See the map before you buy units

[Jarhead]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Now do you get it. If you've been in the military and know how these things work, feel free to contribute. If not, shut the HELL up.

What to say...I'm sure we are all sorry we did not follow your direction. I in no way meant to get you so upset. I do apologies for any broken object at your place of residence.

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

Semper Fi.

[Tanklover MD]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Every one of you totally missed the point. Of course a company wouldn't go shopping through the battalion arms room and say I'm gonna trade all my .30 cals for 60mm mortars. The battalion commander would, though, say, "hey Bob, I want you to take this town on this here map. Open ground surrounds it for a long way so I'm gonna give you some armor to provide suppressive fire while your infantry company approaches the town. Now do you get it. If you've been in the military and know how these things work, feel free to contribute. If not, shut the HELL up.

As a veteran, I am offended by your comments. Let me just ask, which battalion did you command and when, and what combat action did you see. If you did not command a battalion, why don't you shut the hell up. After all, it would seem only a battalion commander in combat would have the right to speak under your idiotic reasoning.

You sir, have reacted in a childish manner. You demean your fellow veterans and reduce the productivity of this discussion. Perhaps you should say sorry for your rudeness.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

OT here, but - I read with interest Herbert's book SOLDIER. I liked it; everyone else I know dismisses it as self serving garbage. Do you have an opinion.

I read it after hearing Colonel Herbert speak. At first, I thought what a load of self-serving crap. But then in writing a senior research paper I began to look into his story from the other end. It all hangs together. The Army hearings into his releif were shoddy. The 173rd and other units were a mess, and had been a mess for years, and it was made worse by an administration, the Nixon administration, which created a mentality of cover up. Oral histories of events follow it, and indeed, the question lingers. Why did his battalion out perform the other 5 for 3 months combined in every way it could be measured. Barnes said he was coaching Herbert, then why didn't he get off his ass and coach the other battalion commanders.

So now, after looking into it a great deal, I place much more creedence on the book than I did at first read with no supporting data.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Every one of you totally missed the point. Of course a company wouldn't go shopping through the battalion arms room and say I'm gonna trade all my .30 cals for 60mm mortars. The battalion commander would, though, say, "hey Bob, I want you to take this town on this here map. Open ground surrounds it for a long way so I'm gonna give you some armor to provide suppressive fire while your infantry company approaches the town. Now do you get it. If you've been in the military and know how these things work, feel free to contribute. If not, shut the HELL up.

You should specify veterans only in the thread title if that is who you want it restricted too.

By the way, were does the Brigade commander get the Corps level Avres to give to the two companies tangling over a kilometer of ground when it turns out their are a number of heavy buildings in the area, and the enemy is dug in. Now were does he get them in an hour and a half -- the period of time covered by set up and battle in CM.

Likely they were already attached, this is a set piece assault in the offing for several days, or he just does not get them. No one missed the point here.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

I read it after hearing Colonel Herbert speak....(post truncated).

Thanks very much.

[MERC]

Originally posted by Annalist:

If you've been in the military and know how these things work, feel free to contribute. If not, shut the HELL up.

One word of advice, serving in the military doesn't make you an all knowing expert.

2nd, if you gonna claim the "expert" title and be rude, maybe you ought to post your qualifications.

Thats my friendly veteran advice.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Annalist,

If you've been in the military and know how these things work, feel free to contribute. If not, shut the HELL up.

If this is your attitude towards discussion, it is not welcomed here. Nobody tells anybody to "shut the HELL up" here. If you think someone is wrong, debate and counter that person's arguments. Shouting them down is a rather weak tactic that doesn't win you any points in our book.

Now that I and others have had their say about the above, perhaps we should move on to actually discussing this issue...

Annalist, your point of view is being challenged. Not because there is no truth to it, but because the concept you are describing is a wonderful example of "perfect world planning". It certainly doesn't happen this way, as a rule, in any large and long fought campaign.

What would the average CO have going into an average battle?

1. Possibly an idea that there was going to be combat. Remember that a good deal of fighting in the Western Front was not planned.

2. If he was lucky, he might have an idea about what type of force would be facing him. Size, composition, quality, rough positions, etc.

3 Based on all of the above the CO would have a pretty good idea about what he SHOULD have at his disposal. More along the lines of "according to FM-XXX-XXXX I should have heavy artillery assets and at least a platoon of armor for direct fire support". The degree he knows about what is in front of him determines how well he can guess what he should come to the party with.

4. Orders. Regardless of what was what, the CO would have to go about his task with or without an optimal force. He could protest, and perhaps receive additional assets or even a postponement, but that is not up to him. Quality of leadership and circumstances of war dictate how this bit goes. But a senior CO, no matter how accomodating, does not have both of his hands free to sign the paper work to give the CO whatever his mind tells him he needs. More often than not, a CO would find himself going into battle with whatever was around, regardless of if it was the right fit. He might even get somethings that are overkill, or some things that turn out to be utterly useless. That is just the way war goes.

5. Most likely some vague notion of the terrain he was to fight on. Most likely it would be nothing more than a few sketchy reports from some recon units. At best it would be a good quality map. In situations of positional warefare, the quality of information would of course be much better.

Direct and reasoned challenges are welcomed. Assuming that I have things pretty much correct, how does CM stack up for Quick Battle games? As follows:

1. Possibility of Combat - the player has the unrealistic knowledge that, without any question of a doubt, there will be combat. Chalk up a huge unrealistic advantage for both side. Nothing in combat is worse than being surprised, and operational surprise in a tactical wargame does not exist.

2. Enemy Composition - for the most part, each player has a very, very good idea about what the other player is going to bring to the party. The various parameters for QBs establish known parameters for the players to base critical decisions on. Commanders rarely had this sort of advanced knowledge except when re-engaging the same enemy (say later in the day) on the assumption that the enemy was not significantly augmented since the last engagement. The only mystery is WHAT the enemy has, not the basic nature of the force mixture. Chalk up another unrealistic advantage for the human player on either side.

3. Evaluating what is Needed - If the enemy is a Combined Arms force the player knows to bring along some AT assets. If it is all infantry, then obviously infantry guns and artillery should be brought along instead. This sort of planning would be very hard to do if #1 and #2 above were unknowns. But in CM they are, for the most part, known. Chalk up another unrealistic advantage, on average, for the players of both sides.

4. Choosing Forces - Based on an already overly generous notion of what the battle to be fought will be like, you have a PERFECT clean slate before drawing up your forces. You do not start out with an assumption that all you have is a beat up Infantry Company, various support weapons organic to your company, and 2 so-so quality tanks with. Nope, you can start out with an Engineer Company, two infantry support tanks, and LOTS of heavy artillery instead. And if you can't afford the infantry tanks you want, you can puchase whatever else you like that is within your means and the parameters of the game. This is totally, utterly, and absoultely ridiculously unrealistic. Having the computer pick your forces for you is MUCH more realistic, even if the forces it picks are optimal. In fact, especially if the forces aren't optimal. If you have a combined arms battle it won't leave you without some armor. You just don't get to say what armor you get. Sounds pretty realistic to me.

5. Terrain to be Fought Over - Here is the meat of this discussion. CM allows the player to know, to the degree the settings are not "Random", the character and scope of the terrain to be fought over. In the Setup Phase, prior to committing even ONE unit into combat, the player has total and absolutely PERFECT knowledge of the battlefield's terrain. No map in the world can hold a candle to the information the player gets during this phase. Now, coupled with unrealistic knowledge that there will be a fight, roughly the size and composition of the enemy force, time to think about what you should buy, and unrealistic hand picking of forces to be used (to the degree allowed), the player can establish his plan of attack without any more worry than that of tactical surprise and not having sized up the situation correctly.

So please... tell me... how would be giving the player the map BEFORE unit purchases make CM Quick Battles more realistic? You already see the map before you have to deploy your troops. Isn't that the same thing as McDonald having a map with 1000 times the level of detail and accuracy as he would have in the real war?

To sum up... we do "get it". Apparently, and without offense, we "get it" better than most people that have discussed this issue over the last year. The request for seeing the map ahead of time is unrealistic. The logic used FOR seeing the map, which is realistic, is already satisfied by seeing the whole map with 100% accuracy during the Setup Phase where not even one of your units is tied down before you start.

So who here thinks there is a case to be made to sway us into letting the players see the map ahead of time?

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by MERC:

One word of advice, serving in the military doesn't make you an all knowing expert.

2nd, if you gonna claim the "expert" title and be rude, maybe you ought to post your qualifications.

Thats my friendly veteran advice.

Good points, Merck! As a fellow veteran, I can tell you that a true patriot and veteran does NOT look down at those that have not served. Those that do snub their noses at non-vets are beneath contempt...

[Michael Dorosh]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the "problem" (if you see it that way) is the Quick Battles, even entire operations, are taken and played out of context. Many of the current issues we have discussed in the various threads - surrendering units, foreknowledge, 'purchase' of units - exist because we play CM in a very rigid timeline. We only have to maneuver a force in CM for 30 or 60 minute of "game time" and after that, start over with all new forces somewhere else.

The short battles we play are a dichotomy - we demand equal play balance, and then determine that having equal forces is unrealistic! And of course, it is.

Unfortunately, in the absence of a campaign - in which one needs to husband their resources for more than one or a handful of battles - there will always be "gamey" tactics (last turn rushes on enemy positions, for example), and in the end, unrealistic force compositions.

Using a real life examples to illustrate another point - maps used by Allied troops in Italy were abominable. Dancocks discusses this in "D-Day Dodgers" - actually, incorrect maps were in some ways worse than having no maps at all.

I do not agree totally with you, Steve, that the "majority" of battles were fought over completely unfamiliar terrain - but I am satisfied with the (multiple) answers you have given on this point over the past couple of days, and I do in the end agree with your decision to not let players see the terrain before selecting forces.

The way I see it - it comes down to this - no matter how thorough a unit recce'd an enemy position, I think you are correct in assuming that the commander would still not have much leeway in assigning or obtaining assets appropriate to the terrain. In other words

A commander's knowledge of the terrain he is to operate on is irrelevant to what forces he would have.

So it is in Combat Mission.

Let me reiterate - in real life, a commander might be given a detailed map, plus information gathered from local civilians, or Resistance forces, or perhaps he has even fought over the ground before - none of that matters to his force composition since a battalion commander was not in a position to make special requests, by and large - he went with what he was given.

Now that I have had this explained to me, I don't see how the game in any way unrealistically portrays any of this.

In fact, I would now be prepared to argue that in many cases the map shouldn't be seen until after Set Up has been complete, especially for meeting engagments. Meeting Engagements were NEVER planned! LOL! Am I wrong? So why would anybody recce the territory where a meeting engagement is about to take place?

I am sort of serious here, but I hope it is recognized by all that the quick battles - especially the meeting engagements - are for FUN, and I hope we can leave it at that.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Michael wrote:

Using a real life examples to illustrate another point - maps used by Allied troops in Italy were abominable. Dancocks discusses this in "D-Day Dodgers" - actually, incorrect maps were in some ways worse than having no maps at all.

I agree completely. Having walked around in the woods with bad trail maps, for example, I can say that sometimes you would be better off with no map at all. I have also read plenty of accounts where such bad info presented the commander with some very difficult problems to overcome.

This was especially true, for the Germans especially, on the East Front. Heck, have any of you folks seen the wonderfull maps the commanders had, if they had any at all? I have. One that stands out in my mind is Kiev. Big city, but only a few streets were marked along with a few landmarks like "Church" and "Graveyard". Man, it was so blank that you can only imagine that the CO drew in stuff during the battle just to remember where the heck he was fighting!

I do not agree totally with you, Steve, that the "majority" of battles were fought over completely unfamiliar terrain

OK, that was a bit of an overstatement. The defender certainly had more knowledge of the terrain than the attacker, so that means the Germans were often one up on the Allies. Especially along the German border where defensive works were set up well ahead of time (although that is an interesting story of problems all by itself!). And certainly an Allied unit that had to fight for the same piece of turff twice would know more than the first time the trampped off into combat. But

I guess my point is that they would not likely know the extact terrain the battle was going to happen, plan for it in detail, and then gather up all the resources well ahead of time. It was largely done on the fly. Because of that, the detailed terrain information was, even if known when the troops went forward into combat, was not known back when decisions were being made. At least for the attacker, first time engagement, or the defender while in retreat.

Steve

[Tanklover MD]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Good points, Merck! As a fellow veteran, I can tell you that a true patriot and veteran does NOT look down at those that have not served. Those that do snub their noses at non-vets are beneath contempt...

I have had people beg me at induction not to sign a paper which would in essence pass them over for service. They had no choice -- they could not serve.

When I was in, the senior civilian military advisor Dick Cheney was well known for having quite openly gotten out of military service. He was still an effective military thinker despite never having served (and as someone else here said, essentially having "dodged the draft"). The commander and cheif of the military also dodged the draft by wrangling a national guard slot then not finishing, but the military, quite righly, serves him loyally as they did Bill Clinton, and does not grumble that he is a civilian and never served.

I have never understood why people look down on people who did not serve when it is impossible, and not a good thing for everyone to do so.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And would this infantry battalion commander simply pull a tank company out of his ass?

Almost all (if not all) infantry units in the European Theater had attached or organic armor. Typically this would be distributed among the regiments or battalions. The Batallion commander would assign the armor where he felt it was needed.

So you answer is no, not out of his arse but out of the division's armor pool.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pak40:

Almost all (if not all) infantry units in the European Theater had attached or organic armor. Typically this would be distributed among the regiments or battalions. The Batallion commander would assign the armor where he felt it was needed.

So you answer is no, not out of his arse but out of the division's armor pool.

Perhaps in the American example - not for the Germans, British or Americans. You are right to call me on using that kind of language and I do apologize - but I think your example really only pertains to Americans. If so, well stated. But it doesn't work for the others. I do know that Canadian infantry brigades (and by extension, I presume British as well) were quite often supported by armour, either from an armoured division or an independent armoured brigade (there were several of these) - but they were not part of the divisional assets.

Edit for spelling - I will also add that a quick double check of German Infantry Handbook does not reveal any tanks in a German infantry division - of which some 294 were created during World War Two (many of which were not front line divisions). On the other hand, Panzer Colors and the Men at Arms book Panzer Divisions reveal three dozen or so panzer and panzergrenadier divisions, including GD, HG and the SS ones.

Armour is a particularly sexy topic (especially with regards to CM!) and of course they are in many ways more fun to play than the infantry. Most major battles were also fought with armour - I just think it pays to bear in mind that many battles were in fact fought without armour support, and that if anyone is surprised or disappointed when asked to try a scenario out without tanks - they shouldn't be.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Perhaps in the American example - not for the Germans, British or Americans. You are right to call me on using that kind of language and I do apologize - but I think your example really only pertains to Americans. If so, well stated. But it doesn't work for the others. I do know that Canadian infantry brigades (and by extension, I presume British as well) were quite often supported by armour, either from an armoured division or an independent armoured brigade (there were several of these) - but there were not part of the divisional assets.

Canadian troop carriers like the kangaroo in fact were corps level assets assigned from the 79th for set periods of time. You are very correct that the tanks of the ttached tank and TD battalion that heavied up most infantry divisions were on hand for use by lower echelons in the US military, but other forces had many more restrictions.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

True, and this is exactly what you get when you are in the Setup Phase. Even more, you can fly around the terrain and know with 100% what is what and where. McDonald had no such luxury.

.... In fact, picking your forces to begin with is also unrealistic.

Steve

Actually MacDonald did have that luxury on a couple of occasions. He was able to go forward and observer the line before his company was to take over. But, I agree, this is not typically possible. It was only possible with MacDonald because he was to moving into a static/defensive position.

Steve, we both agree that picking your force is not realistic. Yet you've have givin us the OPTION of picking our own units.

We both seem to agree that battlefield commanders somtimes/often have prior knowlede of the ground ther're going to fight on, usually with use of maps or, if they're lucky, aerial photos. So why not give us the OPTION of looking at a bird's eye view of the battlefield before we pick our units?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pak40 wrote:

Actually MacDonald did have that luxury on a couple of occasions. He was able to go forward and observer the line before his company was to take over.

And he covered every vantage point on, say, a 1000m x 2000m area, including the spots occupied by German troops? I got his book, so I guess I missed this part

Seriously...

But, I agree, this is not typically possible. It was only possible with MacDonald because he was to moving into a static/defensive position.

Which is a special case situation. And even then this has nothing to do with hand picking forces for his new positions.

Steve, we both agree that picking your force is not realistic. Yet you've have givin us the OPTION of picking our own units.

We both seem to agree that battlefield commanders somtimes/often have prior knowlede of the ground ther're going to fight on, usually with use of maps or, if they're lucky, aerial photos. So why not give us the OPTION of looking at a bird's eye view of the battlefield before we pick our units?

See my long post above for the "why not" answer. But to kinda break it down, here is the basic flaw in the thinking about the situation here:

Recon has nothing to do with force selection. You can know every stick and pebble of an area, but that in no way shape or form has any influence over the ability to secure forces to fight for said area.

The only VALID reason for seeing a map before purchasing units is to know what type of terrain you are expected to fight on and tailor your units to fit that situation. But, as stated above, this is utterly unrealistic to the degree CM allows you to customize your force. So in fact, requesting this information (the map) before purchasing units is unrealistic no matter how you slice it. You already know too much when you enter the purchase screen, so why give you everything?

As I said before... battlefield recon/map/whatever is simulated in the Setup Phase. You have your forces, which are already unrealistically customized for the most part, and you have 100% accurate map info to formulate a plan BEFORE starting it. So I am at a total loss to understand why there is a need to see the map before purchasing units, except as a way to further undermine realism.

Steve

[Annalist]

Gee, I'm realy sorry to have offended all you people who have it stuck in your mind that this is WWII and you're really there. I greatly appreciate all the time and effort BTS spent making the units and weapons behave as realistically as possible so that a Stuart can't kill a tiger.

But, this is a GAME! I don't really care who had what units in the war or what battles were fought with or without armor. If I wanted to make each battle historically realistic, then I would only put two platoons in a company sector and not deploy their organic crew served weapons.

I just wanted to use real world tactical planning tools in this GAME.

Now I remember why I never posted anything for any game forum before and never will again.

[Guest ciks]

First of all, Mr.Analist, Stuart can kill the Tiger (with rear shot or weak point penetration), and this is realistic.

But, this is a GAME!

well, then go and play it. if you don't like it - don't play, choice is yours.

I just wanted to use real world tactical planning tools in this GAME.

what you ar talking here, i think is more strategic not tactical planning, but i may be wrong, cause i'm not a "military scientist"

and i see no reason why you cannot use good and tactics in the game.

Now I remember why I never posted anything for any game forum before and never will again.

was it something with game forums? or may be yourself?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Actually, Annalist, I think that it's safe to say that most people here realize CM is a game and not the real thing. It's a very engrossing game, yes, but still a game. It's your attitude that has everyone up in arms (no pun intended). In a single day you demanded changes for issues that you barely understand (several of your questions are answered right in the manual, or can be determined by one look at the game interface). You also put down everyone who has not served in the military, along with most of those that have, and you take shots at anyone that does not agree with your point of view on trivial little details. A lot of people have taken the time to rationally debate the merits of your arguments, but in the end you resort to cheap shots and putdowns to defend them. Hmmmmm...I guess those of us on these gaming forums just don't know how to sit quietly and be insulted by the omnipotent, all-knowing, veteran grog - er make that gamer - that goes by the handle of Annalist. Try using honey rather than vinegar sometime, and you'll be sure to find gaming forums to be a much more pleasant and productive arena.

[tss]

Pak40 wrote:

Charles MacDonald, in Company Commander, mentioned the maps that he received before moving into the line. This proves that officers had maps of their area, even down to the platoon leader if I remember correctly.

The availability of maps was very variable in different areas. For example, in Finnish army all platoon leaders supposedly had maps. Supposedly. At least one attack that I know of was planned on and directed by a pencil-scetch on a cigarette box. ("There goes the road, there's a hill and there's two small lakes..."). In another case, an advancing artillery FO had to use a pencil drawn "peitepiirros" (lit. "covering picture", they were usually used for marking positions and such and were made by putting a really thin paper on top of map so that the map lines could be seen through it) and a hand-made square grid.

It was a pretty common occurence that the maps were wrong. Good roads weren't. (This was a very serious problem for Germans in the Arctic area). Trails were in wrong positions. Etc.

Probably the worst map situation was in the Red Army when it attacked Finland in 1939. There were several batallions without any maps at all. In forest terrain. With only one major road going through it. No surprise, that they didn't go further than 150 meters from the road.

- Tommi

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So I am at a total loss to understand why there is a need to see the map before purchasing units, except as a way to further undermine realism.

Steve, I do agree that previewing the map before force picking will be less realistic.

I'm actually not a real proponent of this and I probably wouldn't use this feature very much if it were an option. I guess I was just under the impression that the more options that CM offered, the better the game will be.

Grogs who strive for realism can choose not to use it. Anyone who doesn't really mind the lack of realism can choose to use.

My point is that the choice is left up the two people playing the game. What I'm suggesting is not uncommen in all of the top flight simulators. Flight sims give the choice to tone down the realism. After all, CM is a simulator of sorts, isn't it?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Pak40:

My point is that the choice is left up the two people playing the game. What I'm suggesting is not uncommen in all of the top flight simulators. Flight sims give the choice to tone down the realism. After all, CM is a simulator of sorts, isn't it?

Good points, Pak.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Pak40:

Actually MacDonald did have that luxury on a couple of occasions. He was able to go forward and observer the line before his company was to take over.

You forgot to add - '...and then he took his company there without exchanging the MMGs for mortars, no matter how much he would have liked to do so.'

The other bit (forgot who posted it) about BN COs regularly being able to draw on tanks at leisure, while I don't know it for the US, I highly doubt it. In the Commonwealth forces some armoured/tank brigades found themselves attached to infantry divisions quite regularly and long-term. It was the job of the GOC Division (at lowest the Brigadier) to decide how they were used, not that of the OC Batallion. The latter would just say 'Thank you very much for the squadron of Churchills and the Wasps Major-General, that'll make my day', or 'Uh, are you sure I can not have any of these nice Churchills over there, Major-General?'.

Now - I am not a veteran other than of German national service, but I can read and listen.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Bruno Weiss]

Analist wrote:

Now I remember why I never posted anything for any game forum before and never will again.

Whew! Glad that's settled. For a minute there, I thought we were going to have to overhaul the game again.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[jshandorf]

Originally posted by Annalist:

Every one of you totally missed the point. Of course a company wouldn't go shopping through the battalion arms room and say I'm gonna trade all my .30 cals for 60mm mortars. The battalion commander would, though, say, "hey Bob, I want you to take this town on this here map. Open ground surrounds it for a long way so I'm gonna give you some armor to provide suppressive fire while your infantry company approaches the town. Now do you get it. If you've been in the military and know how these things work, feel free to contribute. If not, shut the HELL up.

Hmmm.. seems like someone didn't read Steve's post. Sigh....

You already get this information. In the map setup when you choose TOWN, LIGHT TREES, FLAT for the terrain you should know that you want to buy a good chunk of armored support.

Jeff

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

First of all, David, you stupid sot, if names were meant to be descriptive, everyone would have the, culturally appropriate, name of, "Ugly little purple person that cries and wets itself." -Meeks.