Force size - How many troops can you keep track of?

[Quintus]

One of the things I have come to notice in playing CMBB/O is that I seem to have some kind of limit to the number of troops I can keep track of and manage effectively.

Below 1000 points I am perfectly happy and will merrily beat the AI and get a passable ratio of victory to defeat verses humans. Above 1000 and I start coming unglued.

Has anyone else noticed this sort of thing in their game-play? I am guessing that practise, practise and more practise is the key.

[ March 10, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Quintus ]

[Sergei]

If it's all infantry, then yeah, 1000 approaches the limit of making me tired. On the other hand, how many heavy tanks can you buy with 1000 points in 1944? So it's not just the points, it's the amount of units. On the other hand, I have noticed that commanding infantry is sort of easier than commanding tanks. Tanks can get so easily killed esp. if they're flanked, but infantry can usually retreat, regroup and fight again even if taken some casualties.

I would agree it's a matter of practice, you need to understand how to construct spearheads of your forces and then how to use the rest effectively to support the spearheads.

[Quintus]

My 'usual' 1000 points is roughly : 1 company of infantry, 1 platoon of tanks, 1 FOO, as much support as I can reasonably grab (plus tows for any ATG/AA) and any leftovers going toward an extra platoon of infantry if the points allow.

That's for a combined arms battle anyway.

[Fionn]

A 4000 points ( combined points total of both sides) is fairly small for me. I regularly play battles verging on the 8000 to 10,000 range.

I think that the whole platoon vs platoon or company vs company thing has been done to death and like to bring Bns and regiments to the ballgame. It adds another layer to the game when your reserve force... the one you will hurl at a 300 metre section of the enemy's 2km long front... is a reinforced tank Bn with tankodesantniki.

Of course many people find that too large to handle. Currently I'm playing a 9900 point game ( 3600 points German defender vs 6300 point Soviet attacker).

[Zebulon Pleasure Beast]

Somewhere around the 1500 points Combined Arms mark is where I start to lose control. This size of force allows me to conduct somewhat succesful attacks VS. the AI, but when the going gets bigger than that I find it hard to concentrate and I start making silly mistakes, such as forgetting that certain FO somewhere in a bush near my assembly point etc.

Currently I'm trying to get my act together and enter the major league, large battles just have that epic feel and it is more likely that your strategy and tactics will bring victory instead of pure luck, which is a decisive factor in smaller battles with maybe a single tank per side which may be lost to a single lucky shot.

I tremendously enjoy reading huge battle AAR's and I hope to see more of them, since I find myself learning lots of new thingums from them.

Oh yes, one thing I forgot the mention. The major factor contributing to my reluctancy towards huge battles is the lack of computing power.

Cheers

[ March 10, 2003, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: oneirogen ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

larger forces are where its at... but for pbem that most likely means broadband...

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

For me, 2000 points (for each side) is best.

With 2000 points, one rather large mistake will not doom that side. :eek: However, anything over 2000 points is just too much of a pain to handle.

Cheers, Richard

[ March 11, 2003, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Fionn:

A 4000 points ( combined points total of both sides) is fairly small for me. I regularly play battles verging on the 8000 to 10,000 range.

Okay, just tell me how do you do it? Do you pay as much attention to details as if you were playing with a company, or do you just lob the forces into that direction by group move and check after the battle how it went? It would be very nice if you described how the plotting commences in a huge scenario.

You may be equipped with such a long attention span that it could be used to cross the Atlantic or then you're so routinized that you could do it left-handed while performing a surgical operation with the other one eyes closed, but if I were to play a battle that massive, I'd just lose the interest very soon, or get depressed and go drinking for a week. Therefore I can't understand how some people find the opposite true, it's fascinating. Do you have any upper limits, then?

[Thin Red Line]

I like huge scenarios too. Actually, i find them more fun.

[nevermind]

Fionn,

Wow,that sounds daunting,i cant imagine being in an engagement of that size.I too am interested in how you plot your orders each turn,and if you could,please include what your force composition is.How much armor do you have,infantry..etc..

{EDIT to add another question}

How do you plan on defeating your enemy with a significantly smaller force?Again,as many details a possible please

Thanks

[ March 11, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: nevermind ]

[Dressler]

I routinely create scenarios for play against AI that use the maximum amount of units allowed for both sides. I guess I just like the huge epic clashes better than small unit action. Occasionally, I'll forget about an important unit I have placed somewhere, but usually I don't have any problem keeping up with my forces. I even plot each individual unit's moves unless I'm doing a mass assault on a fixed position.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Quintus:

One of the things I have come to notice in playing CMBB/O is that I seem to have some kind of limit to the number of troops I can keep track of and manage effectively. [snips]

The usual rule in real armies, or at least in the real British army, is that a commander should think "two down". This means that in a game that deals with individual vehicles and sections, such as CM, the company level of command is the "natural" one. Given the ability to handle platoons en bloc with a single command by clicking on the HQ, handling a battalion is not too much of a strain. Dealing with regiments and brigades is, IMHO, a pointless exercise, as CM makes no attempt to simulate those aspects of command control that are decisive in the fighting of such battles -- a brigade is an organisation of co-operating battalions, not a random grab-bag of platoons. The mental strain of dealing with excessive levels of footling detail, well outside the Hrair limit, also mean that playing with such cumbersome forces rewards obsessive-compulsive attention to detail and the skills of the beancounter rather than the tactician. In short, such huge battle are no fun as a game and grossly unconvincing as a simulation.

All the best,

John.

[Quintus]

the company level of command is the "natural" one

Ah, that makes a good deal of sense. I'd not heard the term 'Hrair limit' before but was aware of the concept.

I had totally overlooked the 'click on the HQ to command the entire unit' option, that's another thing to try and remember (along with "Never get into a peeing contest with Tigers at long range with T-34's, it's neither big nor clever.")

Thanks for the advice.

[Fionn]

Sergei,

Even in the largest battle only small portions of each force are actually engaged in intensive action at any one time. Most units are merely sitting fast, moving into supporting positions or bringing fire to bear from previously occupied positions. Only a very small minority are actually manoeuvring and need to be attended to in detail.

Also, don't forget that the whole Regimental battle can be broken down into 3 Bn taskings ( if 1 Bn is probing forward and 2 are in reserve then one need only give very detailed attention to the advance Bn.... that's 3 companies... not all platoons of these companies will be used in the vanguard so it is quite possible that a regimental battle might begin with only 6 platoons actually being put in front of the enemy and requiring detailed consideration. All other units can be given general orders so long as they stay in dead ground.)

As to force composition: It varies. I generally would go with 1 platoon of armour backing up a Bn of infantry plus a couple of mortar FOs. That's been the sort of balanced force I've found most useful in CMBO and carried over into CMBB. Of course sometimes it can be fun to bring a tank Bn to the party but those are rather exceptions to the rule.

In our game, for example, I have a platoon of tanks and a Bn of infantry along with a couple of FOs. Pretty much my standard force for attacking, defending or an ME at the 3000 point level.

Personally I'd prefer the ability to give "General Orders" to platoon HQs and not their individual squads since I don't bother with micro-managing squads etc anyways in any games. If you manoeuvre the Bn or company properly then the platoons and squads will do their job. Unfortunately due to the lack of such an AI level in CMBB it is impossible to give HQ commands which are implemented at lower levels ( a la Airborne Assault... a brilliant game of operational command if you haven't checked it out yet. An Eastern Front version of this game would be to Operational Wargaming what CM has been to Tactical Wargaming.)

[manchildstein (ii)]

since my largest battles are attacks against the ai i tend to be a bit more reckless, often with every unit moving at the start in order to close with the defender. once contact is made, it becomes an exercise where usually no more than 50% of my units are moving at a given time. essentially it becomes a series of leapfrog moves where some are providing fire, and others are bounding forward. oftentimes a 3rd group is by then 'hovering' in the background waiting for a decent move to present itself.

right now i'm testing a scenario with 37 tanks/assault guns, 2 battalions (understength at 2 companies apiece) of infantry, and 1 company of pioneers, backed up by extensive support weapons and about 60 halftracks of various types.

of those 60-odd halftracks there are 30-some odd spw 251/1s and these are the 'battle taxis,' bringing the flamethrowers, pioneers, hmgs, and 81mm mortars forward...

the rest are 75mm shorts, triple 15mm mg, 81mm mortar, and 20mm halftracks... all 251/x

at a certain point my attackers come under constant air attacks as they move to take the town...... it's a 'blast'

by the way (btw) i would defintely buy an 'airborne assault' for the eastern front...

[ March 11, 2003, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: manchildstein II ]

[Sgt. Schultz]

3,000 point minimum for me to really enjoy the game. The 5160 I get for a 3,000 Assault is starting to seem thin at that. That is roughly two Btn of troops, and two to three platoons of armor with various support if the prices fall my way.

I am happiest at the vanguard of a full regimental formation. Especially if it is a 3rd party placement battle where reinforcements can be fed in gradually.

A 'kampfgruppe' mobile reserve force with real punch and its own security screen can only be afforded if I go the larger route as well.

I have no problem spending the time at level 1 and 2 to get to know the terrain, and once I go over it a few times, the orders phase goes faster every turn. The same goes for the units. I spend time at setup to get to 'know' them and their strengths, position them accordingly, and then they play out their roles naturally if I have done things correctly. The more eyes on target and area fire, the better my chances of crossing that ground as well, so bigger is better for me. Not to mention that my still-feeble CM skills are helped somewhat by a large force's ability to absorb a foolish error or two on my part and still remain a credible force. If I lose a 'toon in a 1,000 pointer I am hurting, I lose one in a 5,000 pointer, I bring another up to replace it and move on that much wiser.

[ March 11, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Sgt. Schultz ]

[Lawngnome]

I learned how to defend well by playing the following QB..

2000 points

assault (i would obviously be the defender)

200% handicap in favor of AI (max, i wish it was higher)

unrestricted force compostition (both sides)

40 turns (not fixed)

small map

usually rural and light/moderate trees

flat/gentle slopes

I would then pick both armies out... and of course my defending army would be badly outnumbered.... at first I lost over and over, usually not having enough ammo to withstand the assault

eventually i became a defense expert... i learned how to use each gun to its fullest.... and i learned the German 150mm Infantry Gun is a blessing from god..... anyway... think im lying when i say i won these battles? im not, try them yourself, its a blast really....

one recent AAR from one of these battles was hilarious..... the enemy gave up because of morale at 35 turns..... the attackers had 1800 men.... 1600 were casualties.... I had 400 men..... only 84 were casualties.... BODIES EVERYWHERE.... I had one 150mm infantry gun.... it was snowing so it had the usual visibility of about 240m.... this bad boy exhausted its ammo and in the process took out over 300 evil soviets, 15 mortars, and 2 halftracks.... EAT THAT... MVP anyone?

[Silvio Manuel]

Nice one Lawngnome. I think you can only do that kind of carnage in CMBB using Extreme FOW. In CMBO, it would be far easier to have the enemy spot your 150mm IG and take it out; w/ E-FOW it can fire away for far longer w/o being spotted..

[ March 21, 2003, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Cortes]

Fionn, I'm a terrible CM player. I remember reading somewhere very, very far back that you were offering to play anyone. I'm curious if you would be willing to teach me a few lessons, when it becomes available? I prefer TCP/IP, but I can handle email, too. I won't attempt to flatter, and I realize how off-topic this post is, therefore I'll end now.

Regards.

[von Khan]

Fionn, I've read your AARs and combatmission.com, and found them excellent. Is there anyway I could get my hands on some more of them?

[Fionn]

Cortes,

I'd be happy to give you a game. PBEM only unfortunately since my connection cuts out all the time during CBB TCP/IP for some reason ( works fine for FPSes etc but not for CMBB).

Couple of points:

If you want errors etc pointed out then I'll happily do that and also provide what advice I can re: what you "should" be doing etc BUT you do have to bear in mind that no-one likes being critiqued. I've had issues in the past with people asking for advice and then blowing up when I point out their errors.

Also you'd need to use a disposable password ( IOW one you normally don't use) so that I could show movies from both sides to illustrate any interesting tactical points which come up in-game. (I would show them to you or a couple of friends. The movies and/or my comments re: them would never become public... unless of course you want to do an AAR from your POV. I would have no issue with that. I'd even provide input from my POV if you were to do that.)

vonKhan,

There is another AAR at Mods and Modders which, IMO, is one of the most fascinating since it shows manoeuvre at play in a CM battle and disproves those who say manoeuvre en masse is dead in CM BUT I have no intention of ever posting any AARs or anything else ( including force balance rules etc etc) for this community ever again.

ANY community which allows people to go ape**** and attack another who stated disgust at the fact that no-one was remembering Afghan CIVILIAN war dead (in addition to the AMerican civilian dead) is a community of such degradation and immorality that it is simply disgusting IMO. It is ALWAYS a pity when INNOCENT people die (no matter which country they come from) and those who react so animalistically when reminded that non-American innocent civilians are dying and who try to twist said statement into some sort of affront to all those innocents who died on 9-11-2001 should be ashamed of themselves. That the rest of the forum stood idly by while a forum admin and others actually egged various neo-conserfascists on is the reason for my stance.

Sorry for going into it again but that sort of conduct is deeply morally repugnant to me. ALL anyone had to do was go "Yeah, it is a terrible pity afghan civilians are being killed. Unavoidable though." but instead they showed their baser natures.

[ March 23, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Cortes]

alright Fionn, glad to have a teacher. I take criticism well, and I'm willing to cut my losses in the ego department to improve.

You might want to add to your why Americans are pompous buggers ammunition depot the fact that the French and the German people have lost more civilians combined after September 11th than we ever have in terrorism. Add. of course, the fact that we sponsor and support terrorist groups and tinpot dictatorships all over the unstable regions of this maudlin world (by we I mean US) and then dash in some biting Onion satire and you'll win any debate. Trust me.

Addy is eigeasteasai@aol.com

[Fionn]

Cortes,

I think you have me wrong... Unlike many I'm not one of these people who always assumes the US is wrong and bashes them regardless... I just had an argument with my father today because of his continual denunciation of US conduct of military operations in Iraq.

IOW I argue against extremists on both sides of this thing. Of course both sides then automatically assume I must be a trenchant supporter of the other side ( as opposed to someone who just makes up their own mind on a per issue basis).

To be honest I must admit that if all US civies were as sensible as the officers and senior non-coms I've met and spoken with (and on the whole like and get on well with) then I think your country would be well-accepted worldwide. Strange to say I actually think your military men are tremendously let down by the conduct of the "home front".

Anyways, enough of this here... It is, after all, the Tips and Tricks forum. I've emailed you re: game parameters etc etc.

[Cortes]

A reasonable man, indeed. Yes, let us dispense with the politics and begin with the asskicking and bubble gum (and I'm all out of bubble gum..)

[SolarFire]

Hi,

Where can I apply for one of Fionn's lessons ?