Length of battles not realistic

[mvfoley]

I have a problem with the lenght on turn that CBM's is representing. Each turn is 1 minute of actual time. Does anyone else have a problem with this time frame. I have read many books dealing with combat in WW2 and except for firefights which may last a short period of time, I have yet to encounter a battle where both sides were engaged that lasted the very short time periods as the battles represent in CBM of 15-45 minutes.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by mvfoley:

I have a problem with the lenght on turn that CBM's is representing. Each turn is 1 minute of actual time. Does anyone else have a problem with this time frame. I have read many books dealing with combat in WW2 and except for firefights which may last a short period of time, I have yet to encounter a battle where both sides were engaged that lasted the very short time periods as the battles represent in CBM of 15-45 minutes.

Give us an example.

Time compression has been discussed here often; a search of the forum may yield you some interesting discussions. I know we have had one in recent months, either here or in the scenario discussion forum.

[Runyan99]

Oh goody, my favorite topic.

On the issue of one minute turns, I think one thing that should be considered for the next generation of CM games is variable length turns.

Make it an option when the scenario is created. I imagine a dialogue box with the following:

1 minute

1.5 minute

2 minute

3 minute

5 minute

This would make is rather more bearable to play long manuever type games.

In the current series of CM games, the best option from a realism standpoint seems to be static operations, which can simulate a great length of time.

[Moon]

CM represents the hot portion of what you would find described in most books as a battle. That portion of a battle can be very very brief, even if the entire battle with platoons and companies shifting about and making plans takes hours, or days. One typical CM battle is the culmination of one or more days worth of planning, reconnaissance, skirmishing, patrolling and so on.

Martin

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by mvfoley:

I have a problem with the lenght on turn that CBM's is representing. Each turn is 1 minute of actual time. Does anyone else have a problem with this time frame. I have read many books dealing with combat in WW2 and except for firefights which may last a short period of time, I have yet to encounter a battle where both sides were engaged that lasted the very short time periods as the battles represent in CBM of 15-45 minutes.

Correct, for example, the Battle of Kursk did not last 15-45 minutes. Of course Kursk is a bit out of the scope of CM. Individual actions within the overall battle of Kursk most definitely lasted only 15-45 minutes (the scope of CM). At the point of contact, an infantry company can't function for much longer than 20 minutes before it MUST rest. Battles are broken up by short fierce action and quiet pauses. Personally, I believe that if you aren't feeling pressured by time, you are not experiencing anything like combat command.

[Bone_Vulture]

I think in reality battles similar to the ones in CM would easily take a lot longer... That's because in real life, an infantry unit might have the patience to wait for fifteen minutes for the enemy presence to shift. In CM, most players want action NOW!

... Not to mention that there usually aren't tight time frames in real life, either.

[Grisha]

Moon,

If CM represents the 'hot' portion of a battle, then it might be better in scenarios to place units at their tactical 'launch' points - that point where units expect to be maneuvering under fire. Unless the situation is extremely fluid or chaotic, most commanders know pretty much where that point is - roughly 200m, 300m at most, from the enemy line. Up until that point, most units take every effort to reach that launch point under cover, including crawling. A launch point set to 500m is a result of a poor assessment of the situation by superior command when the unit first deployed in the area, or a tactical command that has little experience or training. In winter 1941, such a situation was not uncommon among attacking Soviet units, but mid-late 1943, Soviet units would even dig trenches so as to place themselves at that critical range. If there was penetration artillery available, then such deployments could be relaxed, but CMBB doesn't simulate major breakthrough attacks. Hence, deployment needs to be around the 250m mark to be an accurate representation of the critical stage of battle - the engagement.

[Mad Russian]

The problem in CM battles is that you have to weight the rush to combat against the need to deploy. I usually try to have the scenarios that I make move to combat in three turns. That allows the player some latitude in setup and yet doesn't make them take 10 turns to deploy for the combat we are all here for. I do have a couple of scenarios that combat is capable of taking place deep into the game. Where two forces are both traveling towards the same objective that neither controls and you never know when you will bump into each other. It is a definate choice to use time as a measure of the time allowed the commander. If the scenario designer wants the commander to be under pressure there are few turns and alot of ground to cover in those turns. If the attacker has time to maneuver there will be sufficient turns to allow that to happen.

Panther Commander

[markl]

I find for game play the current turn lengths and game lengths are very good. Especially if you juggle work and computer play at the same time.

With the development of Operation Storfang, people looking for long battles should be catered for as well.

I think the game balances out very well for the majority of players.

[Alkiviadis]

I would agree with Runyan99 on every point he makes xct for time-compression. I think the rhythm of a battle; it's outbursts & pauses, can effect a player/commander psychologically: caution when boldness is required, rashness when circumspection is the key, etc.