreate virtually every aspect of that huge conflict is yet to be answered of course. BTS has to be given a large buffer of confidence due to the quality of the product that has many people feeling as if they can glue their CD drive doors shut.

I for one am going to pre-order.

BDH

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

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[ScoutPL]

I sure dont want to lecture here but I think you're a little misinformed on the nature of warfare on the eastern front. Rather then being a huge, fast-rolling mechanized fight with sweeping pincer attacks and deep penetrations, it was more like a steady attritional slugfest with occassional penetrations and encirclements. You have to remember, the war in the east lasted for almost four years, much longer then the 10 months or so of the western campaign. Four years of thrust and parry, thrust and parry? Hardly. After the German failure to seize Moscow in the first fall campaign they were pretty much fighting a defensive campaign. I dont care what Hitler's focus was, the guys on the front knew they were just fighting for time. A good example of this is the Battle for Kursk during the German offensive in July, 1943. Long heralded as the greatest tank battle of all time, it was only named so because of the huge number of armored vehicles that fought there. The Soviets knew of the German offensive beforehand and had planned and dug in accordingly. Massive earthworks, fortifications, and obstacles were thrown in front of the Germans, who also learned of the Soviet preperations beforehand but were ordered to attack by Hitler anyway. The Fourth Panzer Army was destroyed and the Ninth Army almost encircled. Not because of stunning blitzkrieg counterattacks from the soviets, although those came as soon as the Germans had wasted their opportunity, but because the germans simply beat themselves to death against the impenetrable defenses. As much as a lot of tanker enthusiasts like to preach the success of the "blitzkrieg" it is really not that effective against a prepared, determined defender. I think a close study of the fighting on the eastern front teaches that.

[Bruno Weiss]

Depends on what the defination of "is" is.

[Aacooper]

One thing about the East Front that the Germans almost always had an undefended spot in their defenses. There just weren't enough troops to cover the whole front. There were exceptions, of course, but I'd imagine a lot of scenarios would have maps that couldn't have every single line of advance covered by the defender.

[Pham911]

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

I sure dont want to lecture here but I think you're a little misinformed on the nature of warfare on the eastern front. Rather then being a huge, fast-rolling mechanized fight with sweeping pincer attacks and deep penetrations, it was more like a steady attritional slugfest with occassional penetrations and encirclements. You have to remember, the war in the east lasted for almost four years, much longer then the 10 months or so of the western campaign. Four years of thrust and parry, thrust and parry? Hardly. After the German failure to seize Moscow in the first fall campaign they were pretty much fighting a defensive campaign. I dont care what Hitler's focus was, the guys on the front knew they were just fighting for time. A good example of this is the Battle for Kursk during the German offensive in July, 1943. Long heralded as the greatest tank battle of all time, it was only named so because of the huge number of armored vehicles that fought there. The Soviets knew of the German offensive beforehand and had planned and dug in accordingly. Massive earthworks, fortifications, and obstacles were thrown in front of the Germans, who also learned of the Soviet preperations beforehand but were ordered to attack by Hitler anyway. The Fourth Panzer Army was destroyed and the Ninth Army almost encircled. Not because of stunning blitzkrieg counterattacks from the soviets, although those came as soon as the Germans had wasted their opportunity, but because the germans simply beat themselves to death against the impenetrable defenses. As much as a lot of tanker enthusiasts like to preach the success of the "blitzkrieg" it is really not that effective against a prepared, determined defender. I think a close study of the fighting on the eastern front teaches that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was under the impression that Blitzkrieg used mobility to avoid defended positions, not to engage them needlessly. They focused on specific objectives and not on destroying the enemy army through attrition.

And, the war lasted 4 years there, but the original German advance was pretty rapid.

[Slapdragon]

True Blitzkrieg only lasted for the first two years of the way, and for a year of Russia. In fact, Blitzkrieg is no longer considered a viable tactic because it depends on the enemy going into shock on you and doing nothing. True mobile warfare between two determined foes first started in the Russian front, and it follows a number of doctrines.

Save men use firepower. We all know the Russians didn't do this, but they tried, just the Germans were more that capable of reacting to Russian attacks (until they had nothing left with which to react).

Envelope and attack from the flank. Never run on the enemies guns.

Fight deep so you do not have to fight shallow.

Make the other guy do the reacting.

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

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

Submit your article to: www.slapdragon.org/midnight

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

[Henri]

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

True Blitzkrieg only lasted for the first two years of the way, and for a year of Russia. In fact, Blitzkrieg is no longer considered a viable tactic because it depends on the enemy going into shock on you and doing nothing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There have been many studies of Blitzkrieg tactics since WW2, and none of them describe it in the way that you do. In fact the essence of Maneuver warfare (which is what the Germans used) does not depend on the enemy's doing nothing, but in striking at his weak points and disrupting and unhinging him.

Contrary to popular opinion, this was also Soviet doctrine, but early in the war (with a few exceptions), they were unable to carry it out because Stalin's purges had decapitated the Soviet General staff. In the last couple of years, the Soviets could do it as well as the Germans.

Good references on Maneuvr warfare are The Art of maneuver by Leonhard, and Maneuver Warfare handbook by Lind. Soviet doctrine in WW2 is well described in When Titans Clashed by Glantz and House.

Henri

[Guest Michael emrys]

Comparing the War in the East to trench warfare in WW I strikes me as odd. During the first two years of the war the Germans, and in each year of it the Soviets, waged campaigns that saw huge swaths of land change hands. I would hardly call that static warfare. Even when on the defensive, the Germans would usually launch mobile counterattacks (as long as they had the means to do so). Trench fighting only occurred when armies had reached the end of their logistical rope and were forced to pause and regroup. Once the attacker (after July, 1943, inevitably the Soviets) had amassed sufficient supplies near the front, the offensive would resume. The trenchlines would be broached quickly and mobile warfare would ensue.

Michael

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Once the attacker (after July, 1943, inevitably the Soviets) had amassed sufficient supplies near the front, the offensive would resume. The trenchlines would be broached quickly and mobile warfare would ensue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nevertheless, trenches or entrenched positions existed, often for a long time. If you look at the Eastern front, it wasn't until quite a bit later that the Russians really could roll back the Germans.

I just have the gut feeling, that something will have to change, because in CM1 land can be gained cheaply and quickly. The controls over your forces will have to be improved. We already have fox holes, so trenches are not too much of a stretch, perhaps the work on trenches could go further, and be made proper 3D aspects of the landscape.

My fear is that CM2 will be a simulation only of the attacks and counter attacks. the style is fine for CM1, but having two opposing forces at each end of map and then "ready, set, go claim the middle ground!" won't cut it for CM2. The potential is there for a good Eastern Front simulation, but changes are needed.

[This message has been edited by M. Bates (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

My fear is that CM2 will be a simulation only of the attacks and counter attacks. the style is fine for CM1, but having two opposing forces at each end of map and then "ready, set, go claim the middle ground!" won't cut it for CM2. The potential is there for a good Eastern Front simulation, but changes are needed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been suggested that th problem can be resolved by making th eSoviet forces more "stupid". However the Soviets didn't always fight according to this stereotype. for example, as early as 1941, Katutov was sent deep behind enemy lines with his battle groups who played havoc with the German advances. his most famous coup of course was the almost total destruction of th 4th Panzer Division's tanks in an ambush on the road to Moscow.

So how will the same game model battles like Katutov's exploits and the combat-inept units in the 1941 disintegrating front lines with the same units? IOt will be interesting to see...

henri

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So how will the same game model battles like Katutov's exploits and the combat-inept units in the 1941 disintegrating front lines with the same units? IOt will be interesting to see...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good point. Maybe CM2 could have scenarios which swing one way then the other, or micro missions within a scenario, depending on the state of the game half way through.

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

"War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker."

- Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911:

I don't know. The east had some dug in fighting, but it was probably more Blitzkreigey than the late war in the west.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the term blitzkrieg is used way too much. IMO, the only true blitzkrieg was the invasion of France. The majority of the battles in the East were "cauldron" battles, surround your opponent and whittle him down.

Cav

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911:

I was under the impression that Blitzkrieg used mobility to avoid defended positions, not to engage them needlessly. They focused on specific objectives and not on destroying the enemy army through attrition.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is pretty much correct. The Germans only really employed it in France. In Poland and in Russia they were concerned with encircling the enemy formations and reducing them.

[Steve Clark]

I think the thing is missing from this discussion is SCALE. All of you talk expertly about the strategic campaigns of the Eastern Front. In CM2, however, only a small fraction of any the land area will be contested and in that small area, you can only fight with a relative handful of tanks and infantries. Thus, you are not going to get the sweeping flankings around one city to the next or a charge against a 50-mile long defended trench to find a weak spot. You are just going to get the weak spot. I could be wrong but we need to consider the size and scale of the maps to see if CM2 will offer anything substantially new in the way of tactics than CM1.

[Pham911]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

I think the thing is missing from this discussion is SCALE. All of you talk expertly about the strategic campaigns of the Eastern Front. In CM2, however, only a small fraction of any the land area will be contested and in that small area, you can only fight with a relative handful of tanks and infantries. Thus, you are not going to get the sweeping flankings around one city to the next or a charge against a 50-mile long defended trench to find a weak spot. You are just going to get the weak spot. I could be wrong but we need to consider the size and scale of the maps to see if CM2 will offer anything substantially new in the way of tactics than CM1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. The scale is, indeed, the issue. Mobility or stagnation of warfare on different fronts really doesn't matter at the level that CM(and CM2 I assume) deals with.

[Guest barrold713]

I agree with the comment about scale being important in certain aspects to capture the feel of the conflict.

This may not be feasible, but a quick and relatively unthought-out feature would be to incorporate a strategic operations map view that might contain "sectors" in which the actual battles on the scale seen in CM might be fought. As I haven't the resources or the ability to tap into Steve and Charle's brains I don't know how or if this could be implemented.

Of course the smaller scale battles would be in CM2 since CM obviously handles them great already. I would imagine my idea would likely be a memory hog but I am more than willing to be surprized by the talents of BTS.

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

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin