Are 50 turns in an infantry QB gamey?

[Jim Boggs]

It seems to me that trying to win a QB that is infantry oriented as the attacker in 30 turns is very difficult. Figuring 5-10 turns to contact, another 5-10 turns to identify and overrun the defenders outpost line, then another 3-6 turns to recon the enemy's main defense line. Then the obligatory prepfire before moving up to make the final assault. This really puts the pressure on the attacker to cut corners, take unnecessary chances, and prohibits any revision to the initial assault plan as the enemy position becomes discernable.

I can understand in an armoured or mobile encounter, where movement is much faster, that 30 turns would be reasonable, but for an infantry battle, I believe the attacker needs a little bit more time to properly move and execute his plan.

Any opinions?

[ng cavscout]

IMHO, I think that most of the time limits I see are unrealistically short. The reconnaissance of the objective alone can take several hours IRL. I don't think that 50 turns is unreasonable, I would find an average game length of 60 turns more amenable to realistic tactics. Just my 3 cents.

[eichenbaum]

The scenario builder could test the missions before they're released.

Eichenbaum

[_Axe_]

Not speaking to your thread title Jim, I have always found you gamey. :mad:

However, I don't think 50 turns is unrealistic in an infantry attack.

[eichenbaum]

... and the distance they've to walk or run, doesn't that count ? 50 turns for only 200 meters of advancing for example !?

Eichenbaum

edit it because I had too much wine...

[ July 19, 2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[Michael Emrys]

I hear what you are saying, Jim, and mostly agree. But I think it is also true that part of the problem is that we as gamers are trying to do things with the game that it was not originally designed to do.

I think it was originally intended to represent the small company-sized fire-fights that occur within a larger engagement after the opposing forces are already in contact. Reconnaisance was supposed to have already occurred. That said, the information normally available from that reconnaisance is not usually available within the game, forcing the player to obtain it on his own as you say.

The net resuly is that instead of a strictly tactical game, we are now faced with something on the order of an operational level game played out at the tactical level. If we were to actually do that in a realistic way, every game would be played out sort of like operations are now, with distinct phases and pauses between them. So there would be a recon phase of from 20-200 turns, possibly played at night, where the goal is to scout the enemy lines, discover particular points of resistance, gun and MG emplacements, etc.

Then there would be a planning interphase similar to the present set-up phase.

Then the attack would go in, lasting again from 20-200 turns.

Or something like that.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

On further reflection, I realize that I could make it even more elaborate.

Have an optional Prep/Bombardment phase lasting from 5-50 turns. This is when your heaviest artillery concentrations and whatever air assets you have would come into play.

Then have your first Assault phase lasting 20-200 turns.

Then a Reinforcement/Resupply phase. This is when both attacker and defender could possibly commit fresh forces.

Then a second Assault phase.

And so forth.

Michael

[eichenbaum]

And how about fortifications, MG nests, mine fields, rough terrain etc.. ??? Doesn't that count ?

Eichenbaum

[SirReal]

Just to add that the need for high turn limits is especially true for Quick Battles, where you don't know what the terrain is going to be like, nor what troops you'll have.

I once got the privilege of attacking, in snow, with the russians. I had some 40 turns. Could be done. But wait for it. The troops were unfit conscripts.

I would have needed some 120 turns, since the troops got exhausted after wading through 100m of snow.

/SirReal

[Boo Radley]

The only problem with games lasting 50 moves or so, is that invariably, by move 40, your leading (if not most) squads are low on ammo and there is nothing more boring than those games where for the first second, you have a furious fire fight and then 59 seconds of silence.

( -5 points for run on sentence.)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SirReal:

Just to add that the need for high turn limits is especially true for Quick Battles, where you don't know what the terrain is going to be like, nor what troops you'll have.

I always know exactly what troops I'm going to have in a QB because I pick 'em.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley:

The only problem with games lasting 50 moves or so, is that invariably, by move 40, your leading (if not most) squads are low on ammo...

That can be a problem. That's one reason why it is always good to hold back a portion of your force and keep them from expending their ammo and taking casualties.

Also, note what I say in my second post about Resupply/Reinforcement interphases.

Michael

[Sergei]

In a QB, you already have all the recon information in the world you need. You know that the enemy is out there. You roughly know how strong a force he's got (in terms of points) and usually what type of force composition (unless set random or unrestricted). You know very well, what are his objectives (the same as yours). You know where he has been deployed. You know that he starts on the same turn as you did. And you know that he gets no reinforcements in the midst of the fight.

How much more do you need to know about your enemy to fight him? The colour of his socks?

But for an all-infantry QB. Infantry is slow and even slower under fire. And slower than that, if your enemy has combined arms forces... 20 turns extra doesn't sound too bad.

Actually I think infantry forces should start a shorter distance away from eachother. Walking across an empty map for 15 minutes is boooring.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

How much more do you need to know about your enemy to fight him?

The location of his guns and MGs would be nice to know. Ditto minefields, wire, company and battalion HQs.

Was this kind of thing known to real life attackers? Depends. If the two forces had been in place long enough for aggressive patrolling to occur, probably yes. If the defender was alert and practicing good security, maybe not. And there is always the possibility of deceptive practices on both sides.

I think it's something that needs further consideration for inclusion in the game.

Michael

[Ligur]

The nature of CM fights was often discussed in lenght when CM:BO was the newest game. I think many agreed that the games we play (QB's most of all) represent some kind of very heated, intense decisive localized battles that wouldn't be fought all that often in the real WW2.

They are very short, there is usually quite a lot of casualties for such a short time etc. And I find that most of the time not enough time is provided, ME QB's being an exception

This is not not entirely on the subject but sadly CM is not really made for 6 hour fights as we know. The turns are 1 minute long after all. In "real life" a vehicle column or infantry battallion could have been stopped for a day by a single bunker while waiting for guns or assault guns to arrive and shoot it all to hell. In your QB, lacking the assets, you have only the option to surrender or push on no matter what.

You can contemplate a million different things that make QB's unrealistic, but you can also imagine real life situations that could be similar to our eternal QB ME's. For example weren't units sometimes ordered to attack or to take a village with just the info we are given, because there is a very pressing divisional or army level need?

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Stuff

Recon points you could invest to get information on the enemy? Or a new adjustable element for QB's that would define something.

[lcm1947]

If I am attacking I like a minimum of 40 turns and really prefer 50. Now if you are attacking I prefer 20 or 15 turns. I don't enjoy attacking head on but prefer trying to flank the defender so I need time. My opinion. As far as gamey goes all depends on who you talk to I suppose.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

The location of his guns and MGs would be nice to know. Ditto minefields, wire, company and battalion HQs.

I think it would be very cool to allow for the possibility of some of the enemy positions being known during setup, particularly for an assault. It could work like this: The defender sets up his troops before turn 1. Then, when the attacker is setting up his own troops, key positions or units (MGs, pillboxes, mines, etc.) would appear as "spotted" markers on the map. Just like spotted markers during the real game, there could be misidentified targets or misplaced markers and naturally not all of the defenders' troops would be spotted.

What do you think?

Dr. Rosenrosen

[Sirocco]

I mostly play 800 point games, and with CMBO 30 turns in good conditions was reasonable, while with CMBB I think 40 turns is more appropriate. With snow I'd add another 10 turns.

[MadGav]

I have a cunning plan...

What if a scenario designer could mark units as "audible" so that a sound contact will be shown during setup, or "spotted" so that a marker is shown. That would give the player direct clues as to where units are, and represent previous scouting.

[Jim Boggs]

Thanks to all the respondees. I don't feel gamey anymore

My wish list for QB's would be the ability to see the map before purchasing units, especially for the defender.

This may have already been discussed, so pardon my redundancy if that's the case.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

My wish list for QB's would be the ability to see the map before purchasing units, especially for the defender.

That would be nice, but hardly realistic for the defender, and only somewhat for the attacker. Noone would tell armor to attack across a swampy forest, but if they got pushed into it, they might have to defend there.

Jim Boggs, never stop feeling gamey. We might stop recognizing you.

/SirReal

[_Axe_]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

I don't feel gamey anymore

That doesn't make it any less true. Somedays I feel good looking.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenrosen:

I think it would be very cool to allow for the possibility of some of the enemy positions being known during setup, particularly for an assault. It could work like this: The defender sets up his troops before turn 1. Then, when the attacker is setting up his own troops, key positions or units (MGs, pillboxes, mines, etc.) would appear as "spotted" markers on the map. Just like spotted markers during the real game, there could be misidentified targets or misplaced markers and naturally not all of the defenders' troops would be spotted.

What do you think?

I think that would be an improvement on the current situation.

Although it may not seem like it from my posts, I don't want to hand the offense too much information, and this seems like working toward some kind of reasonable compromise. I think a good thing would be to somehow take into account how long the opposing troops have been occupying their positions. The longer they have been in place, the better dug-in the defenders are, but also the more information is revealed to the attacker. Could this be a player-definable option like weather?

Michael

[Runyan99]

50 turns is not gamey.

Most CMBB games need more than the 30 turns. I prefer at least 40, and like 50 or 60 even better. This allows for more prudent (i.e. realistic) tactics to be used. This is in comparison to the average 25 turn game where the attacker must simply throw assets forward without regard for their safety, because of the time limit involved.

I am currently playing an infantry only QB on the Ghosts of Radziechow map. As the attacker, I requested a 60 turn game, and it looks like I am going to need most or all of that time to capture even 2 of the 4 flags.

As far as the comment about units running out of ammo in long games, I will also mention the importance of using reserves, or at least not simply commiting your whole force all at once at the beginning of the game. In the QB mentioned above, I am currently on turn 30, and I still have whole platoons that have not yet fired a shot, but should come into play during turns 30-60.