Battle for Rostov 1942: Who was there?

[Renaud]

Great map! rkkaww2 is a great resource. The southern bit is interesting. I see the 100th Jaeger far to the north. The Russian symbology: what looks like 'cd' is an Infantry Division, 'cdp' is Rifle Brigade, 'mbp' is an Independept Tank Brigade...the 63rd STB is clearly in reserve north of Rostov. Note 22nd Panzer still to the north with 1st Panzer Army.

[JasonC]

Cyrillic c - looks like Latin small c - is "s", and the word-begining it is abbreviating is "strela" - rifle-man, rifle-company, rifle-division, etc. Cyrillic p - looks like Latin small p - is "r".

[GDog]

Well, thought I'd give a quick update of my progress.

I have 15km/sq. of a total 22.5km/sq. campaign map completed using Mapping Mission 1.12

I have pillaged JasonC's and Renaud's valuable input here to help with storyline. That same information is in the hands of a friend who is helping. He is going to be responsible for creating the initial OOB's and helping finalize the rules.

I have decided to take an "alternate history" approach, with slight alterations to the map to encourage fighting along the banks of the Don river both inside and outside the city.

I am still 99% confident this can be executed without a neutral GM considering the "dumbed down" approach I am taking. That being said, Renaud I will still drop you a line in the near future when I am closer to completion and see what, if any, role you might like to play in the Battle for Rostov.

With that for now, I leave you with my new signature I made to use as the Russian Commander!

Thanks again guys for your help, another update to come when I am nearly complete.

[GDog]

I have come to (very stubbornly) the conclusion that this Campaign would never work without a neutral GM.

Inter-phase movement and the results of those moves are what makes the campaign fluid and realistic.

My alternative would be, considering this is my first attempt at a large game involving more than 2 players, to operate this thing as a giant "Static Operation" with one player from each side in each of the 5 map columns.

Slightly more involved rules could be developed to allow flanking attacks etc.

Exporting the maps as "North/South" static operations with Mapping Mission would allow a flexible and ever changing front line running across the entire operational map.

[JasonC]

Sigh. Don't try to mix campaigns and operations. It won't work. Campaigns are sequential scenarios, not operations. You are really reinventing the wheel here, instead of listening. It really kills off interest and sympathy.

[GDog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Don't try to mix campaigns and operations. It won't work. Campaigns are sequential scenarios, not operations.

Just sharing an idea Jason.

I have listened to, and thank you for all your valuable comments and input so far, including the above quoted.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what there is to be sympathetic about? Save your sighs and scolding tone for your children please.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by GDog:

I have come to (very stubbornly) the conclusion that this Campaign would never work without a neutral GM.

Inter-phase movement and the results of those moves are what makes the campaign fluid and realistic.

My alternative would be, considering this is my first attempt at a large game involving more than 2 players, to operate this thing as a giant "Static Operation" with one player from each side in each of the 5 map columns.

Slightly more involved rules could be developed to allow flanking attacks etc.

Exporting the maps as "North/South" static operations with Mapping Mission would allow a flexible and ever changing front line running across the entire operational map.

In the few weeks I have been here recovering and spending my time with CM, I have learned and experimented alot. This idea actually is close to what I am leaning towards as well, and I see no reason why it would not work. I have even already put together 3 extremely large (4kx6k max) operation maps that figure nicely as a section of the Don River Bend. Have tested on the maps to see the maximum amount of troops that can be handled, and while I doubt I would have a reason to use as many, I have made regiment sized units on each side, work fine. Still doing some touch up though. I also do believe that if the players are intellectually honest(sometimes a bit much to ask) you can slide by with, maybe not no GM, but very limited duties for one,mainly organization, and perhaps have one from each side, again, if players are honest.

[GDog]

Sierra, I am in the same position right now. I have been discussing in depth with my co-campaign creator and we have some good ideas.

Be very interested to speak further and exchange Map files, ideas etc.

If interested drop me a line at

agostinoterzianodesign -at- gmail.com

Hope you are not recovering from a wound taken in some crazy conflict somewhere, if you are hope you are well.

[JasonC]

Regiment scale on one map breaks the game system, not the CPU. The level of micromanaged coordination on single minute time scales without any confusion or order spread or delay, is completely incorrect in realism terms. The game system was simply never meant to be accurate at that scale and it isn't. Also the player time needed gets ridiculous. In my not so humble opinion, you are taking a fine initial idea and breaking it hopelessly, as many have before you. But it is your funeral.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Regiment scale on one map breaks the game system, not the CPU. The level of micromanaged coordination on single minute time scales without any confusion or order spread or delay, is completely incorrect in realism terms. The game system was simply never meant to be accurate at that scale and it isn't. Also the player time needed gets ridiculous. In my not so humble opinion, you are taking a fine initial idea and breaking it hopelessly, as many have before you. But it is your funeral.

In general, I agree. The times were not that slow as for drag time however.. As I mentioned, I would not see a lot of reason for it, except on large maps. However, Wehrmacht units trained for regiment sized units to defend a front of anywhere from 1.5-3.5 kms. It would also be unrealistic to not model that. if you are making a large map. Unless forced to, which admittedly happened often, you would not see company sized units for example defending a frontage of even 2 km. And on the attack, a schwerpunkt would generally funnel that firepower into an even narrower front.

For what it is worth, Soviet rifle regiments usually trained to defend a 2.5-3.5 km front.

edit:JasonC I see you mentioned above regarding the scale also. I in no way meant to imply that you did not know the typical frontages. I am curious, as a newcomer myself to this game, more in detail why you feel that larger units cannot be supported? I ran my test with roughly regimental sizes, delays were at worst 5 minutes/turn in the heat of the battle. The map was in no way "crowded" and there was ability to actually set up and run an ambush even. Realism does not seem to have been a tremendous factor as well. But if there is some factor I am not seeing, please expand upon it.

Thanks

[ March 18, 2008, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

[Cuirassier]

He is saying it doesn't work because the CM model allows you to micromanage things down to squad/team level. A regimental commander would never realistically have the ability to micro all of his platoons and squads on minute time scales to fit a regimental scale battle plan. A regimental commander moves battalions around, not squads. CM is meant to be played (realistically) from the company to battalion level.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

He is saying it doesn't work because the CM model allows you to micromanage things down to squad/team level. A regimental commander would never realistically have the ability to micro all of his platoons and squads on minute time scales to fit a regimental scale battle plan. A regimental commander moves battalions around, not squads. CM is meant to be played (realistically) from the company to battalion level.

Ahh, agreed. Well, that all comes down to the ability of the player to be honest. If you are looking at the game as a tactical exercise, or for fun, etc. In my own experiment, I ran both sides. As each commander I asked myself what I would do with the information there in front of me, and kept micromanagement to a minor level by deciding to use the best information that the officer in charge of each unit at that time had. Complex, but was a very interesting battle, as I said, even walking one side into an ambush. If players can be honest and not resort to "gamey" maneuvers, they can learn alot from the larger scale as well. And it still seems a waste that the editor will allow maps of a size that entire divisions would historically have contested, while gearing a game meant for companies / battalions.

Thanks for the answer though.

[GDog]

Sounds like you are playing these huge maps in their entirety. I am using Mapping Mission to break my master map up into manageable 1km x 1km sectors to be used in the campaign, then build battles of Company / Battalion size on them.

I understand JasonC's point about moving away from the tactical intentions of CM when you get into micro-managing a Regimental sized game. I'm currently playing a Battalion sized game and it takes a serious time commitment to keep the turns going!

Sierra are you familiar with Mapping Mission? If you are building large maps it makes life ALOT easier.

[abneo3sierra]

I am familiar with it but have just tinkered.

Time I have plenty of, nursing an injury and this is serving the job of occupying my time.

I do understand his point as well. Mine was that if a player is intellectually honest, BFC gave them a game that can run maps of a 4km front with 6km in depth, and I am sure they considered the possibilities.

I have nothing at all against small unit tactics either as that sort of falls into my RL job description, just am also interested in the larger scale ops on the eastern front as well, and have run through enough to see that they do work as well.

You simply have to "keep it real" and whatever the top level of command is, hold micromanagement below that level to a minimum. Have the basic plan, give the orders, and let it run 5-10-15 minutes before you step into the lower level again. The TacAI makes some mistakes, but so do rl troopers.

Anyway, thanks, I am doing something incorrect with mapping mission, will look further at it.

[JasonC]

(double post)

[ March 19, 2008, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

abo - whoever spends more time at the computer per turn, wins. Some realism.

You simply do not get a regiment or division game out of company level one and giantism. You get an unplayable and inaccurate exercise in A competitive time-invested "watering" contest.

[JasonC]

The whole idea of a *campaign* is to *keep* the level CM can handle for the tactical scale, and assemble multiple scenarios fought that way in sequences into an operational event. It is the direct opposite of the idea of putting entire divisions on one map. The whole point is to keep the tactical fights at the playable scale. And to use at the operational level systems that actual model accurately the operational decision making - which giantism on the same map does not.

Operations have a hacky ammo resupply and unit reorganization model to make them work, barely. They have a hacky way of modeling down time by moving front lines. For a reinforced battalion scale event, keep going with dribbles of reinforcement, that can work OK. But it puts no decisions on force allocation actually in player hands - they arrive or not, typically weighted in favor of the losing side.

As I said it is your funeral. You don't seem to "get" any of it, or to realize how many people have been over this ground before and have already found what works. You want to rediscover it for yourselves, fine. I wouldn't recommend it to other players, but hey, up to them.

[abneo3sierra]

JasonC,

While I would agree with your expertise on ww2 from reading many of your very excellent posts, I do not require a lecture on realism. I concede your point that if the player is willing to be gamey, it can be abused. However, you should concede mine that there are indeed lessons to be learned. I do not believe this system was intended simply for small scale, or BFC would likely have not made it possible to create and play on such large maps, and even larger in CMAK.

I saw a post where you said you wished for a game one step up in scale, I agree with that sentiment, and know that CMBB is not perfect on the larger scale, but as I have said, if honest, it can be a temporary step before such a project was available. It all does very much depend on how honest the player(s) are. As for realism, my own training has taught me what to expect in that regard, and it was a realistic simulation in many ways, although not perfect as I said.

edit : Jason, in rereading this a few hours later, I think my post sounds very rude. I apologize for the tone. I do agree with most of your posts, just, like you mentioned in the CM-SF forum, I like the idea of a game a level above. For myself, it has worked well, although as I mentioned, I would hardly use it in CMBB, but it worked. I can understand it not being up your alley though, no hard feelings intended.

[ March 19, 2008, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

[GDog]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

JasonC,

-While I would agree with your expertise on ww2 from reading many of your very excellent posts, I do not require a lecture on realism.

-edit : Jason, in rereading this a few hours later, I think my post sounds very rude. I apologize for the tone.

-no hard feelings intended.

sierra, I reacted in similar fashion to another of JasonC "gruff" posts in this very thread. His answers and knowledge are invaluable here, his interpersonal skills....meh.

I too should take a moment to apologize to JasonC for my equally "gruff" response, no need to have any hard feelings here, either intentional or misconceived. Thanks for you many great posts JasonC.

[ March 19, 2008, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: GDog ]

[Cuirassier]

Just to throw it out there, I don't think he wants an apology. He wants you to grasp the idea that operations don't work on a single CM map with massive forces in one battle.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

Just to throw it out there, I don't think he wants an apology. He wants you to grasp the idea that operations don't work on a single CM map with massive forces in one battle.

I understand from his perspective. Well, just to throw it out there, I have already gotten it to work. But I can understand as I said that my workarounds would definitely NOT be something I would recommend to most as they require a level of intellectual honesty that often is missing, and a tremendous amount of patience while you watch for a few turns as your company moves into something that NOW looks like a trap, though it did not look that way from the beginning, and it will still take a few minutes to "restore comms" with them. My test was not conducted on one map, and was conducted by someone who currently cannot get out of bed and thus has had ALOT of free time that I know most people do not have. It was on 3 large 6km x 4km maps which connected(roughly)together, and involved a panzer division vs a Soviet motor rifle division with a tank bde in reserve, and the forces on one map were roughly , at the highest point, a panzer bn of 48 panzers, a reinforced PzGr bn with support assets, against a motor rifle regt and probably half of the tank bde, and also support units.

edit:

And let me add, again, that for the 18km front represented in those maps, my forces were actually far UNDER what would have been doctrine for either red or blue forces.

[JasonC]

No, our problem is not our insufficient intellectual honesty, it is the fact that we understand the CM game system and we are not stark raving mad. Also, we have heard of "It", the project to simulate all of WW II with a hex and counter wargame using single man counters and based on the Sniper simultaneously plotting of moves system, and we know it was a standing joke, not a game design.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[abneo3sierra]

Alright JasonC ,

I did not imply that YOUR intellectual honesty was missing. I implied that in a two person game, it is alot to expect both players to have it..with you, what is missing is the ability to understand that I have, indeed, already made something work which you insist is impossible. It has holes, but the whole idea of gaming something on a computer or on a board, automatically has its own holes as well. For myself, I simply said the holes are acceptable, for you, obviously they may not be, I can understand that, but there is no point in your stooping to call me "stark raving mad" for my choice.

Also need to say I find it discouraging to be arguing on the forum with someone who I had so much respect for from reading your posts for so long..some of the reason I purchased this game was your posts.

[ March 19, 2008, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

[JasonC]

No, you haven't made it work, you played it once yourself without putting a fist through your monitor - not the same thing. A system works if plenty of other people can use it to simulate any campaign they like, and find it playable and realistic and challenging and fun and worth their invested time. Not because the CPU fails to ignite.