Lots of dust......higher elavations....longer battles?

[James Crowley]

Take a close look at that lovely new CMAK screenshot with the mountainous hill (what is that - new level 25 elevation?)

That looks about an hours worth of climb, to me. And that's without combat kit and nasties lobbing bullets, grenades and shells at you; and you trying to shoot back, assuming you can even see through the fog of dust thrown up by explosions.

But I have a sinking feeling that I am still going to be seeing scenarios asking me to capture that hill in the 30 minutes that seems to have become the standard time frame for CM battles

(be that as a result of accident, design or limitations within the CM engine, I'm not sure)

I've yet to read of any WW2 battle, of company strength or above, that was fought to a conclusion in thirty minutes (beyond one-offs such as at Pegasus Bridge) or less.

CM allows, in theory at least, battles to last up to two hours. Please let us see scenarios in CMAK that reflect the reality of the theatres they are based in. Italy in particular was a slogging match; very little happened quickly there.

With, presumably, much reduced LOS due to lots more dust, and much more difficult terrain to traverse, scenarios will hopefully be given longer playing times, a bit more in tune with reality.

[Abbott]

That looks about an hours worth of climb, to me.

But I have a sinking feeling that I am still going to be seeing scenarios asking me to capture that hill in the 30 minutes that seems to have become the standard time frame for CM battles

(be that as a result of accident, design or limitations within the CM engine, I'm not sure)

CM allows, in theory at least, battles to last up to two hours.

With, presumably, much reduced LOS due to lots more dust, and much more difficult terrain to traverse, scenarios will hopefully be given longer playing times, a bit more in tune with reality.

Good points all, Jim.

…a bit more in tune with reality I think the reality of the situation is time. Time after family, work and basic to do’s. I have read many, many comments from players on these forums of how much they prefer small to medium battles without a great number of turns, do to personal time constraints.

Maybe those who choose to post in this thread might include their opinion on timeframe/turns they prefer in scenarios?

[Michael Dorosh]

I prefer company sized actions; 30 minutes is not an unrealistic amount of time for a unit to cross the start line (now called the "line of departure) and be expected to secure its objectives.

Perhaps Mr. Crowley could provide some historical examples of company actions that were expected to take longer?

Of the operations orders I've seen for company attacks, 30 minutes seems about right. I haven't seen a lot of them, admittedly, though.

CM simply isn't a realistic game; a realistic company assault would be preceded by a ton of artillery plastering the target, with the company then advancing a couple hundred metres to clear out some holes in the ground or buildings, behind the cover of the artillery. Where's the fun in that?

Was Mr. Crowley advocating a game where we spend 2 hours crawling up a mountain to get in position for a five minute assault? Granted, it would be much more realistic, but who would want to play it?

[Sergei]

Also consider that any WW2 commander would have given his soul for such short command delays, borg spotting, being allowed to plot moves without the clock ticking, and so on. This makes CM battles compressed, them representing just the culmination of a larger event, the exciting bits. Biggest part of any real war goes in waiting for the hurry.

[kipanderson]

Jim, hi,

Well… on this I agree with you.

My view is that time limits, on this scale, are unrealistic. From all the real world accounts of WWII, and other, battles it would make no difference at all if a battle for a given hill top, or village, took 35 minutes, or 55 minutes.

In the real world there was often “operational” time pressure. But it would be a case of “attack at dawn, be sure you have cleared the hamlet by 10.00 hours”. Say, three or four hours later. By far the most important thing would be to clear the village at a positive casualty ratio, or at lowest possible cost. If it saved lives, but took twenty minutes longer, then that would be the way it was done.

What this means is that I always set the time limit to 90 minutes in battles, 60 minutes in operations.

There will have been exceptions to the above, there are always exceptions in such a huge war, but they are very few. Basic rule is there should be no time limits, the time limit being when your men are low on ammunition or have suffered too heavy casualties. In my view, but we all differ on these matters.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I think that the biggest limitation on longer games, even on bigger maps, is ammo load. Don't know about realism, but I would like to see either higher ammo loads and/or the ability to resupply mid-battle (not just between operation battles). I use every technique to minimize ammo use, but even so a point platoon can burn through most or all of their ammo in just a few minutes. In a company, I only have 3 platoons, so I really only get about 10 minutes (give or take) of intense fighting with them, less if I engage with more than one platoon at a time. Granted some of the battle time is scouting, advancing without firing, etc. I would love to play a 60, 90 or 120 minute battle, but I know that my ammo supply won't allow it.

Dr. Rosenrosen

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Try static operations.

In the accounts I have read battles, for even quite small objectives, would often take a quite a few hours, with pauses in between. They would be made up of a number “pushes” or assaults with pauses to reorganise in between. Each “assault” being a “battle” in static operations.

I find comments such as “the battle for xxxxx went on all morning” is the norm, even when there is a happy out come. The exceptions being when indeed the artillery had flattened a position, or it turned out to be very lightly held.

Normally, with in the time scale of CM games, 30-90 minutes, taking the objective with minimum casualties would be what really mattered. In my view.

Anyway… do try Static Operations.

All the best,

kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

I find comments such as “the battle for xxxxx went on all morning” is the norm,

I would suggest that includes not just the initial phases, but also the counter-attack stages and holding the position just as often as it would include simply the assault itself.

[Franko]

It goes without saying that scenarios can be a LOT longer than 30 minutes (up to 120 turns), but I agree that the BIG factor is ammo load: designers need to fully load infantry in particular. Its frequently neglected.

F

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by James Crowley:

But I have a sinking feeling that I am still going to be seeing scenarios asking me to capture that hill in the 30 minutes that seems to have become the standard time frame for CM battles

(be that as a result of accident, design or limitations within the CM engine, I'm not sure)

I've yet to read of any WW2 battle, of company strength or above, that was fought to a conclusion in thirty minutes (beyond one-offs such as at Pegasus Bridge) or less.

CM allows, in theory at least, battles to last up to two hours. Please let us see scenarios in CMAK that reflect the reality of the theatres they are based in. Italy in particular was a slogging match; very little happened quickly there.

Hear, hear. I agree completely. Historically, company commanders were not under a 30 minute time restraint. I think that we, as wargame players, should have the same freedom.

Recently, I have been taking the matter into my own hands with the scenarios I play. If I can get my opponent to agree to it, I often open up the scenario and add on 10 or 20 turns, to get the game length to around 50 or 60 minutes. I simply won't play a 30 turn scenario anymore, because I know the time constraint will force it to play out in a 'gamey' way.

CM is a pretty realistic wargame, and for me the fun is trying my hand at realistic tactics in various situations. These realistic tactics often take time to develop properly, particularly in infantry battles.

I think that the CM community is slowly coming around to this idea. For example, the recently released Kursk pack has some scenarios with 45, 60, and 80 turn limits.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Historically, company commanders were not under a 30 minute time restraint.

Why do you say this?

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Runyan99:

Historically, company commanders were not under a 30 minute time restraint.

Why do you say this? </font>

[Emar]

Even at the 5 meter elevation change setting in the map editor, traversing from level 0 to level 25 equates to climbing just a little over 400 feet. A daunting challenge if designed as a cliff but not that much of a climb using a gradual slope. In comparison Cassino was over 1700 feet above the valley in front of it and many other taller positions were assaulted in Italy.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

It did not matter if an objective was secured in ten minutes, or two hours.

That depends. Often what you say was the case. But sometimes the firefight depicted in a CM battle can be thought of as part of a larger coördinated attack. If capture and securing of the objective was not accomplished in the alloted time, it would cause the whole operation to falter and possibly fail.

Do not take this, BTW, as an unconditional endorsement for the 30 minute limit. I think the scenario designer in assigning a time limit needs to either try to discover what the original pace of battle was, if working from a historical situation, or decide on his own what a reasonable amount of time would be given the task and the forces in hand.

Michael

[ August 23, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Runyan99:

Historically, company commanders were not under a 30 minute time restraint.

Why do you say this? </font>

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The actual operations order I am looking at sets no deadline, but does lay out very carefully the course of the battle.

The lack of a deadline is my point exactly. This seems to me to be the most common situation. No attack plan can say with certainty how long a battle is going to take.

The detailed time schedule you have there is a preplanned 5 minute artillery plan. I don't see how this is relevant to the length of the total engagement.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The actual operations order I am looking at sets no deadline, but does lay out very carefully the course of the battle.

The lack of a deadline is my point exactly. This seems to me to be the most common situation. No attack plan can say with certainty how long a battle is going to take.

The detailed time schedule you have there is a preplanned 5 minute artillery plan. I don't see how this is relevant to the length of the total engagement. </font>

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I can't imagine too many battalion or company orders saying "take the village whenever you feel like it, really doesn't bother me."

No, but they might say, 'Take that village tomorrow', or 'Take that village this morning'. In any case, it seems that the time allotments were generous and almost always left to the discretion of the officers actually planning the attack. I have never read where a battle plan had a start time AND a stop time.

I broke out my copy of 'A Colonel in the Armored Divisions'. This book gives you a very good feel for how American combat commands planned and executed attacks on a day to day basis. Start times are always explicit, but there seems never to be any discussion of how long a given attack is supposed to take.

Anecdotally, one particular attack on the village of Born featured an American Combat Command (approx a tank battalion and an infantry battalion) against an estimated 200 fighting Germans (without tanks or AT guns). The attack started at 1230 and was reported clear at 1430.

That is two hours. Not 25 minutes. Not 35.

A couple pages later, General Ridgway orders his subordinates to 'take Hunnange tomorrow'. The author, Colonel Triplet, is given the assignment. Operationally, there is great pressure to take this village in the next 24 hours, but exactly WHEN this is done within that time period is apparently unimportant to General Ridgway. It just does not matter.

The author's unit begins maneuvering some time after 0500, and is finally in position to make the assault on Hunnange at 1700. Some 45 tanks and infantry moved across the last bit of ground and hit the village. The German defense collapsed, and really didn't fight in the face of such overwhelming force. The German infantry surrendered. A Tiger tank, the engine still running, was captured in the town. Hunnange was pronounced captured at 1737 hrs.

I don't think Ridgway would have cared if the town was captured at 1800 hrs, 1900 hrs or 2000 hrs. By the same token, the commander felt no pressure to attack at 1700 and wrap it up by 1737 hrs. Originally, Colonel Triplet wanted to make the attack at 1600 hrs, but pushed the start back an hour to get all units in place.

These things seem to have been pretty flexible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99: No, but they might say, 'Take that village tomorrow', or 'Take that village this morning'.

Depends on who the "they" is. I have no doubt a divisional orders group would consist of suggestions like that. A battalion orders group would necessarily lay down much more stringent expectations.

In any case, it seems that the time allotments were generous and almost always left to the discretion of the officers actually planning the attack. I have never read where a battle plan had a start time AND a stop time.

What have you been reading?

I broke out my copy of 'A Colonel in the Armored Divisions'. This book gives you a very good feel for how American combat commands planned and executed attacks on a day to day basis. Start times are always explicit, but there seems never to be any discussion of how long a given attack is supposed to take.

Anecdotally, one particular attack on the village of Born featured an American Combat Command (approx a tank battalion and an infantry battalion) against an estimated 200 fighting Germans (without tanks or AT guns). The attack started at 1230 and was reported clear at 1430.

That is two hours. Not 25 minutes. Not 35.

And was it expected to take 120 minutes? You don't say. 30 minutes was just a figure someone pulled out of a hat, here. I think the argument is about whether or not a unit could take as long as it wanted to in achieving its specific objectives. I would not be surprised if the combat command involved in that attack was not quieried at least once as to its status or asked why the town had not been taken yet - in other words, had a time constraint at the very least implied to it.

A couple pages later, General Ridgway orders his subordinates to 'take Hunnange tomorrow'. The author, Colonel Triplet, is given the assignment.

What does this have to do with CM? You are talking about operational moves at the divisional and regimental level. CM represents company and battalion attacks.

Operationally, there is great pressure to take this village in the next 24 hours, but exactly WHEN this is done within that time period is apparently unimportant to General Ridgway. It just does not matter.

Irrelevant for the reasons noted above. Once a battalion was ordered to take it, I can guarantee there were some pretty specific orders given regarding timings.

The author's unit begins maneuvering some time after 0500, and is finally in position to make the assault on Hunnange at 1700. Some 45 tanks and infantry moved across the last bit of ground and hit the village. The German defense collapsed, and really didn't fight in the face of such overwhelming force. The German infantry surrendered. A Tiger tank, the engine still running, was captured in the town. Hunnange was pronounced captured at 1737 hrs.

I don't think Ridgway would have cared if the town was captured at 1800 hrs, 1900 hrs or 2000 hrs. By the same token, the commander felt no pressure to attack at 1700 and wrap it up by 1737 hrs. Originally, Colonel Triplet wanted to make the attack at 1600 hrs, but pushed the start back an hour to get all units in place.

These things seem to have been pretty flexible.

At the regimental and divisional level they no doubt were.

Now how about a company or battalion example that would fit in with CM's scale?

I'm not trying to imply that every meeting engagement, patrol action, recce or other mission was laid out according to timetable. It just seems to me that deliberate assaults make up a good proportion of CM battles (though a look at the Scenario Depot shows they are maybe not as common as meeting-engagements, which were much less frequent in real life than in CM). I further don't think the little boy's view of war holds up when examined closely and with an eye to how they really went about doing business.

Quoting vague snippets of a divisional history isn't likely to gain anyone the insight into company and battalion tactics that would be required for a deeper understanding of time constraints and associated logistical considerations involved in a deliberate attack.

[ August 23, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Runyan99]

To restate the point of the thread:

It is my belief that World War 2 commanders had more time to make attacks than is generally given in CM scenarios.

Therefore, longer scenarios better represent the time that historical commanders actually had, and allow the CM player to use prudent tactics. In the end, I think this gives the CM player a more accurate idea of the speed at which the 'real war' was fought.

[Michael Dorosh]

Here is the Op order for the Calgary Highlanders in Operation Spring; this was by a Major John Campbell, commanding one of the rifle companies. Note the notation beside "rate of advance." There is a deadline given here also - the unit is to clear the start line (we say Line of Departure) for another unit "by daylight". This was an order drawn up in an interview done while he was in hospital, and not the actual ops order drawn up on the day.

H-Hour was 0330, sun-up in Normandy is early, though I don't know if the time given was British Double Summer Time or if they were using the time standard on the Continent. We can presume they had roughly two or three hours to complete their tasks.

However - note that another battalion was expected to pass through for another attack. This did very much put a "deadline" on this mission - and a very loose one, at that. It may be that Campbell didn't feel the timings important for this exercise (Spring was a disaster and I suspect he was asked to write up this ops order from memory with the help of a map to aid with an official investigation).

I don't know, I think that speaks to a very real time constraint. Failing to clear a start line for another battalion could have dramatic consequences.

1. Enemy

Snipers, MGs in South position of St. Andre-sur-Orne. Also holding from May-sur-Orne south to high ground in considerable strength with dug in tanks, 88mm guns, mortars, etc.

2. Own Troops

a) Camerons of Winnipeg holding most of St. Andre-sur-Orne attempting to secure a Start Line for Calgary Highlanders attack.

6th Canadian Brigade - holding area of ROCQUANCOURT

3. Additional Weapons

a) Divisional artillery in support of Calgary Highlanders with prearranged artillery cones on a time basis (by prediction)

4.2 inch mortars - one platoon in support

c) an Anti-Tank Regiment battery under command (17-pounders)

d) Four searchlights - to provide movement light

4. Brigade Commanders Intention

Calgary Highlanders, by a night attack to take MAY-SUR-ORNE 0259 and secure a Start Line - road from 023592 to 028594 by daylight for the Royal Highlanders of Canada who would pass through and take FONTENAY LE MARMION 0358

5. General Plan

a) two companies forward and two in reserve on the right in a "long tail" formation

C Company

Direction of attack

D Company

B Company

A Company

Objectives -

A Company - area 025494 to 027594

B Company - area 021593 to 024592

D Company - area 021593 to 018592

C Company - area 021597 to 021594

c) Axis of advance - across country, from crossroads 025612 to road junction 023592

d) Action on objective - reconsolidate and keep road from 023592 to 028594 secure as Start Line for Royal Highlanders of Canada

e) "H" Hour - 0330

f) Forming Up Point - immediately north of road 021610 - 029614

g) Start Line road 021610 - 029614

h) Compass bearing 193 degrees

i) rate of advance - 100 yards in 3 1/2 minutes

6. Pioneers

One assault section to each of "B" and "D" companies

7. Carriers

In reserve - move on success to area 0225(??)

8. Mortars

4.2 - area targets on time basis, then on call by Company Commanders through Battalion HQ

9. Anti-Tank Guns

Move forward on success - be in position by daylight

10. Artillery

Concentrations prearranged on time basis, then on call by company commanders through Forward Observation Officers attached

11. Medium Machine Guns

Cover left flank of battalion from area (map reference omitted??)

12. Regimental Aid Post

To be established at ST. MARTIN de FONTENAY

( Small Arms Ammunition - composite loads on company carriers, available on demand when road up cleared, battalion dump to be established at road junction 021596

(e) Food - hot meal after Royal Highlanders of Canada attack

(d) "B" Echelon - under Brigade control

13. Battalion HQ

Move along main road to 021593

14. W/T

Normal

15. Success (signal)

by w/t (codeword), confirm by runner immediately

Edit to add Campbell's comments:

Comments

1. Camerons had not secured Start Line for Calgary Highlanders - result was leading company ("A" Company) had to clear it

2.

a) Right forward company ("B") ran into enfilade MG fire within 200 yards after crossing the Start Line. Held them up for some time.

Left forward company ("A") continued on losing contact with other companies almost from crossing the Start Line

3. Left forward company ("A") only had compass bearing for direction. No one had seen ground (prior). While it turned out they held to bearing correctly, there was considerable doubt in company commander's mind after certain difficulties were encountered later.

4. About 400 yards from objective, left forward company ("A") came under own artillery concentrations. Company commander pushed through only to come under another concentration. This led him to believe he had overshot his objective or lost direction. Company was pulled back of first concentration and dug in. Patrol sent out to find the direction and distance of MAY-SUR-ORNE and another to attempt to locate remainder of battalion.

It turned out the artillery concentrations were about 800 yards short, possibly due to predicted shoots from rather inaccurate maps.

Searchlights gave good movement light. It is doubtful if Germans could see 100 odd yards into it. The light was not sufficient to allow landmarks to be recognized.

[ August 23, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[PeterX]

Michael Dorosh's examples and arguments have convinced this non-grog; tight schedules are often appropriate for CM scale battles. It also adds tension and a sense of urgency to the game which is welcome. Pack it in, Runyan, your counter arguments are weak.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Michael Dorosh's examples and arguments have convinced this non-grog; tight schedules are often appropriate for CM scale battles. It also adds tension and a sense of urgency to the game which is welcome. Pack it in, Runyan, your counter arguments are weak.

I'll point out also that CM leaves out the approach march; I don't know for sure where Campbell's company started out at 0330, but the better part of many battles involved simply moving forward to the start line. Most CM scenarios leave that out (thankfully) and start very close to the point of contact.

I don't have the map referenced in the quote (too bad!), but it would be unlikely for a start line to be delineated in the face of enemy fire. Note also reference to a Forming Up Point, which would have been further back still. Campbell's men may have spent an hour of their time simply moving from the FUP to the Start Line (EDIT - in this case, on rereading, the FUP is "immediately north" of the start line, so apparently not! ), and who knows how long during the advance to contact, depending on how far it was.

[ August 23, 2003, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

H-Hour was 0330, sun-up in Normandy is early, though I don't know if the time given was British Double Summer Time or if they were using the time standard on the Continent. We can presume they had roughly two or three hours to complete their tasks.

This is a very interesting post.

We don't know how far the battalion had to move to the objective, or how far they had to move to contact with the enemy. Even so, the battalion had some 2 or 3 hours to secure the objective.

Dorosh, I am not sure that you and I disagree here. Overall, I think this op order tends to reinforce what I am saying. The battalion had a couple hours to move, engage the enemy, and clear the objective. My only point is that this kind of time is often not given in CM scenarios.

H-hour was 0330. Let's suppose daylight was at 0530, and the battalion moved an hour to contact. That leaves an hour for combat, or in CM terms, a 60 turn scenario. I would include the last few minutes of the move before contact (if I were designing the scenario), so maybe 70 turns would be appropriate.

All I am saying is let's see more scenarios of this length.

[Michael Dorosh]

I will certainly agree with you and Franko that scenario designers need to give serious thought to how much time is given to a CM player to accomplish his tasks. This is often the last thing a scenario designer thinks about, and he simply opts for the "standard" length of 30 turns without extensive playtesting or any real reasoning behind his action.