CMAK: BTS battles without turn limit PLEASE!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font>

[JonS]

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.

A rather harsh post Michael.

Q: Where do Op Orders come from?

A: The Bn or battlegroup CO.

Q: Who do I play in CM battles?

A: The Bn or battlegroup CO.

Q: Since I am the one who is supposedly creating and executing said plan, should I have time to do both aspects?

A: IMHO, it depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Blanket statements like yours and Berlis aren't terribly helpful.

Your comments about battles not happening in a vacuum, and Berlis about limiting the boredom factor for one of the players are fair enough within limits, but so are others.

I agree that scenarios can usefully be in the 30-40 minute range, but it depends awfully on the designer - if they give a poor brief that doesn't really indicate what you are expected to do and how you are expected to do it and where you can expect resistance, then often (IMHO) the resulting 'battle' will bear very slight resemblance to anything that happened in WWII. The guys will be carrying the right weapons,a nd tghe tanks will have the right technical specs, but the tactics et al will be, perforce, gamey.

Often the only 'planning' that a player gets to do is something along the lines of "well, I have no idea where the enemy is, and the setup zone extends the full width of the board. Do I choose to go left-flanking, or do I choose to go right flanking. If I get this decision wrong I'll probably lose the game since I won't have to to re-orient my forces, but since I don't have any other information it comes down to a coin-toss anyway."

OTOH, I don't necessarily think that extending the turn limit is a blanket panacea for all ills. However, when I'm playing scens against the AI, if the briefing gives any hint that recon is required I will load that scen into the editor and punch the turn limit out to 60 or more turns.

So the resulting battle may not flow the way the desinger intended it? So what - I'm playing it the way I want to play it

Regards

JonS

[Aacooper]

There's nothing wrong with either:

1) No time limit games

or

2) "Secret" time limit games

If someone wants to use those options, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just another flavor of jelly bean...

[Becket]

Originally posted by Aacooper:

There's nothing wrong with either:

1) No time limit games

or

2) "Secret" time limit games

If someone wants to use those options, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just another flavor of jelly bean...

So long as (a) they don't take design time away from anything else, ( delay the release, and © I don't have to play them , I think that's right.

Nothing inherently *wrong* with no time limit games, but IMO unless it's an easy, one hour and done kind of change, then it isn't something I want to hold up CMAK.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

A rather harsh post Michael.

Steiner has presented himself as being rather resistant to discussion in other threads, too.

Q: Where do Op Orders come from?

A: The Bn or battlegroup CO.

Q: Who do I play in CM battles?

A: The Bn or battlegroup CO.

Q: Since I am the one who is supposedly creating and executing said plan, should I have time to do both aspects?

A: IMHO, it depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

One of my GD scenarios gives 60 turns to the attacker, very generous of me, no? I am not against 60 turn or even 120 turn games, but they have to have a reason. What is being advocated here is the idea that since real life army dudes could apparently do whatever they felt like whenever they wanted, turn limits should be done away with altogether - because time didn't matter to them.

BS!

Blanket statements like yours and Berlis aren't terribly helpful.

Perhaps, but the initial suggestion is so fatuous as to defy reason.

I agree that scenarios can usefully be in the 30-40 minute range, but it depends awfully on the designer -

Of course it does.

OTOH, I don't necessarily think that extending the turn limit is a blanket panacea for all ills.

I agree completely with this also.

[Runyan99]

For those that missed it, the following was posted by John Salt:

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

[Runyan99]

To recap - this document states that the 'average' CM style battle, in which a company advanced 800 meters against heavy resistance, took an HOUR AND A HALF.

I think this discussion is key to our understanding of how the war was actually fought.

[ September 01, 2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

To recap - this document states that the 'average' CM style battle, in which a company advanced 800 meters against heavy resistance, took an HOUR AND A HALF.

I think this discussion is key to our understanding of how the war was actually fought.

Ok, so let's start off. Why did it take so long?

I should think that the many intangibles in a real fight would prevent a CM battle from playing out the same way. Borg-spotting is one of them, naturally. You spot an MG in front of you, and in CM, the entire battalion knows it is there. In real life, you would send a runner over to your platoon HQ, who would then send a runner to company HQ, who radio back to battalion and/or give orders on the spot...

None of that is simulated in CM; so time is understandably compressed in the game.

[Runyan99]

Agreed. The 'speed of information' is faster in CM than it was in real life.

That accounts for part of the answer, but I think there is more to it than that.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by JonS:

Q: Where do Op Orders come from?

A: The Bn or battlegroup CO.

Q: Who do I play in CM battles?

A: The Bn or battlegroup CO.

Q: Since I am the one who is supposedly creating and executing said plan, should I have time to do both aspects?

A: IMHO, it depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

And from your experience, you know that as a battalion CO you are operating within the confines of your regimental orders. So again you are operating under time constraints. I already stated that given a large enough force, more time should be given, but the idea of no time limits is completely unrealistic.

I agree that scenarios can usefully be in the 30-40 minute range, but it depends awfully on the designer

Everything depends on the designer, so I fully agree.

OTOH, I don't necessarily think that extending the turn limit is a blanket panacea for all ills. However, when I'm playing scens against the AI, if the briefing gives any hint that recon is required I will load that scen into the editor and punch the turn limit out to 60 or more turns.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

To recap - this document states that the 'average' CM style battle, in which a company advanced 800 meters against heavy resistance, took an HOUR AND A HALF.

I think this discussion is key to our understanding of how the war was actually fought.

And how much of that 1-1/2 hour is spent fighting? It will be a series of smaller actions with pauses between. Thus my belief that that sort of action should be done as an operation and not a battle. As a battle, pick out part of the action and portray that

[Jarmo]

I wouldnt think new options would be necessary for any of this.

Especially the "secret turn limit" would be appalling. Just think of attacking, advancing carefully, then suddenly the game ends and you lost!! :eek: Close Combat 1 had this, I still cry at nights when I remember the horror.

If there's a need to hurry, a scenario designer gives a tight time limit. If no hurry, the limit should be longer.

If the problem is scenario designers making scenarios with too strict time limits, then surely the problem shouldn't be fixed by changing the game but the scenarios!

No doubt many designers give tough deadlines to make a more fast paced and entertaining fight. If that doesnt appeal, dont play short scenarios.

A longer fight, why not give the maximum 2 hours? Should be enough for most players. But if not, make it an operation! Say 4 fights, if the end of the 1500m advance is not reached in 3 fights, there will be reinforcements for the defender.

[Thin Red Line]

I predict the scenario average length will magically increase the day PBEM is 1 file per turn only .

[Sublime]

First: The niggle - Im not exactly sure when they figured out about the mute MG nests... Interesting info on it. I was just recently reading a book about the Berlin offensive and it was mentioned... I should hope for their sake that they had figured it out long before hand

Second: Steiner

Im happy to leave you to whatever mode of play you prefer, but then again since you're going to bring up other peoples freedom to play the game as they please, why are you demanding something that would radically change a game that everyone here loves, and with changes for problems that very few besides you have even deigned to call a problem?

By the way you've never played me so dont call my games gamey, and not only that, but it seems the majority here seems to be in disagreement with you, so where exactly do you call a 35-40 minute attack a 'gamey slugfest'?

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Sublime:

so where exactly do you call a 35-40 minute attack a 'gamey slugfest'?

I already explained it, but let me try it once again:

1. in reality no commander could look at his clock to determine, that although he's in the middle of a battle, that in 5 minutes everything will be over for tea-time.

2. in reality no commander sacrifices more of his men than necessary and definately no one risked whole platoons or tanks with risky orders, just to finish a battle within the next 10 minutes, if he could do better within 15 minutes without risking them.

3. in reality usually the enemy forces determine the speed of advance. Now the turn limit determines it.

4. in reality you don't really know, what you can expect, especially not, if the enemy isn't encircled. With the turn limit and in conjunction with the identified units, it's in almost all scenarios usually very good predictable down to the last tank, what still can happen.

5. Since CMBO, the turn limit mostly also correlates with map size.

All the mentioned effects lead to much more knowledge about the enemy, and therefore affects gameplay - not to mention the reduced thrill for the player.

Again: the game wouldn't change in no way.

It only would allow to simulate a much wider range of tactical battles.

Especially in conjunction with 'eliminate enemy forces' multiplayer games would become really demanding, especially on big maps, because it would be possible to leave flags, let the attacker come close, and then close the pocket with massive flank attacks.

Things that now are impossible, because time is always more precious than tactics.

And the best is:

no one would be forced to play such battles.

[ September 02, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

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

[qb] so where exactly do you call a 35-40 minute attack a 'gamey slugfest'?

I already explained it, but let me try it once again:

1. in reality no commander could look at his clock to determine, that although he's in the middle of a battle, that in 5 minutes everything will be over for tea-time.</font>

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Play out a scenario - any scenario but preferably a 30 turn or so one - from the Depot with a trusted PBEM opponent.

Then set the turn limit to 120 turns and play it again. Tell us what difference the turn limit extension made.

Seems you're a bit slow in understanding.

Ok, one example of a battle i played:

Meeting engagement - 50+ turns (we already decided for thatlenght, to avoid the usual sit-on-tanks-and-rush-forward-procedere due to time restrictions) - QB - medium map - small hills - three main flags in the centre, all on the front slopes - some woods - i own the reverse slopes of the hills (after the battle he told me, he would have prefered to attack my troops directly behind the hills, but he didn't decide for that, due to the time limit...).

My oponent carefully advances to the flags and takes them. This takes alone around 20 minutes.

I wait until he controls the flags. They are not good to defend, because they are exposed.

After he had concentrated his infantry in and around the important woods and the StuGs to help it and the tanks behind the highs on his side of the map, to threaten my tanks when they will come, i started a massive combined arms flank attack and took a wood that was protecting the valley and the street into it.

We had around turn 40, when his left flank, collapsed.

Now from this area my T34 will blow his infantry away, without becoming threatened by his tanks, due to the woods, blocking LOS from his tanks.

Without turn limit, he certainly would have done an immediate withdrawal from the slope and ordered the remaining tanks around the whole map on the other side.

He would have tried to reorganize after a withdrawal and prepare for an counterattack or, at least, for a decent defense.

Due to my strong tank forces and the woods, he would have needed a wide area for his tanks to maneuvre, to knock out one tank after the other.

Here only happened what happens so often: once one player has a disadvantage in armor, he can't compensate anymore, because time limitation doesn't allow for decent tank tactics.

The battle ended like so many other battles:

he tried to hold the flags although they were the worst place, but the hope to achieve a draw is definately better, than to leave the flags and lose definately when the game ends.

[ September 02, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Seems you're a bit slow in understanding.

Ok, one example of a battle i played:

Meeting engagement -

Wow. You are basing your arguments on what constitutes "reality" by using meeting engagements as an example? How often did they happen in "real life"?

I am not slow in understanding; it is painfully obvious you're a tyro. Your uninformed comments re: Panzerjäger vs Panzerabwehr were the first evidence (we note with interest you haven't shown your face in the thread since Moon posted his proof, in German, for you). Your repeated comments here make it fairly clear you have no concept of what actual military practices were - a bit mystifying that you would keep insisting that you know something about the subject.

I am sure BTS has at some point offered their opinion on turn limits, etc., I would suggest you do a search. Either way, unless someone else has something of import to add to the discussion, I see no point in going any further as it is obviously above your level of conceptualization.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Seems you're a bit slow in understanding.

Ok, one example of a battle i played:

Meeting engagement -

Wow. You are basing your arguments on what constitutes "reality" by using meeting engagements as an example? How often did they happen in "real life"?

I am not slow in understanding; it is painfully obvious you're a tyro. Your uninformed comments re: Panzerjäger vs Panzerabwehr were the first evidence (we note with interest you haven't shown your face in the thread since Moon posted his proof, in German, for you). Your repeated comments here make it fairly clear you have no concept of what actual military practices were - a bit mystifying that you would keep insisting that you know something about the subject.

I am sure BTS has at some point offered their opinion on turn limits, etc., I would suggest you do a search. Either way, unless someone else has something of import to add to the discussion, I see no point in going any further as it is obviously above your level of conceptualization. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

I believe it was Jary who made the point that often, because of external operational constraints, a company or battalion commander could rarely actually wage his battle the way he wanted to. Artillery time-tables and so on, often meant that manoeavure was often limited as attacking infantry had to keep close to an advancing, creeping barrage, while their use meant that flanking was nearly impossible.

It appears to me that many who claim that battles should have unlimited time limits, ignore that the battle their fighting could well be only a small part of a much larger operation and their role in its pretty minor as far as higher command is concerned. Resource allocation could well mean that if they want to have that artillery or armour support, they'll have to carry out their attack NOW, not at their leisure and in the manner they necessarily would like to.

[Redwolf]

Well, except we have no rolling barrages in CM or any kind of preplanned pattern fire for that matter.

I haven't seen many people claiming we should have unlimited turns, just that 30-45 as in most CM scenarios are nonsense and lead to either unrealistic tactics or they narrow down tactics to one approach. Which hopefully is what the scenario designers thinks was the historical one (and he might be wrong and even if not he kicks a good part of the learning experience out of the game). We want 90-120. If the defender is bored then give him some recon. Or more turns per email. Or open the battle TCP/IP and switch to PBEM on contact.

Why is it that someone like John Salt can come up with contrete historical numbers and nobody even notices?

[ September 02, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[JonS]

This might be a good time to promote the scenario "Pt 238", available at The Scenario Depot. It has 120 turns (to prevent any end-of-game problems. It shouldn't take that many turns to finish), and the attacker must spend considerable time before play starts planning his attack. It also features some basic co-ordination measures that limit the attackers freedom of movement. There is a printable topo map included to help with the planning.

In fact, there are quite a lot of houserules that I wrote into the scen to make it do what I thought it should, but both sides still ahve a fair amount of freedom.

I freely acknowledge that it won't appeal to many people

Regards

JonS

[Cabron66]

I think I'm late getting into this one, but here's what I think. Time limits are a tool which a designer can use as he sees fit. Many designers do not use them (time limits or other available options) correctly or with much imagination. If one accepts that time limits did exist in the real world (as any sane person will) then their inclusion in a scenario becomes a necessity. Time is always a factor. The only question is how to use them to reflect real world conditions. Here, I say, use another tool: the briefing. Tell the commander enough about his mission and what's going on around it so the time limit makes sense. Give him a sense of the urgency with which an objective must be taken so he knows which kind of tactics he must employ and why. Even if the briefing simply states: "Your CO handed you your orders and wished you luck, but before you left the office reminded you how much was riding on your timely success..." or some other such dramatic claptrap it is enough to give the scenario more depth and make a time limit understandable. Otherwise, if there was no great urgency, give the scenario a big time limit and let the players go at it in their own way, but also include the lack of pressure in the briefing. I simply feel that time was something that would have constantly hung over a commander's head in any real operation. Designers who wish to make credible scenarios need to take this into account. Designers who don't care about their credibility or are just designing "fun" scenarios can, and will, do whatever they like.

In short, scenarios with no time limit should never exist because that is silly, for lack of a better term. However, future games in the CM series could easily introduce longer time limits useable or not as the designer desires or needs depending on the action he is trying to portray. Short battles? They are as realistic as the designer makes them. Longer battles? Designers and play testers frequently lose interest in the later turns and the battle usually degrades significantly in quality. The answer, better designers.

[ September 03, 2003, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[James Crowley]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Well, except we have no rolling barrages in CM or any kind of preplanned pattern fire for that matter.

I haven't seen many people claiming we should have unlimited turns, just that 30-45 as in most CM scenarios are nonsense and lead to either unrealistic tactics or they narrow down tactics to one approach. Which hopefully is what the scenario designers thinks was the historical one (and he might be wrong and even if not he kicks a good part of the learning experience out of the game). We want 90-120. If the defender is bored then give him some recon. Or more turns per email. Or open the battle TCP/IP and switch to PBEM on contact.

Why is it that someone like John Salt can come up with contrete historical numbers and nobody even notices?

Hear, Hear!

It seems to me that the "thirty minute brigade" have conveniently chosen to ignore Johns' very telling statistical data.

Not one of them has produced any evidence, statistical or otherwise, of an historical requirement to execute a company/battalion mission in 30 (ish) minutes, nor indeed, any examples of where it was accomplished.

I have to wonder if any of them have actually read historical accounts of engagements on the CM level.

Of course all military operations worked to a preset timetable but how often was that achieved, at any level?

There is no suggestion that company and battalion commanders "take as long as they like" only that sufficient time is allocated to the scenario to allow it to develop in a reasonably "historically realistic" manner.

Why else would BFC allocate a maximum potential two hours to a battle?

The suggestion that the "thirty minutes" is some sort of compressed or condensed time is pure tosh. There is nothing in CM documentation to suggest that elapsed game-time is any thing other than elapsed real-time.

There is nothing wrong with short-time scenarios, providing that the goals for, especially the attacker, are historically realistic. So one would expect smallish maps with very little depth; effectively the final push. There are some good examples of those available.

All to often, unfortunately, the player is presented with a large map, short playing time and objectives which require totally unhistoric tactics, so as to conform to a "fun, balanced game"

I think all that is being suggested here is that designers spend a bit more time looking at the historicity of their scenarios as well as the fun and balance. That way we will get battles that better reflect what actually happened and are still fun to play.

Is that not what we all want?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

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 you think people shy away from 120 turn monsters, why would you think they would flock to an unlimited turn monster?

I don't really care one way or the other as it would just be an option, but 120 turns is more than enough for 99.9% of CM games, and the other .1% are games hardly anyone would want to play.