Just how realistic is all this anyhow?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

Another reason that casualties are so high in CM is that units in the game are much more resilient after taking casualties than they would be in real life.

Also that IRL it is much more difficult to control a real armed force in such a highly effective way as is seen in these games, resulting in that while commanders prepare for their next move to exploit a window of opportunity, the enemy troopers moves out of the pocket and so on. In the old days, before developed field communications, once the battle started, a commander couldn't do much but hope that he had instructed his field commanders well enough so they'd respond wisely to the developments. More often it just became a big circus of units melting into pockets of scuffle that was commanded by no-one. Even modern battles can devolve into that when all officers are lost, but CM models a certain kind of battle. That type is that where both sides have a very adapting and powerful command structure, where there is an endless amount of messengers running about the battlefield and where all are devoted to the fight.

[Sergei]

One solution might be a new FOW level. I call it the Hysterical Fog of War. In it you don't know the real strength or ammo level of your units. You only know approximations, and even those can be wrong. Maybe you'd see, by clicking on platoon HQ, that that platoon includes 20 men, but you don't know if all squads have equal strength or if some are depleted and some full.

[Redwolf]

Another big factor hasn't been mentioned:

It is rare that battles were thought with two sides having a win chance to start from. CM battles are usually halfway balanced but real world battles were not.

It would be much more common to either that the attackers runs over the thin defense line more or less easy after it has been pulverized in artillery and/or air attacks or that the attacker receives so strong defense fire that he doesn't push on.

If people wer egetting into fair fights in WW2 they certainly took losses like they do in CM. You have to take into account that an abanonded tank or even a knocked out tank in the CM tank would likely run the next day. Of the losses in men displayed by CM many would be lightly wounded and back the next day or week, or they would be temporarily missing or just out of the fight with a nervous breakdown.

[Edward Windsor]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Another big factor hasn't been mentioned

Good point

Originally posted by redwolf:

It is rare that battles were thought with two sides having a win chance to start from. CM battles are usually halfway balanced but real world battles were not.

Might some sort of campaign system make this a more regular occurrence in CM? Using strategy to bring greater forces to bear and then tactics as the battle is resolved, with the defender attempting to minimise casualties or organise a tactical withdrawal to fight another day (assuming the objectives weren’t important enough to merit a last stand). I think I could enjoy a challenge like that.

I appreciate this isn’t really what CM is about (nor would I want a huge change in emphasis – it’s a great game as it is), but even some half-arsed feature would be better than nothing, especially if the community geniuses could take it forward in some way (and CMMOS, PBEM Helper, and all the other invaluable add-ons suggest they’re more than up to the task.

Toodle pip,

Teddy

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

So it seems that we genuinely have a game of highly accurate mechanics being used to simulate invariably totally unrealistic battles?

I think that is an *excellent* summary.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

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

So it seems that we genuinely have a game of highly accurate mechanics being used to simulate invariably totally unrealistic battles?

I think that is an *excellent* summary. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

A couple of ways we could have more realistic battles without introducing a campaign system. One is to penalize a player's victory points more heavily for casualties to his own men. Thus, you could have a pyrrhic victory where you capture the objective, but had lost too much in men and equipment to carry on had you been called to. That would also discourage the defender from clinging too tenaciously to the objective.

The second would be to increase the effects of global morale so that forces would become more brittle and unwilling to fight at a lower threshhold of casualties.

Of the two solutions, the first leaves the initiative in the hands of the player to decide when to keep fighting and when to break off, but encourages him to call it quits early. The second takes initiative out of the player's hands and presents him with more or less a fait accompli. Of course, some blending of the two approaches is also possible.

Michael

[ November 13, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Andreas:

That's a good summary

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Edward Windsor:

What's the point in accepting a tactical loss when there is no bigger picture to consider?

Hence the invention of ladder play.

[flamingknives]

A really large op (i.e. long duration) played H2H would give you a 'more realistic' style of play, provided:

a) the players understand the rules that control operations (difficult - it has never really been made clear)

Cover is distinct - not quite so much the 'micro terrain' created by the QB generator or favoured by many scenario designers.

c) Battles have time to play out and the player are not afraid to call a ceasefire to gain resupply and reinforcements.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I have a feeling that if CM were totally realistic...especially in relation to geography and cover in battles, then this game would not be nearly as fun to play as it is now.

[Redwolf]

The penalization of attacker's losses would only work if there is a chance to win without major losses.

That would require the unbalanced battles we were talking about and it would require that the attacker can still get an "objective accomplished" by figuring out it is too hard and to skip the attack.

Furthermore, we would need a more realistic artillery model which will be too complex for new players.

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I have a feeling that if CM were totally realistic...especially in relation to geography and cover in battles, then this game would not be nearly as fun to play as it is now.

Why ?

[JasonC]

Losses in CM battles are higher than they were in the real deal. Only the worst fights of the war had comparable losses, and typically in several hours of battle rather than 20-30 minutes. It was entirely normal for a whole division in heavy action to lose as many men in a day as CM players use up in single battalion battles lasting half an hour. The "shell shocked" explanation cannot begin to cover the difference. We simply mash our electronic men together far more recklessly than they did in the real deal.

And extending CM games to 120 minutes does not lower losses. No ammo is resupplied in that period, so it makes for unrealistic tactics based on sucking units dry of predictable ammo loads. Because the ammo is the same, the losses can be about the same. It favors attackers and reduces the cover differential, while it still remains possible to wipe out whichever force starts losing, before running dry.

Campaign CM is much more realistic in this respect, because it encourages unit survival. It still rewards tactics that go for knock-outs, however, because one can "race the enemy to the bottom" in high-loss exchanges. This comes about because both side's forces are limited even in campaigns, though not as limited and un-reuseable as in a QB or scenario.

You don't even get realistic proportional losses if you imagine - or a campaign provides - much larger forces of which only a portion are engaged in your fight. That is part of it, but the absolute losses are still high. E.g. US bloody hedgerow attack period in July Normandy, divisions attacked with 4-6 battalions "up" and lost 300 men per day, cyclical those battalions - thus 50-75 men hit per battalion per day. Not per 30 minutes, in each company. That was very heavy fighting - the divisional average was more like 25 per day counting quiet periods.

When only portions are taking the damage, moreover, there is a completely different relation between overall firepower and combat power available, and either the lethality or the depth against punishment of these smaller units. If only a few battalions probe, it doesn't mean the div arty on the other side shrinks to only a few guns, for example.

Nor was ammunition expenditure so high that all of these tactical units ran their basic loads dry inside 30 minutes. Heavy firefights did tend to run dry the front line infantry, where that was heavily engaged - leading either to relief, resupply in place, or withdrawal. But the phenomenon of every weapon firing until dry at enemies continuing to stand in front of them, in range and sight, just did not happen. People brushed away from each other much more readily, conceding each other "space" and ending the combat period.

The variable CM tracks that is most relevant to this real phenomenon is global morale. It just doesn't use that variable for much, short of auto-surrender when there is practically nothing left on one side - the total wipe out. Understand, unit morales at the squad level, and HQs that can break (but also be replaced by a company HQ) are only the tip of the iceberg in real morale and confusion terms. It actually matters all the way up the organization tree.

What would be realistic is if each side in a battalion scale fight as seen in CM, had some global morale threshold level, reflecting their willingness to continue the combat. Not 10 or 15, but more like 50 to 80 (the last would often be realistic but might not be a whole lot of fun). When that side gets below that global morale, it would have to "offer ceasefire" every turn below its threshold.

Conceptually, they are ready to retreat (defenders) or break off the attack as a failure (attackers). If both sides hit their thresholds the fight ceasefires. If only one has, that side knows it, and the other side can continue the combat or not as it sees fit. (Though the "moraled" side can withdraw if they like, to save units).

I've asked for such a setting in the past. You would set it at the QB stage or scenario design stage, like fanaticism now. Those who don't want it could just set it on the floor and it would have no effect. You could simulate smaller forces willing to "hold at all costs" or large ones unwilling to take serious losses, etc. Note that this does not mean victory goes to this or that side. You might get to the flags or inflict particularly valuable losses (KO tanks e.g.) and yet break it off at that point - and win on points.

Players would spend more time rallying, because pressing with global morale near or below the threshold would put the option to end the game in the other players "court"...

[Moon]

JasonC -

E.g. US bloody hedgerow attack period in July Normandy, divisions attacked with 4-6 battalions "up" and lost 300 men per day, cyclical those battalions - thus 50-75 men hit per battalion per day. Not per 30 minutes, in each company. That was very heavy fighting - the divisional average was more like 25 per day counting quiet periods.

A day of action might not see more than 30 minutes of heavy fighting per unit...

What would be realistic is if each side in a battalion scale fight as seen in CM, had some global morale threshold level, reflecting their willingness to continue the combat. Not 10 or 15, but more like 50 to 80 (the last would often be realistic but might not be a whole lot of fun). When that side gets below that global morale, it would have to "offer ceasefire" every turn below its threshold.

Additional to Global Morale, there is another setting which is tracked in CMBB, and that is "Force Readiness". It's not shown in the interface, but it is at work behind the scenes , and - roughly - based on the amount of ammo your units have. Force Readiness cannot be set in the editor by the designer specifically, but is dependent on the type of battle played. Probes tend to reach the readiness threshold much quicker than assaults. Think of this as simulating the willingness of a force to "fight to the last bullet". Once triggered, an auto-ceasefire is enforced for the side that triggered it.

Martin

[JasonC]

Sometimes 30 minutes action might suffice for a day, but often it would see 2-3 series that long. Not continuous dawn to dusk heavy fighting, I agree. But it still means we are getting results an order of magnitude bloodier than "heavy fighting" in typical outings.

There were fights as bloody as CM ones in the war. But they typically lead to entire corps sized offensives being called off as disasters, to try something else. Sometimes once every few months, but certainly not every time.

On force readiness, I was aware ammo is tracked and influences cease fire decisions, though I don't pretend to know the details. It is exactly to include things like that that I'd like to see a whole battle "tunable" setting. Players can use the cease fire by global morale threshold idea I've suggested, as an experiment, without any changes to the existing rules. You just have to set morale levels and agree to (and a biggie, remember to) apply the rule every turn. But on our own we can't fold in ammo state and such.

As for how soon battles break off, I played a probe with Russian 1941 armor attacking Germans with combined arms yesterday. I attacked with the Russians - the challenge was to do something with green BTs on the attack, at probe odds. The fight went the distance without cease fire, despite the fact that all German guns and tanks were KOed, I was sitting in the middle of their infantry positions machinegunning everything, to the point the tanks were running dry, and Germans were routing off the map.

I was hitting "cease fire" after getting to the flags, just to get it over. The German probe defenders took 150 casualties and half a few busted green halfsquads remaining, (60 "men OK" at the end, but half o those routed off the map), crews left in corners from KOed guns, and the like. No cease fire. Whatever is easier in probes isn't easy enough. Or, if many like it this way, I'd like a setting where I can "tune" it downward, so that more battles like that one end in "retreat", rather than mindless MGing stubborn idiots.

[JasonC]

No, VCs will not do it. VCs are symmetric. You can put up with any level of penalty against own force losses if you just drive up enemy force losses. Inability to mash forces together so forcefully is a mutual limitation, not something chosen, nor the result of a competition between both side commanders.

One fellow said we can play CM anyway we like, and that is true. But the real commanders couldn't. They could not disregard own side losses to drive enemy losses through the roof. Many commanders probably would have liked to, at one time or another, to "exchange off" a particularly pesky body of enemy, hang the cost. But their men would not do it.

All grand tactical game systems tend to have this problem. The reason is that atomic morale rules do not propagate upward. The number of spans of control the human player has above atomic unit size acts as a "dampener". By cycling his units, stressing them just so, the commander with multiple spans (and time) can get far more out of the men as a group, than the atomic morale rules seem to allow one unit to give.

In a 10 turn CM game between single green platoons, a single squad break would be a significant event. But in a 30 turn battalion level game, breaks happen in scattered places at scattered times, higher level commanders patch everything, while a less hit platoon continues the mission. The larger force is simple more robust in absolute terms, due to its size and internal redundancy.

Similarly, in the old Battleground series, which had red fatigue states for individual battalions e.g., fights between single divisions would feature morale failure at about the right time scales. But in battles between full armies of multiple corps, a line could be maintained and the men cycled through the heavier action and retain overall army level cohesion, even while taking 50-75% casualties. In the real fights of that era, sides that lost 1/3 fled the field in disorder.

This game design issue was spotted at least as early as the playtesting for the old SPI board game "Terrible Swift Sword" in the late 1970s. It led to a "brigade combat effectiveness" system for that game. Any brigade that had taken more than some pre-set level of step losses had all unit's morale docked, rally became harder, etc.

I don't think that is needed for CM, because the scale is always one tactical fight. But the ceasefire trick forces breaking off the action, recreating the reluctance to continue the battle to the last attacker or defender. And this sets up incentives, because players will not want to give the "game end cube" to their opponent.

The mission will only remain foremost if your overall force is in good enough shape. Messing up the enemy force will not make your own men willing to continue their own mission. It just makes both sides want to call it a day. That is simply not the same structure of effect as VCs. It is a (potentially) mutual repulsion.

[ November 13, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[russellmz]

i read one rule where both sides do an agreement when their global morale(or casualty rate? i forget) hits 50% they hit ceasefire. that way both are sure to preserve forces and avoid carnage.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player a scenario?

Good God! Whatever gave you that idea!? Most scenarios are best played 2 player. I long since gave up on quick battles in favor of scenarios, and I almost never play the AI

[JasonC]

russelmz - yes that is exactly what I am talking about. You can do it voluntarily in a human to human game. A scenario designer can suggest different levels, too - they don't have to be 50 for both sides, or they could be tied to quality level, or the mission. E.g. green +10, vet -10 or probe +10, assault -10. Or to simulate a fighting withdrawal, make the defender's number higher but not the attacker's. It'd be great if there were options you could set for this, that the game implimented automatically. But we can already experiment with how it works, with the code we've already got.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

I've never played a scenario, 'cause I'm not much into playing the AI, but it does sound

like they add at least some caution to affairs.

Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player a scenario?

Doooh! I mean "Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player an _OPERATION_!!!

(Of course I've played scenarios. That's _all_ that I play!)

So - you can play a 2-player operation!? My goodness, I guess I'll have to look into that!

Why isn't it done more?

And if this is the case, why don't operations meet the need for campaign style play?

Ta,

GaJ.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I do not agree that this is an excellent summary, because of the word 'invariable'. Nobody is sitting next to your chair putting a gun to your head, forcing you to go on with that battle.

I agree. The word 'invariable' does not belong. Let me revise my take on the current state of CM.

*ahem*

It seems that we have a game of highly accurate mechanics that is typically used to simulate totally unrealistic battles.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

So - you can play a 2-player operation!? My goodness, I guess I'll have to look into that!

Why isn't it done more?

And if this is the case, why don't operations meet the need for campaign style play?

Exactly. Operations - especially Static Operations, which are very similar to battle scenarios, should help in this. Unfortunately there are still some flaws in Operations IMHO, making especially inter-battle deployment zones rather unpredictable, especially for first-timers. I wish BFC had concentrated a bit more efforts on this. However, overall they are very much fun. I just recently played one first time against a human, and the experience was very different. I should write a little AAR.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

A couple of ways we could have more realistic battles without introducing a campaign system. One is to penalize a player's victory points more heavily for casualties to his own men. Thus, you could have a pyrrhic victory where you capture the objective, but had lost too much in men and equipment to carry on had you been called to. That would also discourage the defender from clinging too tenaciously to the objective.

I believe that a good scenario designer can achieve this currently. Just make sure that the objectives are worth significantly less than the point values of the forces involved.

Take a 100 point objective but lose two Tigers in the process? Net result - negative points.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by JasonC:

What would be realistic is if each side in a battalion scale fight as seen in CM, had some global morale threshold level, reflecting their willingness to continue the combat. Not 10 or 15, but more like 50 to 80 (the last would often be realistic but might not be a whole lot of fun). When that side gets below that global morale, it would have to "offer ceasefire" every turn below its threshold.

Conceptually, they are ready to retreat (defenders) or break off the attack as a failure (attackers). If both sides hit their thresholds the fight ceasefires. If only one has, that side knows it, and the other side can continue the combat or not as it sees fit. (Though the "moraled" side can withdraw if they like, to save units).

I've asked for such a setting in the past. You would set it at the QB stage or scenario design stage, like fanaticism now. Those who don't want it could just set it on the floor and it would have no effect. You could simulate smaller forces willing to "hold at all costs" or large ones unwilling to take serious losses, etc. Note that this does not mean victory goes to this or that side. You might get to the flags or inflict particularly valuable losses (KO tanks e.g.) and yet break it off at that point - and win on points.

Players would spend more time rallying, because pressing with global morale near or below the threshold would put the option to end the game in the other players "court"...

I think this whole concept is an excellent idea. CM in its current state has no yardstick to measure 'willingness to fight'.

CM has an experience rating, but that does not give the whole picture. Consider - a unit may be full of salty veterans of many campaigns. That does not necessarily mean that the unit is particularly keen on fighting a battle. On the contrary, the weary veterans may be more willing to give ground and/or break of the attack compared to a green unit that simply happens to be more motivated! The veterans may be more skilled at fighting, but that does not wholly measure their combat effectiveness. In attack they may not press as hard, or in defense hold out any longer, than a green unit.

Other factors obviously may come into play. These might include importance of an objective, size of the forces involved, previous casualties, standing orders (delay, assault, etc.), or whatever.

[ November 14, 2003, 04:39 AM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]