Small battles are my favourite!

[Patrick Moore]

Punt

There is a valid argument for high unit density provided by many veterans of CM, but I'm in your camp and simply like small battles. For moi it is the personal investment in my troops and the ease of keeping track of fewer units. (there is a related thread titled "how many units can you keep track of..(?)")

[Engel]

I've found that about the most I can keep track of is about a company of infantry, with a few support units and about a dozen vehicles tops (or < 1500 points). More than that and I keep forgetting to issue orders to some units and later find them sitting and chilling out somewhere in the middle of nowhere, while the rest are getting blown to bits. With more units than that, the excessive micromanagement caused by the lack of useful formation commands gets too bothersome.

By useful formation commands I mean things like the ability to set multiple waypoints for formations, various Follow X commands, and even something like Move & Seek Cover, in which the formation would move to the destination, and then break up to individual squads/units that move to nearest cover.

[ April 29, 2003, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[Meach]

Fishu

I will try to include the heavier from now on instead of 75mm arty, 50 deaths in the preliminary barrage is not too shabby for one mortar spotter.

I used to work for Games Workshop and as such was expected to have a HUGE fully painted army of toy soldiers, which I dutifully collected but we were restricted to 4' x 4' tables, which meant lots of troops crammed onto a small space, now ppl use 6'x 4' or bigger as there was no tactics involved on smaller boards..you fought what was in front of you, no room for manuever, coupled with very little suppression rules the games, looking back, were dull. Usually those who had the most expensive miniatures won. Having seen Combat Mission and all its intricate aspects makes me wonder why I bothered with table-top wargaming. I am a great admirer of Infantry and that explains the smaller battles for me and the wish to get the infantry assault right. Fishu has given great advice and now I can see where I was going wrong, "forget what you know about other games.." that statement is so true.

Edited for spelling mistooks

[ April 29, 2003, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Meach ]

[theike]

info is noted:

less points make for better playable battle's.

Ill try to think about that in future when i make the settings for the maps i post.

[ April 29, 2003, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: theike ]

[SFJaykey]

Just my $.02:

I like battles of all sizes in terms of points, just finished a PBEM assault where I had about 2 battalions of infantry + armor and it was great fun! Less so for my opponent. R U out there Hector

Low points battles are fun, too, but there has to be "elbow room" on the map...even with just a couple of platoons I like a medium map at least. And any map involving long-barreled armor or ATG on either side should be on a large map, or you are taking away an important advantage of the higher velocity weaponry, and advantage that player is still paying for in terms of points.

One thing: if you are playing with a few units on a big map, it has to be a good map, with rationally placed VLs, or the opponents may have a hard time finding each other. I never use CG maps anymore, unless a PBEM opponent insists...there are lots of good human-made maps available for download at the Scenario Depot and elsewhere. One of my favorites for MEs is the "Church and Orchard" map. QBs with player-picked forces, on quality human-made maps, are one of the most enjoyable ways to play CMBB!

On the question of small-bore artillery: I have found the 4-tube german 75 module useful for suppression and laying smoke, though agree the 2-tube module doesn't have enough weight of fire to be useful. ROF is slower than the 81mm mortars, but blast is more powerful and smoke duration longer.

- Matt

[Fishu]

Jaykey,

What do you think this little begining of a map:

Screenshot #1

Screenshot #2

Just been doing it for who knows why

River will be removed and the city will be expanded some more, which after the surrounding terrain will be added and topography modified a bit.

Currently I'm thinking of having some small hills outside the city and some smaller and bigger forrests, so it wouldn't be too open nor too enclosed with LOS.

Not sure whether I will finish it.. not sure am I happy with its begining

[ April 29, 2003, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Fishu ]

[Gpig]

DUDE! You had BETTER finnish that map, just so's I can play on it! That looks GREAT!!! Heh heh!

I LOVE small battles!

Gpig

(Just a TAD over enthusiastic, here.)

[Murph]

Agree 100%!!

So...where do we find these scenarios? In the scenario depot, I have a hard time finding many good ones, most tend to be 1200+. Any suggestions would be welcome, as I've already played most of the ones I found.

The QB is not as trustworthy as a scenario in providing a balanced, interesting battle with a reasonable sized map (for small points they tend to be too thin and too long).

Thanks!

Murph

[Fishu]

by the way, that map is to be 1360x1360

I just couldn't find smaller one good enough for a good sized city and have space around on the flanks and in front of it for some flanking maneuvers and possible outskirt city fightning if the defender chooses so.

After all, you aren't supposed to do following in the map:

1) be in the city already

2) be limited to just one approach direction at the city

So it'll be a map for a fair sized battle.

2000 or so pts :>

Although nothing says it couldn't be edited to a city only fight by adding some borders and then rules for the battle to not cross the borders.

[ April 29, 2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Fishu ]

[SFJaykey]

What do you think this little begining of a map:

Screenshot #1

Screenshot #2

Looks cool, Fishu. Can't wait to roll the Brummbarrs into that picturesque town!

I am working on one of my own, too, in fact I have already played a PBEM on it but haven't posted yet as I am a perfectionist...what the heck I'll polish it up a bit and have it up at the Depot and cmmods in a few hours.

- Matt

[SgtMuhammed]

Nice map. Only problem is that a town of that size would be a battalion or larger objective. Not really a small battle.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Nice map. Only problem is that a town of that size would be a battalion or larger objective. Not really a small battle.

Like said above..

It is a bit inspired by Close Combat II, city fights.

fairly big cities but just a handful of troops in disposal.

So if makes this a small battle, you can choose your defensive area there yourself and keep attacker more guessing how the defenses are deployed.

Defender can also wear down the attacking enemy with smaller losses by deploying some defenses up front and pulling them back to next 'frontline' after few shots at the enemy - more casualties for the attackers and less casualties for the defenders - while the main objective is kept and secondary objectives can be counter attacked by remaining defenders - thanks to preserved troops.

So you can have small battles in there if you just get on the mind set

It isn't overall that large place.

Thats pretty much the analogy which the design is based on.

Flexibility in tactics and suitability for different size battles.

Therefore I've tried my best to keep the town variable but yet believable in the layout, to make the best ouf of the city fight... hopefully I will work it out :>

Just needs to expand the town area a little bit more to make it complete.

Then has to design the lesser populated areas, which will be probably hardest of it...

for a perfectionist at least.

The whole project begins to look more of a small battle maps glued together, when I'm trying to make some outskirt town area, rural area and also add a cemetary.

Maybe I have to make it even wider

Updated the screenies too.. with updated maps.. the city found the edges and some erm.. woods placed in.

so much of area to cover still :>

[ April 29, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Fishu ]

[theike]

http://www.cmmods.com/web/CMMaps.nsf

Made and posted over 70 maps now.

So enough variation to everybody's liking, i hope.

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

I am working on one of my own, too, in fact I have already played a PBEM on it but haven't posted yet as I am a perfectionist...what the heck I'll polish it up a bit and have it up at the Depot and cmmods in a few hours.

- Matt

Ooch! I just looked up and I have been working on that dang map 3 hours straight and still not done! Now I remember why I set it aside! Well, I will finish it eventually!

- Matt

[Warmaker]

For infantry/armored infantry formations, I prefer company or lower level of commands. I still get a "sizeable" force but it's still small enough where I can care about individual units.

With tank formations I jump all the way between a company of about 12 tanks, a platoon, or maybe even just a section. It all depends on what my whole command consists of. Also, having maybe a company or two of tanks rolling around in a fully modded CMBB battlefield isn't as taxing on the computer as having battalions of infantry square off against each other. Big games are nice but my computer can't handle it in a timely manner.

[Blackbear]

During the last months, I have ended one Bilton Rules ´41 Campaing, several 3rd person´s good operations, my own designed semi-historical huge maps linked operations, and even a very large (180+ 25 turn Batlles)own 1941-45 Campaing (not ended).

After all that experience, I have concluded wich is in my opinion the better battle type in playability and enjoiment terms:

1st- Customize with the editor a realistic medium map (there are many 3rd party ones in the maps database and other webs). You can even enlarge one that you like. Small maps are too limited to move AFVs, and large/huges ones needs too much turns to be ussefull and the PC may burn. Set the sides controled zones next to borders as they will be the initial placement zones to next continuation battles.

2nd- Go to the QB, and set the battle parameters (you can use your own rules if you want random battles, it easy to make some simple rules). I recomend to play 15, 20 or 30 turns battles even if you like large battles.

3rd- Import the edited map and purchase your units (you may let the AI to purchase its units or make that for it if you mind historical realism).

4th- Play the battle to the end and:

a) If you or the computer/oponent achived a MAJOR or TOTAl VICTORY: The battle has finished.

If it is a DRAW or MINOR VICTORY result you can play an inmediate next battle.

You must save the battle result. In the Debriefing PUSH the "look map" button and save the game. Then, go to 2nd step, iniciate a new QB. Remenber, the date must be the same, weather, wind, temperature parameters should be the same as in the past battle but you can change that if you make some type of rule for that. Time of day should be the same to, or later.

To fix the unit parameters and force size is ussefull to make some kind of rules (this force will act as a reinforcement force for the 1st battle force).

Import the saved .cme archiv map WITH the old units and go to purchse the new force.

In the purchase table I recomend to delete all the CREW units that could be present from previous battle. But DO NOT delete the other units even if you know they are dead or knoked out (in any case, never delete a AFV/vehicle that you know it was burning in the last battle). They will be in the same place and condition they were at the last battle. This will create a good feeling of fierce fighting enviroment.

c) Place your new units and begin the battle. You can withdraw your past battle units to initial placement zones if you want, otherwise if they are outside that zone you only can change their orientation.

You may play as many battles as you want untill someone obtains a MAJOR/TOTAL victory or when you or your oponent (if human) "surrends.

I know that there are some little inconvenients in this sistem, and perhaps someone will ask me for wich are that "simple rules" I use to set the parameters and force sizes. Well, I had some inspiration in campaing rules for that and I think it is better to make simple ones.

I call this sistem "Linked Battles". In my opinion it is better than the rigid reinforcement sistem of the Operations (even I like them too), much more inmersive that playing single battles (I dont like much), and I choose it recently instead of any campaing rules becouse it is posible to play many diferent battles with all the nationalities and unit tipes of the game without beeing unrealistic. It is Really an alternative kind of operations. Perhaps those who were ASL fans in the past will understand me.

[Hans]

Murph, I hate to see a man without a small scenario. So send me the parameters you'd like and I'll whip one up (I have about 35 scenarios in various stages of development so I can complete one fairly quickly to your parameters)

Wayne100@emirates.net.ae

Also let me know if its a two person or versus the AI (different design considerations)

[Meach]

Blackbear

The linked battle idea is really good for seeing "what happens next?" A minor defeat could be turned around with some fresh troops. Importing the maps and troops works well.

[theike]

That 'linked-battle's' thing sound very interesting.

Why arent there operations ore battle's posted that are set like that? in wich u engage in a preset nasty looking battlefield?

Ore are there some around? i've never seen one though.

I saved that textnote so i can read it when i try to do what it sais. Im not that handy, myself...jet.

again:...very interesting

[Blackbear]

One of the major obstacles I found in this linked battles system (apart from good rules to implement it), is the placement of the setup zones, as they will be the same in every next battle. This is specially true for de defender´s zone. For example, if you try to simulate a village defense and put the setup zone in the village, if the attacker enters that zone and stay there until the end of the battle, in the next battle it is posible to setup defender´s units to close and mixed with enemy ones. That´s only good if you try to simulate something like a night counterattack preceded by scout units infiltration or a similar situation.

I don´t know if the use of different color setup zones would be the best way, I am just begining with this idea.

Thanks for replaying.

[theike]

I dont know much about making operations...

But with a village defence like that, one could make the defenders setupzone in the first battle as big as from their friendly map edge onto and over that village, and then do the setup fixed with units in the village at first...then in the next battle the ai would place the new units at its friendly edge as allways. So its like u took the village and the ai gets in new units to try to take it back...

But against a human player this wouldnt work.

About those different coloured setup zone's; yes maybe, but my knowledge doesnt go that far....

Does someone know?

[Meach]

The problem i find is not being able to load the map into the editor to change the set up zones. Tried everything but no luck, stick with the meeting engagement QB then next game rush in 400pts of reinforcements, load the map and you get random opponents worth whatever you set it at plus the survivors from the last battle. works best of all and saves trying to set up defence zones.

[Thermopylae]

As to the infantry assualts...

The only time I've actually seen infantry assualts work is in city fighting (building to building) and when you can hit the enemy from a flank while another unit pours fire into them from 100m or so.

[Engel]

Originally posted by Thermopylae:

The only time I've actually seen infantry assualts work is in city fighting

I've had some success with Soviet human waves even against machine gun positions. Get as many troops as you can and run the MG over, while some units provide suppressive fire.

[Meach]

I think I am hoping for too much with infantry assaults, Guderian pointed that out in 1935. Men against MG's, going back to WW1 tactics. The best thing so far has been a battery of 81mm mortars pounding an enemy position whilst the infantry assault, suppression and kills untill the friendly infantry get close then the mortars stop firing. Without that support tho I have tried numerous permutations of the infantry assault and even a platoon of conscripts can mess it all up if they are in woods or tall pines. Fishu, gave me an idea to try 150mm IG...wow, what a blast!!