The Engineer Battle

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

OK - now back to the subject of the thread.

Is there a bit of a consesus appearing (God forbid!) that the "engineering battle" is too complex for CM (as it is almost in real life - thats why there are experts in the field)?

Is CM "just a game" ? Could it be developed into a "simulator" replicating problems and conditions that occurred in both real life and as "scenarios" ?

Where should we be pushing, cajoling, encouraging BTS to take CM (as a concept - appears as though the engine is near enough to being discarded and replaced by something "bigger, brighter and better") ?

[Slapdragon]

First, I would discard "pushing, cajoling" as a tactic since BTS is not swayed by that sort of thing. CM has defined limits of scope, so strategic bombing and submarine warfare will never be included, no matter what the scale. But the game is good enough in its current incarnation that a number of militaries are using it for a combat trainer.

We do know from BTS comments on the outer board that the game will increase in quality in a number of directions. First it will get a better visual engine, the eye candy. Next its interface will continue to be refined.

The areas where it will expand are not scope, it will remain focused on the same sort of action, but on detail. More terrain, better simulation of events, better hard science in some of the abstractions, expanded choices for map and scenario creation, better AI and more realistic troop activities.

So the area that are best discussed are either engine, or historical inside of the current scope of the game. For example, medical evacuation of wounded is unlikely to be added as it is outside the game's scope. In depth treatment of rubble and wreckage types might get added, and could be documented and discussed in a rational manner.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Would you be willing to provide us with a précis of what it says, Simon? If we ask nicely?

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I don't have it to hand so it may take a while. Of the top of my head they were operating mixed armoured columns which included some AVREs and crocs which were used to clear defended roadblocks. I would imagine the AVREs blasted the roadblock while the crocs roasted any lurking faust users. I suspect a dozer or dozer tank was then used to clear the debri. The armoured regiments had these in their TO&E IIRC.

Concrete roadblocks were also broken up with 17pdr fire and the debri cleared by dozer.

[John Kettler]

Those of you here interested in the vexed question of the engineer battle simply must earmark the time to read OVERLORD, by Max Hastings.

In it you will find a great deal of detailed information, some of it downright stunning. These include average GIs carrying TNT blocks (like airborne) and Bangalore torpedoes, sappers leading the entire assault, flail tanks landing before the infantry, with Crocs and AVREs close behind, and so much more, including casualties to armored bulldozers and tank dozers.

Essentially, this brilliantly researched and written military history makes a solid and historically accurate case for the inclusion of the engineering battle within the framework

of Combat Mission in its various incarnations. Seems to me that having flail tanks land first on Sword is as unambiguous as it gets.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

These are valid points John, but I think you'd have to agree that the actual landings are a bit of a special case, which BTS deliberatly left outside the scope of CM:Beyond Overlord

BTW, yes, it is a good book, my 15+ year old copy is looking very battered

[Simon Fox]

John,

Leaving aside the fact that I don't entirely share your glowing opinion of Hasting's book I would venture to suggest that most people here pobably have read it. It is just that overlord is not within the scope of CMBO. That is why most of this discussion revolves around the post overlord uses of the funnies and other specialised engineering vehicles or techniques.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I would discard "pushing, cajoling" as a tactic since BTS is not swayed by that sort of thing. .

Enough customers may demand it. Are you BTS ? Otherwise how can you say categorically that they cannot be swayed by public demand ?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

[qb]First, I would discard "pushing, cajoling" as a tactic since BTS is not swayed by that sort of thing. .

Enough customers may demand it. Are you BTS ? Otherwise how can you say categorically that they cannot be swayed by public demand ?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, BTS said exactly this as they banned Eumundi from the forum. They will not wreck CM with ahistorical, "gamey" or questionable material merely because it is "demanded or cajoled" from the customers, and they will not spend countless hours on side shows unless there is some return to the game that is applicable both to the enjoyment of the game by the majority of the players, and to increasing the historical realism of the game. They were quite clear on this in there post, so I am merely pointed out a "law of the universe" like gravity, not my own opinion.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Those of you here interested in the vexed question of the engineer battle simply must earmark the time to read OVERLORD, by Max Hastings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have done so, although it has been perhaps a dozen or so years and memory dims.

I do recall the bit about paras carrying, among a great many other things, an AT mine and/or a block of TNT, though I may be recalling that from other more recently read sources.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Enough customers may demand it. Are you BTS ? Otherwise how can you say categorically that they cannot be swayed by public demand ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? By engaging in almost daily discourse with members of the company over the course of three years. It's amazing how much you can learn about how a person thinks if you just pay attention.

Michael

[John Kettler]

My basic point had far less to do with the landings themselves than with the positioning of Funnies and engineers at the spearhead of the attack, their use in advance of the infantry, the fact that they entered battle straightaway and were clearly expected to have useful results well within the timeframe of CM.

In earlier posts I noted that the first ground combat action at the Anzio breakout consisted of the successive destruction by Panzerschreck

of flail tanks clearing a path through previously laid defensive mines. Those tanks were the tip of the entire breakout; without their success no real advance would've been possible.

At Sword beach I see the same pattern at work. Flails land and go straight to work, clearing a path and dueling with the beach defenders in their pillboxes and fighting positions. Similarly, OVERLORD makes clear that the other Funnies also led the way for most of the force. Crocs and AVREs feature prominently, often in the thick of the action. AVREs are shooting at the defenders and blasting apart beach obstacles through a variety of means. The book also clearly describes line infantry carrying TNT blocks and Bangalore torpedoes as standard kit for the invasion.

I urge the grogs here to dig out their copies and take a close look not so much at the bibliographic note but at the interviews Max Hastings conducted. The print's tiny, but the who and the unit are clearly listed.

And yes, there are some problems with the book, notably in the pen and ink illo captions. My personal favorite is the fascinating characterization of the Nebelwerfer as a mortar.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

I do think CM could use an engineering overhaul. Right now, they engineer units themselves are something of a waste, with at most one platoon of them sometimes marginally useful. I think the main reason for this is undermodeling engineering related effects, as well as some incentives set up by pricing.

The flamethrowers are expensive and not very useful, except for deliberate fire starting by defenders, or occasional defender ambushes in woods and such. Whereas in reality they were attacker's weapons most of all. I think they were priced as though they'd be the arguably overmodeled FTs of a certain board game, then modeled as already dead people LOL. One characteristic of use of FTs in history is that they typically resulted in about 10 times as many prisoners as casualties. One doesn't see this in CM, because they die or the units they break are small and usually either die or rally. I think these should have medium speed, a third man in the team for robustness, perhaps 10m more range, and more controversially should lead to enemy moral checks in a 100m radius every time they fire. Units panicked by them or worse should become prisoners.

Demo charges are seriously undermodeled in blast effect. They do about as much as hand grenades, which is truly silly. I suspect there were worries about how to represent their placement and use, without killing the engineers placing them, if they had anything like their real blast effect. One is left with the bizarre result that a 105mm shell, containing in reality only 5 lbs of TNT, does far more than a charge twice as large or more. As for their use against bunkers and such, bazookas work better in CM right now. I think these should have 135 to 200 blast, with the placing unit immune (from timing of when to have heads down, placement, etc).

Nothing deals with wire, at present. Engineers should be able to cut a path through wire in a couple of minutes, the same as with minefields. Yes, realistically there is still wire there. Realistically there are still mines after an engineer marks a lane. But a lane is all it takes to remove the obstacles effect. If some want more robust wire, allow a second type of wire counter, more expensive than the standard type, to represent triple rolls of staked concertina wire or whatever, unclearable or impassible.

The bunkers need to be revamped. The present log bunker represents a large pile of sticks sticking out like a sore thumb and lined with dynamite, if one is to judge by its vunerability. Men in a foxhole can take an 81mm mortar round right next to them with suppression and maybe a man or two down. Men with overhead cover of logs are routed and their bunker knocked out. And they aren't camo'ed at all. These effects apparently stem from using the vehicle model for fortifications, which it is unsuited for. There are similar problems with concrete bunkers, especially the effect of small caliber direct cannon fire on them, but lesser ones.

I'd like to see many more types of field fortifications with substantially increased capabilities at the low end, much harder to spot, capable of taking in or discharging troops, etc. In reality, the existence of these things was an important reason for combat engineers and their special equipment, to help neutralize them. Right now, stuarts and bazookas can handle most of them.

I agree with Captain that pricing plays a role in preventing realistic use of obstacles. His solution, to just ignore the prices and field realistic obstacle belts, does not help those who don't know what those are. I think it would be better to make changes like - AP minefields are 40x40 meters each, instead of 20x20. Wire is 60 meters long per unit. Both for the same 10 point cost as now. Roadblocks should also cost 15 points. The wooden bunkers have to be fixed to be useful. It should be possible to put light guns in them, too, or squads, not just MG teams. Anti-tank ditches, linear trenches, and demolitions that can be placed on bridges would also be welcome additions to the field fortification category. And one should have another field fortification type, "cleared field of fire", the reduces buildings to rubble, scattered trees, wheatfields, or brush to open ground, and woods or tall pines to brush. A 40x40 tile would cost 10 points.

It would also be nice to see more detailed modeling of building interiors, basements, and entrances and exits. Blowing entry holes in building walls was a common CE demolition task. The reason it mattered is it was relatively easy to cover existing entrances. Perhaps give units within a building or the right part of it a bonus vs. entering attackers, but negate this benefit for a new breech.

Engineers would have additional abilities for dealing with the additional obstacles. They could fill anti-tank ditches (or streams, perhaps), disarm bridge demolitions, blow roadblocks with their demo charges, etc. The far more powerful demo charges should be especially effective against bunkers, and able to rubble buildings, etc.

My suggestions, for what they are worth.

[Andreas]

I think Jason's suggestions are all very good. I especially like the morale check for presence of FT, but this would of course have the effect to make the unit more pricey (because of its effectiveness), or would lead to the player bringing a Crocodile to the party to be declared the instant winner. A rarity system would take care of it though - although it may mean that the Flammpanzer III would come in at 500 points...

[Brian]

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

I do think CM could use an engineering overhaul.

I think that is the point of the discussion. Only a minority thus far appear to be satisfied with the way its treated at the moment.

[Enoch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JasonC wrote:

Anti-tank ditches, linear trenches, and demolitions that can be placed on bridges would also be welcome additions to the field

fortification category.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS has said that more types of trenches are in for CMBB. I don't think this includes AT ditches but slit trenches for infantry. i'd expect even more types of these fortifications with the engine re-write. The wiring of bridges with demolitions is out. BTS has said that rarely did anyone blow a bridge right in the face of the enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Blowing entry holes in building walls was a common CE demolition task. The reason it mattered is it was relatively easy

to cover existing entrances. Perhaps give units within a building or the right

part of it a bonus vs. entering attackers, but negate this benefit for a new

breech. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that BTS has said that this won't be possible until engine re-write. But, it is something on the list for inclusion.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

or would lead to the player bringing a Crocodile to the party to be declared the instant winner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would this be unrealistic, necessarily? How many troops in the immediate vicinity of a croc were able to stand their ground?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Would this be unrealistic, necessarily? How many troops in the immediate vicinity of a croc were able to stand their ground?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read one account where the German position surrendered when the Crocs tried their flamethrowers on a few bushes, before anyone fired a shot. Some other accounts show that once the first strongpoint had been flamed the remainder would be very willing to 'make give up'. This was not always the case, and it may well have been rare. But I have never heard of another weapn with that effect.

[The_Capt]

Well JasonC does bring up some good points and all could be valid additions to the game. The question still stands as to whether the work to do these changes/additions will equal a gain in playability.

Again realistic engineering would complicate the game greatly and frustrate many to the point that they may just turn it off.

[Brian]

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

Well JasonC does bring up some good points and all could be valid additions to the game. The question still stands as to whether the work to do these changes/additions will equal a gain in playability.

Again realistic engineering would complicate the game greatly and frustrate many to the point that they may just turn it off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My question is, would it? I suspect that those who are going to want to play this sort of game, would be quite welcoming of even more complexity, particularly if it made it more realistic.

Remember, the game is not aimed at the general market, as such. Its aimed at the wargaming market, which is a very different kettle of fish.

However, as a counterpoint, who remembers SPI's AirWar? Perhaps the most realistic individual aircraft aircombat game ever made - also without a doubt the most complex and the hardest to play. Didn't stop the hardcore playing it though - but I for one breathed a sigh of relief when PC's came along and replaced it.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Again realistic engineering would complicate the game greatly and frustrate many to the point that they may just turn it off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps not if readily available defensive works and the engineering resources to overcome them were mostly confined to assault battles. Attack battles would represent attacks on hasty defenses and could be handled as at present. That leaves the players the option of how deeply they want to go into the engineering battle and is also, IMO, reasonably historical.

Michael

[JasonC]

I like Michael's last idea a lot.

Let a probe include only a modest list of obstacles - daisy chain AT mines, TRPs, roadblocks. Let the attack setting by somewhat like now, with a few add ons, and perhaps with only (improved) wooden bunkers but not concrete ones. But then let the assault setting feature much larger (e.g. 40x40 AP mines, 60m wire, 40x40 cleared fields of fire, etc) and thus effectively cheaper obstacles, and more kinds of them (AT ditches, etc).

Then the attacker has some compensation for the improved defenses, in the form of higher odds, and players are not forced into either an engineer intensive or an engineer-less mode of fighting all the time by a unform level of cost effectiveness of obstacles. The heavy obstacles would be there for the "assault" class of battle.

[Bobbaro]

Weapon rarity might be better handled with fuzzy logic rather than buy points except in designer scenarios. One might REQUEST rather than buy certain types of weapons or units and the game engine handle whether they are available. Whether this thought might have wider application or indeed have any - - -

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Weapon rarity might be better handled with fuzzy logic rather than buy points except in designer scenarios. One might REQUEST rather than buy certain types of weapons or units and the game engine handle whether they are available. Whether this thought might have wider application or indeed have any - - -<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly right. BTS is looking at rarity in a similar fashion to ASL (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). But if all your vehicles are rated say 1-6, and the game decides that for this mission you only get to buy vehicles of rarity 1 through 3, that is all you get.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

This is exactly right. BTS is looking at rarity in a similar fashion to ASL (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). But if all your vehicles are rated say 1-6, and the game decides that for this mission you only get to buy vehicles of rarity 1 through 3, that is all you get.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been said on the forum by BTS, but I do not know any more.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Bandwidth:

This has been said on the forum by BTS, but I do not know any more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for that devastatingly insightful post which, including full quote and large sig, took 135 words to relate

Regards

Jon