"Typical" 1944 battle not posible in CMBB?

[kipanderson]

“Typical” 1944 battle not possible in CMBB?

Hi,

In case the title to this post sounds too negative, let me start by saying that I am one of those that would have been more than happy with a straight Eastern Front version of CMBO. No tweaks, just Soviet troops and equipment replacing British and American. However, given that CMBB is to be a heavily tweaked version, I like everyone else, have my “priority tweaks”, my wish list. So what follows is just a straight lobbying exercise, like many that have gone before. With or without any of my wish list tweaks being included, I will be at the front of the queue for my copy of CMBB. I will always be in near shock that a team of the quality of BTS should have taken to producing what are my “dream war games”.

However, back to point of the post, lobbying.

I will start be giving just a brief outline of what I consider to have been the single most common type of battle on the Eastern Front in 44/45. I could have gone for a number of types of battle, but the one that follows was certainly amongst the most frequent, for reasons that will be obvious. When it comes to artillery I am not asking for massive preliminary bombardments. I am assuming the use of the current “four-tube” artillery engine. Just with one very minor tweak. Given the above, what follows is not a massive break-through battle. If it were, far more mines and bunkers would be required on the German side, and far more artillery on the Soviet. It is just a typical, Eastern Front, Soviet assault of 44/45. I have no narrative skills, so I will do no more than list the outline of the battle and leave the rest to your imaginations. There will be four features included in the outline battle that were not present in CMBO. I will end by go into a bit more detail, lobbying, with regard to each feature.

The outline of a typical 44/45 battle on the Eastern Front goes something like this.

Map.

2km by 2km. Terrain, undulating, but not flat. Mainly open ground but with a reasonable amount of woods and vegetation. The woods and vegetation, and what ever buildings there are, tend to be in the lower lying regions. The surface of the terrain is cut by dry bottomed gullies. In about 50% of cases the sides of these gullies are too steep to allow the passage of AFVs.

Forces.

The Germans defend with three reduced companies. Two of the companies are in “company positions” on the reverse slope of their respective undulation or low-lying hill. One company occupies the only settlement on the map. Most of the units of that company are inside buildings, on the ground floor of which there are foxholes/trenches, that is within the buildings. The Germans have 50 tiles of anti-tank mines and 50 tiles of anti-personnel mines available. The German artillery support is one spotter of 81mm mortars with 150 rounds and one spotter of 105mm artillery with 80 rounds. The Germans also have a small number of anti-tank guns and assault-guns in support.

The Soviets have 20 AFVs and a battalion of infantry/motor rifle troops. The AFVs are, 4 PT34 mine-rollers, 12 T34s and 4 Joseph Stalin tanks or assault guns. They AFVs advance in the order given above. For artillery support the Soviets have one 82mm mortar spotter and one 76.2mm gun spotter, each with 150 rounds. They do their spotting, from positions over looking a sector of the battle-field, by field-phone. However, there is more. The Soviets also have three 122mm howitzer spotters with 100 rounds each, of a new type. These spotters cannot be used “during” the battles but only during the set-up phase. The location, timing (turn) and number of rounds fired must be pre-selected within the set-up phase. What you are doing is constructing a small scale Fireplan. Exactly as the Soviets often did.

Game length. Operation of 3 battles each 60 minutes long.

Its not meant to be a “fair” fight. The aim of the Germans would be to inflict as many causalities as possible while retreating as a coherent fighting force. The aim of the Soviets would be to clear a route through with as few casualties as possible. This is not the sort of battle that would appeal to all. However, it is typical, hundreds of similar, but of course slightly different battles, will have occurred. There are four features that need to be included in CMBB, which were not in CMBO.

Mine rollers.

In Soviet accounts of the second half of the war you will find comments such as “engineering tanks were used in the assault”. What they are referring to is mine rollers. What I consider to be the number one source on Soviet tactics in the second half of the war, other than Soviet Combat Regulations, is The Hand Book on USSR Military Forces, TM 30-430, November 1945. It was put together using the material supplied by General Reinhard Gehlen and his staff. All of who, together with their archives, fell into American hands during the collapse at the end of the war. The long section on tactics makes clear, on a number of pages, that the use of mine rollers was every bit part of the Soviet SOP. I have also come across numerous pictures of them, not surprisingly. It would be a shame to leave them out. If the were included I am sure they would become a popular feature, they would be a lot of fun.

Foxholes within buildings.

If troops decided to defend from within buildings it was routine, on all fronts, to have the floorboards up, if there were any, and dig foxholes and trenches. Loopholes would then be made in the walls. This is not the same as fortifying a building, that required more. This was just part of the normal routine. Again it would be great to see it in CMBB. “If” it does happen I would not go too overboard with the additional cover it gives above whichever is the higher, the foxhole or the building. It would just make town/city fighting that little bit more realistic. In my view, however little that may be worth.

Soviet Fireplans.

I am not asking for anything that uses a new artillery engine. I am assuming the use of the existing “four tube” engine, and similar quantities of artillery to those already used by many in CMBO. However, it would greatly add to the realism if the Soviets had a type of spotter that could only be used to direct fire by pre-setting the location, timing (turn) and duration of artillery attacks. This would mean the use of a type of artillery that cannot “spot” during a game. All has to be pre-planned during the set-up.

Maximum length of battles within operations.

It has long been my wish to be able to have battles, within operation, of more than 30 turns, the current limit. In my view, others will disagree; operations are potentially the most realistic form of engagement. My reading of history is that, on all fronts, most “battles”, say for a village, were made up of 2 or more assaults. Each assault being a separate “battle” in CM operations. However, these separate assaults will normally have lasted for longer than 30 minutes. I understand the point about the AI tending to fight to the last man in battles over 30 turns in length. Generous reinforcements in each new battle, for the AI controlled side, can help to overcome this problem. It would be nice to see the maximum battle length in operations increased beyond 30 turns for those of us that would like longer battles.

That’s my wish list.

One item that would have been at the top of my list is to include, what in the UK we call, skirmishing. In the States to call it assault, and it is already scheduled to be in CMBB. The way, for the Soviets, human wave changes to assault with more experienced troops is very cunning. In retrospect it seems obvious, but I did not think of it quite like that. Only goes to show what I already new, if the team at BTS put their mind to dealing with a particular feature they come up with something stunning. My hope is they will be interested in some of the features I listed above.

Probably not. But this life.

Greatly looking forward to CMBB, no matter what,

All the best,

Kip.

[Grisha]

Kip,

I also tend to favor longer games with more game turns, but my primary reason for that is because in most games enemy defenses are almost completely unknown. Thus, I want the time to do reconnaissance, even though such a task is unrealistic at this stage in planning a battle. But, what is equally unrealistic is not having any idea of what to expect in an assault-type battle where the intent is to take an enemy position from set frontline positions. For the Germans, and Soviets from 1943, tactical knowledge of enemy trenches/positions, mg bunkers, pillboxes, minefields, and artillery/AT-gun positions were generally known with up to 80% accuracy, generally speaking, when conducting a set-piece assault of this nature.

My only solution to this will work in the single scenario setup alone, and that is when making the scenario in the editor, one make the defensive setup orange(unmovable) for 70-80% of the force, then enter landmarks that label those orange defensive positions.

[kipanderson]

Grisha,

Yes, we are in agreement.

I too like longer battles because one can then go through the “entire spectrum” of combat operations. Not just the “action bits”.

In fact if I remember correctly you and I often do agree, but of course, not always. I think it fun that people on this forum do disagree.

Of course, I always hope Steve and Charles will come down on my side, but they often do not.

All the best,

Kip.

I agree with your specific point about reconnaissance too. One reason is that “fighting reconnaissance” preceded major assaults.

[PzKpfw 1]

I think CM2 will be able to handle an QB representing an typical Soviet Mid - late 44 attack.

An typical Rifle Co's strengh was only around 100 men with a Bn frontage of only 300 - 700m with 2 - 3 tanks or SU's in DF supt, & 1 - 2 arty pieces in DF supt role, basicly in 1945 the Germans on a 100m frontage would face 100 Rifleman, 2 - 3 tanks & 4 Arty pieces in a DF role. this aspect should be manageable

Regards, John Waters

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[olandt]

2 quick things.

First Steve recently stated that all forces will be able to use artillery on turn 1 with no delay. Combine that with long delays for Soviet artillery otherwise and you have your prep bombardment.

I believe BTS will also be lengthening the number of turns you can play in an operation.

As for the mine rollers, I seem to remember a thread not too long ago which debated their presence. I'm no grog so ... Besides, BTS would have to add more code for that and who knows whether it's an easy hack or not. I would definately hope to see it after the engine rewrite.

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

Yes, the QBs should be good, and realistic. Clearly my hope is that one or two, of the four features I mentioned above, “might” make it for selection. But I am not too optimistic. Will be fun either way.

Olandt, hi,

Thanks for the up-date on how things stand on some of the artillery features to be included. When it comes to the mine roller I agree that it would clearly take a bit of work. The other three features in my wish list should take very little work. Question is, do Steve and his chums feels they are realistic and worth the effort? I would be very surprised if they all made it through the selection process. But one or two “may”. They will have thought of most , if not all of them, before. Most likely a long time ago.

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yes, the more I think about it the more I feel that the idea of mini Fireplans would be a very accurate way of modelling Soviet artillery. Of course, they did have “spotters” operating the same way other nations had, but less often.

The ability to pre-set the location, timing and duration of artillery strikes during the set-up phase would, in my view, accurately model how the Soviets often used artillery.

Having preliminary bombardments modelled by allowing artillery to open up from turn one is also a very simple and elegant way of giving the artillery model more realism. Next step, Fireplans.

“A small step for Charles, a big step for the realism of the Soviet artillery model.”

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Realistically it must be too late to lobby for features in CMBB. However, human nature as it is, I cannot resist an attempt to get minerollers and Fireplans included.

I can only say again that minerollers were a common features of Soviet assault operations during the last year of the war.

When it comes to Fireplans their inclusion in the Eastern Front version of CM would move the game up one click in terms of the realism of the modelling. Many do play with 2km by 2km maps, quite big enough to justify Fireplans.

Greatly looking forward to CMBB,

All the best,

Kip.

[GAZ NZ]

The mine roller mod would be pissless to do.

Its should be in there especially for games where u can have troops advancing up through the mines behind the tanks swirling chains lol. FUN FUN

I guess it all depends on wether or not they feel mines will be used enough.

I mean how mnay of you out there actually use mines?.

And with wave assaults by men and tanks im sure they will be used more in CM2 if they arnt all ready.

And yea ya discription of the average force composition is quite well done however CM can only be so realistic with its graphics and design limitations.

I agree with many of ya points..

Personally i wish this game was real time

where u had 2 hours of game time day and 30 minutes night lol

U could recon all u want then lol and with real time flowing it would make time a crucial factor and one could even add supply into the game.

Nuts

[Lt Bull]

I really like the idea of having fireplans for the heavy arty as you have described. During setup, the attacking player, having been given some "fireplan" artillery assets during the force selection phase, could place TRP-like markers on the map and choose a particular time (turn) for the barrage to commence. Perhaps a random factor could be included that could affect the accuracy and timing of the barrage.

Probably too late to include it but a good, seemingly easy to implement idea nevertheless.

Lt Bull

[MrSpkr]

As to the minerollers, I agree they would be nice to have, but probably won't happen on this game engine. Hoepfully, the clamor will cause BTS to incorporate it into the engine redesign.

As to using mines, sure, I use them in defensive battles. If you don't have something to slow the bad guys down, you will get overrun by superior numbers.

Perhaps a modified exit scenario would recreate what the author is lobbying for. Allow the Germans points for exiting THEIR OWN SIDE of the board. THEN, set up enough flags on the German side of the lines to offset and even slightly overshadow the German exit points (i.e., if the Germans can get 1200 points for exiting, then set out 4 major flags and two minor flags (1400 points in flags). The point totals should be such that if the Germans exit most or all of their force on the first turn, they will give the Soviets a minor or tactical victory.

This will force the Germans to stay and try to inflict casualties on the Soviets while still forcing the Germans to decide the proper time to Bug Out. As the German's take casualties, the need to exit becomes greater, but so does the corresponding need to kill enemy troops.

Thoughts?

[Scott B]

Out of curiousity, why did you pick a set-piece breakthrough as your choice for a "typical" 1944 battle? This is, in my opinion, probably the least playable scenario set up for most Combat Mission battles, because in nearly every circumstance these battles were decided far in advance of them being conducted at the battalion level.

Instead, you could fight the "recon in force" battles at company and battalion level prior to the conduct of the main engagement. There's also the meeting engagement, which is a more common feature in the East because it occurred when a Soviet mobile group or forward detachment collided with advancing German reserves. And so on-- many other examples that of course you're already aware of.

The breakthrough is only the tip of the iceberg, after all, and probably the least balanced and fluid part of the battle. I do think that Soviet fire plans and mineroller tanks would be an important feature because they play a major role in most major Red Army offensives during the third period of the war, but there are a wealth of other possible battles going on throughout the course of an operation where these are of reduced importance.

HOWEVER!

An important point was brought up here that I think could be addressed. You wrote about maximum length of battles in operations, and I think you have a very valid point here. This may already be included-- they're already allowing larger maps, if I remember correctly, and longer battles within operations might be warranted as a result.

Grisha brought up an important point too (and I know this was two months ago), where pre-battle reconnaissance is not really possible in the current system of CM, which is something that would have had an enormous effect on pre-game placement of troops for an attack, for example. If it were possible, perhaps, to allow "landmarks" that were only visible to one side or the other to denote pre-battle intelligence on suspected enemy positions, that would be an important improvement toward making these battles playable against other players.

It's probably been mentioned before, but even the ability to create landmarks in mid game (setting up objectives; essentially your own map overlay in-game) by one player for his/her own use would also be useful.

Just throwing some thoughts out, belatedly, on an interesting post that I should have contributed to back when you wrote it.

Scott

[Agua Perdido]

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

Allow the Germans points for exiting THEIR OWN SIDE of the board. THEN, set up enough flags on the German side of the lines to offset and even slightly overshadow the German exit points (i.e., if the Germans can get 1200 points for exiting, then set out 4 major flags and two minor flags (1400 points in flags). The point totals should be such that if the Germans exit most or all of their force on the first turn, they will give the Soviets a minor or tactical victory.

Thoughts?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is quite clever. I'm surprised no one has made a scenario like this yet. (Okay, perhaps someone has.)

Agua Perdido

[Holien]

For the exiting idea to work the German Player would have to be told in the briefing what the scoring was.

The problem with exiting is that you do not know what you get fro exiting and what you get for flags and damage done to the enemy.

This makes it a tough job for the German player to decide on when to bug out.

It certainly is a great Idea and I am surprised if it has not been done. But then again people think in certain ways and I guess you would never have thought to create a scenario like this?

I have never designed a scenario so it would be intresting to hear Wild Bill's views.

I will cut and paste the idea and send him a copy.

As for the main points of the thread I agree with the Tank Rollers. The arty can be done via the existing set up, I am not sure it is worth the coding time to do it via pre-planned targets??

Regards

H