CM2 "BARBAROSSA."

[JOCHEN PEIPER]

I know almost everyone has talked about this but, I would like to see more of a full campaign introduced...

E.g. You choose from one of a dozen GERMAN or RUSSIAN divisions. 1st,2nd SS panzer or Guards army and follow them from beginning to end... 1941-45...

I know this would take a hell-of-alot of programming and extra graphics etc... but it would be the ultimate game...

You dont feel unfulfilled by only just having one battle, but instead many over the course of several years...It may not be entirely realistic this way but at least it would better CC3.

"Don't eat yellow snow"

[Holdit]

Even if CM2 is no different in approach from the Beyond Overlord version, this is something you can do yourself with a little research and thought, although division-sized

operations might be a bit tricky

In your own case, you could research the record of an SS unit post June '44 (with a little imagination, you could cover Italy in 1943 too). Seeing as it's an interest of yours, the research would be rewarding in itself. As regards working out the details of casualties and replacements, etc, I think some people have already posted some guidelines and, if not, there is more than enough knowledge around here to give you what you need.

For example, you could take either Hohenstaufen or Frundsberg from II SS Panzer Corps from their experiences in Normandy through to their time in Arnhem/Nijmegen and whatever went before or came after that (I don't know if they took part in the Ardennes offensive).

[This message has been edited by Holdit (edited 07-28-2000).]

[Fionn]

Hmm, I don't think Steve or Charles want to spend the next 12 months in researching unit histories for such a game.

It's a nice idea of you have a dedicated and large team of researchers but simply isn't going to happen otherwise.

[killmore]

They should just improve the engine and add new units/graphics. That should be it.

[Schrullenhaft]

I actually like the idea of a "semi-campaign" system. Basically it wouldn't require a pre-generated list of scenarios or even branching. Basically it would allow you to create a company/battalion/regimental -sized unit and take it into several different scenarios (QB generated or designed scenarios). You could take what remains of your unit from one scenario to the next; getting reinforcements/replacements and non-permanent attached units every-so-often (but not all the time) between battles.

A system to link and script scenarios together would be a nice addition to that. In fact a way of working with maps that could be pre-built and then have opponents generated for them would also be nice (random/parameter-based or designed).

Admittedly this is a bit beyond the scope of CM, but I think it would be a nice direction to go in for the future.

[killmore]

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

I actually like the idea of a "semi-campaign" system. Basically it wouldn't require a pre-generated list of scenarios or even branching. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is actually reasonably easy to do. I have do similar stuff myself.

All you have to be able to do is to transfer units from scenario to scenario.

[Jarmo]

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

This is actually reasonably easy to do. I have do similar stuff myself.

All you have to be able to do is to transfer units from scenario to scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But where's the fun if you know exactly what the enemy has?

I'd really, really wish BTS would make the campaigns into the

game system. Looks like it won't happen. But still...

[Thomas Norton]

There are a large number of unit histories out there. The key is finding where they are.

When I was in collage, I got involved in a reaserch project by one of the professors who was going to write a book on a civil war general. I had to find a bunch of stuff on one of the units he was in charge of.

You would not believe the amount of stuff at West Point! Unit histories, TOE, logistics, plans, going back to 1776.

The problem with the East Front is learning to read German (if you do not already). They have unit histories too.

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

"The Legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace."

[Fionn]

Or better yet Russian. There's a real goldmine in Russian archives.

[Airborne]

But of course, CM is a "Tactical" game. The designers have obviously poured their hearts and souls into this endeavor --it shows. What we really need is for some company to make another attempt at better operational/strategic WWII events. Updates or revampings of West Front, Pacific War or Third Reich immediately come to mind.

Just a thought..... Chris

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

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[Gregory Deych]

It's a gold mine, all right...and it costs like it, too. I found a great company, Eastview, which has tens of thousands of books and other documents on Soviet military (most of the older stuff is in microfiche, however), including General Staff studies, and even dissertations by attendies of the Frunze and Voroshilov courses. The problem is that they cost an arm and a leg...anywhere from $30 to $80. *le sigh*. I wish there was another source ,but they really seem to be it.

Speaking of older documents, who exactly holds copyrights on things like that? Do you need to have permission to copy portions of OOBs and TO&Es, etc. etc.

[WendellM]

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

What we really need is for some company to make another attempt at better operational/strategic WWII events. Updates or revampings of West Front, Pacific War or Third Reich immediately come to mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd strongly suggest The Operational Art of War from Talonsoft in this regard (either Wargame of the Year Edition, or, much better: Century of Warfare version). Fionn may gripe about the TOAW system (as is his right), but I and many other gamers consider the latest version of this game system to be great for operational-level scenarios. (CM is unparalleled for tactical.)

IMHO,

Wendell

[Fionn]

Any game whose armour system is based on a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of "material stress" gets a major thumbs down in my book.

ANY game which tells me that I'd be better off using a 5cm PaK vs an IS2 than a 7.5cm PaK has some SERIOUS issues.

Since the era being modelled is an era of vehicular warfare these issues are serious. Then we get into the screwed up supply issues, bugs which made aerial and naval forces pretty impotent when it was first released etc etc.

It was a brave attempt and I applaud it but it has major flaws IMO.

[Steve Clark]

Fionn, that's what I mean. I have no idea what 'material stress' means or IS2 or PaK for that matter. Heck, I don't even know what a halftrack is. I just got to get the fundamentals down first (which all of you already had before playing CM).

[Airborne]

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

I'd strongly suggest The Operational Art of War from Talonsoft in this regard (either Wargame of the Year Edition, or, much better: Century of Warfare version).

Wendell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Wendell, I had forgotten about that one. I did play it alot--but that's been quite a while back. In fact, I designed an Ardennes scenario for it.

-------Chris

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

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[Fionn]

Well Steve,

If you play, get confused about something and post a polite request for info on the forum you'll get more than enough answers quickly.

Just be polite and be open to being told what you don't know and this forum is a great place for newbies to learn. A lot of people here have real combat experience and/or years of experience in research on these vehicles and weapons. If you want to learn this is a great forum.

Don't be put off by the reaction some newbies get... 99% of the time they bring it on themselves by being arrogant or spouting off about stuff they know nothing about.

Just be open and ask politely and you'll soon be comparing muzzle velocities with the best of them .

[WendellM]

Fionn,

I'm not being sarcastic, but please let me know of any game that accomplishes more than TOAW does at its scale. Really - I'll look into it.

In the case that TOAW *does* have some problems, what is a better solution for operational-level combat? I'm serious, I'd really like to know.

Your example states:

"ANY game which tells me that I'd be better off using a 5cm PaK vs an IS2 than a 7.5cm PaK has some SERIOUS issues."

I'm not sure what you mean (really). In TOAW:COW, a German (1941) 50mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (kinetic) and an anti-personnel value of 5. The 75mm German (1942) 75 mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (HEAT) and an anti-personnel value of 8. I think I see what you're getting at, since the IS-II had anti-HEAT armor. It looks to me like the Germans designed their 75mm to fire HEAT rounds, which the IS-II was specifically designed against. Thus, the "old-fashioned, dumb" kinetic 50mm rounds might have been more efficient against it. That's a possible impression from the game - what was the real-world performance of the 50mm kinetic vs the 75mm HEAT? (I'm not up on this issue.) In the event that you have proof that the 75mm should be better than the 50mm vs. the IS-II, have you passed it along to TOAW's designer, Norm Koger? (That could help all involved.)

Seriously, I know that asking questions is sometimes a way of indirectly "flaming," but this isn't the case. I respect your opinion. I believe I first encountered you regarding your work on Fighting Steel, a game I still like. While your (IMHO, somewhat biased) comments on CM have lessened my impression a bit, I still have great respect for your judgements (the reason I even mentioned you in my recommendation of TOAW).

Thanks,

Wendell

P.S. "Then we get into the screwed up supply issues, bugs which made aerial and naval forces pretty impotent when it was first released etc etc."

You know that these have been fixed for a while right? Just like CM has been fixing its initial problems, right? (OK, this comment is a little miffed - but complaining about initial-release bugs seems petty to me.)

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

[John Erickson]

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

Fionn,

<sniparoony>

I'm not sure what you mean (really). In TOAW:COW, a German (1941) 50mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (kinetic) and an anti-personnel value of 5. The 75mm German (1942) 75 mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (HEAT) and an anti-personnel value of 8.

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Woah Wendell,

The PaK 97/38 has a 24 (Heat). That's an adapted French gun. The 7.5cm PaK Fionn is talking about (I think) would be the PaK 40 which would fall under the 75mm Anti-tank gun category which is 44 (kinetic). Norm took a big beating over the 50mm v. 75mm AT ratings the first time through. He corrected that in CoW.

John

[WendellM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 7.5cm PaK Fionn is talking about (I think) would be the PaK 40 which would fall under the 75mm Anti-tank gun category which is 44 (kinetic). Norm took a big beating over the 50mm v. 75mm AT ratings the first time through. He corrected that in CoW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, John. I was looking through the CoW data in the "Century of Warfare Equipment List" file. Sorry if I picked the wrong gun (it's not my specialty). If you know more about the issue Fionn has brought up, please fill us in (especially if we/Fionn are talking about errors already fixed). To me, the current implementation of TOAW seems pretty good, but I'm not certain enough to defend it "to the last man" - just enough to say it's the best I know of.

Wendell

[Leclerc]

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

Thanks, John. I was looking through the CoW data in the "Century of Warfare Equipment List" file. Sorry if I picked the wrong gun (it's not my specialty). If you know more about the issue Fionn has brought up, please fill us in (especially if we/Fionn are talking about errors already fixed). To me, the current implementation of TOAW seems pretty good, but I'm not certain enough to defend it "to the last man" - just enough to say it's the best I know of.

Wendell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just my two cents...

I've long believed TOAW was a good operational wargame. The game has yet IMHO many good ideas, but it falls very short about modelling operational war. It's a game where you can't have any control about supply distribution (even in ACOW supply units are a mere shadow of that) or formation composition ( with units attached for the entire scenario to one formation so even if ne unit goes to the other side of the map it will be affected by formation reorganization). The 2 basics of operational simulation are lacking. And we may look too to the intelligence model where you can't have any idea of the enemy units compsition before combat( and not before attacking them when playing PBEM)

TOAW is not only simply a tactical game pushed on large scale and whatever the improvments, the tactical model will be flawed because of the unavoidable abstraction ( all units are for example supposed to fight at 1000 meters) and the errors in the databases. And these errors are too unavoidable: it's after all the work on all military material of our century by one unique man , who is more sensible to some physical data (rate of fire...) than soft factors like national doctrines. Look by example to artillery, currently totally useless against tanks or sharing the same indirect fire abilities between all nations or periods.

Last, I don't think the TOAW unit composition gives a significant increase in realism over the old abstract attack and defense factors. Players are overwhelemd with figures which look accurate and complex but frankly, why a unit with 85% of supply should defend better than one with 75 ? More you look more you see under the spreadsheet the lack of understanding of the basics of campign operations.

[This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-28-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Leclerc (edited 07-28-2000).]

[WendellM]

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

TOAW is not only simply a tactical game pushed on large scale and whatever the improvments, the tactical model will be flawed because of the unavoidable abstraction ( all units are for example supposed to fight at 1000 meters)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. I've seen several complaints against TOAW, both here and elsewhere. Could you please suggest a better program for operational/strategic combat? Again, I'm not being sarcastic, but genuine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Last, I don't think the TOAW unit composition gives a significant increase in realism over the old abstract attack and defense factors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, here's where I'm inclined to agree with you. I liked the old game, Empire II, which allowed for the direct application of attack/defense/movement factors you're describing. I've never been too keen on TOAW's use of "real" squads/units (mostly 'cause it's such a pain to look them all up - I'd like a "shortcut" to be able to just assign values). Still, I see what Norm Koger was going for, and it's a worthy (though IMHO a bit lofty) goal.

ANYWAY, the whole reason I brought up TOAW was because Airborne was talking/wondering about a "better" operational/strategic system (presumably one that matched CM's improvements over traditional tactical games). I suggested TOAW, which Airborne was (re)acquainted with. That leaves the open questions: 1.) What is the best operational/strategic WW II system available today (especially if TOAW is ruled out, as seems the current fashion)? 2.) How could this be made better (along the lines of the improvements CM made to tactical wargames)?

For me, Command Decision had a lot going for it conceptually... Heck, it was possible for Germany to win by not invading Poland (thus not causing WW II) and devoting her resources to improving her industrial base for an economic victory! Now, there's a creative grand strategic game... However, I feel that many players might feel cheated if their opponent did this, so let's hear your answers!

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

[Fionn]

My problem with TOAW is not a problem with certain "obscure" bugs which have since been fixed.

My problem is due to the fact that Norm has misunderstood the physical phenomenon of material stress and applied it to large calibre rounds in such a way that shows a deep misunderstanding of how material stress is applicable to weapons of war.

Basically Norm feels that TEN penetrations of 10mm of armour are the same as 1 penetration of 100mm of armour. |THIS lies at the basis of ALL AT ratings in the game. This assumption is plainly false and is ONLY somewhat defensible when talking about HMGs and ATR which could place multiple rounds into the same point of the enemy armour and could, if each individual round penetrated 70 to 90% of the armour, by cumulative effect, weaken the armour sufficiently that the 5th or 6th round hitting the same spot could punch through the weakened armour at that point.

That's simplified of course but there's no need to get into major physics here and now.

Basically ( and I quote from the manual here) Norm's incorrect methodology leads to the 5cm PaK (produced by germany) to have an AT rating of 38. the 7.5cm Pak ( an L/48 gun) has an AT rating of 34.

Thus, by Norm's calculations a German AT unit with 12 75mm AT guns was WORSE OFF than a German AT unit with 12 5cm guns. This flies in the face of everything we know about the performance of these guns in real life and points to a real, basic, consistent and common flaw in Norm's AT ratings which grossly affects the outcome of battles involving vehicles.

Another way to point this out is to show that according to Norm a 2cm FlaK gun is 60% BETTER vs armour than a 3.7cm FlaK gun ( again German).. How???? The 3.7cm FlaK gun has far greater penetration. The 2cm FlaK has better ROF BUT since it can only aim at one target at a time ( the same as the 2.7cm FlaK) it can ONLY apply its firepower to one target at a time.

I've shown that the 2cm FlaK is LESS likely to kill its target since its penetration is less per round BUT according to Norm this gun which is less likely to penetrate and kill a target than the 3.7cm FlaK is 60% BETTER than the FlaK 3.7cm... Why?

Answer: Again it is due to a basic misunderstanding of material stress as far as I am concerned.

Did you know that Norm thinks the quad 0.5cal mount is as good an anti-tank weapon as a 3.7cm FlaK gun? Again this is simply not so BUT since he takes ROF into account and doesn't discriminate at all due to number of targets which can be engaged at any one time OR average penetrational distance he ends up with the wrong result.

So, basically, I don't have any axe to grind against TOAW I. I merely think its modelling of armour and the anti-armour battle is terribly flawed.

Wendell in his email intimated I was singling out TOAW cause I felt it was some threat to CM.. Sorry Wendell but I've been on the record publicly pointing this very flaw out since before I'd even heard of CM.

Secondly, it IS possible to say another game is flawed without dragging CM into it.

Thirdly, I don't see CM and TOAW as being in any way in competition and

fourthly, I would never attack a game simply to buoy up another game. I attack specific games because of issues in THAT game and not for any other reason.

Oh and the final straw with TOAW was when 1 Tiger and 9 or so infantry squads held off 3 Allied divisions on a mountain crossroads in the middle of Italy (campaign that shipped with the game) for TWO MONTHS. I suffered ZERO tank losses and accounted for over 300 Allied tanks, several score fighters ( I had ZERO AAA capability anywhere nearby) and several thousand Allied troops. I estimate I killed about 50% of each Allied division facing me for the loss of no more than 20 or 30 squads over the course of the two months.

A game which can return that kind of result is pretty f'ed up.

[WendellM]

Apologies, Fionn. It seems you have more justifiable (and serious-sounding) issues with TOAW than I was aware of. So, what's a better alternative?

Thanks,

Wendell

P.S. (the reason for the edit):

"Wendell in his email intimated I was singling out TOAW cause I felt it was some threat to CM."

Err, the whole reason I went to email for that was to keep it private, because I was unsure. If I'd wanted to make a public issue of it, I would have. Also: 1. You've misrepresented my concern, and 2. going public with someone else's private email is just bad etiquette, period.

But since it's been brought up, what I wrote was:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sorry if it seems we're on opposite sides of TOAW. For me, I don't see it as an "anti-CM" product, but rather as "+CM". Anyway, I'm writing to let you know that I really do appreciate all the work you've done for the wargaming community. [...] I have some questions about the issues you've raised with TOAW. If you'd prefer to address them in a provate [sic] email (which will *remain* private), please feel free. To be honest, what bothers me is that I see two games I consider great (CM and TOAW) and one reviewer/ueber-player (you), but there's a conflict between one and the other. I'd really like to know why.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please note that I'm only quoting my email, and not Fionn's replies (which remain private).

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]

[Leclerc]

Originally posted by WendellM:

I've never been too keen on TOAW's use of "real" squads/units (mostly 'cause it's such a pain to look them all up - I'd like a "shortcut" to be able to just assign values). Still, I see what Norm Koger was going for, and it's a worthy (though IMHO a bit lofty) goal.

I think the goal is overambitious and unecessary. It would be like putting operational or strategic features in CM. Attempting to build an operational wargame with semi-detailed tactical combat is unworthy because it's simply beyond possible. TOAW is a clumsy operational wargame with a clumsy tactical module. And as CM puts players to think tactical, an operational wargame must be focused to operational thinking. I highly suspect 95% of TOAW players plays like you without really study the details of unit composition. Players are right: when you play at this scale, the fact you have PIIIF or G has no importance.

That leaves the open questions: 1.) What is the best operational/strategic WW II system available today (especially if TOAW is ruled out, as seems the current fashion)? 2.) How could this be made better (along the lines of the improvements CM made to tactical wargames)?

1) TOAW remains the best for 2 reasons: an unmatched flexibility ( event editor, scales,etc) and the mediocrity of the concurrence(Tiller's Panzer Campaigns are just East Front with one kilometer hex, another example of confusion between tactical and operational scales, SSG The Ardennes Offensive is good if not innovative but without editor). But Atomic's VfV and WaW serie were far more better. They had problems and no editor though.

2) simply by putting in the right place the 2 keys of operational scale: command and control, supply, not even by highly detailed systems. 3D maybe (not very useful in this case but nicer to see). Continuous time for sure ( but only when PBEM will not be anymore the prefered human against human way). I'm not sure simultaeous execution would be realistic ( imagine turn of one day scale: you would give order at 6AM and the rest of the day, you couldn't give new orders and your uniy would remain under the control of your weak AI?)

For me, Command Decision had a lot going for it conceptually... Heck, it was possible for Germany to win by not invading Poland (thus not causing WW II) and devoting her resources to improving her industrial base for an economic victory! Now, there's a creative grand strategic game... However, I feel that many players might feel cheated if their opponent did this, so let's hear your answers!

It was a fine game. I think its first problem( and for TOAW too) lies in the Big companies constraints ( design compromises for raise sell, development time limited,etc). One of the small companies should be able to create a good operational system in the future.

[Leclerc]

Originally posted by WendellM:

Apologies, Fionn. It seems you have more justifiable (and serious-sounding) issues with TOAW than I was aware of. So, what's a better alternative?

Thanks,

Wendell

No need to apologize. There are yet some algorythms problems in TOAW but problem described by Fionn have disappeared with the release of TOAW2 in may 1999, a now rather long time. The new formulas as described in the TOAW2 manual and WOTY and ACOW show problem is fixed. Time is changing...