Where this gaming needs to go

[slysniper]

I have been reading many of your comments from different postings about what you would like to see in the future, and what you think will make this more enjoyable for you as a hobby. I have played wargames for 30 years, been in the military-usmc and now am just trying to become one of you in this site. You all talk about more realism and more size. The fact is, anyone who understands tactics and leadership knows that no one in real life has more than about 16 units to command - with doctrine teaching that 10 to 12 units is about the best number to sign to allow one person to control. If you cannot do the job of outplaying someone with that many units, then stop praising yourself for your skills. These are the best games that have come out in this hobby, by far, drawing in many things that us old timers saw back in the cardboard days. It gives you the ability to see and watch all your gameplay, it allows you to handle more units without having braincramps trying to beat your opponont to the click, it lets us be our own designers without being a computer wiz. WW2 is the best and will remain the best period to model, because of the large variaty and somewhat balenced strengths of the armies. I was like a boy at christmas getting that perfect gift when these games came out. Stop asking for so much, you might get it and watch the enjoyment get lost with to much to manage and less enjoyable play. If you want to give me christmas again, create one that gives me the modern ground weapons, dont just pick one war but from 1960's until now. There is still no game out there that lets me do modern tactics, likes these games make me fill like I'm leading troops in WW2. May this wish someday come.

[PiggDogg]

Sly,

I have played wargames for 30 years

You young whippersnapper. I've been playing wargames since the dawn of time, er, I mean since the dawn of modern wargaming. This was 1958-60 when I was 10-12 year old when Avalon Hill's Tactics II and the first time that the rectangular unit Gettysburg came out. Yikes, I feel old.

with doctrine teaching that 10 to 12 units are about the best number to sign to allow one person to control.

Yes, this is true. However, generally in real life, in efficient and effective organizations, a commander or business leader generally only directly commands (has a command span of) 3 to 6 units/persons, which is “one level down”.

In turn, each of those 3 to 6 units/persons have a command span of about 3 to 6 subunits each, which is “two levels down”.

The commander can supervise the one level down and somewhat and less efficiently supervise the second level down, which are 10 to a max of 16 to 20.

Generally, a commander cannot directly command three levels down, that is 15 to 30 units.

Certainly, with your military experience, you have seen this physical limit.

Examples, in efficient militaries, a fireteam leader supervises a total of 5 to 6 soldiers. The squad leader supervises his fireteam, and has less control over the other fire team.

A platoon leader directly supervises his 3 to 4 squad leaders. Also, he is able to directly supervise at most one squad while leaving the other squads under the squad leader’s direct supervision.

This rule might be called “the one level down 3 to 6 and two levels down 10 to 20 Rule”. This Rule works its way up the chain of command.

In most reasonable sized and manageable CM games (at most about 2000 points), CM in all its iterations puts one in the position of commanding three levels down. However, due to the fact in CM pbem games one is able to expend a near unlimited amount of time planning a turn, a CM commander can handle the game commanding three levels down.

Indeed, I don’t know if this responds to any of your opinions, but I just thought that I would comment.

One thing for sure. I have played many a wargame. I have a whole closet full of wargames going back to 1958-60.

One thing for sure, CM is not perfect. However, without doubt, it is the most enjoyable, as reasonably historically realistic, and relatively easy to play wargame to have ever hit the market on the board or on the computer.

Hats off to BFC. And damn them for their computer wargame crack.

Cheers, Richard

[ November 26, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Folbec]

I, too, think that all the people who ask for modelling the individual soldier in squads do not realize really what they are asking for :

- first, a lot more load on the graphic system

- second, and a lot more critical, a real big improvement in game AI (I do not care for that, I play PBEM)

- third, and even more critical, an even bigger improvement in TacAI, for correct placement of individual infantrymen. (if, for instance they are near a wall / an edge, they need to be "well placed". That is already no small feat if all your men are the same, but if you throw in the mixed weapons of a squad (MG / gun / SMG), this gets even more complicated, since the MG must be really well placed tactically, and this also depends on your intended axis of attack / defense (psychic AI anyone?, or a more complicated order phase to tell the AI what you intend to do next turn ?, or micromanage each man ?, or change the scale of the game to smaller than company ?))

So I think that any improvement in the number of infantrymen shown would be either "pure eye candy", and it would still look silly in many situations such as walls, buildings, etc (more silly than now for sure), or a major load on the TacAI, for maybe dubious results, or a change of scale for the game.

Maybe the developper can pull this off. Maybe. Then he should contract for US army battlefield AI, there is surelly a lot more money to be made than in gaming.

[dieseltaylor]

Just so Folbec

Richard

"In most reasonable sized and manageable CM games (at most about 2000 points), CM in all its iterations puts one in the position of commanding three levels down. However, due to the fact in CM pbem games one is able to expend a near unlimited amount of time planning a turn, a CM commander can handle the game commanding three levels down."

It always seems a shame to me that people do not play the game as TCP/IP or LAN where it plays very well on the basis of 1 minute film one minute orders. Perforce you give orders at platoon level and have to manage your fighting so that you have some management capacity if things start going pear-shaped.

The stress level and the speed of the game are a real joy. Once we get up to 2000 points we do go to longer than the minute : )

IMHO I think the borg spotting is diminished greatly in effect playing this way . It seems to play very realistically therefore.

Lastly I think 3000 points on large and huge maps makes for very good games as the flanks are important and the ability to move troops around the field raises logistical thoughts and appreciations of terrain.

[Sunray]

Slysniper and Piggdogg, as a mere 20 wargamer (first game was Avalon's Hunt the Bismarck)I feel humbled by your experience. Your posts about command and control are very interesting. A long time ago I was in the British Army and spent about half my 4 years service in Northern Ireland, acting as an infantry platoon commander. This was in the early 1970s which was an active period. I was in charge of 3 sections( squads in US speak)plus a HQ element(total 30-35 riflemen). My company commander was in charge of 3 platoons plus a HQ element(100-120).He might also have attached to him say an armoured vehicle troop and/or an engineer platoon depending on the nature of the operation. The Battalion commander (aka God)would have four rifle companies plus a HQ company and an Admin company(650-750). The Brigade commander typically would be in charge of 3 or 4 battalions(2500-3000)plus various support elements eg engineers, bomb disposal teams(these men were the bravest of the lot), military police, light armour etc. While I am describing an internal security type set up during the last century(!) the point I am trying to make is that although people (apart fom me) were commanding quite large numbers they would be broken down along the command chain into a manageable number of units, say half a dozen or so. In the heat of combat(when lots of things go wrong)I do not think it's possible physically/mentally to effectively control much more than this. Of course the advent of technology in the 30 years since I left the armed forces may have enabled commanders to command more and I'd be interested to hear from anyone on this.

The CM series is by far most satisfying ww2 land warfare computer gaming experience I have ever played for combining the right blend of realism and enjoyment. Ok the graphics are not top notch but the modding community has vastly improved the stock bmps. I think the game is at its very best when the number of units per side is not so great (say 1500 - 2000 points)otherwise you are micro managing too many bits and pieces and per the earlier part of this post the game loses "realism" imho.

Slysniper, you wondered if CM or someone could provide a similar modern warfare experience. Have you tried Battlefront's Tacops? It'a a great game but you will understand the problem in trying to portray modern land warfare on a computer, which is distance. CM just about gets away with it in WW2 but how do you portray Abrams and T80s slugging it out at ranges of 2 miles without reducing the units to blobs on your screen? I think Tacops does it very well btw but CM it ain't!

Regards

[Falcon988]

You are all old men. I'm 18 and have only been playing wargames for two years. :cool:

[PiggDogg]

Patrick,

You are correct that a tcp/ip game is quite fun, exciting, stressful, and gives one a feel of real life command stress. It is a good experience to have a rushed tcp/ip game. I have done so a good number of times.

However, such a game goes by so fast that one is not able to enjoy the whole experience of the CM game.

Indeed, a pbem game allows one an ahistorical "too much control" over nearly every aspect of the CM battlefield. However, in CM, except for the CM units' fear/run away and shoot at the enemy attributes, one's units are as dumb as a box of rocks. :eek:

For a major and critical example, if one moves his units carelessly and places his units in terrible covering terrain, a unit will remain in the terrible covering terrain a scant few meters from great cover.

In order to keep things short, in my humble, but informed opinion and for my personal enjoyment and preference, I feel that CM is best enjoyed in the pbem format rather than in tcp/ip format.

Cheers, Richard

[Peterk]

These are the best games that have come out in this hobby, by far,

I don't know if I can agree with that even though lots of my favorite games are smallish.

A few months ago I tried to convert the monster ASL - Red Barricades module to CMBB and worked up a set of paper rules for it. It generally leads to battles where each side gets 5000-8000 points. These are huge scenarios but I don't think I have ever had more fun with CM (I'm playing against the AI as well as PBEM with two excellent playtesters).

Most of the time there are smaller engagements of the size you mention going on in about 4-5 areas on the map. It's very busy and has a dynamic you'll never get in a smallish scenario.

I prefer the monsters!

[dieseltaylor]

I think the great think about the larger games is this ability ? - possibility - of feigning attacks, of calculating when you can suddenly overload a point in the oppositions line etc.

Your recon actually has a very real purpose and stripping off too much for recon may work against you when you need units to defend or attack.

It is a greater intellectual problem to have fun with. As you can appreciate this is not such a good idea on billiard table flat maps but where there is terrain and hte possibility to use it ... ah bliss.

[Peterk]

Yeah definitely...in one of earlier games, Germans were attacking in the fog at dawn. I didn't have enough troops to guard the entire factory area so I defended the most direct avenues of approach and left vast areas undefended figuring I'd get adequate visual warning of any movement there by my forward scouts/snipers.

On turns 6 and 7 out of 20 I started getting a few vague vehicle sound markers moving towards those areas. I checked the LOS of my forward areas and discovered there were huge gaps in LOS that he could move through undetected.

I had to pull a whole company out of the front lines, split them into half squads and start wandering through the abandonned back alleys of Stalingrad trying to figure out what he was up to.

The game's almost over and I didn't turn up too much. Looks like either a feint or just innacurate sound "sightings".

Stuff like that doesn't really happen on small maps.

[slysniper]

I am pleased with your comments, one thing it shows is the ability of this set of games to play well for those of different preferences, it does not limit you with one level of play, you can create what type of combat level & tactics you enjoy. The larger gaming does not appeal to me because of the time commitment, so I have managed to create the same feel in smaller games

as far as feints and scouting. As with leadership, I like having total command of my troops also, but just pointing out that no matter who comments, leadership in real life situations is very limiting with how many units can be commanded by one person.

I have read the designer problems with protraying

the modern battlefield, distances being just one problem, I could see a modern game of this level lasting only two or three turns if you let some weaponary be represented, but since other posts had their dream wishes, I wanted to post mine.

I am glad to see that the majority of you that have responded are long time members to this site and hopefully I will find the time to get to know you all better

[throwdjohn]

Falcon, I have noticed there is an upswing in young persons such as you or I playing these games. Was the CM series your first wargame? It was mine.

[slysniper]

I hope there is alot of younger players finding the enjoyment of playing these type of games, they are a good mental challenge & never become something you can totally master. Don't let the old timers scare you off. Also wanted to state, I have also remodeled old asl and squad leader games, it has been fun to bring them to life into the 3d world

[murphus]

All of the foregoing shows what a tremendous game CM is ... from the massive size scenario down to the platoon firefight, from the old grognards to the freshfaced newcomers, CM will give you all you need. That's not to say that there are not gripes or wishes for the next version. But on the whole, I think it's pretty damn good. I wouldn't like to worry my little head about commanding every last soldier, so I think the squad/vehicle should remain the basic unit of play.

[Sublime]

I noticed falcons response too

Im 19 years old

I was introduced to CMBO back in the fall of 99 with the demo but it definitely not the first wargame I ever played... Geez Im not even sure exactly what the first one was... hmm

It'd prolly be like Panzer General or somefink way back when though I really cut my teeth on Close Combat 1 and 2 and East Front I and II

Also other wargames though not strategy like Aces Over Europe, Aces of the Pacific, Aces of the Deep, etc etc etc.....

[Vixen]

I'm 34. My First was Blitzkrieg. A history teacher I had was a wargamer and he offered extra credit for playing and discussing tactics during the parts involing war history. I enjoyed the games and been playing them ever since. (Oh, and got straight A's in his class too).

[throwdjohn]

Well I was not, nor do i consider myself now, a typical wargamer. I AM an ardent student of history, particularly WWII, but have never enjoyed most wargames, since they are as a general rule, too complicated. CM is an in-depth, (for the most part) historically accurate wargame, but most importantly it remains a GAME. I can relax and play the game. Plus as ya

ll have pointed out in this topic, and I have pointed out to my mother, the game is not exactly constructive, but it DOES excercise one's brain rather well.

[slysniper]

Throwdjohn, I dont know if there is such a thing as a typical wargamer, I think that many of us are history buffs. Some of these guys are amazing with the amount of infomation they know.

I would say some understand the weapons better than those that fought with them. As you meet others in this hobby you cannot catalog them as one group of people. I just wanted to mention to you that I also had a love for history and what pulled me into this hobby was how I could get a feel for more of what it might have felt and been like to be part of that period of war, I have also found that this hobby has made me interested in all periods of history, it has given me the ability to explore different periods of history and how warfare was fought and some of the challenges that they had to face.

As long as you enjoy it and it makes you feel like you are gaining from it as a person, Dont worry about what others think.

[Panzer76]

CM was designed for modelling ca 1500 pts battles. Inded, it was a limit of 1500 or so points in CMBO 1.0. However, as you have demonstrated, people enjoy different things, and the point cap was risen several times.

But, it was designed for around 1500 pts battles.