"The System" -- Would it work IRL?

[Guest Pillar]

Many will immediately say "Of course not".

But I think it's worth considering a little. As pointed out in the "TH Gamey" thread, some players have devised their own little combined arms/unit tactics which they use to decisive success in CM.

What does the success of these tactics however, depend upon? If CM is for the most part an accurate representation of how combat would be resolved given a set of tactics, firepower and movement, why would the real life demonstration differ?

Obviously the "system" OOB is not historical (SMG's and so forth). That however is based on doctrine. One could hypothetically change your army to suit these tactics -- create an SMG based army with heavy support guns and so forth.

Another issue however is the MG effectiveness debate. I won't pour over the details here again, but I'm just pointing it out as an issue which may suggest the "TH gamey" system is in fact gamey -- or not.

What other issues are there?

I personally am not taking a "side" on this. I do believe the OOB is ahistorical and that there ARE certain game inconsistencies which may contribute to the success of these tactics. BUT, I also think there is a possibility the "system" may have some real life merit as well.

I'm hoping we can all discuss the issue, and in so doing we may discover:

A) Aspects of the game which could be improved to better reflect reality. (Especially now that we have concrete example and consistant results to base arguments on.)

Discover which elements of the "system" really are innovative and deserve some recognition -- if there are any.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Interesting point to ponder, Pillar. Here's one complication that you might consider that would add a certain level of "gameyness" to these tactics: What impact does absolute spotting have on them?

If you removed this factor, how many of these tactics would fall apart?

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

"As for Croda's spelling it was unlikely to be unintentional since he tries to put the ass in everything." - Simon Fox

[Guest Pillar]

Well I'm not sure it would have much effect at all. From what I've seen playing at TH the SMG platoons are all very close together during the attack. As for the support guns, they don't really benefit from relative spotting since they can't be moved effectively anyway. They see what they see, and what they don't "see" (but other units do) they cannot react to.

[Ksak]

I don't believe that a half-decent real life Allied commander would willingly put his troops into an unbalanced situation. Real life is not limted by QB game points.

The German weapons did not have an advantage IRL when overwhelmed with artillery and airpower.

[JoePrivate]

As an offshoot of, and in addition to, the unrealistic nature of absolute spotting, there is no command *friction* in CM. The player can control all of his forces with near perfect precision and coordination. Would a commander have that ability/luxury in RL?

[Michael Dorosh]

I think the machine gun thread also led to some other hindrances to discussion of this point; ie we don't know how accurately or well modelled the human factor is. Some would rule this out altogether; I don't know where I stand on that point.

You can look at it in reverse, also - I can say that from the historical scenarios I've designed, where a reasonably accurate order of battle was available to me (and this is a very small sampling), the reports I've gotten from playtesters are that the results are usually in line with those found historically. The same thing is happening with one of Justin Claxton's scenarios we are currently testing.

Is this simply the result of the scenarios being "rigged" to give the historical result?

I seem to recall reading about playthroughs of the Villers Bocage scenario where people achieved results that didn't vary widely from the historical.

Perhaps this too is proof that CM translates to real life?

There are far better players than me with much more experience playing CM - perhaps someone else with experience playing historical battles/operations could address this aspect as well?

[Guest Pillar]

Originaly Posted by X-00

The system is:

(1) A mass infantry force optimized by usually buying platoons of the highest quality infantry (SMG Nov 44) (Gjager pre Nov). The platoons are usually bought ala carte to avoid "useless" supporting arms and company commanders.

(2) The infantry force is backed up by massed guns (flak, 75mm Inf Guns, puppchens and PAW). Expect to see a butt load of these. Think 6-7, expect 7-8 and don't be surprised if you see 9-10.

(3) The above is generally backed buy the best TD's in the game Jadg IV/70s. These keep the gun killing and inf killing Allied tanks off (1) and (2) above. It also forces a Allied player to buy TD's capable of taking out a Jadg Iv/70 which further dilutes the HE firing tank strength because of TD's small HE load.

(4) You probably won't face off board artillery because it is viewed as "not cost effective".

(5) The aforementioned is extremely hard to beat. As an allied player (and many top ranked players will insist you play allied) play for a draw. Almost any gambit you try to beat the "system" has the draw back of reducing your front line infantry strength.

(6) The "system" can be used by allied players but it is less effective because of infantry pricing and platoon costs. The best allied infantry squads (Airborne)come with a load of "junk" (piats, 2 inch mortars, MMGs, M2 and 60mm). So it is hard to optimize infantry squad strength.

To add: Since the addition of the "Unlimited" unit selection the "system" now does not even include the Tank Destroyer. In fact, I've seen them now using ENTIRELY infantry forces, with absolutely no support guns either.

I wish Swamp would join in here and talk a little about what makes his tactics successful, since he seems to be the "author" of them. The fact that Swamp rendered tanks useless through his infantry ideas speaks for innovation in my opinion, notwithstanding the "realism" of the issue.

[Abbott]

I have been teaching my nephew (14 years of age) to play. I attacked him twice with computer picked forces all default setups. Of course the outcome was terribly one sided in my favor. He went home for the week and played the AI several times.

The following week (two weeks ago) he told me on the telephone that he would like to come over and play. When he arrived I asked him if he would like me to attack and instruct him again. He replied ' No thanks, I have been playing the AI and would like to attack you. He asked for the Axis forces.

I had purchased 2 platoons of US infantry, 2 Shermans, an M8 AC, assorted HMG's and Bazooka teams and an 81mm FO. Again all default settings with the exception of Axis attacking.

Three turns into the game my MLR was being overrun. Turn 4, I had one Sherman knocked out, a gun damaged M8 running away and two infantry platoons at about 30% strength in full retreat. The game ended with a total loss for me and one Sherman running to exit off the back map edge.

His OOB was 3 Wespes, as many SMG platoons as he could buy and several Panzershreck teams. He fired no smoke screens of any kind and used only minimal cover. I was unable to fire my mortar support nor stop the German infantry's all out rush with the firepower I had available.

Before you say "bad defensive positions" or “poor defensive tactics” bear in mind I have played close to 100 PBEM/TCP games, at least that many games verse the AI and know a bit about proper tactics.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Interesting point to ponder, Pillar. Here's one complication that you might consider that would add a certain level of "gameyness" to these tactics: What impact does absolute spotting have on them?

If you removed this factor, how many of these tactics would fall apart?

Not to mention "absolute" flanks where you can bum rush up a flank with zero fear.

[Guest Pillar]

Cav -- I haven't yet played a guy at tournamenthouse who was using the "system" and relying on the absolute flanks, so I'd say that doesn't apply (at lease here) either.

It's a good point though.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I don't think that the "system" would work that well in a real life ME because of (1) enemy arty and (2) the difficulty of manhandling guns into good firing positions.

Having said that though, I think it would be a fairly effective real life defensive setup, although it would of course still be vulnerable to artillery.

It is also realistic in that most CM battlefields are really tank-unfriendly because of the short ranges, etc.

Abbott: WRT you nephew: The Force is strong in this one.

[John Hough]

So 'the system' is basically a massive infantry rush? Yeah, I seem to recall the Soviets managed some limited success with that system. Might've done better with it if they'd had good officers or infantry tactics when they had no choice but to use 'the system'.

The problem, of course, is that in real life, people are worth more than their ability to kill people with a submachine gun. And population is a finite resource. And so a lot of the focus of technology in war is devoted to finding ways to move as many of those people as possible to factories in the rear, where they make the guys at the front able to kill more guys with less risk to themselves, and thus contribute more to the killing than they would if they were in the front lines with submachine guns.

And, still, in real life, it all comes down in the end to having ordinary infantry standing on the ground you want that matters. Everything else is just around to kill infantry or kill the other guy's things that kill infantry. But when your infantry is pixels, not people, you don't really need anything else. Oh, and transport/logistical stuff, but that's mostly out of cm's scale.

Of course, in cm terms, this probably means infantry, or at least certain infantry, are a bit underpriced, 'coz they are an obviously superior choice, and if the point system were perfect, infantry would be just as good a choice as anything else.

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

so you can stay cool behind your window

and choose the view you want to see

but as long as there's others held captive

do not consider yourself free

-EMBRACE, "DO NOT CONSIDER YOURSELF FREE"

[This message has been edited by John Hough (edited 03-23-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

I, for one, will say that the 'system' would not work IRL. Basically because IRL you have a battle to fight tomorrow. And while the 'system' gives you a minor victory in CM, it also leaves your SMG squads so spent that fighting a battle tomorrow is not an option. While those SMG squads might survive the rush, they are usually down to a few men at best. Not to mention they have no supporting arms, which is what most warfare is fought by. Many forget that most of the fighting on the western front was not CM style pitched battles, but low intensity long range firefights between MGs & mortars.

On the other hand, modern infantry developments have proven the Germans right in many ways. Automatic weapons have been issued to every man. But then again, grenade launchers (~60mm mortars) have made a widespread appearance too. But still, the closest thing to a modern infantry squad in terms of firepower is a Fallschirmjaeger or SS Motorized squad. It should also be noted that aside from very specialized troops, SMGs are not used in most modern armies.

Make of this what you will.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest Pillar]

Not to discredit anyones points, but just to clarify, victories using the "system" are usually total or major as the germans. Anyone who's played Swamp knows this.

It's not like those SMG squads are coming out of the fight all tatered and beaten.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

I, for one, will say that the 'system' would not work IRL. Basically because IRL you have a battle to fight tomorrow.

But this works both ways - IRL your defender would probably retire before being totally cut up. A good example of this working as it would IRL was a recent PBEM of mine.

My forces:

Three Coys of SS Rifle Infantry, no support weapons, except for a few Schrecks (two/coy)

3 Panzer IV

1 StuH 42

2 120mm FOOs, 1 81mm FOO, 1 75mm FOO

My opponent surrendered after I turned his flank, despite the fact that he still had about 1.5 Coys of infantry that had hardly been involved. Losses on both sides were low in CM terms, but high in IRL terms (77/22 US 269 captured/okay, 59/16 German 378 okay). The key to the fight was my bombardment of his left-flank position with the heavy mortars and a quick move by one SS Rifle company while he was retiring, covered by the 81mm mortars and stand-off tank fire. Most of my losses resulted from two of my platoons in the centre coming under heavy fire from his 60mm mortars.

His position then became untenable, he knew it, I knew it, and he surrendered. IRL he would probably have retired, taking most of his men out. Another opponent in a PBEM may just have continued to fight, letting his force be wiped out, and causing me heavy casualties (but still losing). That would not necessarily have been more realistic though.

IMO this was a suitably realistic result, looking at the losses, and comparing them to RL losses of Commonwealth infantry formations of similar size in Normandy. Most fights IRL are not fights to the finish. On both sides.

A RL example of similar size: 5th DCLI's attack on Le Plessis Grimoult, south of Mont Pincon, night of 7/8th August 1944. units involved, three UK Rifle Coys, plus some more infantry and a Squadron of tanks making a feint from the west. German forces are two rifle companies and two tanks.

The 5th DCLI takes the village in a night attack. UK losses are 2KIA, 1MIA, 5WIA; German losses are 31KIA, 125POW, 1 King Tiger (abandoned after being damaged by an exploding ammo truck).

The next day, two companies of the 7th Somerset Light Infantry and a Squadron of tanks clear a number of hamlets. 79 UK casualties (probably about 25-50% of the force, ), 142 German POWs. During operations on the 8th and the 9th, the 1st Worcesters had 230 casualties (more than 25% of unit establishment).

This snapshot should give an indication of the variety of possible battle outcomes in terms of casualties. I always chuckle when I see people on the board proclaim they never surrender, because that would not be historical... If that was the case, where do POWs come from? But the bottomline as concerns this discussion is that the fight to the finish and the losses work on both sides. Saying that SMG squads won't work IRL because of the losses ignores that IRL the defense would maybe not stand as long as it does in a CMBO battle.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

When this system was posted yesterday, I initially thought that it would not be *that* unrealistic.

Squads with cheap equipment (effective) and cheap guns en masse, specialized for anti-tank duty. Sounds like late-war Germany.

I think it would not work in real life, because:

Noone would go into it without sufficient bombardement in advance. Since you cannot place the rocket artillery in building (cellars in real life), and cannot move them, the guns would be vulnerable. An infantry gun is probably difficult to place under top cover as well.

The limited range of all guns involved is harder to feel in the limited CM battlefield. IRL, spotting units would look for the guns and instruct HE firing tanks that are out of range of these guns. You can surely spot a Pueppechen or infantry gun from a distance that is outside SMG range. If you add the Jagdpanzer, that changes.

And here you come to why I think that this force would work, but would not be built as such, first part:

Noone would make such a cheap defense system and then place one piece of the most useful/expense vehicles in it. These Jagdpanzer were needed for mobile force to do -well- tank hunting. If you would spend your tank hunters in single defensive setups, enemy tanks would soon swarm everywhere.

Second part:

This force also has no mean to attack or counterattack, more than the SMG assault in running range. Thus, such a force could do nothing against being flanked. It could not exploit enemy disorder after mistried attacks. You cannot win a larger battle without that.

Since you cannot have this unit density along the whole front, these strongpoints would be isolated and ignored until enough artillery ammunition arrives. Or the force surrenders from lack of supplies.

Finally that is why such a force was not to been seen often: the front is too long to do anything that static. This force is cheap, but not cheap enough. In the end, the universal force made from more expensive equipment can cover more front kilometers for the same money.

I would also remind people that this tankless force is basically a WW1 force fighting in WW2, except that the range of all weapons in a fraction of similar weapons in WW1. What such a force means can be seen by some forces fighting that way in WW2, the enemy breaks through with motorized armor, cuts your supply, approaches your guns from behind and finished you are.

[Wisbech_lad]

When you say the System involves buying highest quality troops, does this also mean in terms of experience? (e.g. Vet+ as opposed to Regular/ green)

I would say that this would be the main drawback IRL, as majority of troops by definition are 'regular" and without the fortitude/ tactical experience to make this work.

But for a country with plenty of people, reasonably high fanaticism, and low income then, yes, the SMG/ Assault rifle/ cheap squad RPG rush is a good force equaliser. Especially in low visibility/ short LOS engagements.

I'm not an expert, but this does sound familiar to Chinese doctrine in Korea/ Vietnamese in Vietnam. Get in close to nullify opposing arty and airpower

Did the Chinese "human wave" tactics in Korea use SMGs or rifles? Comments?

[Holien]

An interesting post from Abbot about his Nephew. You often find that youngsters will find the most effective way to make things work in a game to their advantage. they don't have the clutter that an adult carries with them.

IRL defenders choose where they defend and can get good lanes of fire for MMG's etc... The modelling of MMG's in CM seems off kilter as I have situations where half squads have run accross open ground and been fired at by a HMG crew and survied intact.

IRL I think the situation would be somewhat different. This would stop dead a mass infantry charge and the morale of the soldiers would not allow for such tatics as the men would see that it was futile against stationary defenders.

I wish I could remember where I read a report that in a 10 man section the real fighting strength would be as follows. (I apologise if this is not exactly correct and if anyone knows the exact quote I would love to see it again).

The Jist of the article stated that 1 man would be a nutter doing crazy stuff like actively trying to kill the enemy. 4 would support him and the other 5 would be hanging back and trying to stay out of trouble.

I think IRL the men in the units would behave above and would not act as brave as they do in any game. If you have ever played Paint Ball you can see this effect when playing with people of varying skill levels (and commitment).

I know that the army would have a bit more training than the weekend warriors but in WW2 I have the perception that most troops were of a regular nature than the specialist nutters (Vets Paras etc...).

The Army did not have the time to train everyone (Indeed you need special type of people to be trained to be "nutters". No disrespect to these people as without them we would not have the Para's and Gurkha's) to the level to perform such feats as used by some players.

Also the point noted re command friction is very important. The only insight I have is from paint ball and if you have ever tried to co-ordinate people in an attack (even just among mates) it is a major headache. Introduce into that more people and personalities you are lucky to get an attack together.

I know the British army today is a professional force but in WW2 you had effecively a conscript force with minimal training and not always the level of commitment required. Even the officers were not always well trained.

Just my take on it.

H

[Soddball]

I wonder whether it would be possible to model some sort of order delay for units who had injured/wiped out headquarters. For example, you lead your infantry force into a town. One platoon gets cut off (say 50 metres away) from the rest of your force, and loses its platoon HQ. How do you contact them?

I believe that they should either:

1) Remain where they are until they are able to receive orders either from another HQ unit or (with perhaps longer time lag) from another unit.

2) Withdraw at high speed (not broken, but panicked) towards friendly lines, only turning once they meet friendly units.

I would appreciate any feedback on this since I know that some modelling of time delays does occur but it puzzles me that units who have no way of being contacted can still be commanded.

Perhaps, since this takes away 'control' from a player by adding 'realism', it would be worth having a 'FOW - Full Realism' option?

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

"Woof!Woof!"

That's my other dog impression.

[jKMkIII]

If platoon looses it HQ those squads will be out of command (unless there is higher HQ present) and that brings in command delays and they are easier to break. Just try green squads without HQ and they will run when they even think about enemy and even when not under enemy fire they will have command delays close to 50 seconds.

And I don't think it would be good to make them run or make player unable to give commands to them. Certainly those men know what to do even there isn't commander to tell them what to do, at least when I was in army I didn't need some commander telling me all the time what to do. Only if AI would be at such level that they could continue doing their mission (that also would have been given before) then it would be possible to take command off from player. Player is after all commanding all squads and other units at same time.

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

jK.MkIII

[Homba]

I agree with Holien- misrepresented CM machine-guns is one essential cause of the (WWI style) human wave attack. If machineguns actually killed people in CM (like they did in WWI) we wouldnt have this problem.

Also, on paintball- if you want to come as close as you can to the feeling of a small, close-range infantry engagement, you MUST play paintball. It really makes you appreciate the concepts of suppression, coordination, manuever under fire, etc.

Homba

[Dalton]

My apologies if this has been covered...

How does a "system" force perform against itself?

Can a tweeked Allied infantry force effectively attack a defending German "system" infantry force?

...Dalton

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Dalton:

My apologies if this has been covered...

How does a "system" force perform against itself?

Can a tweeked Allied infantry force effectively attack a defending German "system" infantry force?

...Dalton

One issue here is value (or Bang for the BucK)

I'm sure others here will correct me if I'm wrong (its hapened once already today )but "the System" works well for the Germans because of the way the units are bought by the German player. I suspect (I could be wrong) that a similiar purchase of the "system" by the Allied player would cost more. I'm not sure it is actually a good counter to try to apply the "german System" (as outlined earlier) to to force pool purchase for the Allies.

Sure you can buy Churchills and glider squads or para's and plenty of Arty to try to make your own "Allied System" but it seems as though the allies don't get the same "bang of the buck". because of all the "other" units that come with your purchase.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-26-2001).]

[Sten]

Pillar, from the discussion I'm assuming that "the system" is designed for an attacking force, right?

But in RL any given force needs to be prepared to defend as well.

And if this system is tried in a defensive situation, a sneaky attacking HQ unit spotting for some mortars could wreak havoc on those big guns. You then either have to position your guns with LOS of about SMG range, or those mortars WILL get you.

Even though I agree that this would be an effective attacking force, and that this is partly because CM presently doesn't handle MGs very well, I still think that "the system" would fail in RL due to:

1. No effective defense.

2. That kind of troop density would bleed other areas dry of men.

Sten

[Thermopylae]

There are two major factors that are being severely understated here that contribute to why this is not done in real life.

1) Relative firepower.

CM firepower ratings indicate the effectiveness of a single weapon being fired at a point target. It is naturally expected that the target squad/team is dispersed realistically over a given portion of terrain, and is moving using whatever cover it can to preserve itself. If you have a tidal wave of men rushing forward, significantly less time has to be spent aiming, and the chances of hitting anything at all are increased many fold because there is quite simply a lot more to hit. Garands, Thompsons, and BARs would all have exponentially higher firepower ratings, since they are now essentially shooting at a civil war battle line. In addittion, The terrain is now cluttered with onrushing men. There simply aren’t enough dips, bushes, and stones to hide them all as they run forward which means some of them will be very exposed an easy targets. CM firepower reflects none of this. Lets not even get started on the effects of HE and shrapnel on tight formations.

2) Blue on Blue

The Onrushing horde pours out an amazing amount of firepower largely because eof the same assumptions. I.E., the squad is functioning in typical manner. IRL, all those neat automatic weapons become a liability when there’s 40 of your own guys ahead of you. As such the defenders would be significantly less supressed/suffer fewer casualties because not all the weapons are firing, only the ones near or at the front of the wave, especially in the case of WWII SMGs. Also, the support guns wouldn’t dare fire anywhere near the advancing infantry, because quite frankly you don’t want to accidentally blow apart 15 friendlies with a misplaced shell. (Russian accidents are brilliant proof of this)

As for the argument about Korea I’d have to point out a single marine division in retreat and cut off held 500,000 Chinese using this tactic at bay, with significant Chinese losses. Good as the marines may be, this has to speak for something. Also, the east front proved time and again that this type of attack doesn’t work until you’ve laid a carpet of dead.