Troops density

[Skipper]

Medium CM map covers about 2x2 km. In large battles, where troops density reached a division for every 5 km (division for 2.4 km in Kursk), whole regiments would be engaged in firefights on such a front.

In CM, commanding such a force would be a major pain in the stern. Making smaller maps, OTOH, is not a good idea either, for obviou reasons. Conclusion: really hot actions cannot be fairly represented by CM.

Comments?

PS Still one heck of a wargame!

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Skipper]

Medium CM map covers about 2x2 km. In large battles, where troops density reached a division for every 5 km (division for 2.4 km in Kursk), whole regiments would be engaged in firefights on such a front.

In CM, commanding such a force would be a major pain in the stern. Making smaller maps, OTOH, is not a good idea either, for obviou reasons. Conclusion: really hot actions cannot be fairly represented by CM.

Comments?

PS Still one heck of a wargame!

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Olle Petersson]

I think you miss by at least one dimension.

Of this division I'd guess about one regement worth of troops (at most) were within a mile of the enemy, and thus represented on the map. The rest were behind as reserves or deep defence, not to mention the supply train.

With the scenario editor you can make a map with 1200m frontline and 2000m depth on each side...

... but then there's no possibility to have little more than two infantry battalions headcount per side anyway.

Still it would be hellish to keep track of all units, even with as little as one tank regiment supported by an armoured infantry battalion and a field artillery regiment per side.

Cheers

Olle

[Olle Petersson]

I think you miss by at least one dimension.

Of this division I'd guess about one regement worth of troops (at most) were within a mile of the enemy, and thus represented on the map. The rest were behind as reserves or deep defence, not to mention the supply train.

With the scenario editor you can make a map with 1200m frontline and 2000m depth on each side...

... but then there's no possibility to have little more than two infantry battalions headcount per side anyway.

Still it would be hellish to keep track of all units, even with as little as one tank regiment supported by an armoured infantry battalion and a field artillery regiment per side.

Cheers

Olle

[Jarmo]

CM is a squad level game.

You'd need a platoon- or company-level game for the big goings.

[Jarmo]

CM is a squad level game.

You'd need a platoon- or company-level game for the big goings.

[Skipper]

> I think you miss by at least one dimension.

Maybe. At best by one dimension, too. So make it simply one dimension This is what I am curious about - is it true that in the thick of it there would be considerably more than a reinforced batallion engaged in the same 2x2 km areasimultaneously? Looks like it must be the case on the attacking side (?)

> CM is a squad level game.

Exactly! Regiment-sized formations are too much mouse-clicking. Which draws me to a tentative conclusion that certain major firefights (penetrtions of prepared defences) cannot be portrayed with this engine with all the people that were historically present.

Thus, the West Wall scenario in the game (involving just a company and a tank platoon) must be then a far cry from what it was really like (?)

[Skipper]

> I think you miss by at least one dimension.

Maybe. At best by one dimension, too. So make it simply one dimension This is what I am curious about - is it true that in the thick of it there would be considerably more than a reinforced batallion engaged in the same 2x2 km areasimultaneously? Looks like it must be the case on the attacking side (?)

> CM is a squad level game.

Exactly! Regiment-sized formations are too much mouse-clicking. Which draws me to a tentative conclusion that certain major firefights (penetrtions of prepared defences) cannot be portrayed with this engine with all the people that were historically present.

Thus, the West Wall scenario in the game (involving just a company and a tank platoon) must be then a far cry from what it was really like (?)

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Skipper:

[bWhich draws me to a tentative conclusion that certain major firefights (penetrtions of prepared defences) cannot be portrayed with this engine with all the people that were historically present.

I am not sure who did (might have been John Keegan in 'Six Armies in Normandy'), but somebody did the calculation, and came up with the sharp end at the beginning of the EPSOM battle in Normandy consisting of about 700-800 UK soldiers. They were of course followed by two whole divisions, but they were the first to walk into the enemy lines on a reasonably narrow frontage. If you have one Brigade up, that Brigade would field two Batallions as frontage, each fielding two companies, each fielding two platoons. So for a divisional attack with one Brigade up, you would expect to see eight platoons as immediate front-line, with a further four as quick reinforcement, and two more companies about half-way through the battle.

In the 30 minutes of a CM firefight, there is little possibility to get a lot more than that up-front. Battlefield congestion, comms problems, conflicting demands all mitigate against that.

While CM was not designed to simulate this, I think that it is manageable, and if you split it in half, you can perfectly simulate an action in a scenario that even ordinary machines can handle.

IMO the constraint is not the size of the battlefield or the numbers of units, but the length of the battles, if you look to replay a large action like that.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Skipper:

[bWhich draws me to a tentative conclusion that certain major firefights (penetrtions of prepared defences) cannot be portrayed with this engine with all the people that were historically present.

I am not sure who did (might have been John Keegan in 'Six Armies in Normandy'), but somebody did the calculation, and came up with the sharp end at the beginning of the EPSOM battle in Normandy consisting of about 700-800 UK soldiers. They were of course followed by two whole divisions, but they were the first to walk into the enemy lines on a reasonably narrow frontage. If you have one Brigade up, that Brigade would field two Batallions as frontage, each fielding two companies, each fielding two platoons. So for a divisional attack with one Brigade up, you would expect to see eight platoons as immediate front-line, with a further four as quick reinforcement, and two more companies about half-way through the battle.

In the 30 minutes of a CM firefight, there is little possibility to get a lot more than that up-front. Battlefield congestion, comms problems, conflicting demands all mitigate against that.

While CM was not designed to simulate this, I think that it is manageable, and if you split it in half, you can perfectly simulate an action in a scenario that even ordinary machines can handle.

IMO the constraint is not the size of the battlefield or the numbers of units, but the length of the battles, if you look to replay a large action like that.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Excellent question. The answer is that CM can only represent relatively narrow sectors of front in hot actions, while staying within a managable scale.

The average unit density on the western front varied with the portion of the campaign and part of the front, but the average figure for the Allies was around 2 miles (3-4 kilometers) per regimental combat team (RCT). In Normandy, there were 26 Allied divisions on a front of ~150 kilometers, or 6 km/division. At the westwall, it was 60 Allied divisions on a front of ~500 km, or 8km/division. This is not a ratio for "especially dense" fighting, but for normal fighting when there is a front line.

The deployments could be deep, with e.g. only 4 battalions fighting in the front line for a single division, as each RCT could keep a battalion in reserve, while the division could keep a whole RCT in reserve as well. But 1 kilometer per battalion is a reasonable frontage, with 4-6 "up" and the division frontage varying with the number in the line. In a "2x2 click" fight, as you asked about, you would expect to see RCTs, not just a company team.

How should this be handled in CM? If you want to show realistic attacks, use narrow frontages of ~480-640 yards and reinforced companies as the attacking units, with fights on the usual ~20-30 minute time-table. Or for big fights, use fuller sized maps of 1000-1500 yards size, but reinforced battalion scale forces (about the largest CM can realistically handle), and longer, more like ~45-60 minute lengths.

Much longer fights are not realistic, because the deep deployments are meant precisely to provide an ability to react to occurances along this or that length of front. Much thinner force to space ratios are OK for fluid, post-breakthrough situations, meeting engagements between real fronts (when long columns are only colliding with their forward elements e.g.), or rear area operations (paratroop drops, raids, etc).

A larger fight, on the 3-kilometer scale, would indeed involve forces of regimental size. But they aren't manageable with CM, in my experience. The larger maps can be harder to use anyway, and when the forces on them are realistically large, it just becomes "monster" and unmanagable. Actions between regiments deserve a game system with platoon sized units and company sized command elements, and a larger map scale (like old AH Panzerblitz, rather than ASL). Larger maps with just battalion sized forces on them may be sensible for post-breakthrough and rear-area situations, but not to represent front-line fighting.

Does CM give a perfect picture of front-line fights with the narrower "sector map" approach? No. Flanking fire is not present in the same strength it often would be, and the longest ranged direct fire weapons are not "in their element", especially in more open terrain. But in tighter terrain it is reasonably close. Especially if you allow for limitations on conclusions, like "OK that worked, but half the time a failure on a flank would limit the impact of this success to a purely local level."

To give an idea of historical depth, here is the situation on the U.S. V corps front in mid June 1944, early in the Normandy battle. On the U.S. left, 1st infantry division has 3 tank battalions attached to it, 1 per regimental combat team. Two of those are in the line, each with a frontage of 3000 yards. Behind them is the third in divisional reserve. On the U.S. right, 2nd and 29th infantry are attacking toward St. Lo on a total front not much longer than 1st Infantry, but without the heavy tank support. They are attacking daily with up to 6 infantry battalions. Behind the whole corps in Corps level reserve is the 2nd Armored division.

On a total frontage of not much more than 10 miles, there are 30 infantry, 9 tank and 4 TD battalions, plus 4 of engineers and 4 of recon, supported by ~15 battalions of artillery. Actually attacking are 10-18 infantry battalions and 2-4 tank and TD battalions. So a battalion level attack would "go in" on a frontage of about 1000 yards, and a company level one only 400-500.

The tanks are deployed in much greater depth than the infantry, with fewer of them along the front. But front to rear there is a tank platoon for every 150 yards of front. The lower numbers of 1 platoon of tanks per 500-1000 yards familiar in CM, represents only the "front" ~1/3rd or so, typically of infantry support action rather than massed tank attack.

In something like "Operation Goodwood" (the British massed-tank attack from Caen), you'd see 50 tanks on a frontage of ~1500 yards. Not what CM was really meant to handle, by the way. A company on ~500 yards of front would show the force to space ratio correctly, but not the effects of defending ATGs with long ranges and wide fields of fire.

The fronts are a lot more "packed" than some might imagine, from experience limited to modern force-to-space ratios or tactical-games rather than operational ones. With the tight deployments, it is pretty obvious why artillery did so much of the damage, and why maneuver and breakthrough got rather hard. The armies of WW II were big. The battlefields were not "empty".

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Excellent question. The answer is that CM can only represent relatively narrow sectors of front in hot actions, while staying within a managable scale.

The average unit density on the western front varied with the portion of the campaign and part of the front, but the average figure for the Allies was around 2 miles (3-4 kilometers) per regimental combat team (RCT). In Normandy, there were 26 Allied divisions on a front of ~150 kilometers, or 6 km/division. At the westwall, it was 60 Allied divisions on a front of ~500 km, or 8km/division. This is not a ratio for "especially dense" fighting, but for normal fighting when there is a front line.

The deployments could be deep, with e.g. only 4 battalions fighting in the front line for a single division, as each RCT could keep a battalion in reserve, while the division could keep a whole RCT in reserve as well. But 1 kilometer per battalion is a reasonable frontage, with 4-6 "up" and the division frontage varying with the number in the line. In a "2x2 click" fight, as you asked about, you would expect to see RCTs, not just a company team.

How should this be handled in CM? If you want to show realistic attacks, use narrow frontages of ~480-640 yards and reinforced companies as the attacking units, with fights on the usual ~20-30 minute time-table. Or for big fights, use fuller sized maps of 1000-1500 yards size, but reinforced battalion scale forces (about the largest CM can realistically handle), and longer, more like ~45-60 minute lengths.

Much longer fights are not realistic, because the deep deployments are meant precisely to provide an ability to react to occurances along this or that length of front. Much thinner force to space ratios are OK for fluid, post-breakthrough situations, meeting engagements between real fronts (when long columns are only colliding with their forward elements e.g.), or rear area operations (paratroop drops, raids, etc).

A larger fight, on the 3-kilometer scale, would indeed involve forces of regimental size. But they aren't manageable with CM, in my experience. The larger maps can be harder to use anyway, and when the forces on them are realistically large, it just becomes "monster" and unmanagable. Actions between regiments deserve a game system with platoon sized units and company sized command elements, and a larger map scale (like old AH Panzerblitz, rather than ASL). Larger maps with just battalion sized forces on them may be sensible for post-breakthrough and rear-area situations, but not to represent front-line fighting.

Does CM give a perfect picture of front-line fights with the narrower "sector map" approach? No. Flanking fire is not present in the same strength it often would be, and the longest ranged direct fire weapons are not "in their element", especially in more open terrain. But in tighter terrain it is reasonably close. Especially if you allow for limitations on conclusions, like "OK that worked, but half the time a failure on a flank would limit the impact of this success to a purely local level."

To give an idea of historical depth, here is the situation on the U.S. V corps front in mid June 1944, early in the Normandy battle. On the U.S. left, 1st infantry division has 3 tank battalions attached to it, 1 per regimental combat team. Two of those are in the line, each with a frontage of 3000 yards. Behind them is the third in divisional reserve. On the U.S. right, 2nd and 29th infantry are attacking toward St. Lo on a total front not much longer than 1st Infantry, but without the heavy tank support. They are attacking daily with up to 6 infantry battalions. Behind the whole corps in Corps level reserve is the 2nd Armored division.

On a total frontage of not much more than 10 miles, there are 30 infantry, 9 tank and 4 TD battalions, plus 4 of engineers and 4 of recon, supported by ~15 battalions of artillery. Actually attacking are 10-18 infantry battalions and 2-4 tank and TD battalions. So a battalion level attack would "go in" on a frontage of about 1000 yards, and a company level one only 400-500.

The tanks are deployed in much greater depth than the infantry, with fewer of them along the front. But front to rear there is a tank platoon for every 150 yards of front. The lower numbers of 1 platoon of tanks per 500-1000 yards familiar in CM, represents only the "front" ~1/3rd or so, typically of infantry support action rather than massed tank attack.

In something like "Operation Goodwood" (the British massed-tank attack from Caen), you'd see 50 tanks on a frontage of ~1500 yards. Not what CM was really meant to handle, by the way. A company on ~500 yards of front would show the force to space ratio correctly, but not the effects of defending ATGs with long ranges and wide fields of fire.

The fronts are a lot more "packed" than some might imagine, from experience limited to modern force-to-space ratios or tactical-games rather than operational ones. With the tight deployments, it is pretty obvious why artillery did so much of the damage, and why maneuver and breakthrough got rather hard. The armies of WW II were big. The battlefields were not "empty".

[coralsaw]

Great post Jason, thanks for the info.

In regards to the fourth dimension, time, it would seem to me that even 45-60 mins for an attack would be too short in RL, as the time also includes movement to contact.

Any thoughts?

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[coralsaw]

Great post Jason, thanks for the info.

In regards to the fourth dimension, time, it would seem to me that even 45-60 mins for an attack would be too short in RL, as the time also includes movement to contact.

Any thoughts?

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[Skipper]

> The armies of WW II were big.

My whole point in one phrase. As they say, brevity is a sister of talent

I would also say that the assault phase of your typical frontline operation (breakthrough) would probably see tactical reserves (at least on company level, and probably battalion's reserves, too) already committed. After all, it wasn't the breaking battalion's job to exploit the holes - they were only supposed to take the first two or three trenchlines.

Besides, CM engine doesn't give proper credit to artillery. There is even no "heavily shelled forrest" type of terrain. In RL, any open terrain in front of enemy trenches would include a plenty of craters for cover. Oh, but there are no trenches - just foxholes.

In other words, CM makes very good job representing spearhead's forward element engagements against hastily prepared defences. It is not the right tool to model major strategic breakthroughs or any part of it, however.

[Skipper]

> The armies of WW II were big.

My whole point in one phrase. As they say, brevity is a sister of talent

I would also say that the assault phase of your typical frontline operation (breakthrough) would probably see tactical reserves (at least on company level, and probably battalion's reserves, too) already committed. After all, it wasn't the breaking battalion's job to exploit the holes - they were only supposed to take the first two or three trenchlines.

Besides, CM engine doesn't give proper credit to artillery. There is even no "heavily shelled forrest" type of terrain. In RL, any open terrain in front of enemy trenches would include a plenty of craters for cover. Oh, but there are no trenches - just foxholes.

In other words, CM makes very good job representing spearhead's forward element engagements against hastily prepared defences. It is not the right tool to model major strategic breakthroughs or any part of it, however.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Excelent post, Jason. Just a note to observe that it is not only tactical games that depict the packing issue incorrectly. I once figured that just counting the frontage of a hexagon in a Europa series boardgame, there should be about twice as many units permitted in a hex as the rules allow. If you count the depth of the hex, it should be about triple.

Coralsaw: good point about time. Even successful WW II offensives usually took at least 24 hours to break through a front line.

What I have always tried to do with CM, and what I think it is best set up to do, is to depict actions other than the breakthrough battles where two MLRs are engaged: preliminary reconnaisance, pursuit of retreating rear guards, meeting engagements behind the front, counter-attacks against penetrations, etc.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Excelent post, Jason. Just a note to observe that it is not only tactical games that depict the packing issue incorrectly. I once figured that just counting the frontage of a hexagon in a Europa series boardgame, there should be about twice as many units permitted in a hex as the rules allow. If you count the depth of the hex, it should be about triple.

Coralsaw: good point about time. Even successful WW II offensives usually took at least 24 hours to break through a front line.

What I have always tried to do with CM, and what I think it is best set up to do, is to depict actions other than the breakthrough battles where two MLRs are engaged: preliminary reconnaisance, pursuit of retreating rear guards, meeting engagements behind the front, counter-attacks against penetrations, etc.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Besides, CM engine doesn't give proper credit to artillery. There is even no "heavily shelled forrest" type of terrain. In RL, any open terrain in front of enemy trenches would include a plenty of craters for cover. Oh, but there are no trenches - just foxholes.

Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II, continuous trench lines were very much the exception. Troops were much more widely dispersed in mutually supporting squad-sized positions for the very purpose of protecting them from those deadly artillery concentrations.

In cases where there was much in the way of lengthy artillery preparation, a lot of it was devoted to counterbattery fire and destruction of suspected logistics dumps, headquarters, etc. Only right before H-hour would there be a brief, intense bombardment of the front line.

Both offense and defense had learned something from WW I. This is especially true on the Western Front. In the East, things were a little different, it's true. The Soviets tended to use huge quantities of prep fire on everything.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Besides, CM engine doesn't give proper credit to artillery. There is even no "heavily shelled forrest" type of terrain. In RL, any open terrain in front of enemy trenches would include a plenty of craters for cover. Oh, but there are no trenches - just foxholes.

Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II, continuous trench lines were very much the exception. Troops were much more widely dispersed in mutually supporting squad-sized positions for the very purpose of protecting them from those deadly artillery concentrations.

In cases where there was much in the way of lengthy artillery preparation, a lot of it was devoted to counterbattery fire and destruction of suspected logistics dumps, headquarters, etc. Only right before H-hour would there be a brief, intense bombardment of the front line.

Both offense and defense had learned something from WW I. This is especially true on the Western Front. In the East, things were a little different, it's true. The Soviets tended to use huge quantities of prep fire on everything.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

These are interesting questions. I'm working on a couple of historical battles/operations right now. The first dealing with Ortona - two Canadian battalions fought there for 8 days. The operation is up on my site - the town was not even 2 km square, yet the duked it out there for over a week.

Compare this to Buron - this was one Canadian battalion against elements of one German SS panzergrenadier battalion. The battle for all intents and purposes was over in an hour, though some positions held out until the next day. The area involved was about the same, though much less densely packed (a small village and lots of open terrain).

So with regards to unit density - it obviously depends on the terrain, etc., but I think CM does do a good job (or rather, the scenario designers) of making things historically accurate.

In action, battalions would be assigned objectives, they would assign their companies to take them (always with a reserve - usually in Canadian practice it was two up and two back, though in some cases all four rifle companies wound up being committed). Platoons would have their own individual objectives. On the face of it, the battlefield was pretty empty looking - as has been pointed out, a lot of the troops would be behind your front line - things like machinegun and mortar platoons, recce units, etc., but even companies within a rifle battalion would be stationed away from the front, and even those platoons in contact usually had a handful of men LOB (Left Out of Battle).

Keeping platoons together and focussed on their objectives is something I lose sight of when I play; perhaps others can comment on this. My platoons tend to get intermixed and I can't believe that is a sign of good play (my win/loss record ain't great). There is so much "invisible" going on (leadership, for one) that it takes a lot of experience to get these things down pat. I am especially bad at setting platoon objectives. What is the general consensus on how to do this? I am sure there have been a few treatises on this; perhaps someone can direct me to the best ones.

The point, though, is that the concentration of units is possible to recreate realistically in Combat Mission. I am toying with having seperate battles for my Buron scenario - dividing the map in half and letting the player command just two companies, and having the option of playing the whole battle. In other words, having three seperate scenarios available covering the same battle.

I've been finding company level games are the most fun; a lot of scenario designers (myself included) seem to feel the need to simulate the entire battalion on the attack, but I think its possible, and desirable to limit one's self to a simple company fighting for its objectives.

A more realistic way to do this is with random reinforcements during a single battle. In my Buron example, the Germans had several tanks in support. If you divide the battle in half, and only play one half of the battle (ie two companies attacking) it would be nice to allow a random chance of the tanks entering play, and in random numbers. If you played the full game, with a battalion advance on the town, the German tanks would operate on both "halves" of the board depending on the situation. A random entry of reinforcements would simulate that if you only played a game depicting "half" the battle. I don't know if I'm making myself clear here.

Would random reinforcements of this nature necessarily wreak havoc with game balance? Since the Canadians had their own tank support, and would have committed it where it was needed, perhaps random reinforcements on the German side could trigger likewise random reinforcements on the Canadian side - which would make for a real free for all.

Don't know if this has been discussed (probably) but thought I would throw it out.

Personally, I like to experience the unexpected, and play more for the experience than for analyzing things. Some people prefer to play the same scenarios over and over, which is fine - two different mindsets. At least CM gives us the choice. That's why I was so disappointed with CC's lack of random terrain or scenarios.

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

http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

These are interesting questions. I'm working on a couple of historical battles/operations right now. The first dealing with Ortona - two Canadian battalions fought there for 8 days. The operation is up on my site - the town was not even 2 km square, yet the duked it out there for over a week.

Compare this to Buron - this was one Canadian battalion against elements of one German SS panzergrenadier battalion. The battle for all intents and purposes was over in an hour, though some positions held out until the next day. The area involved was about the same, though much less densely packed (a small village and lots of open terrain).

So with regards to unit density - it obviously depends on the terrain, etc., but I think CM does do a good job (or rather, the scenario designers) of making things historically accurate.

In action, battalions would be assigned objectives, they would assign their companies to take them (always with a reserve - usually in Canadian practice it was two up and two back, though in some cases all four rifle companies wound up being committed). Platoons would have their own individual objectives. On the face of it, the battlefield was pretty empty looking - as has been pointed out, a lot of the troops would be behind your front line - things like machinegun and mortar platoons, recce units, etc., but even companies within a rifle battalion would be stationed away from the front, and even those platoons in contact usually had a handful of men LOB (Left Out of Battle).

Keeping platoons together and focussed on their objectives is something I lose sight of when I play; perhaps others can comment on this. My platoons tend to get intermixed and I can't believe that is a sign of good play (my win/loss record ain't great). There is so much "invisible" going on (leadership, for one) that it takes a lot of experience to get these things down pat. I am especially bad at setting platoon objectives. What is the general consensus on how to do this? I am sure there have been a few treatises on this; perhaps someone can direct me to the best ones.

The point, though, is that the concentration of units is possible to recreate realistically in Combat Mission. I am toying with having seperate battles for my Buron scenario - dividing the map in half and letting the player command just two companies, and having the option of playing the whole battle. In other words, having three seperate scenarios available covering the same battle.

I've been finding company level games are the most fun; a lot of scenario designers (myself included) seem to feel the need to simulate the entire battalion on the attack, but I think its possible, and desirable to limit one's self to a simple company fighting for its objectives.

A more realistic way to do this is with random reinforcements during a single battle. In my Buron example, the Germans had several tanks in support. If you divide the battle in half, and only play one half of the battle (ie two companies attacking) it would be nice to allow a random chance of the tanks entering play, and in random numbers. If you played the full game, with a battalion advance on the town, the German tanks would operate on both "halves" of the board depending on the situation. A random entry of reinforcements would simulate that if you only played a game depicting "half" the battle. I don't know if I'm making myself clear here.

Would random reinforcements of this nature necessarily wreak havoc with game balance? Since the Canadians had their own tank support, and would have committed it where it was needed, perhaps random reinforcements on the German side could trigger likewise random reinforcements on the Canadian side - which would make for a real free for all.

Don't know if this has been discussed (probably) but thought I would throw it out.

Personally, I like to experience the unexpected, and play more for the experience than for analyzing things. Some people prefer to play the same scenarios over and over, which is fine - two different mindsets. At least CM gives us the choice. That's why I was so disappointed with CC's lack of random terrain or scenarios.

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

http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

[Michael Dorosh]

Actually, with regards to platoon objectives, Jason's current "campaign" has been a great tutorial. It's good to start with the basics and then incorporate them into the whole. One of the newcomers posted elsewhere about where to start - I think Jason's campaign would make a great tutorial. It definitely got me thinking about fighting platoons as platoons, not just a mad rush of company after company onto an objective. CM is definitely a game that's easy to get into, but tough to master.

Jason, will you be putting your campaign and results onto a website somewhere?

[Michael Dorosh]

Actually, with regards to platoon objectives, Jason's current "campaign" has been a great tutorial. It's good to start with the basics and then incorporate them into the whole. One of the newcomers posted elsewhere about where to start - I think Jason's campaign would make a great tutorial. It definitely got me thinking about fighting platoons as platoons, not just a mad rush of company after company onto an objective. CM is definitely a game that's easy to get into, but tough to master.

Jason, will you be putting your campaign and results onto a website somewhere?

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Keeping platoons together and focussed on their objectives is something I lose sight of when I play; perhaps others can comment on this. My platoons tend to get intermixed and I can't believe that is a sign of good play (my win/loss record ain't great). There is so much "invisible" going on (leadership, for one) that it takes a lot of experience to get these things down pat. I am especially bad at setting platoon objectives. What is the general consensus on how to do this? I am sure there have been a few treatises on this; perhaps someone can direct me to the best ones.

I am making an increased effort these days to keep my platoons together, not only so the squads will be mutually supporting, but so that they get the full advantage of any leadership bonuses available. In fact, I am learning to select platoons and assigning them specific roles within my overall plan according to what kind of bonuses their leaders have.

I have never yet even split a squad. I do not mean to denigrate the tactic, I have been convinced by what I have read on this board that there are occasions when it is the thing to do. It's just never come up for me.

I've been finding company level games are the most fun; a lot of scenario designers (myself included) seem to feel the need to simulate the entire battalion on the attack, but I think its possible, and desirable to limit one's self to a simple company fighting for its objectives.

I tend to agree. I am presently fighting a battalion+ sized action and finding it interesting, the the company+ sized actions play faster and are more manageable.

A more realistic way to do this is with random reinforcements during a single battle.

I wonder if it would be possible to program the game for conditional reinforcements. Say you were defending and things weren't going well. Would battalion HQ commit their reserves in your sector?

Or if you are attacking and making progress, but falling behind schedule, would you get that tank platoon that HQ has been holding onto?

Michael