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

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Originally posted by rune:

[snip]

If you are interested, I will send it to you.

Rune

I would love to take a look at it. Thanks! My email is btpfohl [at] adelphia.net.

Dr. Rosenrosen

[Hat Trick]

Well, I fall into the camp that believes that the time limits in most scenarios are too short. I find nothing more frustrating, unrealistic and annoying than, at the peak of the battle, as units within twenty meters of eachother toss grenades, the whole battle is called off and points are tallied. Few battles ended this way in real life. Short time limits force the attacker to rush to avoid this problem, while in most real life cases a battle that continued to be fought for an extra twenty minutes would not be considered a failure if it saved (the attackers') lives or met its objectives.

For most scenarios (and quick battles for that matter) I would like to see much, much longer number of turns, but with a lower threshold for an automatic ceasefire. This would allow battles to end much more realistically, and at the same time would have the added benefit of reducing a player's incentive to sacrifice his troops needlessly (or, at least, unrealistically).

Right now, players have an incentive to continue fighting after suffering casualties that in real life would lead to the attacker calling off the attack. Long or open ended turns, combined with a lower threshold for automatic ceasefire, would make the game much more realistic, I believe.

[Cabron66]

Time limits are fine, but explain them in the briefings. Let me know why I need to hurry and waste the lives of my men. How important is that objective? I recently played a scenario, which I would love to name but won't, with a 60 minute time length. Basically the situation was simple, I had a huge killing field to cross and two options. I charged forward and hoped my men could still lift their rifles by turn 30 or I worked the terrain and found a way to slowly move up to those pillboxes. There was a third option. Send in the tanks in a blaze of glory, lose most of them, but win the scenario in 10 turns out of 60. Obviously gamey. So, I chose the more logical, sane and realistic second choice. It took me 30 turns to get my men into position with minimal casualties. Ten turns to assault the first objective. Say another 5 turns to reorganize and begin the march across the SECOND HALF OF THE MAP, and the remaining fifteen turns to reach the edge of the town in relative safety. Long story short, battle ends and I lose. So, second time through I charge in with the infantry, throw my men (a la Napoleon) at the German guns, take shocking (a la WWI)casualties and win a total victory (in about 40 turns). So,now my point. Obviously the designer gave the scenario a 60 turn time limit to encourage a bloodfest. Fine and dandy, but why? What was the historical context that necessitated this horrendous loss of life? In this case, there was none. The battle was a minor conflict for an equally minor objective. It was not part of a larger conflict and, in fact, historically the attacking commander was given all morning to achieve his goals or if necessary retreat and call for reinforcements.

This is just an example of something that I see all the time in both CMBO and CMBB. Time limits forcing gamey tactics, unnecessary bloodshed or premature endings. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, this is a cheap way for a designer to make a scenario "interesting". My solution? If you set a parameter that is critical to the battle explain it. Tell me why I must do what I must do. Give me context.

Also, aside, there's an earlier post by Micheal Emry suggesting using landmarks to simulate recon. This is the kind of suggestion that we should see more of here instead of endlessly bickering over what should or should not appear in CMAK. How does the saying go? No bad instruments, just bad musicians. Something like that?

[Runyan99]

Thank you Cabron. Your post states the problem perfectly.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

For most scenarios (and quick battles for that matter) I would like to see much, much longer number of turns, but with a lower threshold for an automatic ceasefire. This would allow battles to end much more realistically, and at the same time would have the added benefit of reducing a player's incentive to sacrifice his troops needlessly (or, at least, unrealistically).

I think we are getting very close to a satisfactory solution here. This strikes me as a very good suggestion.

Michael

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The time constraint - whether or not it is handled well in most CM scenarios, which may be the real issue here - is a great levelling tool, as much so as throwing in another FO of 81mm or whatever other balancing techniques scenario designers use.

Michael,

I'm currently playing your Regiment Dies Ten Times scenario, and the 50 turns limit seems right, and is a very welcome change from the usual 30 turns games, although it has less units.

[Sergei]

While some say that short time limits make players use unrealistic tactics, I think it depends on the player entirely. If I'm in a situation where I'm stuck against too strong a force to attack with a head on assault and there's no time or space to maneuver, I rather consider having a cease fire and admitting that I couldn't do much more in that situation. That just happens to me, I can't expect myself to win every battle.

But I think there's a point in Norm Koger's game Age of Rifles, in that after the time limit comes, the points are calculated, but if you want to try what could have happened after a few extra turns, you can just continue playing. One of those "wonder why this feature hasn't been seen elsewhere" things.

[rune]

Landmarks for recon? Works for static positions, I usually give a trp if the position has been reconed. However, if you do it for infantry, or an at gun or mg gun post, and change it to computer is free to move units, then it is the scenario designer who is wrong, and we hear about it.

As a commander, how often were they told why they had to take something? Not often, the grand scale of things were out of their control, and frankly, they didn't care, they worried how to get the job done with the least amount of casualties., and some officers didn't even worry about that.

The briefing formats will be the same as they were in CMBB.

As for that scenario, I do not know which one it is, or if it is even mine. However, are you sure you didn't miss something, like smoke? Should I have to tell you you can rush in, or use smoke, or whatever tactic? Or should I leave it up to you on how to cross an open terrain? Isn't that the idea of playing the game, finding out which tactic works in what situation, rather then being told what to do?

Why would the surrender threashold be lower? Did the Italians in Africa fight longer then the Germans in Europe during the course of a battle? You change the setting, it effects all units in three different theatres. Now for CMX2, i would like the designer to select the surrender threshold, but will not happen for CMAK.

For each person who wants to be told how to do a scenario, another wants the freedom to do what they want. For each person that wants recon done for him, there is another that wants to do the recon himself. For each person who thinks they have to slaughter their troops to cross a field, another will use smoke and combined arms to cross and NOT get slaughtered. That is what is about...choice.

So here it is, the briefings stay the same for the scenarios on the CD. The designers are the ones that worked on CMBB, and I added two. The authors are free to make the scenarios they want and how they want. A mix of forces, battles, and times will be included. There will be small to huge battles. Variety is where it ia at. There will be battles you love, and battles you hate, but someone else will love. There will be historical and fictional. Just remember, all sorts fo people play the game in all sorts of ways, and we will have a mix of scenarios to try to get one that everyone will enjoy.

Rune

[Andreas]

I spent a lot of the last two days (bank-holiday weekend and I was not feeling well enough to go hiking) playing a TCP/PBEM game with Kip. He set it up as a 2-battle operation, set during the Korsun Operation.

Basically I commanded remnants of 4th Panzer trying to break through to the encircled parts of 1. Panzerarmee. He tried to stop me. The task was to take my company of chaps and 17 Panzer IV through a valley bottom to the green fields beyond. Each battle 60+ turns. There was next to no action for about 50 turns. I very methodically cleared the valley bottom against very little resistance, just a few snipers. Then I ran into the first defensive line (one Zis-3 that killed 3 Panzer IV before succumbing to a Grille 15cm round hitting its trench) and it all went pearshaped, because at the same time an artillery barrage struck my main infantry body.

So when the first battle ended, I surveyed the field. I had lost 78 men (out of 350) and 5 tanks in total (three to the ATG, one to mines, one immobilised/abandoned in the second battle). I reckon 90% of his chaps never saw action. He had 14 casualties and one gun lost. I decided to withdraw and try again. The main problem was that I had lost most of my infantry, so screening the tanks on the valley bottom would be an impossibility.

I think this was one of the most challenging games I ever played. Very very little happened - it was just a case study of clearing an advance route where at every corner you can hit the enemy. Sniping caused considerable concern. It felt pretty close to what happened really, and Kip and I both agreed that breaking off the battle at the point when I decided not to press it was the right decision. Very slow, very little force density, very little action, but still a great game.

Reminded me why I love this game so much.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think this was one of the most challenging games I ever played. Very very little happened - it was just a case study of clearing an advance route where at every corner you can hit the enemy. Sniping caused considerable concern. It felt pretty close to what happened really, and Kip and I both agreed that breaking off the battle at the point when I decided not to press it was the right decision. Very slow, very little force density, very little action, but still a great game.

Reminded me why I love this game so much.

Now that sounds like an account of a real battle. This is the brilliance of CMBB in my view. You can enjoy a quick 30 minute game or, if you prefer, and if you have a like minded opponent, you can try something that approximates quite closely to reality.

It is a strength of the game that it can support both points of view.

I remember as a callow young infantryman (never been in a firefight) asking my father about it all, as he had been. Being strong on theory but weak on pratice (now weak on both) I framed my question in terms of the doctrine that I had been taught. This was the old PREWAR mnemonic: Preparation; Reaction to Effective enemy fire; Winning the fire-fight; Assault; Reorganisation.

The question I asked my father was: how long does it take to win a fire-fight? In training, firing blank ammunition it took about 10 minutes at most. His answer: 'Well sometimes it takes all day.'

Not many of us would have the time, or patience to do that for fun. But that is the grim reality. The CMBB engine gives us this if we want it - remember the complaints about MGs ruining the fun in CMBB as opposed to CMBO? Both schools of thought are available now. More encouragement to play scenarios if any is required.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

[snips]

Yes, the old hours of boredom followed by 15 minutes of terror doesn't exactly lend itself to a thrill a minute game.

With fixed-length game-turns, sure. But as I have pointed out before, it would be quite possible to devise a wargame (which would be much more of a "command game" than CM) using variable-length game-turns. The long uneventful approach marches would be over in a flash, the players would be left free to concentrate on the exciting bits, and the period of simulated time a battle takes would be less unconvincingly compressed than it is now. However, it would need players to make quite detailed plans, with decision-points built into them, and players would have much less control over their troops than they do in CM.

One of the reasons that wargames always run faster than real battles (and this applies to "professional" wargames, too) is that wargame armies don't usually spend their time on the same things real armies do, because wargamers want to concentrate on the things they think of as "fun" (shooting and maneouvring rather than planning and logistics, roughly). Still, I bet if one were to write a variable-length-turn planning-intensive game, lots of the grog end of the CM crowd would play it.

As to the historical length of company-scale engagements -- the numbers given below are calculated from PRO document WO 291/1169, "An Analysis of Infantry Rates of Advance in Battle". I have calculated the time an attack took from the distance covered and advance rates given in the document. These are all company attacks in daylight; the report also dealt with battalion and night attacks, with a total sample of 256 battles. Advance rates are noticeably slower in Italy than in NW Europe. Notice that even the fastest attack against the lightest opposition over the shortest distance does not manage to finish in 30 minutes.

NW Europe:

Opposition__Distance_____Slowest______Mean_________Fastest

Slight_________800 yds___1 h 09 min_______51 min________39 min

Slight________2500 yds___2 h 54 min___1 h 56 min____1 h 17 min

Heavy________800 yds___1 h 56 min___1 h 26 min____1 h 05 min

Heavy_______2500 yds___4 h 54 min___3 h 16 min____2 h 10 min

Italy:

Opposition__Distance_____Slowest______Mean_________Fastest

Slight_________800 yds___1 h 28 min___1 h 06 min________49 min

Slight________2500 yds___2 h 44 min___2 h 29 min____1 h 39 min

Heavy________800 yds___3 h 28 min___1 h 52 min____1 h 23 min

Heavy_______2500 yds___6 h 20 min___4 h 12 min____2 h 48 min

All the best,

John.

[ August 26, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Runyan99]

Terrific data, John.

Would I be correct in assuming that these numbers are for battles in the the open country?

I wonder if there is any comparable data for urban enviromments.

[ August 26, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yup, I also enjoyed the live game against Andreas hugely. (Details given in Andreas’s post above.)

It all felt very real, every one trying hard to stay alive. Also the map was taken from real terrain, topographical map of the Ukraine; it was 3km by 3km. The forces were also those really in the area, in the strength they fought it out.

CMBB really is a massively fine game.

But a big element was the lack of any artificial time pressure. Andreas was free to take the sort of time such manoeuvres may have taken in the real world. And free to call it a day when he believed a real world commander would have done. We just both hit Ceasefire.

Great game.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Truely outstanding post from John, how does he do it . We all now actually "know" how long these things took on average. Great stuff.

PPS. Try Static Operations, 60 turn battles/games.

[Cabron66]

Originally posted by rune:

As a commander, how often were they told why they had to take something? Not often, the grand scale of things were out of their control, and frankly, they didn't care, they worried how to get the job done with the least amount of casualties., and some officers didn't even worry about that.

Very good point here Rune. Commanders were not often told why they were to take an objective, but I'm sure they got a sense of how critical their objectives were. Based on what I know of human nature, I imagine that the most common measure of an officer was his ability to get the job done. However, from what I know of evolution I imagine any officer who wished to survive the war outside a POW camp (and later mate and produce offspring) would not be too eager to see his men churned up around him.

However, this was not my point. My point was I thought some context in briefings would be nice because not all objectives are equal. In some cases a turn limit is warranted and in others not. And, part two, that designers should always set turn limits based on these contexts (historical or otherwise). The importance of objectives varies greatly and not just based on the orders a particular officer receives. Using CMBB as an example, I think there would have been a marked difference between the pressure felt by Russian officers in 1941 and that of 1944.

Also, the scenario was not yours. Your stuff is worlds apart. I just used it as an example. And yes, I did think of smoke.

Oh, and before I forget. I'm not suggesting a change in any BFC product past, present or future. Only offering food for thought for designers.

[UberFunBunny]

A good idea would be to allow the option of extending the game at the end of "regular time" if both players agree to it.

I think *auto*-ceasefire should be a setup option or dropped completely.

[Marlow]

regarding battle length being unrealistic, I think Sergei had it about right on page one, but it seemed to have gotten lost in the discussion. I think the one minute turns in CM can be seen as representing a unspecified period of time. So much can be done in one minute of the game compared to what was likely to happen in the real world, that perhaps rather than worry if a real company could advance a 1000 meters in 30 turns instead consider the 30 turn game to really represent an unspecified greater period of time with short lulls in the action where orders are given, units coordinate movement (e.g. the platoon leader has a discussion about how to advance with the TC of the supporting tank) men rest and regroup and all the other little things that would take up time.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by rune:

As a commander, how often were they told why they had to take something?

Depends on which army and what time period. The first two or three years of the war it was common for field and company grade officers in the German army to be told what the division's or regiment's objectives were so that if they needed to they could use their own initiative to depart from their instructions and still further the goals of the operation. They seem to have abandoned this practice more and more as the war wore on though.

Contrarily, the Americans seem to have placed increasing reliance on their junior officers as those acquired experience, though I don't think they ever did so the extent that the Germans did at their peak.

The British/Commonwealth/Empire armies seem to fall somewhere in between. Some elite formations engaged in special operations allowed a great deal of personal initiative and flexibility, but the great bulk fought to a more rigid schedule.

Michael

[James Crowley]

Excellent work John!

A clear demonstration that very much ties in with the vast majority of AAR's from NW Europe and Italy.

I wonder, do you have any data pertaining to planned or expected times of company/battalion level attacks. Might make an interesting comparison.

[rune]

Michael,

On the other hand, I have some accounts, one in particular comes to mind because I just re-created it, where the Colonel's orders was, and i quote: "Get over to Kasserine right away and pull a Stonewall jackson. You are to take charge."

That was his entire briefing. A few words, no tactical or operation dissertation, but he understood what was being asked of him, and how critical it was.

Granted these were exceptions, and that is what everyone needs to keep in mind, there were times you got briefed, and times you didn't.

As for caring about the men, in An Army at Dawn, a good example of a General being relieved of duty because, and another quote: "He was not callous enough".

That is my point, anything could and did happen in war, and the scenario should reflect that. Cover the broad spectrum of the war, and situations.

Cabron66, thanks for the kind words. I learned under Wild Bill, and still continue to learn. I get to work with a good bunch of scenario designers, many whose names you may recognize. Most are back for CMAK. Look forward to a large variety of battles.

Rune

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by rune:

Landmarks for recon? Works for static positions, I usually give a trp if the position has been reconed. However, if you do it for infantry, or an at gun or mg gun post, and change it to computer is free to move units, then it is the scenario designer who is wrong, and we hear about it.

You're right about the free setup issue, but aren't scenarios usually meant to be played using the designer's setup (at least the first time)?

Also, instead of using landmarks, I've been thinking about more of a grid coordinate system; i.e., put labels at regular intervals along the map edges and give references in the briefing like "AT guns at C-8." That way, the defender can't tell at a glance which of his positions are compromised at setup.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by rune:

Most are back for CMAK.

That sounds quite catchy... BFC should use it, like "The makers of Combat Mission are back for a smack!"

[Sergei]

One method which the designer could utilise, is to use one of those deployment zones (if any are extra) to put to the front of known enemy bunkers, trenches etc. (if those features are locked into place). Then the defender would have no sign of what the attacker knows. And if trenches and bunkers are locked into place, it would still let the rest of the troops to be deployed elsewhere if the player wants so.

[rune]

Sergei,

Not a bad idea, but see a problem. If the zone is available, why can't i setup there? Imagine having forces start in your lines. I guarantee it would happy by someone.

Warwick,

Grid system would have the same problem with free to setup units. Yes, scenarios SHOULD be played with the default starting positions, but not everyone plays that way.

Rune

[Sergei]

Yeah, it'd only work if one colour was all reserved for that purpose. In many scenarios only one or two colours are in use. But I hope, and maybe you will kindly deliver this message to Charles, that in CMx2 the designer has more possibilities in this regard, like writing notes onto map that only one side can see ("Reinforcements arrive here on turn 11") or changing objectives with extra briefings coming in the middle of a battle ("Good work with destroying those bunkers Jim, now take this platoon of Shermans and carry on the attack to Hill 144"). Well, maybe that last example was a bit too videogameish... Watch out, Sudden Strike!

[xerxes]

I've used a similar technique to provide "recon" information. I'll reserve a setup zone and use it as a "there aren't any enemy here" notification. If I'm using the setup zone for that purpose I don't put any units in it so it's only informational.

If you're using labels, you can also give a geographic label and in the briefing state, "An AT gun position has been identified at the crest of hill 305" or some such.