Operations seem to be flawed

[Carl Puppchen]

I have been playing the CM series for a while. I really like many aspects of Operations, especially the fact that they cause you to act more historically in terms of conserving forces rather than throwing them into (generally) futile attacks on the last turns of typical stand-alone games.

I am playing Tobruk - The Easter battles - a huge operation with a german assault across a broad front against a human opponent. Similar to the tactics used in the actual battle, I am grouping my mobile forces for an assault on a relatively narrow part of the map and leaving behind a thinly manned blocking force across the rest of the map.

The outcome of using these tactics is that I have penetrated far forward, past the main obstacle (the anti-tank ditch) on one side of the map. I haven't moved off the starting line on the rest of the map.

Although each turn is 40+ turns, we ceased after 25 and resetup again.

I was shocked when I went back in for the next battle in the scenario. The front line didn't move at all, and all of my guys in front of their starting position weren't resupplied (or they got very little, if anything) and aren't "padlocked" where they are, but they can either move waaaay back to the starting line or stay exactly where they were. Obviously I left them where they were I didn't want to start the whole battle again from the starting line.

My opponent said that his battle line had moved forward - he could have dropped in troops in front of his starting line from the previous scenario - he didn't do this because we generally try to play to the spirit of the game, not the letter of the game, in these types of situations.

Thus my conclusion and that of my opponent is that operations are flawed. Although I penetrated far forward in one side, either the "whole" line seems to move forward or it doesn't at all. I can't show penetration in one side of the line and have it fixed in other areas.

To solve this problem in "game" terms I would have to resort to what I consider to be "gamey" tactics, like advancing across a broad front. This isn't a realistic approach, especially on a huge map, and isn't an appealing solution, because it dilutes the German advantages of mobility and ability to concentrate forces.

It seems to me that the answer is that the line should move forward in segments, so I could push the line forward in some areas, and other areas could be attached to the original lines. Right now it seems to be a single rectangle, although I could be incorrect.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

[Moon]

Is this an Assault op? Static ops would work better in this case I assume, because there the front line isn't moving at all, i.e. your units would remain where they ended the previous battle.

Assault ops are meant to represent attacks and counter-attacks. The front line is calculated so that it's not possible for the attacker to send a small detachment around the flanks for the attacker and get the front line moving forward.

Quite the contrary, the defender has it easier to push back the attacker in local counterattacks (it works the other way around in advances - the attacker can push back the defender, so the latter has to fight a delaying action).

Advance and Assault ops als work better if the maps aren't too wide. The computer calculates frontage across the entire map width, which can lead to issues as you described on maps that are too wide.

Operations to work as advertised, but I guess the main problem is that they are misunderstood. That's my story and I stick by it...

[Carl Puppchen]

An excellent question r/e static or an assault... in the scenario briefing they call it an assault. But on the Scenario Depot site, they call it a static operation. I don't know how to tell for certain - if someone knows how to verify this, we can sort it out.

The map is indeed huge. This may be causing some of the ahistorical results.

[Spindry69]

I once played an operation where my defence depended on two tiger tanks. One was knocked out after taking out 12 tanks and vehicles. The other near the end of the battle went forward to destroy abandoned tanks. It survived, but when I loaded the next battle it had disapeared! I don't know if this had anything to do with it being well forward of the rest of my units at the end of the battle. The net result though was I wasn't happy and gave up an otherwise enjoyable operation.

[Sergei]

If there are victory flags on the map, it's static, if not then it's assault. Also the no-man's land has an effect. The maximum is 800m, so it doesn't allow for that much freedom of movement on a several klicks deep desert map no matter what. You just have to take it into account in your planning: if you move your mobile group over 800m from the defence line, they might not be resupplied.

While testing a CMBB static operation, my opponent claimed that at the beginning of the third battle some troops that were hooking on my right at the end of the previous battle had disappeared. Not moved back to friendly side, just disappeared. I don't know if they had taken heavy losses and for that reason were removed or if it was a bug.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Spindry69:

I once played an operation where my defence depended on two tiger tanks. One was knocked out after taking out 12 tanks and vehicles. The other near the end of the battle went forward to destroy abandoned tanks. It survived, but when I loaded the next battle it had disapeared! I don't know if this had anything to do with it being well forward of the rest of my units at the end of the battle. The net result though was I wasn't happy and gave up an otherwise enjoyable operation.

Abandoned vehicles may get repaired (there's even a param in the op editor). I guess those vehciles eligible for repair have to be towed from the battlefield in RL and thus I think CM does the same. Burning tanks are gone forever and remain on map. Destroyed tanks may get repaired... Often you get them back next morning.

Gruß

Joachim

[eichenbaum]

I find the set-up zone of the 2nd the biggest problem in operations. The engine is always trying to divide the map in 2 equal parts (Axis & Allied setup zones). If the attacker had just a small section in the 1st battle, he'll get the remaining ground for free until about 50% has reached. These jumps create unrealistic situations.

Another problem is the perception of what is really going on. The time gaps between battles where units are getting resupplied, reinforced or withdrawn is often not understood by the player.

Once a scenario designer has created an operation he'll test it before handing it over to players. If he witnesses unwanted side-effects of 'battle windows' or 'objective flags' he'll get very depressed to see he can only adjust the parameters with <u>dramatic results</u>.

Single battle scenarios are quite better to play then operations when a fully developed time scheme has been applied on the 'reinforcement markers'. This way you can create a operation like scenario. But the negative side of large battles is the absence of 'ressupply'.

Nils

[Joachim]

Nils,

do you say that a small setup zone in the first battle will affect the front line in battle 2? Ie if the map would have started several hundred meters back and the attacker had a bigger setup zone including that additional space he would have a harder time to "overrun" the initial defenses between battle 1 and 2?

Gruß

Joachim

[eichenbaum]

do you say that a small setup zone in the first battle will affect the front line in battle 2?

No, that's not what I meant. On global proportions is the setup zone of both sides always 50% of the complete map in de 2nd battle (nomansland not counted for).

If you give the attacker a small strip of setup zone in the 1st and he doesn't do anything then he'll still get a setup zone based on that fifty-fifty rule. Much more ground then he did concur.

There are gaps visible where the opponent had his units in the last turn and some extensions if the player moved beyond that 50% but that's all. On large maps have those small areas not much to offer and in most cases insignificant if it's a player vs. AI scenario.

Ie if the map would have started several hundred meters back and the attacker had a bigger setup zone including that additional space he would have a harder time to "overrun" the initial defenses between battle 1 and 2?

I believe that would be different for every scenario.

Nils

[ May 18, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[junk2drive]

eichenbaum, in some ways large scens are rl, in that i dont think front line troops would get resupplied in cm timeframe. reinf would come up to take the line forward, leaving the unsupplied, tired troops to hold vl's. thats what i do.

just my opinion.

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

eichenbaum, in some ways large scens are rl, in that i dont think front line troops would get resupplied in cm timeframe. reinf would come up to take the line forward, leaving the unsupplied, tired troops to hold vl's. thats what i do.

just my opinion.

Yes you're right. Resupply isn't realistic if applied on all units. It would be for assault guns, tanks and on map artillery (depending on how long the battle lasts and map size of coarse).

[eichenbaum]

No, that's not what I meant. On global proportions is the setup zone of both sides always 50% of the complete map in de 2nd battle (nomansland not counted for).

I stand corrected; It's not 'always' but 'often'. Assault operations behave differently.

[Runyan99]

I am the designer of this operation.

It is a static operation. No man's land is set to zero.

My experience is that with operations, the computer does indeed want to move the whole front line, or not at all. Penetrations on one side of the map or the other, and thin wedges into the enemy front line can cause problems.

Carl, do you control any of the perimeter posts, or are your men cut off with enemy held posts in their rear?

Without seeing the game, my suggestion is to take more perimeter posts, and widen the penetration. This may force the computer to redraw a frontline that will enable you to get supply through.

If that does not work, you may just have to send the panzers into the depth of the position without worrying about their supply....

[ May 29, 2004, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[Carl Puppchen]

Thanks for replying. The people that create scenarios work hard for everyone and I'd just like to say that I appreciate the effort.

In this scenario I attacked on a narrow side on the left flank and penetrated across the anti tank ditch. I pretty much held steady everywhere else across the map.

We ceased after 20 turns in the first game (as recommended in the brief) and then we started over. That is when I noticed that all my units up front were not resupplied and they were "locked" (i.e. they couldn't be moved from their position unless I dragged them way back to the starting zone then I could move them). My opponent noticed that he could resetup his guys way forward (in the rear of mine across the AT ditch) but he didn't do this for realism reasons (we try to play in the spirit of the game and avoid too many "gamey" tactics. Of course my nickname is "puppchen" because in the first cmbo the puppchen was only 26 points and it absolutely dominated the battlefield at that rate. They moved it up to about 60 points in cmbb. So a bit of gamey stuff is OK from time to time )

In retrospect that may have been a good tactic for penetration but it was a bad tactic for operations in general. I probably should have concentrated on one side but moved everyone else up as far as I could across the map.

Right now we are playing 2 operations:

- desobry

- gemmano

In desobry I am on the offense (I always play the axis) and am penetrating on a broad front, although I am massing my mobile assets (Panthers) on one side of the town.

In gemmano I am on defense and am anxious for opportunities to hold flanks forward which will cause my opponent to have difficulties moving up. Basically he has to clear me out of the flanks just as I do in desobry.

In both of these operations the effects are less dramatic than your operation because your front is immensely wide. The desobry and gemmano battlefields are teenie tiny in comparison.

On one other random note I setup a thread to test performance of cmak and see if adding RAM speeded up cmak performance. I used this scenario as a benchmark since it was taking about 6 minutes or so to run a turn, depending on what was going on. The thread is in the "tech talk" section.

here is the link

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004423

Thanks again for your efforts designing the scenario! I guess all things considered I would probably put something in the german briefing to advise advancing on a broad front. Just my 2 cents.

[ May 29, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Carl Puppchen ]

[Runyan99]

Right. I understand you penetrated with some kind of force across the AT ditch, but you didn't answer my question.

Did you take any of the perimeter posts, or did you bypass them?

[Carl Puppchen]

We played until about the middle of the second day and then stopped. I did not take the full perimeter post on the left.

[Runyan99]

Well, if you didn't take any perimeter posts, I can understand why the front line was not redrawn.

In reality, if you didn't take any of the perimeter posts, then it would not have been possible to get much supply to them, under fire from the neighboring enemy held perimeter posts. They would have been isolated behind enemy lines indeed.

[Carl Puppchen]

Are you talking specifically how operations function within the parameters of cmak or are you making a comment regarding the realistic elements of the scenario? I don't understand.

Since we cut off the first day's scenario at 20 turns it isn't a likely outcome that the perimeter forts would be captured given the amount of ground to cover vs a human opponent.

Based on my understanding of the way operations work, even if I took a frontier fort on the far left it wouldn't have redrawn the lines and all my guys would have been frozen forward (I could drag them way back behind the original start line or leave them in place) w/limited or no resupply.

I would have had to move forward on a broad front to move the line forward.

From a realism perspective, I agree that you need to take the perimeter forts, that is why I concentrated my forces to bear on a point to drive forward and then flank the others.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

From a realism perspective, I agree that you need to take the perimeter forts, that is why I concentrated my forces to bear on a point to drive forward and then flank the others.

So, why didn't you put that plan into effect for battles #2 and #3, rather than just quitting? You have 7 battles to achieve these objectives. You didn't use the time you were given.

As the designer, I can tell you I don't expect the German player to achieve much of anything on the first battle, but to probe the defenses. The Germans historically just advanced and got pinned down until nightfall. Clearly it will take some time to create a breakthrough.

Even if all the infantry who had passed the AT ditch were in a poor ammo state, surely you had reserves of infantry and tanks that could have moved through and carried on the attack? Didn't you?

I cannot be sure, but I think if you clear a wide enough breach in the perimeter defenses of the enemy, say 500 meters wide, or maybe 2 perimeter posts, you have a chance to get a favorable front-line-redraw in your favor (which will allow units to take supply) after that.

You cannot simply pass through the perimeter wire on a front 50 meters wide, bypass the perimeter posts, and expect to get supplies through to the advancing troops. Either in CMAK or in real life.

[ May 30, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[Carl Puppchen]

I think that we will replay the scenario and try playing it out a while longer. Can't say without trying it whether or not 2 forts on the left flank will be enough to move the "sticks" forward, as in football terms. Certainly, after game one, it was not a good thing that my opponent could have (but didn't) resetup his forces behind my forward units and given me a reverse crossfire. It was this particular anomaly that caused me to put this thread on the message board.

In the other operations that I am playing I am still concentrating my forces but trying to move up everywhere to some extent, even pushing forward trucks and guns to the extent that I can do that (usually at night) without getting them killed. Either that or driving them off the board. Don't know if that helps but still trying to get the hang of what makes the cmak / cmbb operations move the lines forward, depending on forces and overall size of the map.

I am aware of the historical outcome from the first attack on Tobruk. In general, Rommel attacked w/insufficient forces, couldn't make a significant penetration, and moved into siege mode.

Do you think that taking the 2 left flank forts would move the front line, if your other guys stayed at their original posts? Has that been your experience? Just wondering.

[Runyan99]

The CM front-line-drawer works in mysterious ways, but I think taking the two left flank forts and clearing the enemy from the area is the best chance to get a front line across the AT ditch. I cannot say whether it will work or not.

I would also suggest keeping some German forces in and around the penetration. That is, man the AT ditch, and fight for control of it. Defend and expand the flanks of the penetration. Don't just bypass it and then leave it empty. This should keep that particular piece of desert "yours" and prevent your opponent from being able to place units behind your forces, as he could have in the first game.

[imported_no_one]

Just wanted to add my two cents to this.

I have discovered that after playing many assualt/advance ops in CMBB that you eventually get the hang of how the setup zones will get redrawn in the next battle.

You have to keep in mind that the way it is redrawn is based on where you are at the end of a battle,and not so much where you've been.

You've got to kinnda think of it as all of your forces need to be linked up at the end of the battle.If there are some forward forces,but arent in that great of numbers,and they are opposed by large numbers of enemy forces,the smaller group wont have as big of an influence on the setup zones.If you bring up additional forces,and begin to spread them out as resistance is met,you will be able to affect the setups zones better,and they will look more realistic.

I was also under the impression that a defenders forces have a greater influence on the setup zones than does the attacker.This was supposed to better represent the gains of a counter-attack.I think it works pretty well once you get the hang of how it works.Just remember that when you are attacking,and lets say hill 150 is your personal objective for this battle,try and take the hill AND some of the surrounding countryside.This will ensure that the hill is indeed yours in the next setup pahse.

Another point I wanted to add.In most ops,the battles will run something like:

Battle 1: Dawn

Battle 2: mid-day

Battle 3: dusk

etc..

It was always my understanding that in situations like this there was an implied "behind the scenes" cease fire that took place.

Ground covered by each side is of course kept track of,but each side needs to fall back to regroup and re-arm.It is during this lull in activity that forward units are supposed to fall back to friendly lines(i.e. you manually bring your cut off troops back to your setup zones for the next battle,or leave them there if they are in cover),or the defender cycles in/out some fresh reserves(i.e. the defender gets to have a completely different setup for battle 2).

Then once all that is done,there is another offensive launched and the cycle begins a new.When you look at it that way,there is nothing gamey about moving/placing your forces between battles.I thought this was the way that everyone looked at it.I was amazed when I read your interpretation of it.

Ops in CM are not perfect,but they're not all that bad either.

[ June 30, 2004, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: no_one ]

[Runyan99]

You are right that you need to form a chain of friendly troops into enemy territory if you want an uninterrupted front line drawn on the next battle. Troops which move into enemy territory, or no mans land, with no friendly 'connecting' troops behind them, will form a cut off setup zone of their own on the next battle.

The no man's land setting also affects how the front lines are drawn. Bigger NML settings seem to allow for bigger salients to be drawn in between battles. Sergei made a good post on this feature.

Carl, I have learned a bit more about how the NML settings work, and based on what I now know, I should probably revise the Tobruk op with some increased no man's land. This might help to alleviate the problem you had. Consider it on my list of things to do.

[Carl Puppchen]

Thanks for all the thoughts on operations. Once again I'd like to give a shout out to everyone who creates scenarios for others to enjoy and don't want to sound like I am complaining.

But... a bit of complaining. I have been playing Team Desobry as the germans (attacker) and I have been getting KILLED as they keep drawing the start line for the germans FAR back of my men, leaving the forward units unsupplied and locked in place (I can drag them back to behind the start line, but this is no fun given that I am supposed to take the town). It turns out that my opponent has a few squads hiding out in trees in a couple of places - even though I have companies of men forward and over a dozen tanks these few men are holding back the line. It does appear that I need to turn over every bush and cranny in order to move the line forward, which seems wrong.

On the other hand, I am defending in the GP10 Gemmano from the scenario depot as the Germans and the Allies were able to LEAP forward in front of my men at the end of the first battle. His tanks were snaking up the road and I had plenty of squads forward and then line was AHEAD of his tanks! Luckily of course my opponent is not "gamey" and he didn't take too much advantage of the situation but all of his men were refueled with ammo which hurt me badly (my setup wasn't very good, which hurt me more, but still...).

We still have fun with these operations and they don't affect the quality of play that badly (in Desobry my men keep having to move forward under fire to reclaim the same positions but since 1/2 the battles are at night it is already a meelee).

[junk2drive]

sometimes it depends on the designer's use of no mans land, sometimes it seems like luck. or bad luck. or the fate of war. kinda real isnt it?