Rock, scissors and paper and Combat Mission

[Henri]

As everyone knows, unit strength in war is like a game of rock, scissors and paper: Tanks are good against mortars and infantry in the open, infantry are good against artillery and AT, AT units are good against tanks, artillery is good against infantry and AT units, and so on. However combat units are more complicated than the old rock scissors and paper, because the advantages are in shades of gray, and terrain and weather can decisively affect the relative values.

Still, this implies that any force composed of only one kind of unit can be countered by an appropriate force; for example, the vaunted "Ubertank" force consisting of only Tiger tanks would be helpless against an equal-point force of AT and bazooka units, especially in covered or hilly terrain and even more so in wet terrain with poor visibility where the tanks are forced to remain on roads to avoid bogging down.

So what is the optimum choice of units, given a fixed number of points? The simple answer is obvious, but assumes that one knows the composition of the enemy force. The problem is that the enemy is faced with the same dilemma, so the problem is symmetrical.

This is a well-known problem from John Von Neumann's Theory of Games: what is the best choice of strategy in a two-player game when one does not know what choices the opponent will make? The answer is that the best choice is random, with the probabilities determined by the constraints of the problem.

This is why it is generally known that the best choice of units is a combined arms force, the composition of which has the highest probability to counter the most probable dispositions of the opponent. This can be made clear by taking extreme examples: any choice of player A that consists of only one kind of unit will always be inferior to any force of player B that contains a significant number of units against which the units of player A have no defense. For example, a force A consisting of only bazooka units will lose against any force B that has any significant amount of infantry and/or artillery.

Although a combined arms force is the optimum choice for player A, it is not the optimum choice if the opponent B knows exactly WHICH combination of units player A will choose, because in that case, player B can put together a force which is superior to that of A. So if player B always knows what the composition of player A's force is but player A does not know Player B's, player B can get a decisive advantage every time.

Now Combat Mission is a complex game, and there are combinations of terrain ad units against which there is no equal defense; one example is the large "billiard table" map where one side (say A) has a force consisting mainly of Jagdtigers and a bit of artillery. Player B's counter of AT guns can be neutralized by A's artillery while the thicker armor and better long-distance accuracy of the German tanks ensures a decisive advantage against any Allied composition.

Aside from such pathological and unrealistic cases, the question remains: for a given point distribution, what is the "best" choice of units for a player, say the Germans? It is clear from the above that this optimum choice should allow for some flexibility, otherwise the opponent knows what one has and can take appropriate action to ensure superiority (assuming that the point distribution allows it). The question is further complicated by the fact that in most kinds of Quick Battles, there are constraints on how much one can spend for each class of units.

Consider for instance a 1000-point Quick Battle Meeting engagement: if the German player wants a tank, he can have only a regular Panther, two Veteran Hetzers or a Hetzer and a PzIVH, which means that his only choices for armor vs armor are a Panther and either one or two Hetzers. For infantry, the only company that is within the point limit is the Rifle Company, whereas the superior Panzergrenadier, Pioneer and other infantry companies cost too much. The only way for the German to get better infantry is to buy them by the Platoon which is more expensive, but which may be better than letting his opponent know that he has only second-class infantry. The German player still has an advantage in choice of support vehicles, namely halftracks with HMGs or infantry guns or mortars, but whether this is enough to counter the Allies' best choices is still unclear to me.

The Allies, on the other hand, have more armor points, so he can use his greater armor points to buy one M10 Tank Destroyer and an M4 Sherman, or various other combinations of two tanks. Although his choices of infantry are more restricted, the US Rifle infantry Company (the only choice for the US) is considerably superior to the corresponding German Rifle Company, so it is clear that the US player should choose this infantry.

There are probably other choices, but for the German player, the knowledge that he will in all probability be facing one or two Allied tanks force him to buy at least one tank, and that can only be the Panther or the Hetzer. The Allied player has more flexibility: he could go for only one tank in favor of more infantry or of more artillery. Either player could forego tanks completely and replace them with AT units, but unless visibility is poor, this could be risky in a Meeting engagement where mobility is important.

I haven't really thought this through, but given the rock, scissors and paper nature of meeting engagements, one is led to wonder why BTS thought it necessary to put constraints in order to decrease the flexibility of choice of the players. Clearly the more flexibility there is, the more probable it is that any single game will be strongly unbalanced because one of the players guessed wrong; the point-limit constraints channel the players into certain restricted lines of unit composition as described above, which makes it less likely that the result will be strongly unbalanced. Whether these constraints are fair or not is of course another question…

Henri

[Spook]

A good opening discussion, Henri, but in regards to choosing forces for quick battles, there is one added factor that you didn't seem to mention.

As it goes now for me in multiplayer QB's, I pick forces first and THEN see the terrain map I deploy on. If I could see the lay of the battlefield terrain first, that would also guide my choice of forces.

[Guest wwb_99]

Good post. I would like to point out that the 'rock, paper, siccors' dilemma is as old as war itslef. In ancient times you needed spearmen to keep the cavalry off your archers who broke up the charge with volleys of arrows. This trend continued thru the age of musketry and into the modern day, as you point out.

I would like to see alot more force composition options for CM2, preferably restricting what kind of units one can buy in general (i.e. no heavy armor, no artillery, etc.) depending on which set you choose. I would also like to see a user-definable ratio system, so one can make their desired mix and stop bitching at BTS to do it for them.

WWB

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

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

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Michael Dorosh]

Excellent posts, both of you. I too would like to be able to see the terrain before I purchase my forces, which would be realistic - any battalion commander may not have had a choice as to what supporting units he would use - but he would almost always send a recce in to determine which battalion subunits he would commit to an attack.

[Speedbump]

Wow! Game Theory...haven't heard that since I finished school. Very nice discussion.

I remember my first PBEM game. It was a QB started by my opponent, and I was given German Mountain Troops (can't come close to spelling). No armour in my choices. Well, sure enough, I place them along the top of a ridge inside of houses and in patches of woods. My opponent, playing French combined arms, rolls out 2 M-7 Priests and within 3 turns digs out 60% of my units. Needless to say, this is a good example of his rocks crushing my scissors!

I also agree, sometimes it is very tough picking units without knowledge of the terrain. In the above case, I chose two 75mm AT guns, but found out that my ridge overlooked a valley. Great LOS for my guns, but no cover. Like my infantry, they did not last very long.

Speedbump

[iggi]

Here's an article on "How to play wargames"

http://www.strategypage.com/prowg/default.asp?target=wargameshandbook/2-how_to.htm

[Jarmo]

This is, in a way, the very reason I have tried to speak for the "no limits in purchasing" -option,

in addition to combined and others.

There seems to be a way of thinking, that you NEED to have as much armor as possible.

One might suggest choosing an "armored" force then, but if you do your enemy knows you'll

be going heavy on tanks and

can counter easily.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Nice post Henri. Where do you people find the time to write these things?

By the way, why is Allied infantry superior to German?

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Guest Pillar]

You guys should post this stuff in the Tips section, we need more people over there.

[JoePrivate]

I disagree about the US having more flexibility, IMO the Germans still have the edge there even with reduced Armour points. Case in point for a 1000pt Combined Arms meeting engagement:

Axis

Example#1

1 SS Mot. Company(4MG42/2Mortars)

1 MkIVH

1 Hetzer

1 250/9

1 234/3

1 Panzershreck

1 120mmFO

or

Example#2

2 Volks. Companys

2 StugIIIs

1 234/3

2 MG42s

1 120mmFO

or

Example#3

1 SS Rifle Company(2MG42)

1 SS Mot. Platoon

1 LMG42

1 Puppchen

1 Kubelwagon

1 120mmFO

1 JgPzIV

1 MarderII

1 Puma

US

Example#1

1 Rifle44 Company(3MGs/3zooks/3mortars)

1 81mm FO

2 Hellcats

1 Vet Greyhound

1 M8 HMC

or switch the armour to

1 M4A3

1 Hellcat

1 Greyhound

1 M8 HMC

Example#2

1 Rifle44 Company(3MGs/3zooks/3mortars)

1 4.2"FO

2 M4A1s

1 Greyhound

Once the US has selected a Rifle Company his choices are limited after that, of course the US player could select platoons then:

Example#3

4 Rifle Platoons

2 MGs

2 Bazookas

2 M10s

1 Priest

1 M3A1

1 81mm FO

The German still has more freedom in mixing and matching units. There's no need for a Panther when the 75L/48 is more than adequate for most Allied armour.

I think if a player selects a balanced combined arms force then he will be able to deal with any situation that crops up with the proper tactics.

[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Henri]

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

I disagree about the US having more flexibility, IMO the Germans still have the edge there even with reduced Armour points. Case in point for a 1000pt Combined Arms meeting engagement:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have the game here and I was going from memory (maybe I pressed the wrong buttons, but I was sure that yesterday I could only choose a German Rifle Company...); I'll check out the numbers tonight and maybe have to revise my statements to some extent (darn memory...)

(later)

Oh OK, now I know: I was assuming that the German player was staying with Heer only units. You are right that I should have considered other options such as the ones that you give. No wonder I was losing all my games as the Germans. Now let me see that list again...

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Good topic. I will say that the Rarity system in CM2 will add a lot to the mix. Also, we are going to introduce more "random" variables to setup options, thus reducing the player's ability to cater his forces to a specific condition (few commanders were EVER able to do this).

Henri asked:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I haven't really thought this through, but given the rock, scissors and paper nature of meeting engagements, one is led to wonder why BTS thought it necessary to put constraints in order to decrease the flexibility of choice of the players.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To increase realism. Commanders were not able to selectively pick and choose what unit mixes they had for a battle. In other words, "I am on the defensive... I will buy 200 HMG units and no infantry". By having the point restrictions by unit category we prevent the extemes from happening. There is still more flexibility built into CM's system than any real life commander had.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Clearly the more flexibility there is, the more probable it is that any single game will be strongly unbalanced because one of the players guessed wrong;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Why would we want to design Quick Battles that catere to unrealisticly unbalanced forces? This undermines CM's basic founding principles of realism and historical balance. Put another way, open the door for "abuse" and it will be ripped of the hinges

Michael Dorosh wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Excellent posts, both of you. I too would like to be able to see the terrain before I purchase my forces, which would be realistic - any battalion commander may not have had a choice as to what supporting units he would use - but he would almost always send a recce in to determine which battalion subunits he would commit to an attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an option we will not be putting into CM2. On balance, it is not realistic. Yes, in some ways a commander would be able to cater his force to a particular circumstance. But this was generally only possible when the defense was preplaned far in advance, with priorities for units, and the attack was conducted in a preplaned way. The overwhelming vast majority of combat situations at CM's level did not fall into these categories.

Time and time again you read about commanders having the wrong units at the wrong time and under the wrong conditions. That is war. If we allowed players to examine the maps before hand, this uncertainty and reality goes out the window. Plus, the map in CM contains thousands of more times the information that any commander would have on the attack. You not only know where each clump of trees are, for example, but you know BEFORE you get there, what the LOS will likely be from one of these clumps to some other spot on the map.

If you get a FOG battle and you have AT Guns, well tough You should not be able to NOT purchase them, knowing this, and instead purchase a dozen PS teams instead.

No... overall, it is unrealistic to let the player know more than the basics of what the QB will be like.

Steve

[Vanir]

Joe inspired me to run a few setups myself.

For a 1000 pt combined arms QB ME typical purchases could go like this:

US

3 44 Rifle platoons

3 .50 .Cal MGs

2 Bazookas (veteran)

1 4.2 in. Mortar FOs

1 M18 Hellcat

1 E8 Sherman (76)

1 M8 Greyhound

German

3 Fallschirmjager platoons

3 shreck (comes with the platoons)

2 MG42 HMGs

1 120mm FO

2 Hetzers

2 Pumas

1 234/3 AC

US has the advantage in arty (120mm only has 50 rounds). Germans have advantage in infantry (Fallsguys eat US 44 for lunch). Armor looks like a toss up despite limited choices for the German.

Just for the heck of it (or perhaps because I prefer the larger battles) I also set up some 3000 pt MEs

US

9 44 Rifle platoons

6 .50 Cal. MGs

6 Bazookas (veteran)

2 57mm AT guns (flank protection)

2 M3A1 HTs

2 4.2 in. FOs

2 81mm FOs

2 Greyhounds

6 M8 HMCs (infantry support)

4 M10 Wolverines

Alternately you can go heavy armor. Instead of the Greyhound/HMC/M10 you get:

4 Jumbos (76)

1 Greyhound

Germans

9 SS Mot. platoons

6 MG42 HMGs

6 Shrecks (veteran)

2 50mm Pak38 guns (flank security)

2 Kubelwagons

3 120mm FOs

2 81mm FOs

3 Jadgpanthers

3 239/3 (inf. support)

2 251/9 HT (inf. support)

Instead of 3 Jadgpanthers you could go with 7 Hetzers or 3 Panthers or 2 Tigers and 2 Mk IVs or 2 King Tigers.

Lots of other possibilities.

Once again the US has a small arty advantage, the Germans a infantry advantage. Despite the fewer armor category points I don't really see a disadvantage for the Germans there with armor.

I think what evens it out is that the Germans have units in the vehicle category that are good at infantry support while the US does not. This frees up the Germans to use all their armor points on anti-armor vehicles. The US has to use armor points for both infantry support vehicles and most anti-armor vehicles. The Germans also benefit from having some armor units that are very good against both armor and infantry (Tiger and Panther).

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 01-19-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Yes, in some ways a commander would be able to cater his force to a particular circumstance. But this was generally only possible when the defense was preplaned far in advance, with priorities for units, and the attack was conducted in a preplaned way. The overwhelming vast majority of combat situations at CM's level did not fall into these categories.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate the reply. I've been doing an in-depth study of one Canadian battalion at war for a website - http://highlanders.freehosting.net/ and I do respect your viewpoint. From my limited perspective, however, on the face of it, it seems to me that most of the battalion's major battles were indeed preplanned over terrain familiar to them at least by map if nothing else.

Really, though, the OB of the battalion was not subject to change - but the amount of support was (and again, to a limited degree - invariably they would have had Shermans or wasps, with 25 pounder artillery, 4.2 mortars from the div MG battalion, 17 pounder AT guns frmo the div AT battalion, etc.)n - and the fiddling that game players make assigning PIATs over 17 pounders, etc., simply would not have occurred. They took what they could take - your rarity system sounds like a winner, and I look forward to seeing it.

As part of these major battles though, I can definitely see your point - they would have devolved into smaller, confused, actions. Look at a hasty counterattack by German infantry, say, after a village has been taken. They would not have had time to recce the ground, and like you say - if all they had was AT guns, well, tough, they went in with them and did their best.

A last thought - perhaps one of the QB options could be "set piece" battle - where you DO get to survey the terrain? Don't know if there is any merit in that but I will throw it out for discussion. The majority of infantry actions were not setpieces - but those set pieces that did exist set the stage for the other, smaller battles that all big ones devolve into.

Then again, perhaps that is what Operations are for? Any chance of Quick Operations?

[Vanir]

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

Any chance of Quick Operations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh. Don't get me going. One can only hope.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Jarmo]

OK, I understand the BTS reasons. But I still disagree.

I know I'd like to (every now and then) choose my forces without any (artificial) limitations

set by the game. Sure, commanders would almost never have the freedom of choosing their

forces, but by this logic the shopping should always be automatic. I believe not many players

would like that.

As for the unbalaincing effect of choosing "wrong". I have been going through this in my head,

but I can't find the force combination that could easily crush a solid combined arms force.

And finally, I'm not trying to get any of the current options removed!

I'd just like to get the freedom of choice many have searched through custom made scenarios

generated by a 3rd person.

[Spook]

(This is in regards to being allowed to see terrain in a QB setup prior to force selection)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

This is an option we will not be putting into CM2. On balance, it is not realistic. Yes, in some ways a commander would be able to cater his force to a particular circumstance. But this was generally only possible when the defense was preplaned far in advance, with priorities for units, and the attack was conducted in a preplaned way. The overwhelming vast majority of combat situations at CM's level did not fall into these categories.

Time and time again you read about commanders having the wrong units at the wrong time and under the wrong conditions. That is war. If we allowed players to examine the maps before hand, this uncertainty and reality goes out the window. Plus, the map in CM contains thousands of more times the information that any commander would have on the attack. You not only know where each clump of trees are, for example, but you know BEFORE you get there, what the LOS will likely be from one of these clumps to some other spot on the map.

If you get a FOG battle and you have AT Guns, well tough You should not be able to NOT purchase them, knowing this, and instead purchase a dozen PS teams instead.

No... overall, it is unrealistic to let the player know more than the basics of what the QB will be like.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate the rationale offered above, Steve, and agree with much of it. Knowing a map outlay beforehand will increase the propensity for some CM gamers to use more gamey "cherry picking" in force selection instead of less.

But I'm gonna have to take you to the woodshed on one of your assertions, though. I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that "preplanned offenses and/or preplanned defenses were a rarity in CM-level tactical battles."

If considering ALL small-level unit actions, then you can make such a case. Even more in a "fluid environment" where one side or the other is moving rapidly in unknown terrain.

But in historic "static zones", the preplanned attack/defense scenarios are much more plausible. Two good examples for the West Front are the Normandy campaign and pushing the West Wall defense period.

"Static" scenarios would nominally be best done as predesigned user scenarios. But in multiplayer, the possibility exists that one player or the other has already played that scenario.

If there was a way to constrain the "cherry picking" (or rather, constrict QB players to stick closer to historical TO&E's), and to provide an added "2-D virtual map" (where players know the basic terrain, but cannot do a detailed 3-D inspection), then I think that "static" QB's could be viable.

Yes, I know, Steve, it's one thing to suggest added features, and quite another to program them in to give some limited addition to QB flexibility. I'm just ruminating on concepts for the moment.

[CavScout]

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

There seems to be a way of thinking, that you NEED to have as much armor as possible.

One might suggest choosing an "armored" force then, but if you do your enemy knows you'll be going heavy on tanks and

can counter easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is simply untrue as the point pools for the other force pools (infantry, support...) are nearly the same as in combined arms.

1,000 point game Quick Battle Meeting Engagment:

Force-Combined Arms/Armor

Infantry-620/520

Support-248/208

Vehicle-250/200

Armor-200/1000

Artillery-150/150

There is very little point shift other than armor and even then those matter little as you want more armor points to spend in the combined arms. If you select armor and spend 300 points in armor you will have roughly the same force as combined arms.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, "'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."--Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[von Lucke]

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

This is, in a way, the very reason I have tried to speak for the "no limits in purchasing" -option,

in addition to combined and others.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've said it before: This seems like the answer to everybody's problems. The whole QB system is arbitrary and ahistorical, so why not allow complete freedom in choosing yr forces? As Jarmo has said, it won't take away, merely add to enjoyment of the game.

[Panther131]

Von Lucke... agreed.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

I've said it before: This seems like the answer to everybody's problems. The whole QB system is arbitrary and ahistorical, so why not allow complete freedom in choosing yr forces? As Jarmo has said, it won't take away, merely add to enjoyment of the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except they are not ahistorical, not really arbitrary, can be worked around if you want it different, engender a wide range of options, and even with choose anything you want no limits purchase you still have other game limits.

Why do you purchase in platoon strength? Platoons historically acted together, but we could just dump the whole platoon thing since it restricts choice, and in your thesis enjoyment. I have never heard anyone say, "boy this game sucks because I have to buy whole platoons rather than cherry pick different squads."

The question being is does the system tilt the game to one side or another (no chance to win at all would be no fun), and is it historical that limitations be placed on certain force mixes. The first question has never been addressed, so I assume it is mostly rhetorical. As Vanir and others have shown lots of German combinations are excellent fighting forces.

The second question depends on what your view of reality and what CM is. Is CM historical or is it Battlecraft with WW2 tanks? If you believe the latter then certainly trying to force historical give and takes in small unit actions is silly. The game just a fancy type of Chess, all abstract and no history. I would then propose a review of the strengths of Allied tanks to bring them on par with the Axis, and some work done to make US squads more able to go toe to toe with axis, or we could allow you to buy any unit, Axis or Allied, to fill out your force. Shermans serving next to Panthers and everything is fair.

The game, in my view, is historical in nature, and history says a combined arms force had limitations in what was assigned to it. Take Audie Murphy, who said, "They (higher command) only assigned two M-10s to the company attack, which was less than we needed but more than we could sometimes expect." The fight in which Audie Murphy won the CMH was an example of the limitations set on combined arms. Murphy would have liked more armour, but couldn't get it.

As for restrictions in points, all are based on historical records that no one has refuted. The Allies had limitations in infantry, not enough ground pounders to go around, but they had something like 6 tanks / TDs for every German tank assault gun at the front. A commander will be able to hand out more tanks / TDs to a lower echelon for a combined arms force.

Germans on the other hand were masters of the eratz tank and the use of antitank assets to bleed off an attacking force's armour. Armed HTs, the panzerchrek, and experienced AT guns made any Allied attack a struggle.

No one has tried to produce any evidence that Germans had an equal number of tanks as the allies, or the the allies did not really have a limit on the number of infantry units they could field.

Now the question is why did BTS choose the number that they did to represent theses historical difference. Just like unit quatlity, they had to make an educated guess based on play testing. Then they ask, in QBs, at the level we have chosen, does it result in a realistic looking force.

So, to recap:

--Is CM a historical or a fantasy game. I would argue that it is historical with every attempt possible made to show reality. US armour after all has simulated all of the weaknesses of it that it possesed in reality. An ahistorical fantasy game would try to balance the Sherman better to the Panther. QBs attempt to be as historical as possibly while allowing them to be even contests for competition fun.

--Is the various restrictions reflective of the historical reality of combined arms? The answer is a strong yes. If the German player had desired an armour heavy force, then they should choose armour in the set-up screen to represent an Panzer unit. That choice can still be used to simulated combined arms, just not by spending all the points in armour.

--Does the system, as it stands, result in a "fair" game in QBs? As Vanir and others showed, the answer is yes. Even in meeting engagements the Germans access to mobile anti-tank assets other than AFVs allows them to build strong combined arms combinations. While it is possible to build a force with guaranteeded failure written on it, or to use the point structure to hobble the Germans as a demonstration, it is equally possible to build forces that are even, tough combinations that can rock, paper, and scissors. Note Joe Private and Vanir again.

If the system of historical and practical limitations were relaxed in favor of a cherry picker method, then everyone looses. Maybe that guy was stupid to buy 50 pupchins or 10 88 AT bunkers, but my game is ruined because he did.

In addition, why stop at removing historical limitations on combined arms? It is unfair that I cannot get a Pershing in June 1944 after all, since this was a historical quirk and it limits my freedom, so lets dump when units become available. And why can't I buy tungsten for my 50mm AT guns? I would rather have 10 tungsten than 30 AP rounds anyway. Same with the Shermans, let me load up on Tungsten at the expense of other rounds, since we are looking for maximum personal control and minimum historical reality. The move away from historical realism and too fantasy football with tanks is more complex than it seems, and could be taken in other directions.

[medlinke]

I think that this topic is indeed interesting to say the least. Certainly a lot of excellent points about force makeup have been suggested and this is very important to a successful battle.

Too little, Too much and you spoil the scenario. As Sun Tzu wrote, battles are won or lost before the first shot is ever fired. He was obviously not talking about force makeup solely, but I think that this is certainly one component, but definitely not the whole thing.

In Combat Mission, as in real life, maneuver is extremely important. I'm not suggesting completely mechanized forces. I am merely making the point that maneuverability can lead to crushing movements on the battlefield.

The idea of attacking the Schwerpunkt, or attacking the one thing that will make or break a force should be the essential goal of all combat actions.

BTS has done a great job of making terrain as vital as the actual units in CM. So regardless of what you pick, you must be able to adapt those forces to maneuver against the enemy's nerve center (DUH...)

BUT, the trick is understanding exactly how to overcome the opponent's strength. This is where the Rock, Paper Scissors theory comes in. Getting that troop type at the vital piece or terrain, or getting your forces in a place where they can strike at the enemy's nerve center is the real key.

For those who believe Gamey tactics are unfair, should understand this. Your opponent has 3 UberTanks...So what, you get rid of those and your enemy is toast!

Maneuver is the key!

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

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

Quick Battle League Play 2001 SeriesLeagues are forming now!

[StellarRat]

BTS,

I suggest you make rarity and force composition optional. That way the players can use them if they want to or they can allow QBs with Uber Forces etc...This will also give you a chance run test QBs before the rarity code is written. Also, I like the idea of allow the terrain to be viewed before a QB as an additional optional setting. Neither one of these settings seems like a lot of additional coding to me.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The U.S. should be able to use "vehicle" points for artillery. That would level things considerable, by giving him a "point sink" for those otherwise marginally-useful points and also bringing his 105mm and such into the affordable range.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Better yet - how about only 3 categories for points? "Must be spent on infantry", "may be spent on tanks/heavy armor", "everything else? So for each size battle, size, type, you'd only need 2 figures - infantry this much or more, and armor this much or less?

Then players could try infantry + vehicle, or infantry + artillery combinations. Force flexibility would go up. It would be possible to buy forces that more closely reflect particular weapons mixes actually used in this or that mid-sized formation type. But uber armor would be restricted by the armor point limit, and everything else would be at least somewhat restricted by the desire to cover more urgent needs.

A complete infanrty (and light mortars / support weapons, etc) force would also be possible, something I for one wouldn't mind seeing. It ought to lose against a combined arms force - but whether your enemy could after not buying enough infantry or artillery is another question.

A suggestion. An option to allow, as a mutually agreed player setting? For what it is worth...