Length of scenarios

[tuhhodge]

One of the things that would probably promote more realistic behaviour by gamers would be a greater number of turns. My understanding is that we have a limit of 60 at the moment.

I know 60 turns is a lot of gaming time, but I don't imagine many battles would only last for an hour, more would probably last 3 or more hours.

Just think of all the maneouvering you could do on a huge battlefield. And also, then you could have more realistic reinforcements coming in an hour into play. There would be no blind rushing forward!

Any views?

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by tuhhodge:

Any views?

Several threads worth

[WWB]

Not again . . .

WWB

[Oddball_E8]

actually the maximum turn limit is 120 turns (ie. two hours)

[xerxes]

If you actually play for the full 120 turns the automated "saveSanity.exe" kicks in and erases CMBB from your hard drive. The bonus is "saveSAnity.exe" continues to run to protect against reinstalling CMBB.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

This is a serious issue! The best game I ever played would have been even better if it weren't for that restrictive turn limit. Monstrously huge map, night, thick fog, heavy trees. My opponent and I each had a single unfit, conscript, tank hunter team with low ammo. After flailing about in the dark for 110 turns (4 and half months of PBEM!), we finally encounter each other and move in for the kill. Naturally before anyone gets a shot off, both our units hit the dirt and cower for the next 10 turns. Then that accursed turn limit kicks in and the game ends before we can finish each other off!

Still the best game ever.....

Dr. Rosenrosen

[Hans]

I disagree the best games are under 8 turns - if you cannot arrange to trash an entire company of infantry or even a battalion of tanks in less than eight minutes - why are you playing CM? If you need long turns CIV III awaits :]

The major restrictor to longer battles is AMMO.

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenrosen:

This is a serious issue! The best game I ever played would have been even better if it weren't for that restrictive turn limit. Monstrously huge map, night, thick fog, heavy trees. My opponent and I each had a single unfit, conscript, tank hunter team with low ammo. After flailing about in the dark for 110 turns (4 and half months of PBEM!), we finally encounter each other and move in for the kill. Naturally before anyone gets a shot off, both our units hit the dirt and cower for the next 10 turns. Then that accursed turn limit kicks in and the game ends before we can finish each other off!

Still the best game ever.....

Dr. Rosenrosen

You frighten me.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Originally posted by Boo Radley:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Rosenrosen:

This is a serious issue! The best game I ever played would have been even better if it weren't for that restrictive turn limit. Monstrously huge map, night, thick fog, heavy trees. My opponent and I each had a single unfit, conscript, tank hunter team with low ammo. After flailing about in the dark for 110 turns (4 and half months of PBEM!), we finally encounter each other and move in for the kill. Naturally before anyone gets a shot off, both our units hit the dirt and cower for the next 10 turns. Then that accursed turn limit kicks in and the game ends before we can finish each other off!

Still the best game ever.....

Dr. Rosenrosen

You frighten me. </font>

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Having designed a few scenarios in my time, I think I can address this from a designer's point of view as well as a player.

I like a mix. I like short ones (my favorites..I bore easily) with some mediums and an occasional long one.

I think 60 turns as a rule is too much for most players. True, it represents one hour of time but it would take 20 hours of play...at least for me.

Butit depends on the invidual. We need some scenarios of all sizes.

Instead of a 60 turn monster, I'd prefer an operation with fighting in the same area. That way I could end a battle, come back later and fight again on the same terrain.

But to each his own.

One thing to remember and this is important. Real war was not often afforded the luxury of all the time you need to fight a battle.

Commanders were constantly being harassed by superiors. "You are falling behind! Get the job done! We need to move ahead. Get your men up there and complete your mission!'

Rommel and Pattons were two protagonists of the "What is taking so long?"

So the battlefield commander is faced with the pressure of getting the job done and getting it done quickly. This forces him to make quick decisions that he must live with later.

There is some realism here that we don't want to lose if we want the "feel" of the real thing.

Wild Bill

[eichenbaum]

Played a huge operation once with PBEM. On a certain point in the battle we both made an agreement of a kind of cease fire. We draw a line on the battlefield and made some promises not to cross it with any unit. All our units we had to give a very short cover arc so none of them would shoot at the enemy if they popped up in their sight. This kind of cease fire was necessary because we both knew that it would be a 2 minute slaughter ending the game and ending all the work we've put into this operation (2 months). This method turned out to be perfect but we both were a bit disappointed that CM did not had such function build in. Now we could pick up the fight again in the next battle with new equipment and fresh men.

Such events can only take place in large operations. It extends the game for some players (like my self).

I know that the opinions are very divided. One part likes to play short battles where instant action is a must but others like to play CM on a bit more larger scale (almost on operative scale).

CM should have every possibility for the scenario designer, 8 minutes of fighting or 2 hours of crawling in trenches or buildings. The player will always decide for him self which kind of game he prefers. Increasing the turn limit is a very good start. It won't effect the short battles at all. That's the choice of the designer.

[ September 26, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[Rob Murray]

I agree with Wild Bill about scenario size. I'd like to see some more small to medium sized { and maybe a few tiny ones too } scenarios designed & posted ( please & thank you ). I love CMBB but I just can't sit down for hours playing a large/huge battle. It starts to become a chore around turn 39-40 & I'm left feeling like " when's this thing gonna end?! ".

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

One thing to remember and this is important. Real war was not often afforded the luxury of all the time you need to fight a battle.

Commanders were constantly being harassed by superiors. "You are falling behind! Get the job done! We need to move ahead. Get your men up there and complete your mission!'

Rommel and Pattons were two protagonists of the "What is taking so long?"

So the battlefield commander is faced with the pressure of getting the job done and getting it done quickly. This forces him to make quick decisions that he must live with later.

There is some realism here that we don't want to lose if we want the "feel" of the real thing.

Wild Bill

Generally there is a time frame for an attack. However, at the battalion level this time frame is most often measured in hours, not minutes. From the anectodal examples I have been able to find in my own reading, the 'average' time frame for an infantry attack, from start line to objective, is about two hours of continuous combat.

Without any data at hand, I would imagine that the time frame gets quite a bit longer in forest and city fighting.

Speaking of Rommel, in "Tobruk, the Great Siege Reasessed", there is a map hand drawn by Rommel, outlining an (unexecuted) plan for the assault of the Tobruk fortress during the Crusader battles. The whole operation was to be completed in one day, and is broken down into six phases, with pauses in between. Each phase is several hours long. If anyone is interested in the actual schedule, I will post it here later, but I do not have it at hand just now.

Dorosh - I know you are out there - this is a good example of an operation with preset time limits for each phase of the battle (which I had said earlier I had never seen before). Even so, I point out that the combat phases of the plan are quite long, in Combat Mission terms.

On the other hand, I argue that while operational time frames are sometimes the rule, there are just as many exceptions. In an earlier post, I mentioned an armored attack where the unit commander was tasked to take a town 'tomorrow' without a strict operational time table of any kind.

You can find similar examples in the Western desert. A British Armored brigade anchored in space somewhere between Tobruk and Halfaya Pass bumps into half of the Afrika Korps. A tank battle ensues. Operationally, the length of that battle is not planned, and is not going to be important. It might take 30 minutes, and it might take 6 hours.

Dorosh - earlier you also accused me of subscribing to something like the 'sandlot' school of war, where commanders moved wherever and whenever they wanted. Obviously, many operations are carefully planned and executed, but sometimes things DO break down to the 'sandlot' style of command. Take a look at the British conduct of the Crusader battles in 1941. I think you will find a situation where brigade and battalion commanders did not adhere to the original plan, the situation became fluid and confused, and Captains and Majors were pretty much calling their own shots as they saw fit.

A good way to fight a battle? Maybe not, but it happened.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

Having designed a few scenarios in my time, I think I can address this from a designer's point of view as well as a player.

I like a mix. I like short ones (my favorites..I bore easily) with some mediums and an occasional long one.

I think 60 turns as a rule is too much for most players. True, it represents one hour of time but it would take 20 hours of play...at least for me.

Butit depends on the invidual. We need some scenarios of all sizes.

Instead of a 60 turn monster, I'd prefer an operation with fighting in the same area. That way I could end a battle, come back later and fight again on the same terrain.

But to each his own.

One thing to remember and this is important. Real war was not often afforded the luxury of all the time you need to fight a battle.

Commanders were constantly being harassed by superiors. "You are falling behind! Get the job done! We need to move ahead. Get your men up there and complete your mission!'

Rommel and Pattons were two protagonists of the "What is taking so long?"

So the battlefield commander is faced with the pressure of getting the job done and getting it done quickly. This forces him to make quick decisions that he must live with later.

There is some realism here that we don't want to lose if we want the "feel" of the real thing.

Wild Bill

Sometimes you need a quickie, sometimes you're in the mood for something long. I playtested a campaign with a btn of tanks and 3 btn of infantry (one of them armored). It was fun. The mpa was CM max size (Operation Fridericus IIRC)

I played a battle with 17000 points assaulting me - 60 tanks plus 6000 men. Not much action as I only had 20% ammo, but it was fun. 20hours of processing time alone.

Then there are times when I like a small battle: a reinforced Coy or less.

The small ones for fun action.

The long ones for well thought manoeuvres at a bigger scale, yet more forgiving.

And I remember some huge scenarios from you, WB - some of the biggest ones for SP. Wasn't there even one "The biggest of them all"? Then Saipan, Supercharge, some Prokhorovka scen, Steel Shield...

Maybe when you were younger you were less impatient

Gruß

Joachim

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Dorosh - I know you are out there - this is a good example of an operation with preset time limits for each phase of the battle (which I had said earlier I had never seen before). Even so, I point out that the combat phases of the plan are quite long, in Combat Mission terms.

Nyah, and Nyah. KIDDING! But seriously, what size of units are we talking about here? Divisions? Regiments? If Rommel sketched out what he wanted his Regiments to do, it would have been up to those regiments to plan battles for their battalions. Any chance you can post a scan of the pic? Sounds fascinating. I also appreciate you continuing the discussion, this is quite instructive for me.

Dorosh - earlier you also accused me of subscribing to something like the 'sandlot' school of war, where commanders moved wherever and whenever they wanted. Obviously, many operations are carefully planned and executed, but sometimes things DO break down to the 'sandlot' style of command. Take a look at the British conduct of the Crusader battles in 1941. I think you will find a situation where brigade and battalion commanders did not adhere to the original plan, the situation became fluid and confused, and Captains and Majors were pretty much calling their own shots as they saw fit.

I have no doubt you are correct here.

A good way to fight a battle? Maybe not, but it happened.

I agree. I think a detailed look at Rommel's attack order could still be interesting; if each of the six phases represented a "battalion battle" ie - one battalion of a regiment fought phase I, then the second battalion pushed through for phase II, etc. I think it would be rather significant in understanding how these things were planned, and how much time each battalion (the highest level CM unit of command, realistically speaking) could be expected to be taking part.

Plans would be made up and down the chain of command; a plan showing divisions attacking would not mean every battalion in the division would be engaged, as you realize I am sure.

Though I am also sure that that too did happen on occasion.

[ September 26, 2003, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Runyan99]

I do not have access to a scanner, so I cannot copy the map here. I will try to outline it verbally as best I can.

Rommel's plan outlines only the broad strokes. As you pointed out, it is left to the regimental and battalion commanders to make more detailed plans for their individual commands.

Tobruk is a pretty famous battle, so if you can find a map to refer to, that would help. There are really only three critcal landmarks - the British frontier defenses, the King's Cross (a crucial crossroads inside the Tobruk fortress), and the town of Tobruk itself. I do not have a super accurate idea of the distances involved here. I estimate the total distance from the frontier to the town to be about 10 miles, with the King's Cross just about right in the middle at the 5 mile mark.

The proposed attack is to be conducted on the south eastern side of the frontier defenses. Therefore, the German attack will proceed in a generally north western direction towards the town.

The attack is to be conducted by two units - the Rifle Regiment 155 of the "Afrika Division" (later renamed the 90th Light), and the entire 15th Panzer Division. I will place Rommel's notes in bold, with my own commentary following.

1 - Start line for X-day 0330

This start line is probably for the 15th Panzer. RR155 is already in place in the German strongpoints facing the British frontier defenses.

2 - Attack on defenses X-Day 0400 after artillery barrage (0200-0400)

So, we have a two hour artillery barrage by Corps level artillery (mentioned elsewhere in the text), followed by the initial assault of RR155, supported by the tanks of the 15th Panzer Division. Judging by Rommel's pencil marks, I estimate the breakthrough is to be about three miles wide and one mile deep. I expect that all three battalions of RR155 would be attacking side by side to achieve a penetration that wide. I wonder if RR155 would have begun their (short) approach march at 0330, or would have waited until 0400 to begin the movement. In any case, the attacking forces are allowed two and a half hours to make their assault, and prepare for the next phase.

3 - Advance on both sides of the Via Balba to the meeting of the three roads 0630-1000

The 'meeting of the three roads' is the King's Cross intersection. This begins the exploitation of the break through. I imagine that RR155 is out of the picture at this point, and the movement is carried out by 15th Panzer only. Three and a half hours are allowed for a movement of perhaps four miles. This allows quite a bit of time for dealing with minefields, British counterattacks, or any second line defenses. Still this is a generous time allowance for a highly mobile unit like 15th Panzer.

4 - Coastine to be reached 1000-1500

On the map, this is an ancillary northward movement to the coast, securing the right flank of the attacking forces before moving beyond the King's Cross area. Distance from the King's Cross to the northern coast is maybe 5 miles. Although not specified, I expect the division to split at this time, so that this movement would be executed by a detachment of panzers (perhaps one of the two panzer battalions of 15th Panzer's 8th Panzer Rgt). Once completed, the other half of the Division could then move on to the next phase of the battle.

5 - Attack on the harbour and town of Tobruk 1500-1700

Only two hours allowed here for a movement of about 5 miles, and a skirmish inside the small town of Tobruk itself. Clearly, Rommel is planning for only light resistance this deep into the operation.

6 - Seizing of the coastal strip to Wadi Sahal

No time specified here. This is purely a mopping up movement, securing the coast line west of Tobruk.

[lcm1947]

It all depends on the amount of time one has so everybody is right it takes and we need all different sizes of games and turns. I am starting to get into operations after recently playing one over at The Proving Grounds http://www.garykrockover.com/cmbb/ called Kubyshevska because not only was it a fantastic scenario and loads of fun and excitement but it was 6 battles of 20 turns apiece so you could play as long or short as you wanted. I also really enjoyed the feeling that you got commanding the same troops each time. It really made you try to take better care of your men because you knew you'd need them the next battle. It was also fun fighting on familiar grounds over and over. It sets your mood. When I got through with it I felt the way you do when you finish a really good book and have to lay it down. You know, kind of sad not being able to be with your characters anymore. Hard to explain but you may know what I mean. So I say design them all. Different strokes for different folks.