Operations - Your Thoughts?

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Gentlemen, a few questions for you. I am interested in hearing your point of view:

What do you think of Battlefront's approach to Operations. Like it? Don't like it? Why?

Do you have some theme ideas for an operation? What would you like to see done as an operation?

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester/Designer

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Jarmo]

It's kind of OK the way it is. With a few gripes.

I'm in the middle of a PBEM operation, I'd have to stop

the other guys advance, but neither of us has any idea as to

how far I can pull back, or if we are already at the "final map".

And I'd still want campaigns consisting of many battles

and operations.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Yeah, the only thing I would like is a better overal idea of the 'larger' map. I have noticed this in a couple of the ops in the game. Is the map I am seeing it or is there 'more'? Generally the sitrep explains it, not not always and then again a simple overview map could explain it better IMO.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[IntelWeenie]

I like the operations much better than any "campaign" I've seen in other games. The approach BTS took reminds me a lot of the classic HASL games like "Red Barricades" (CAN'T wait for CM2 for that very reason!!!!!!!!!!!) or "Kampfgruppe Peiper".

I woudn't mind seeing a campaign covering some of the late 1944 fighting in the Kall river gorge in the Huetergen forest. Vicious, back and forth fighting with little or no quarter!

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[dumbo]

I think the current operations are cool however I still miss campaigns, in particular the ability to follow your formation over several battles overtime and upgrade equipment (like Steel Panthers).

These battles can be spaced over months years or days just like SP so arguments about the amount of battles in a certain time a unit could have fought become meaningless.

Anyhow I am VERY happy with the game right now so the lack of campaigns isnt the end of the world but I do miss them.

Cheers,

_dumbo

[TBlaster]

I agree. I find it confusing at times to determine where, in relation the the operations map, I really am while fighting the battle. That would help me decide just how hard I really need to defend that position. Also I noticed that when totally repelling any attack I still start off the next battle several hundred meters behind my defensive line. In my opinion, if I held the enemy from entering my setup zones, they should not get a "freebie" the next battle and automatically advance on me. This is especially bad when playing an operation with two players. In one instance where I was attacking I ended the battle gaining about 500 meters, but when the second battle started it catapulted me 1500 meters! And this operation was setup with 160 Meter neutral zone.

Tom

[demoss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

Gentlemen, a few questions for you. I am interested in hearing your point of view:

What do you think of Battlefront's approach to Operations. Like it? Don't like it? Why?

Do you have some theme ideas for an operation? What would you like to see done as an operation?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's a great idea but not yet very well implemented in general, although A Day in the Cavalry, in particular, works rather well - not sure exactly what's special about it, but it might be the "Advance" style of operation. I would love to see Arnhem done right (which, it appears, was simply not possible given the game engine as it currently stands) - British paras at the bridge, being attacked from ALL sides. The front line calculations could also use a lot of work, it seems - in my aborted try of the Arnhem operation, I found that if I didn't occupy all of the buildings near the bridge as the British, those that I didn't would often be "holes" in my setup area, even though the Germans had failed to push across the bridge. I also wasted a lot of time setting up for attacks that I knew should have been coming from my side of the bridge but didn't because, as it turns out, the game can't handle it. The game should allow the flexibility for the attacker, when appropriate, to attack from all sides of the map, or at least more than one.

Another good choice for an operation would be the big hill (112? I forget) north of Caen where the British and SS bombarded the snot out of each other in early July '44 or so. Tigers, Churchills, Crocodiles, lots & lots of artillery and air support - fun fun fun! I suspect it would work best as a Destroy, but not sure.

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

-Doug

[Guest Germanboy]

I think Isimply don't get it, but then again, I have not read the manual on it.

Spoiler for 'A day in the Cavalry'!!!!!

x

x

x

x

xx

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

xx

xx

Right, that should do it. I find that in this operation there simply is no overall feeling of what is going on. There is a serious lack of feedback inbetween battles. I am playing the US and I ended up with no assets at the end of the first battle. We are now nearing the end of the second battle (turn 12) and again, I have no assets left. This is b/c I simply don't know what to do if I run into problems that are simply too large to handle for my force. Should I pull back? What happens if I surrender? I have no idea. This is a serious drawback and something that IMO should be addressed by providing the possibility to give an additional briefing after battles, depending on how they went. In short, I find it confusing, objectives are unclear, I am not sure what to do quite simply. Basically I feel like I am wasting my time on this operation, and I get the feeling that my opponent feels the same. I am playing two other operations (Arnhem - Red Devils and Stolberg) and at least there the aim is much clearer. Haven't gone to the 2nd battle in either of those, so I reserve my judgment. At the moment I feel that the concept of operations needs some serious rethinking. Or a big health warning for certain types of ops, e.g. recon like ADITC.

IMO there should be dynamic briefings, and it should not just go one way, as it apparently does, since I advanced, regardless of the fact that I had lost all my assets. My impression is that I will advance again next time. If I had known it works like this I would not have pushed it in the first battle but withdrawn to the map edge and waited out the turns.

Designing them is again a problem, and I am not sure what to do about it. The victory conditions are a bit dubious, and I don't like the idea of advancing regardless of result, but maybe I should just read the manual and that clears it up.

Having said all that, as a concept I think it stands head and shoulders above campaigns, but it needs work.

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

Andreas

[dalem]

Bill-

I really enjoy the Operations concept. For me personally it is the perfect way to enjoy the full flavor of the game. My thoughts (since you asked), and all obviously just my opinion:

1) I prefer non-historical Operations a la "A Day in the Cavalry". Being relatively well-versed in WWII lore means far fewer surprises for me during an historical Op while at the same time reflexively comparing my interpretation of events against that of the Operation's designer. I don't want to get in an historical pissing match, even mentally - I want to fire and maneuver.

2) I find I have a very poor understanding of how phase lines are going to be redrawn after individual battles are done. At times I can feel VERY positive that I have safely taken a new position or defended same, yet the next battle comes and my forces are pulled back to some (to me) arbitrary point. This becomes frustrating and I find maneuver not in the face of the enemy to be unrewarding.

3) While I understand the process of possible night battles, I do not understand the mechanics or logic behind determination of possible combat. If a company or battalion commander feels a limited night attack is to his advantage, why is that dependent on the enemy's actions?

Maybe there was something in the manual that I missed about the above, I don't know.

-dale

[This message has been edited by dalem (edited 07-20-2000).]

[Juardis]

I haven't played an operation yet, so this may or may not be simulated, but here goes...

I was toying with the idea of creating an op where the Germans are nearly surrounded and have to keep an escape avenue open while at the same time pull off a fighting retreat. the objective would be to retreat with 75% of its forces still in fighting condition. The allies of course would attempt to close the circle then defeat as much as the German army as they could after it was closed. Failing that, attempt to kill off more than 50% of the German army while it's retreating. Various scenarios within the overall larger battle could simulate a fighting retreat, a hold terrain at all costs (i.e., keep the noose from closing), reinforcements attempt to punch through to make another escape avenue. That sort of thing.

Another idea would be for the Germans to be completely encircled and allow them to choose 1 of 4 flags to capture (I read in the manual where this was possible). The Allies would have no idea which flag is the victory flag and would thus have to be prepared on all fronts. The Germans of course could fake an attack one way whilst concentrating their main attack the other way. The last scenario within that battle would be the allies in a line across the middle of the map with the axis on either side. The axis trying to open the escape route while the allies try to stop it. The allies then would be reinforced from the sides bringing all forces together at the middle of the map where the final victory flag is. Something along those lines.

Like I said, such an operation may already be present on the CD. I don't know, haven't played any of them yet.

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

Jeff Abbott

[SK Fish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

What do you think of Battlefront's approach to Operations. Like it? Don't like it? Why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be great if there was a QB type of Operation. IIRC all OPs must be designed by a user. A randomly generated one with some basic user parameters (# of games, time of year, etc...) would be a nice addition.

[Frenchy]

I have not yet played an operation...many QB's going on at the moment.

For an operation I'd like to see a simulation of the Oetingen Raid by the 2/276th, 70th US Infantry Division, just southeast of Forbach, France in Feb 1945. I have all supporting documents plus a narrative posted on my Website (the 70tth see link below) by the Battalion Commander. Unfortunately I have no map as yet.

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

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Unfortunately I have no map as yet.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tried www.gamesofwar.de yet? Moon might be able to get you an old one even.

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

Andreas

[Thomas_Peiper]

Basicly, the Operations are great. But what I miss is a campaign, maybe a few operations put together were you can take your forces from one operation to the next.

Obviously KG Peiper Dez 1944 would be a good choice for such an aproach or as someone else suggested the battle for Hill 112 near Caen.

Oh by the way, sorry for my english, as a german I have enough trouble with my one language.

And Bill, keep up your excellent work.

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

Thomas

[Blackhawk-2]

I love the concept. To be able to fight a long continuos battle, gaining and loseing ground as the situation unfolds is something no other war game has done. I look forword to this part of the game the most. But I am very disappointed with the actual impementation. I do not like the way

the front line is determined. Several times I fight through several battles to gain a strategic position only to have it taken away because a couple of men got by my location and next battle I was pushed way back. Even if their was a major

penetration of my position I would rather be cut off with no supplies and have to fight my way back or send in someone to rescue them. In all cases to men should be left where they are. In a real battle your men would not magically telaported to safety.

One other thing I would like is when designing an operation, I like to be able to

change the type of battle from battle to battle in the opreation. This would make for

more different situations to develop as the operation proceeds and reinforcements are

brought in on each side.

[Jarmo]

A thought just hit me.

What if the frontline was rearranged the way it is now, but

the troops would be left in their places in no-man's land?

You could move them into the safety behind new frontline, or

leave them there. You wouldn't be able to transfer new

troops immediately next to the old ones, and you wouldn't

be able to move the old troops around in no-man's land.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Jarmo,

That is an EXCELLENT suggestion. I think I will pass that along on the Beta Testers forum. Good job.

That would fix my major gripe with Operations, and perhaps convince me to play them again (I haven't played an Op since December).

It would open up all kinds of possibilities, like cut off troops, etc. I would amend it to say that units outside the front line, CAN NOT be pulled back, they would have to be relieved... and thus, would NOT be resupplied.

Cheers,

Bil

[This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 07-20-2000).]

[sage2]

I actually kinda like Jarmo's suggestion. My problem with operations is that the phase-lines seem to have very little to do with the tactical reality of the game. I understand some of the difficulties of drawing more dynmic lines, but I think this would be a huge improvement over how it works (barely works) currently.

In general, there needs to be more feedback on operations. Some sort of "overview" map, and perhaps "expected reinforcements" (which may be very inaccurate. I'd also love to see fatigue carry over from one battle to the next.

Sage

[Holman]

I'm very happy with the Operations model implemented in CMBO, although naturally I'd like to see it become more complex and customizable in CM2. The moving frontline is an improvement over a series of set-piece battles, IMO.

A possible solution to the "how far to advance?" question just hit me. What if Operation designers simply added labels to their maps, essentially rough markers for the 1/4, halfway, and 3/4 points? That way, we'd know if we were stuck at the "fifty-yard line" or if we were closing in on the goal. (Obviously, you could call your 50-yard line "Clerval Farm" or "Narrow Ridge," just so long as you mentioned it as the halfway point in your briefing.)

In fact, these labels could easily be retrofitted to the original Operations (where relevant) by the designers. We could all then download the new versions.

Good idea? Am I overlooking something?

Paul "Martyr" Roberts

[gaffertape]

I love the campaigns, Wild Bill.

The immersion level is really heightened in

an operation, and one gets to experience the much-read-about frustration of fighting over the same piece of land repeatedly. I've never come across that in a wargame before. The remains of vehicles from previous battles are the crowning touch, though.

Nice work all round.

Oh, and Bill:

Some questions were raised regarding the building / bridge height in Arnhem. I have an Osprey book with a nice 3/4 perspective drawing of the bridge and town. It doesn't look like any of the buildings are higher than the bridge. I'll e-mail you the picture tomorrow.

[RudeLover]

I like the idea of operations plenty, but I still don't totally understand how they work. I will say the concept of a three-day series of battles, say, is more appealing to me than, say, taking 'core units' through the whole Western front. Compliments on a really sound idea.

I have tried a few of the ops (oddly, the first two I fired up were Moon's McKinley's Bn and Utrechseweg, mostly b/c I'd had a few weeks to salivate over their web pages by the time the CD arrived). They're even more gripping than battles, in part 'cuz you know if you lose this ATG it's your last one and there might not be any more, even though you've got three battles to go and there are bad guys all over the place.

Like others, I have found myself wondering about how far I could advance/retreat and what my objectives were. It would be nice if you could have a map showing the start map and the objectives, even a simple one, as an attached file (like the text briefings).

Since I played allied in both of the above, I was defending and found myself sometimes pushed back from defensible positions when a battle ended, without really understanding why. I've enjoyed more the role of attacking in operations (maybe this is why A Day in the Cavalry works so well), though I'm probably too conservative and thrifty with my troops.

I kind of wanted briefings between battles above and beyond the AAR screen. A bit of text saying 'Battalion reserve committed' when you get reinforcements or even 'Col. X has committed a platoon of tank destroyers from the 799th TD Bn.' Could you attach a text message to each reinforcement group?

I had the idea of making a tutorial operation to teach myself how operations worked, how vehicles were repaired, ammo resupplied, wounded evacuated, etc. I even made a tiny map with sub-company sized forces...just haven't had time or imagination to finish it. My intent was to test for myself the effects of parameters like 'no-mans-land size,' etc, as well as the different op types (advance, assault, destroy). I think a tutorial op would really help new players figure out what is happening. Or an AAR of a tutorial op where someone who knows what's happening comments on what's happening.

[Peterk]

I absolutely love the operations and basically they have been all I have been playing against the AI, saving the scenarios for PBEM play.

Most of my suggestions and comments have been mentionned by others but I'll bring them up anyways just to lend some weight.

1. Not enough of them! I'm running out and am dying to get my hands on some more. Time to start playing with the editor I guess.

2. I'm a little disappointed with how many of them appear to be broken. The Arnhem Op wasn't terribly interesting after the first day due to the reinforcements being forced to attack from an easily defended bridge.

This brings up the following suggestions:

i. For Destroy type operations it becomes almost imperative to be able to have the attacker be able to attack from all sides. More direction possibilities must be provided for the 'Attacker come from (North/South/East/West)' choice in the editor.

ii. There should be some overall objective on the map for the defender to dissuade him from simply splitting all his squads and hiding them in top floors of buildings in the far edge of the map. The AI imagine will be totally lost in defending a destroy operation in a realistic manner without objectives. For Arnhem, objectives on either side of the bridge will keep the brits fighting for the historically important piece of terrain and may even allow the incentive for them to actually do a bit of attacking to improve their position instead of just trying not to be destryed.

The DeSobry Operation was cancelled after only one battle for no apparent reason but I believe the patch will fix this (???) and I'm anxious to give it another go.

3. For advance and assault ops we definitely have to know at the very least how big the master map is, so we know how aggresively we will have to play. It's a little difficult to judge now. Being able to get a peek at the big map once at the beginning of the

op would be great.

4. I would love to see a no-FOW summary of each battle played in the op after it's over just out of curiosity. Sometimes I feel that I did really well in a particular battle in the middle of the op but I'm never able to know for sure because I never get to see the casualty figures for individual battles for the other side. Not a big deal, but it would be cool to get a battle by battle recap after it's all over.

In lieu of this, maybe a little briefing between missions giving me a hint (which could be wildly innaccurate ) of how I did in the last battle would fit the bill as well.

5. No real comment on the campaign mode a-la-Steel Panthers. I don't think it's a great idea for CM for reasons given by the developpers and beta guys eons ago, but a lot of people seem to want it soooo...

6. How about a variable front-line adjustment? It might add something to the op, to simply not know how much the front line is going to be moved back or forth between battles. If you're not sure if the enemy is 25m in front of you or 400m it will definitely affect how you handle those first few turns.

p.

[RudeLover]

Oh, another thing,

Battles in operations are a place where variable battle length would really be worthwhile. There's times when turn 20 (or whatever) comes when you're in contact with the enemy, and the battle ends. In my head I imagine that an order has come in to one side from higher up to pull back or re-form or something, but it can strain the suspension of disbelief.

Having said that, I have no notion of how easy/hard it would be to code any of this...

[Xavier]

I like historical operations.

I'm actually creating an operation for the battle of 8th august '44 between canadian troops and ss of the 25th pzrgrd regiment(part of the hitlerjugend). I was two weeks ago on the exact site of the battle to take some pictures and have a general idea of the battlefield...

I'm now testing this op' and it's really a big job.

I think operations would be more interessant to play if designers give players a fully detailed pack of information (with a downloadable general map of the battlefield by instance or with aerial b&w screenshots of the map with some few informations).

I just think the battlefront line system in operation is quite a few rigid...

[BAR]

Hi Bill - I didn't think that anything could pull me away from SPWAW< but since CMBO arrived I am completely hooked. I would love more operations as well. It really heightens the immersion for me to carry over troops from one battle to the next. Call me crazy, but I do get attached to the little buggers. I am also among the group that finds the "Frontline" calculation very troubling. During the Carentan Op playing as Germans against the AI, I had secured the crossroads at Addevile for battles 3-5, yet after each battle I was pushed back more and more. I caught the AI sending a few squads up the left map edge after battle 5 and figured this must be how I was pushed back. Pretty gamey to me, I feel that if you are securly in control of an important piece of the map, you are unfairly penalized if your opponent sends a few men up the map edge. I was able to accomplish this myself in battle 6 of Carentan myself (Figured all's fair in love and war, and this ain't love) by sending 1 rather mauled squad and a sniper up my right map edge and returned to my possesion all the territory I had previously lost. But there wasn't a whole lot of satifaction after doing it. So I would suggest a dynamic frontline with each unit HQ emmitting a "sphere of influence" radius over the territory that they hold at the end of each battle. It should be influenced by such things as the casualties that Platoon took, fatigue, supply and other variables, and possibly increasing the sphere the higher up the HQ unit. Maybe this is one answer to the frontline prob. I don't have any suggestions for any particular Ops as yet, but knowing you and the Raiders as I do, anything that you all come up with will be fantastic. Take care.