Questioning MG effectiveness?

[Talenn]

Ok, I've had the game for a week now, and have been playing it pretty non-stop, both against the AI, and vs some local opponents in FtF. Before that, I had been playing the Demo for some time. One thing I'm beginning to question is the game's modeling of MG effectiveness (or lack thereof).

No, I dont mean MG's firing at Buildings/Vehicles/Crawling Squads etc, but at men moving blithely in view, in the open, at ranges of 100-200m. Quite frankly, troops that do that should be BUTCHERED if a few hidden MGs open up. Unfortunately, while a few men may die here and there, they can often move through the fire and into terrain that is sometimes 50-100m from the point of first fire. I dont exactly how the 'firepower' formula works, but it certainly doesnt seem to carry over from unit to unit in an area as well as might be expected from MGs. The MGs can only target 1 enemy at a time, so if 3 Squads (or even Teams) are sent to 'banzai' across an area covered by an MG or 2, inevitably, one or more squads get across more or less intact. I have witnessed this on countless occasions.

WWI proved that charging unsuppressed MGs is NOT a good idea, yet it seems to have a frighteningly high chance of success in CM. I am aware that many other games grossly overstate MG effectiveness, but IMO, men moving in the Open who are fired upon by MGs should either instantly go to ground or be cut down fairly quickly. They certainly should not be able to continue on to a destination far ahead as often as I have seen.

Please note that none of this a intended as a 'bash' against CM, as I think it is by far the best thing going. I only want to elicit other's opinions on this matter. If others are experiencing the same things, then perhaps a change is in order. If not, well, perhaps someone could explain exactly what is being modeled when MGs open up on moving troops in the open and fail to prevent their advance. Is there some 'abstraction' going on or somesuch?

Thanx for your time!

Talenn

[Manx]

I posted this about a week ago when someone else asked about this.....

The 'Open Terrain' depicted in CM, is, IIRC from BTS, subjected to a certain ammount of visual abstraction due to the limits on current computer hardware being able to display it realistically. CM's flat, open ground is'nt representing a pool table. So even guy's out in the open would stand a good chance of not taking casulties by finding some sort of cover if under fire.

STEVE (BTS said..)

Oh, and Manx is spot on. Open terrain is not like a billards table. There are shrubs, rocks, dips, etc. for infantry to find some degree of cover.

Steve

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

Staffordshire - England (NO LONGER A CM-Free Zone!! )

COMBAT MISSIONS- The Source For CM Ops & Scenarios

WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK

[This message has been edited by Manx (edited 07-03-2000).]

[Talenn]

Manx,

Thanx for the input. I understand that its not really supposed to be open flat ground everywhere. In fact, since Infantry smoke etc is not modeled, I even assume that some units are using that as well. I also assume that the visual 'd#ck in hand and walk forward' image shown graphically, is actually representing the men rushing forward by teams and using squad level tactics as well.

But, that doesnt change the fact that it still seems far too easy for unsupported squads to advance into MG fire. Most open ground areas might not be 'pool table flat', but I would think that the Open tiles dont represent 'the Nam' either ; ). Also, how is the player supposed to know the difference when setting up a defense? Some places would be better suited for MG fire than others, but if it all looks the same, how can you position your MGs effectively?

A certain degree of abstraction is necessary, there is no doubt. But when that abstraction begins to heavily cut into real-world modeling, something has to give. MGs HAVE to be able to cover 'open' ground or else their role in a defense is compromised. I dont see how the current model will function on the East Front, as the Reds will just walk OVER the poor Germans and their MGs ; ). I would just like to see MANY more instances of troops subjected to MG fire while on the move actually hitting the dirt and HUGGING it, not continuing onward unphased.

Thanks again for your reply and for pointing out BTSs take on it.

Talenn

[Mostro]

I also noted that enemy casualties inflicted by MGs are always very low. Last night, in CE as germans, with a total of 230 casualties in the US side, only 8 of them are from MGs.

You lucky owners of full CM can make a simple scenario with a MG or a MG bunker and a lot of infantry running towards and count casualties.

Test it, please.

[Guest Michael emrys]

FWIW, I agree completely with Talenn. I too have been amazed and disappointed by MG performance against leg units in the open. It doesn't entirely explain the situation to say that Open Terrain is not a billiard table. If troops were hitting the dirt, I would say yes, they might find enough cover to protect themselves in the way I observe. But when they continue to run (or even walk) upright for great lengths of time...gimme a break.

Also, I think the effects of grazing or penetrating fire may not be getting the full treatment (not made up my mind on this one yet). When two or more personnel units are lined up in a line of fire, they each should be liable to casualties. I'm not yet convinced that this is happening in the game.

Michael

[Xavier]

In Vot against the AI(side balance us:+50%) I had a bunker Mg (in the small wood near the church) which had a score of 98 !

[s bakker]

Mostro,

what you see in the INFO-KILLS menu are only the CONFIRMED kills by that unit. Fog of war!

With MG's firing over large distances the number of 'real' casualties inflicted can be much higher.

And for the effectiveness of MG's. I understand that MG's give bursts of about 10-15 rounds? In that case it wouldn't be to strange if you would 'knock over' 0-3 man of a running squad in the open. Right ?

I don't know how many bursts a MG crew can do in a CM turn tough, that would pu things in perspective.

As I see it the nastiness of the MG is that it pins down enemy infantry which subsequenlty is 'eaten up' by prolonged fire. The trick is to pin down the enemy infantry in the open where it has virtually no cover .......

Grtz S Bakker.

[This message has been edited by s bakker (edited 07-03-2000).]

[Doug Beman]

bakker has the meat of it. Machine guns are good at killing people, but they're much better at keeping people from moving. And that's their primary job; suppression.

He's also got it that a machine gun's burst is only a dozen or so rounds at most; they can't fire 100-round bursts because of ammo and heat issues. The US .50 fires, what, 6 rounds in a burst because it's so slow?

DjB

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

He's also got it that a machine gun's burst is only a dozen or so rounds at most; they can't fire 100-round bursts because of ammo and heat issues. The US .50 fires, what, 6 rounds in a burst because it's so slow?

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any of the lucky owners tried this with a Vickers MMG? B/c it is water-cooled it should be able to fire until the ammo runs out.

As for suppression performance otherwise I am quite happy - I think it is dependent on siting of the HMGs and general terrain more than anything else.

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

Andreas

[Guest aaronb]

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

As for suppression performance otherwise I am quite happy - I think it is dependent on siting of the HMGs and general terrain more than anything else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I setup a hotseat game against myself to test MG effectiveness against human-wave attacks.

Three American platoons with supporting 81mm fire (smoke and HE) vs two wooden MG bunkers and one concrete bunker some distance away. The goal was to close-assault the wooden bunkers.

A single, shot-up HQ made it behind the firing arcs of the bunkers, and eventually grenaded one of them. Every other unit panicked/routed and was finally cut down before reaching cover while 'advancing to the rear'.

So MG effectiveness seems just fine. Even in a hasty emplacement, MG's slow the advance and keep heads down. You might succeed in a 50-metre dash while the MG is changing belts (or suppressed by your own return fire), but not a 150-metre dash against dug-in weapons.

[Talenn]

s bakkar/Doug Beman:

Yep, no problems here with that line of logic. If the MGs simply PREVENTED (or at least greatly restricted) the forward movement, I could easily see the low casualty count. Once troops go to ground, its difficult to cause mass casualties with direct fire. s bakkar hit it exactly on the head what does NOT seem to happen in the game. I want the MGs to pin the enemy down in the open where there is no cover, but unfortunately, the enemy can more often than not, continue the advance and GET to cover with minimal casualties. There should be a choice for the squad to make...1)Hit the deck and stay there: less casualties but little or no movement or 2)Make the mad dash for the cover, but accept near catastrophic casualties if the MGs are properly sited.

Talenn

[Talenn]

aaronb:

Ok, but keep this in mind. The concrete Bunker at least (not sure on the Wooden ones) have THREE MG! That means your example has 5(!) MGs vs the infantry....they had BETTER stop the advance ; ) Now try that same example (without any mortar cover fire) with 2 or 3 M1919's and/or .50cals. Better still, set up a field of fire between 2 lines of woods or buildings maybe 100-150m apart. Now run a platoon or two through that field with MGs trying to interdict that movement (ie, without the squads directly moving towards the MGs, but perpendicular to them). I have run this a few time and in the vast majority of them, the enemy covers the open ground with minimal casualties in a few turns. Only vs GREEN troops was I actually able to hold up the advance at all, and even then they eventually made it with acceptable losses.

From my readings of many WWII accounts on the Western Front, an MG or two would often stall an entire column if properly sighted. There was simply no way to dislodge them without a deliberate attack (or AFV/Arty support). Simply running into their fields of fire was a death sentence. That same ability is NOT present to any real degree in CM. Troops easily 'suck it up' and close with the gun, and then overwhelm it. That just doesnt dovetail with the accounts that I've read concerning MGs in WWII.

Talenn

[ASL Veteran]

I played one of the scenarios that came with the game and had four Vickers MGs. Boy, those babies fire all day long. I had two of them on the second level of a church building and they were firing non stop for about 20 minutes. They start with 120 ammo, and even after 20 minutes of non stop action they still had enough ammo to go at least another 10. Every German who moved within 800 meters of those MGs was toast. I had this image of a smoking MG with piles of brass laying all over the place.

[kump]

Since I wasn't there, I'm hard pressed to say if CMs MGs are "really ultimately realistic". As it is, I think the MGs do a great job without making it INCREDABLY difficult on the attacker. I've had them do miracles, some times, not.

I can imagine if a single MG42 HMG opened up and wiped out an advancing 12 man US squad in a single burst, the posts on this board would be quite opposite this one.

By the way, I had six Shermans, three abreast, two deep, waiting in a Paris street. Two full nine man German squads decided to cross the street at a run towards a victory area. The first one crossing into the open was cut down to the last man in a matter of two seconds by the Shermans single machinegun bursts. The second squad appeared fifteen seconds later and shared the same fate. No suvivors. I'd say that is pretty effective.

[This message has been edited by kump (edited 07-03-2000).]

[Guest aaronb]

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

The concrete Bunker at least (not sure on the Wooden ones) have THREE MG! That means your example has 5(!) MGs vs the infantry....they had BETTER stop the advance ; )

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted. There was also a lot of smoke around, so fire opportunities were limited. I think the difference was in the bunkered nature of the guns - it left them unhindered by incoming fire and gave them more ammo - both leading to higher effective rates of fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>field of fire between 2 lines of woods or buildings maybe 100-150m apart. Now run a platoon or two through that field with MGs trying to interdict that movement (ie, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted again. I've done this as well, and the troops usually make it without serious problems. IMHO, this reflects hasty emplacement (relatively high exposure compared to a bunker) and limited ammo, leading to lower effective rates of fire, and less suppressive effect.

If you set an ambush marker near the expected line of advance, you'll get better results, perhaps modelling less time to acquire the targets.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From my readings of many WWII accounts on the Western Front, an MG or two would often stall an entire column if properly sighted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I have read similar accounts. In my recollection, these 'properly sighted' MG's were in bunkers or embrasures, protecting them from direct incoming suppressive fire.

Perhaps this is where we differ in opinion?

[MacMogul]

While I haven't played enough to feel completely sure about this, I've had no trouble with the current MG effectiveness. In a QB I played yesterday a single HMG42 was able to effectively interdict 3 platoons (controlled by the AI) until other weapons could be brought to bear. Admittedly, the MG was an elite unit, but the enemy platoons were veteran.

--Bill

[Guest Germanboy]

Being restricted to VoT, that's what I just fired up. Two HMG42 teams turned the left side of the village of Plomville into a killing ground that so far the GIs have to negotiate. Another HMG team kept the AI from flanking down the left slope of the hill in front of the village. The AI had to bring in tanks to deal with that one. I have also (in a different game) seen a wooden bunker take out a flame-thrower team on the slope of Hill 216 with its first burst. I honestly don't feel there is something wrong with it, but obviously would love to have the game to experiment even more - maybe BTS can organise an air-drop...

Now if only the HMG teams could run...

Please note that all smilies on this iBook were wasted in an HMG fire experiment.

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

Andreas

[Guest Big Time Software]

Talenn and all...

This has been discussed to death several times before. Each time someone made the claim that lots more bodies should be piled up in front of the MGs. And each time we concluded the particular thread with even the original poster convinced that we have it right. Most of the threads have had real life MG gunners, some with combat experience, coming in to support our position.

The problem seems to be one of perception and another of misrepresentation in games/movies/books. Yes, a MG is a really nasty tool of the battlefield. I have seen full 12 man squads eliminated by a single HMG42 in less than 30 seconds. To say that this can't happen is false, because it does. If we changed the way things worked any more in favor of MGs you would see entire squads winking out left right and center all the time. But neither our readings and study, along with the thoughts from those who have been there for real, suggest that this should happen.

I find MGs VERY effective. Even one or two HMGs can really screw up the enemy's plans. And yes, cause lots of casualties in the process. But the MG's main purpose in WWII was to cause suppression, not casualties. And that is how CM reflects the role of the MG.

Steve

P.S. MGs do have the ability to hit and suppress more than one unit at one time (i.e. grazing fire).

[Talenn]

BTS et al:

You are absolutely right on the body count from MGs. I have no problem with that. But they seem to lack the ability to make men 'go to ground' as well. Thats where I think the problem really is. Its simply not possible to interdict movement across open ground with any degree of certainty. Not at all. This is the MGs primary role: not racking up an impressive body count, but preventing unrestricted movement. Yet, time and again, I find that enemy troops can easily move across MG lines of fire with minimal casualties. Perhaps MGs (or significant firepower from automatic weapons in general) should weight more heavily for morale purposes?

I dont know many guys who want to advance across the open under MG fire. Once the first few bursts hit, the platoon should go to ground, identify the MG position, begin to return fire, and then commence a cautious advance. As it is currently modeled, they simply continue to walk to their appointed objectives. Often, they are barely even 'Cautious' or 'Alerted'. I just feel that the MGs are not able to be used in their proper role of area denial.

Note that most of this is even MORE true for the US MGs. I have found the M1919 and the .50cal to be quite ineffective at interdiction. The German MG42 Hvy has more success, but still cant deny movement to a platoon advancing a mere 150m in front of it.

In short, its not the casualties that seem off base. Its the lack of pinning ability that I see missing. In extreme cases of 'game cheese', it makes FAR more sense to split your squads into teams, making 6 targets instead of 3 for a platoon. In this case, even 3 MGs covering an area are insufficient to prevent (or even impede) movement. That just strikes me as completely contrary to what I have read and seen elsewhere.

As an example, I have a quick test scenario set up. If anyone wants to see it, let me know, although its quite easy to replicate in a short time with the editor. For me, it was a real eye-opener to see that 3 MGs in buildings couldnt delay the advance of 6 Squads across the open for even a SINGLE turn. This is at ranges of 95-150m and with no terrain, weather, cover fire, NOTHING to benefit the squads. I cant believe that this can be an accurate model of MGs effectiveness. Perhaps it is, but then I dont see why it could possibly be the useful tool that it historically was/is.

Thanx for your time and responses. Its good to see intelligent debate on this forum as opposed to some of the mindless drivel I've witnessed on OTHER Tactical Infantry combat game's forums! ; )

Talenn

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ah! Much clearer now! The other threads were pretty much started up by followers of the "OTHER Tactical Infantry combat game" claiming that CM has it all wrong because there aren't heaps of bodies. So I guess I thought that was the way this one was headed

I agree that there can be situations where the MGs don't appear to be as effective as they were in real life for a defending force. In general, however, Doctrine of the time called for the MG to act in concert with other small arms and light guns (mortars in particular) to fully break up the attack. One MG vs. a platoon will do a lot to hold it up, but by itself isn't strong enough to do so with lasting effect. I feel that when you use MGs as part of a combined arms defence they generally do what you should expect them to do. Not to say it is perfect...

One problem is that MG units don't have a "go for broke" firing mode. This would be, basically, increasing the number of "bursts" for a given period of time to represent spraying lead all over a given field of vision. This is something that is hard to model, but is something that we should look at again to see if we can do so effectively. This alone would take care of the split squad situation you set up (although there are reasons to not do this in a real game that go beyond MGs).

The other problem that crops up every so often is that there is no way to define a field of fire, or fire lane, that one MG (and only one MG) is responsible for. This is what would happen in real life. Stakes would be put down field (or some sort of prearranged landmark) to keep neighboring MGs from concentrating on the correct areas (perhpas overlapping, prehaps not). We are not planning on putting something like this in for various reasons.

Overall I find MGs to be very effective for the role they were intended to fill.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh, another thing...

We once had a discussion about the MG's role and effect on the battlefield of WWI and WWII. The conclusion is that you can not compare the two since many fundamental factors were different between the two. In WWI the MG was fairly new and the infantry tactics and organizations were not designed to meet this threat. So you had ranks of men being mowed down, time and time again, instead of small groups darting about and retreating when necessary. Also, IIRC someone mentioned the density of MGs in a couple of WWI battlefields and it was staggering.

Anyhoo... just wanted to point out that a direct comparison of the MG in two different wars, some 30 years apart, is probably not something that can be done effectively.

Steve

[Talenn]

BTS:

OK, I'm glad I was finally able to make my point clearer! ; ) I guess what makes it so frustrating is the way the Ops are handled, apparently by how far the enemy has managed to advance a few men. I played the Stohlberg Line Op, and time and again, in the last few turns of the game, the enemy would simply throw its guys forward in a mad dash to take terrain. No amount of return fire is stopping these guy...they just move on like the Terminator or something. I had interlocking MGs and a few Squads interlaced (some of which WERE being pinned by fire, to be sure), but an MG here and there who werent under fire couldnt even so much as slow the enemy squads...end result, they take the terrain they wanted, and I get kicked back out of nice defensive terrain due to the MG's lack of ability to pin anyone.

The same occurs in regular scens when the enemy wants to take VP locations. There is no way to stop them cold. They always seem to advance and at least get partial squads through which is often enough to 'contest' the VP locations. Even WITHOUT worrying about VP loss or whatnot, it should be possible to deny the enemy access to terrain when they have to move across the open.

I guess count my vote for a LARGE morale hit when moving troops are subjected to automatic weapons fire. If they go to ground quickly, the TacAI can then switch to the next moving (exposed) Squad, put them down, move on to the next, etc until the units are all pinned (at least temporarily). From there, the attackers can try and pick themselves up, return fire and attempt forward movement again. But I LEAST would like to see an advance be halted when the MGs open up. Its not real likely that men would continue to walk forward, even if its NOT directly targeted on them. Once on the ground, with the situation made more clear (and perhaps with a bit of 'urging') they can pick up and go.

Regarding WWI vs WWII, I agree completely. My comment concerning WWI was simply because that what appears to be happening in the game. The men simply stand and walk forward into MG fire, only in this case, it tends to work ; ) I know that WWII Infantry tactics were miles ahead of those employed in WWI (for most participants anyways). In fact, the Germans felt the MG was so important that they essentially made the entire squad simply a support mechanism for the central MG. I would just like to see a bit more reason for them to have wanted to do such a thing ; )

Thanx again!

Talenn

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hmm... well... I think you are painting broad, and I think incorrect, conclusions based on a few instances where, for all I know, you are making tactical mistakes or are otherwise at some sort of disadvantage. Your position appears to be that the MG is utterly ineffective. I totally and strenously disagree with that statement, since I use MGs with GREAT effect using WWII defensive doctrine. Since we are playing the same exact game, then there must be a reason why I find them to be historically effective and you do not.

As I said above, MGs in CM aren't perfect, but it certainly isn't ineffective if used correctly in a situation that offers the possibility of a favorable outcome. Different situations are going to yeild different results. A lot has to do with the quality of the enemy forces.

You are complaining that you can't stop an enemy assault cold, but I know for sure it is not realistic for this to happen simply because you have a couple of MGs around. I also know from first hand CM experience that MGs can shut down an advance with little or no help if done the right way in the right situation. It all depends on the situation. For example, a Panther can withstand attacks from many tanks if used correctly, but one mistake in the wrong situation and BOOM. I don't blame the Panther for that

In the example you gave I am sure you are causing large numbers of casualties, and rattling the guys that don't fall, but I suspect the enemy isn't worse than Regular and could even be Veteran. (please be carefull of spoliler info!). So while you aren't stopping each and every unit, you might be halving or even quartering its strength. If the enemy started out with enough force, and you without enough, it could realistically absorb such losses and carry home its attack (especially if some of those units are Fanatical).

During the making of the VoT scenario I had to cut back on the number of German HMGs because the Americans never got close to making it over the open terrain. I can also think of one Quick Battle where nothing but rifle, Bren, and 3in mortar fire from one Brit platoon crushed an assault of a Green SS reinforced company. If I had a Vickers in there it would have been even easier for me

The point I am trying to make here is that it can't be as bad as you think it is. Thousands of people have been playing CM for almost 8 months (and about a dozen for longer). Many are combat veterans, and most of our Beta Team is full of guys who get a lot of pleasure out of resarching the most obscure stuff. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has made such a strong statement about MG effectiveness (except for those that felt each bullet was laser guided, but they don't count ). So in my opinion this means that you are doing something wrong or you have unreasonably high expectations for what an MG can do in a given situation. The other possibility is, of course, that nobody else has noticed this, including vets that have scrutinized all sorts of basic principles of the game. I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I just can't believe that everybody else has missed something so fundamental only to be picked up upon by you at this late date. Again, no offense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its not real likely that men would continue to walk forward, even if its NOT directly targeted on them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I beg to differ. An inexperienced unit might hit the dirt and just stay put, but an experienced unit is more than likely going to do SOMETHING other than sit still unless the fire is a lot more than a single MG or even two. Reason is that more often than not mobility = chance of life, sitting still = death. One MG blazing away at 12 men is going to have a harder time hitting all 12 if they are running for cover or running from cover to cover. Now if all 12 men were kind enough to sit in one spot, the MG could zero in and pick them off one by one. And if you are using one MG against 2 or 3 squads, you can just forget about it unless they are all packed in together and/or are inexperienced.

This is why defensive doctrine emphasized combined arms. The MG is NOT a cure all weapon. It can do a lot of stuff, but if left alone it is bound to be bested unless the enemy is weak and ill trained. So rifle fire, mortars, *and* MGs were supposed to work together to stop the enemy. If you are trying to hold up reinforced platoon sized attacks with a single effective MG, or even two, then I would expect you to come out on the losing end even if the enemy suffered many casualties as a result.

Steve

[Talenn]

Steve@ BTS:

Dont worry, all points are taken as intended. I agree with most of what you say in theory, but I guess I'm not seeing that theory match the reality in the game. I didnt mean to imply that they have been totally ineffective in all situations, only that they dont have what I consider to be near the proper results in IDEAL situations.

FWIW, do you have an address to which I can upload my test Scen? I would be curious what type of results you can get (which may indeed mean that I am doing something incorrectly). I would just like you to see, firsthand, what type of results are common in a set test where the conditions should be HEAVILY in favor of the MGs. Even under ideal conditions, 3 MGs are proving to be inadequate to stop 6 Squads (not divided into team, and going with their PLs) from moving in the open while only 95-150m from the MG's (who are situated in buildings perpendicular to the route of advance). I have tested it numerous times and its VERY rare for the MGs to succeed. I would have expected just the opposite to be true. I know MGs arent effective ALL the time, but I have yet to see them work in this optimized test.

I am not using 'Ambush Points' as they are harder to use in the game during a general advance due to the need for HQs. Also, IMO, the function of the MG is to independantly 'cover' certain areas and the 'Ambush points' seem to restrict them to a specific patch of ground rather than a certain 'field of fire'.

I dont wanna make it seem like I'm being belligerant as that is NOT my intention at all. I am just completely vexed as to how that many people could have tested the game and not seen that a 'human wave' style attack is at least a viable tactic in the face of overlapping MGs. I dont see anything obvious that I could be missing, but I certainly dont rule out the possibility. Thats why I'd like to upload the Scen to you and compare notes.

Thanx

Talenn

[Guest Pillar]

One thing you brought up that I tend to agree with is the rather "gamey" way advancement is calculated in Operations.

It can be very beneficial to send a small amount of your force rushing up to grab territory towards the end of the "battle".

Another flaw it exposes is that the "battle" ends after an amount of turns, regardless of how well you are doing. I played one OP where I was doing very poorly, could easily have been pushed back to my starting point and not have held my goals. Luckily for me, the "battle" ended and it was considered a victory.

I kind of have to roll my eyes at things like that. Is there a way to make OPs more dynamic, in that the player gets to decide on advancement and retreat rather than the infamous "front line calculation" system?