CMAK: BTS battles without turn limit PLEASE!

[Steiner14]

Any chances for that option?

IMO the turn limit gives way too much information what you can expect.

I often find myself looking at the turn# and deciding, how the battle is developing.

I would estimate, the displayed maximum turn number takes around 50% of the thrill away.

In reality you can't decide how the battle is developing, by looking at the minute-pointer.

IMO 'Eliminate Enemy' battles would add a complete new dimension of game experience, if players really don't know what could happen and that EVERYTHING could happen until the enemy surrenders.

All they really know, is the information given in the briefing.

Real surprises would become possible: the possibility of huge enemy reinforcements, if you can't achieve your goal fast enough and force the enemy due to low morale to surrender (additionally maybe scenario designers should be able to determine the auto-surrender level).

This leads to another option: reinforcements depending on morale.

Remember: this gamey trick is invisible for the player. Only the scenario designer knows about it.

It would make great new things possible.

And not showing the turn# shouldn't be too hard for Charles to implement into the current engine.

The problem for scenario designers is, that they have to keep the turn# moderate, because otherwise the majority wouldn't play their scenarios, if they see a 120 turn monster.

If there would be no information about the turn#, the game could develop into every direction and i'm quite sure, all those playing just for fun and not ladder games, would really love such battles due to the higher thrill and more realism.

At least they would be a good alternation.

Any information about the battle given to the player, would be decided by the scenario designer and not by the game-engine.

[ August 31, 2003, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Steiner14]

Come on you lazy bastards!

Maybe it's not too late to get that into CMAK.

So raise your voices!

[Michael Dorosh]

We just discussed numbers of turns at length, actually...and the thought of having to play a game until every last man was hunted down and killed is, really, kind of ridiculous. Who would want to play the losing side of that to completion? Or for that matter, the winning side?

[kump]

I think the idea here is not a "limitless" turn length game till everything is destroyed.

I think they just want to not know the actual end turn. Call it an option of the Extreme FOW or something. The only hint could be an implied time estimate in the briefing, but other than that, you have no idea when the scenario will be terminated.

Note I mentioned "option". I don't much care for it and like they way things are, but I can understand and appreciate the suggestion.

[Firefly]

Why not just set the number of turns to 120 in the QB generator, everyone will probably be out of ammo by then anyway so it's not likely that the game will actually run that long. In scenarios obviously it's up to the the scenario designer to set the number of turns and I assume they have a reason for the number they choose like the attacker needing to finish the job by a certain time for operational reasons.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

One small thing that can help, and you'll have to do a search, as I don't recall where I d/led it, is to use the blank turn # mod. That way, after a few turns, you kind of lose track, and, as long as your opponent also uses it, the typcial endgame hijinks, though lessened by the variable ending, are even less likely.

Of course, if you number your pbem turns by turn number, it will defeat the purpose, but thats a whole 'nother debate that doesn't need to be dredged up here.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

the thought of having to play a game until every last man was hunted down and killed is, really, kind of ridiculous.

Is my English really that bad or didn't you even read my post?

You don't have to hunt to the last man, due to the auto-surrender when morale drops to low.

In addition i also suggested if that would be possible, that the scenario-designers can set the trigger- level of moral, that causes the surrender.

Who would want to play the losing side of that to completion? Or for that matter, the winning side?

How do you come to that conclusion, if you would have read my post?

The player simply doesn't know if he's already chanceless (unlike now with the known turn limit), because there can be a lot of surprises.

Surprises that no scenario designer uses now, because of the turn limit the player knows about.

But if you don't know?

You think you're losing but suddenly strong reinforcements appear.

So the game could turn several times around and you never can be sure until the enemy is really defeated - simply like in reality.

And such battles would also allow for one aspect from reality, that is now totally absent in CM, once the turn number is close to the end and you're losing: die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt (hope is the last thing that dies).

I'm quite surprised that such a gamey thing like a turn limit could even be defended for a game with the aim of fun AND highest possible realism.

And finally, if you don't like them, you simply don't have to play such scenarios.

Nothing would change for you.

So where's the problem?

[ August 31, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

A game in which "strong reinforcements" appear at random doesn't have much appeal to me either. I rather thought the point of a "game" was to match skills and/or luck against an opponent - managing resources (as it were) is part of it, hence the turn limit and set forces per side. Surprises are sometimes nice; playing with unlimited time was discussed to death in another thread - the time limitation makes players take chances (that real life commanders had to, incidentally) that they would not if given unlimited time.

Again, who wants to play a game where the attacker can simply crawl forward one fireteam at a time?

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Again, who wants to play a game where the attacker can simply crawl forward one fireteam at a time?

Good point. And this is exactly what would happen. All the time in the world to move = no chances taken.

[V]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

We just discussed numbers of turns at length, actually...and the thought of having to play a game until every last man was hunted down and killed is, really, kind of ridiculous. Who would want to play the losing side of that to completion? Or for that matter, the winning side?

Wouldn't the sudden death moral level thing kick in before that happens?

I like the idea of hiding the turn numbers from the player, at least having a designer's option to do this.

[V]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Again, who wants to play a game where the attacker can simply crawl forward one fireteam at a time?

I thought there was curently an end game trigger if there is not enough action in a given period of time...

I think games need limits, but I don't think that the player needs to always know what the limits are.

[WWB]

The best suggestion I have seen on this is to mimic Age of Rifles.

For those of you that never played that classic, when a game came to the end it asked both players if they would like to continue.

This would allow those who want to play forever to play forever while not taking away important design tools or giving all advantages to the attacker.

WWB

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

the time limitation makes players take chances (that real life commanders had to, incidentally) that they would not if given unlimited time.

Like it was often said, you can't compare the time limit in CM of around 40 minutes with reality.

The time limit in reality is far beyond 40 minutes. It's more of: take this hill until tomorrow 1800 and definately not within the next 40 minutes, when you don't know where the tanks, the PAKs and the infantry is hiding.

Taking ONE house or eliminate that HMG-position in 30 minutes, maybe.

Now we don't even have the time to try to knock on different positions to find out, where the enemy is weakest.

And usually you have to decide for an advance route before the battle begins and often enough i find myself not choosing time consuming alternative tactics or routes, simply due to the time limit.

Think about tank tactics: this limitation has a real huge influence on battles: in reality, you would love to invest 10 minutes if you can bring your tanks into the back of the defender, after spotting a hole in his defenses. With the time limit now, you always look at the hourglass first and usually decide, that the amount of time it costs, isn't worth the tactical benefit.

CM limitates itself with this time-limit.

Or another example:

have you ever noticed, that there are almost no real tactical surprises possible? I mean luring players into tactical traps, simply doesn't happen.

Due to the time limit!

Why? Because there's no time for decent tactical test-attacks. If you meet the enemy, you know he is there.

In reality, it is easily possible that one platoon is there, but while you prepare for an attack there, the enemy prepares for the attack into your flank.

And this is simply not possible by moving around the next hill or woods with the two closest tanks.

This needs time.

Battles without time limit, would allow a much wider range of tactics and battles, without touching the existing possibilities in a negative way.

It's a win/win situation.

Again, who wants to play a game where the attacker can simply crawl forward one fireteam at a time?

Can you tell me, why someone should do that?

Everyone who plays this game, wants to see action.

Do you think there are really players that like to waste their time simply with doing nothing on the battlefield, just for stealing CM-players their time?

[ August 31, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

The time limit in reality is far beyond 40 minutes.

No it isn't.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

The time limit in reality is far beyond 40 minutes.

No it isn't. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

I'd suggest you read the retardedly long thread we just had on time-limits; I think you are one of those who subscribes to the Hollywood version of war, the kind where every battle starts with a huddle, where the hero draws his plan in the dirt with a stick and refers to the rest of the 10 man squad - the elite "recon" squad from Cross of Iron, A Midnight Clear, Bridge at Remagen, Castle Keep, and countless others - by their first names; Eddie, Frank, Kirby, Little John, Duke

I presented a couple of operational orders that suggested the kinds of time constraints company and battalion orders were designed around. You can't add in the real impetus for speed into a CM size game - ie the follow up battalion needs the start line clear, neighbouring units on the flanks can't be left hanging, etc. So you impose a time limit.

Ask yourself why unit "X" is being asked to take that hill and you will see why a time limit is necessary. You're discussing company and battalion battles in a vacuum.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I'd suggest you read the retardedly long thread we just had on time-limits; I think you are one of those who subscribes to the Hollywood version of war, the kind where every battle starts with a huddle, where the hero draws his plan in the dirt with a stick and refers to the rest of the 10 man squad - the elite "recon" squad from Cross of Iron, A Midnight Clear, Bridge at Remagen, Castle Keep, and countless others - by their first names; Eddie, Frank, Kirby, Little John, Duke

I presented a couple of operational orders that suggested the kinds of time constraints company and battalion orders were designed around. You can't add in the real impetus for speed into a CM size game - ie the follow up battalion needs the start line clear, neighbouring units on the flanks can't be left hanging, etc. So you impose a time limit.

Ask yourself why unit "X" is being asked to take that hill and you will see why a time limit is necessary. You're discussing company and battalion battles in a vacuum.

Your conclusions are wrong.

There may be special situations, that a battailon/company commander has to take his objective within a few minutes although he has absolutely no information about the enemy units (when the CM-battle starts).

But this is by far not the normal situation, at least it wasn't in the Wehrmacht:

the orders were given and it was the free decision of the commander how he achieved it (Auftragstaktik).

This meant in reality, that the leaders first probed where the enemy is hiding and afterwards the tactics were choosen accordingly and not vice versa.

In CM we don't have real surprises and the battles are always well balanced.

But if you lead a company into an unprobed attack in reality, and if reality suddenly shows you a few platoons of T34 your men are attacking, you would do that only once...

You have a wrong impression of the time scale, if you think that a unprobed area around a hill has to be taken within 40 minutes after arriving of the company, because the following battailon needs to pass the road beside the hill.

This would be the straight way into defeat, if time has the highest priority.

It's useless to be fast, if the losses are too high.

I don't say, that time-limited battles do not make sense, like you say about battles without time-limit in CM.

There can be situations, when time is an absolutely critical factor.

But in such cases mostly against hastily built up defenses without foxholes, mines and trenches and without deeply positioned PAK. Then time may be that critical, that (german) commanders abstained from probing.

Sometimes time matters more, because losing time means in the longer term having higher losses.

But time has no worth per se. The highest priority is, to keep the losses low, while reaching the objectives.

But it's not realistically to be forced to attack well prepared defense positions, without decent probing and by choosing the attack routes before the first contact, simply because of a time limit.

Such positions do slow down the advance in reality, or if time is that critical, they simply are left where they are, and are taken later by the following usually non-mechanized units - and then they have the time they need.

Would you order your troops over open terrain, if you've spotted a hole in the defensive lines and you have tanks available to beak through?

You would risk man after man because you don't take the few minutes to order the tanks where they are most useful and help to gain the best effect?

Then you would maybe make a good punishment-battailon commander, but definately not one, his men are trusting in.

This is simply not very realistically, if you don't have enough NKVD-officers in your back...

Or do you think that in reality the tank commanders didn't decide for the most effective way to fight and looked at their clock, and then decided that the way behind enemy lines around that hill would take five minutes, and that is too much, because the following battaillon will arrive at tea time?

And it's a misbeliev if you think, that it's a problem if a flank or side hangs back, because of 'delays' of ten minutes or so.

Even more when those minutes make sure, that the battle will be won with fewer losses.

[ August 31, 2003, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Baron von Beergut]

I think the issue should be to have an extreme fog of war option to hide the scenario length as a way to prevent the "end game rush" for the victory flags.

Some may not like this if they want to select a short game and so, they'd want to know the length. A compromise for them would be that now game sizes are listed as tiny, small, med, large. Do the same with game lengths in the scenario lists: quick, short, med, long, forever!

[Redwolf]

I think you are both wrong

No, they didn't have all day.

No, it didn't make a difference whether the time limit was 30 or 50 minutes either. The latter is what we would make a difference in CM play.

I think it is no secret that CMBB scenario designers did not properly adjust to the new time parameters in CMBB and left some of their CMBO experience in place.

As a result, many CMBB battles do in fact only leave one approach choice, or minimal variances. That may be seen as a good thing, since that one is usually the one that was historically taken.

But CMBB scenarios, when compared to CMBO or other wargames' scenarios, tend to test the player how well be can execute the historically chosen plan, not his ability to come up with a new plan. The execution alone is a battle aspect very well worth exploiting, but it would be arrogant to assume nobody wants to try his brain on the other aspects. Unfortunately we have plenty of people here who think that other people's different play preferences only indicate that they are wrong.

[ September 01, 2003, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

The time limit in reality is far beyond 40 minutes.

Speakin' from some kind of experience? Personally, I'm sick and tired of hearing that arguement from people who's only experience with war is games. The reality of it is a 30-40 minute time limit is EXTREMELY realistic at the level CM portrays.

Now the ideas of not knowing what the turn limit is, or not being able to see what turn it is sound like good ideas

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by redwolf:

No, it didn't make a difference whether the time limit was 30 or 50 minutes either. The latter is what we would make a difference in CM play.

Ok, I pointed this out in the last thread... Yes, you might have a couple of hours, but a good chunk of that couple of hours is taken up doing things that are NOT portrayed in CM battles. Planning, assembling the troops, approach march, etc. At the point of contact you are not going to have a hell of a lot of time. Part of that goes into the planning... you DO NOT want your troops engaged for very long. After about a half hour, your troops are going to be exhausted. If you haven't taken your objective by then, you'll HAVE to back off. The only way to do a protracted engagement realistically in CM is through static operations as they have built in pauses between the action. For a set piece battle, the time limit should NOT exceed one hour (really shouldn't exceed 40 minutes)unless you are going to include the approach march as well. The only other reason I can think of to have a long turn limit is if the forces are so large that both sides can maintain a significant reserve... and that should probably be built as an operation anyway

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by redwolf:

But CMBB scenarios, when compared to CMBO or other wargames' scenarios, tend to test the player how well be can execute the historically chosen plan, not his ability to come up with a new plan. The execution alone is a battle aspect very well worth exploiting, but it would be arrogant to assume nobody wants to try his brain on the other aspects. Unfortunately we have plenty of people here who think that other people's different play preferences only indicate that they are wrong.

Valid enough point, but the scenario you envision is really only doable against the AI. In two player, you are going to have one player (the defender) who is going to be bored out of his mind while you set up your own attack> Most of the designers I know design for two player games... part of that includes making sure that one players isn't going to be pressing go for 20-30 turns. The goal, generally, is to get both players into the action fairly quickly

[Sublime]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I'd suggest you read the retardedly long thread we just had on time-limits; I think you are one of those who subscribes to the Hollywood version of war, the kind where every battle starts with a huddle, where the hero draws his plan in the dirt with a stick and refers to the rest of the 10 man squad - the elite "recon" squad from Cross of Iron, A Midnight Clear, Bridge at Remagen, Castle Keep, and countless others - by their first names; Eddie, Frank, Kirby, Little John, Duke

I presented a couple of operational orders that suggested the kinds of time constraints company and battalion orders were designed around. You can't add in the real impetus for speed into a CM size game - ie the follow up battalion needs the start line clear, neighbouring units on the flanks can't be left hanging, etc. So you impose a time limit.

Ask yourself why unit "X" is being asked to take that hill and you will see why a time limit is necessary. You're discussing company and battalion battles in a vacuum.

I agree. Steiner YOU'RE wrong! Na Na na naaaaaaaaa

haha...

Seriously though in 35-40 turn battles there is plenty of time for maneuvering and whatnot. Possibly not on a 'huge' map but I only really play mediums or smalls. As far as reconaissance, goes, many times the only way to find out a lot of enemy positions was by fire. The Soviets noted by the time they attacked Berlin that the Germans had MG nests that fired on most everything, but several that held their fire until it was realized that a true attack was underway. Think like your opponent and imagine where you would put the defenses. Works for me unless I'm playing idiots =P

Also, if you have such beef with the system, dont play QBs! If you get a scenario ( a good one at least ) It will set the situation and name landmarks, and intelligence, etc. (I.E. last night, on Hill 234 a German pillbox with an AT gun in it destroyed one of our tanks..) That's your recon and probing right there Steiner, plus info from earlier that day (or the previous day, etc)

Dont forget also CM doesnt model prep. arty barrages (not the long 3-4 hour ones, or the major bombardments like before the attack on Seelow Heights) - This has already happened, out of CM's scope. So if that is out of CM's scope, then why should the march, recon, and all that be in it? CM models the company/battalion sized attack on a position, which by the time everything had been built up, would last at the most 1 hour/2 hours, but more likely 30-40 minutes before it was decided, or one of the forces retreated or held off.

And finally, if you got what you wanted - and what Im assuming is that you're not just trolling or ranting for no reason without any purpose besides your having a bad day - it wouldnt work! I usually run out of most of my ammo by the end of a 30-40 minute battle, let a lone a 120 turn one unless I have massive forces. And you want 3-4 hour battles??? Are you insane?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sublime:

As far as reconaissance, goes, many times the only way to find out a lot of enemy positions was by fire. The Soviets noted by the time they attacked Berlin that the Germans had MG nests that fired on most everything, but several that held their fire until it was realized that a true attack was underway. Think like your opponent and imagine where you would put the defenses.

Minor point of Niggle - they realised that a long time before the Berlin Operation.

These 'Schweige' (mute) MGs were a very serious headache. Probably the best way to find out where they were was to conduct a very strong reconnaissance in force, strong enough to make the German defenders believe that it was a serious attempt to break through the line, and then have intel personnel observe the battle and check where the tracer is coming from.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Sublime:

Seriously though in 35-40 turn battles there is plenty of time for maneuvering and whatnot. Possibly not on a 'huge' map but I only really play mediums or smalls.

Hm. What should i say to people playing mostly on small to medium maps, using tanks and claiming that 40 minutes have to be enough for each game and everyone and that after a few minutes their units are low on ammo anyway?

No one is planning to take you your beloved gamey slugfests away.

But please, let others decide which battles they prefer, too.

[ September 01, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]