Force Selection Idea (cm2?)

[Thermopylae]

Presenting a solution to the long argued gamey issue:

If BTS would incorporate a "realistic" computer pick option in CM2 as compared to mere automatic selection. The players would select a generic force composition (combined, inf, etc.) as well as branch. Using these givens, the players would select the size of game they wanted to fight. So you would pick a "reinforced company" size game, and the computer would crank out a realistic TO&E at random from the branch of service selected, the size being naturally upped for the Russians and the attackers, and then modified by chance (since no unit was precisely at TO&E). Experience levels would then be randomly determined based on unit (fallschirmjaeger being more likely to be of high quality than say, volksgrenadiers) . Appropriate armor/artillery levels for that force would be doled out, with the actual tanks/batteries being detrmined by the likelihood of them appearing in the given force. So Guards and SS might be more likely to possess newer tanks/more of them etc, with of course modifications for the attackers. With this system there is a chance for a realistic, but not completely foretold, confrontation.

[109 Gustav]

It might be interesting to play with, but I'm guessing that it would be hard to implement.

You can kind of set this up anyway. For a company sized battle, set up a 700 point battle, and agree that you won't buy more than 150 or so points worth of tanks or vehicles. This will let you get a Pz IV or maybe a pair of StuGs, but the game certainly won't be dominated by armor.

Use the setup options to tweak the game to what you want, ex. high quality British paratroopers versus low quality volksstrum. Or, if you want low quality volkstrum supported by one or two tanks, set the Axis units to Unrestricted, with the agreement that you'll only buy volkstrum and X points of armor.

[CptSwampy]

I would like to jump on this bandwagon in a modified style...

I think that it would be nice to have SOME intel about enemy forces and terrain prior to the force selection screen in quickbattles IF YOU ARE THE ASSAULTING or PROBING force.

My reasoning is that you would in real life have done a map recon at the lest, so you would have hard and fast data about roads/terrain/obstacles (like rivers) and also you would have an estimate at least of what you are up against.

Now, I think in the spirit of the FOG of war, the info that the game gives you should be fuzzy at best, but it could be loosely based on what the defender has choosen, although underestimated or overestimated in someway... cuz we all know how good intel usually is!

Since both sides can't have an intel estimate if humans are picking the forces (someone has to pick first) I guess priority should go to the attacker b/c they are presumably preparing to attack and part of their prep would be intel gathering!

Thanks for listening to me rant.

By the way, have I told you how cool I think the fog of war modeling is? It is something I'm constantly appreciating!

:cool:

[The Commissar]

Personally, I like Thromopilay's idea. This sort of realistic unit selection would be the ULTIMATE anti-niggleing tool! No more "Oh you only won 'cause of those 25 green Volks platoons!" (something which actually happened to me once *shudder*).

Its better then just agreeing on stuff because that takes a good long while to get everything "historicly correct" according to one player or another. Different people have different information on what's historical (something which also happened to me a good number of times).

The only thing which could be difficult is for BTS to do the research for different battle groups which changed throughout the course of the war. You know, as supplies and troops increased or decreased in quality.

[lcm1947]

Yeah I'm for the orignal post too. Sounds like the fairest way to do it and at the same time it would be real interesting.

[Jeff Duquette]

I like Thermopylae's idea.

[Grisha]

I like Thermopylae's idea as well. Reminds me of the way Talonsoft's East Front oob is done.

As to CptSwampy's post, I also agree. An assault was definitely preceded by reconnaissance of some sort, whether LURP-type, aerial, or reconnaissance in force. One way of doing this in CM now when creating scenarios is to put text names on the map, such as '1st line of defense', or 'minefields', or 'enemy bunker'. In fact, you could do all kinds of things with this idea, including false information.

[Thermopylae]

Yes, this method would take a considerable amount of research, particularly for troop quality likelihood, but I figure for the TO&Es you wouldn't have to do every battle group, just take an example division from that time period/branch and use its equipment as a reference.

Heres another idea BTW, how about in the early war only partially armed soviet squads being an option? You know, the quarter million man armies that were commissioned without rifles. The troop count would be the same (or higher) of a normal russian squad, but they would only possess around half the weaponry of a normal squad. This would further inspire use of mass. After all those extra bodies count in a close assualt, but are useless at a rnaged fight

[Skipper]

ROFLMAO! Talk about a synchronous thinking

Just today I was reflecting on the fact that more often than not a commanding officer would roughly know what he is facing - before the engagement. And therefore, it would be nicer to discuss TCP/IP setups in terms like "motorized infantry batallion vs reinforced company" or some such.

Or maybe make a 2000 pts ME and agree that about 75% will be spent on buying a pre-agreed standard TO&E formation, and the rest on reinforcements at player's free will.

During the force selection I would definitely like to see the map.

[Thermopylae]

BTS Bumping fun...

I think seeing the map and core force selection have to be mutually exclusive. A real commander WOULD know what he was attacking, but then again he'd be stuck with his command and some support, not being able to ideally pick.