battle lengths too short?

[joesnuffy]

Forgive me if this topic has been covered before...

It always takes me too long to get into position for an attack in CM. To explore this in more detail, I created a scenario where I had one platoon against a single enemy MG. The map size was 800m x 600m or so, light tree cover and gentle slope. The MG set up deep in his setup zone. It took me 33 turns to traverse the map and find the MG and a couple more to take him out. I was moving cautiously using bounding overwatch most of the time, a bit less cautious early and a bit more cautios as I got closer and closer to the flag. There was a constant threat of resistance, but I never actually encountered any until turn 33. Had I encountered resistence, this would have taken much longer. The battles that I have played in CM tend to be less than 35 turns. This seems to be too short and time becomes my biggest enemy. When I see I am running out of time, I start losing my shape and doing stupid things. Does anyone agree, or is it just me?

[easytarget]

probably best to gauge this against ppl better at CM than I am, but for me at least this is also often a problem

i get in a hurry at the end due to time and start doing dumb things - i guess i should just hurry up a bit at the beginning

i've been running through scenarios at the depot recently and found, and this is of course once again just my opinion, that those battles that have been properly play tested are usually set closer to what i'd consider a correct time limit for the objectives - and those that gave me the impression on other grounds to of not been properly tested, also often fail the time limit sanity check as well

[Sgt AA]

Hi!

Interesting question. Perhaps it's different depending on if the scenario is a ME or Attack/Assault. In meeting ju don't have any time for recon and in the other type the designer should give the attacker enough time for recon and planning of the attack (if not the breefing has enough information of course). I guess that Probe should require a lot more time than the other one. Just my thoughts.

Regards/

[yuvuphys]

I'd be interested in hearing how long people make their QB battles. How long do you take for a 2000 point attack QB battle, for instance? I had been playing these on about the 40 turn scale, but had much more success when I bumped that up to 60 or 70 turns...what's most realistic?

[Der Kuenstler]

I find 30 - 35 turns long enough for me a ME. If it's an attack I want to get 40+ turns. I would think in a 70 turn ME the battle would be decided by at least turn 40 and then you'd be - what - mopping up tank crews? For the next 30 turns. I'm a newer player so timing is a problem for me also - I either take the flags with too much time left for the enemy to get them back or take too long to get into position.

[SteveP]

This is a question that has bothered me many times, but I don't know what is the best approach. I have used the editor to lengthen the time limits on some scenarios and operations, but I always wonder if that means I've "unbalanced" the scenario in my favor. On the other hand, it seems to me that at the scale of CM a real battle would go on as long as the two sides had sufficient ammo and morale. Even in CM a game will end when one or both sides have lost sufficient morale, or have gotten low on ammo (how low varying by type of battle: probe vs attack, etc.). For that reason, you could set a scenario for 70 turns for example, but it likely will end before that.

So why have a time limit at all? And if there is a good reason, why not make the limit fairly generous? Reasons for having a time limit seem to be:

1. Force the players to move to combat in some reasonably expeditious way (which of course is not necessary if you are playing the AI).

2. "Balance" the scenario by giving the defense the ability to win with delaying tactics (which I think is often the reason, but there are better ways to achieve that balance).

3. Getting players to actually play the scenario, since one that looked like it might take a long time to play might not seem desirable.

4. Perhaps to simulate an historical battle in which some objective needed to be gained before reinforcements arrived or some such thing.

However, when the time limits are tight, there is limited ability to react to information gained during the battle -- for example, to redeploy after you suddenly see all that wire just where you planned to attack. That is my biggest complaint, but I also have doubts that it's valid to give a victory to the defense for holding the line for 20 minutes, when the attacker still has plenty of ammo and resources at hand (again, unless it's an historical battle which dictates this).

[Nemesis Lead]

An interesting thread. I am of two minds on the issue.

In WW2, actions like the ones in CM would take much longer than 30-40 minutes/turns (i.e., your average game length for a 1000-1500 a/d game on a medium map). I have read in numerous books that the pace of infantry combat was especially slow. Lots of creeping into position, waiting for supporting units to also get into position, casualties often halt the advance, etc.. Hence, if you want "realism" a game length of 200+ turns would not be out of the question for a company sized battle (silly as it sounds).

However, in CM games of 50+ turns are just too long for many people to deal with. Personnally, I have usually had enough at about turn 30. This is why I rarely play games larger than 1500 points in QB.

One needs to strike a balance. Hence, a 1000 point QB on a medium map should take between 33 and 40 turns in my mind. While this is way faster than real life and one may sometimes be unrealistically strapped for time (e.g., how many silly tank rushes to flags have we all seen?), but easily doable from a player's perspective.

[HarryInk]

Find someone to play DesertFox's super excellent 'CINTHEAUX' scenario. Don't waste it vs. the AI. It's 60 turns long. Gives you a slightly different take on time - it's also v. heavy on armor (historical).

I take the half-way position on this too. I think CM represents the business end of the job. All the premaneouvring [!] is done and now it's attack time. You've got the Captain/Major/Colonel breathing down your neck. They give you 1/2 an hour to clear the objective. Get on with it.

On the other hand, I've played a few Wild Bill Wilder scenarios where you've only got time to smash through (15 turns) and it's just a firepower fest, not much opportunity for subtlety. I find them quite uncomfortable to play (despite loving the amount of bang I can fling about).

Too much time can be an indulgence. You need a little 'push' at your back.

[Mad Russian]

When I make a scenario I let it tell me how long it needs to be. Rarely I will have a set time deteremined by the historical situation I based the scenario on.

If you will playtest a scenario a few times it will soon become obvious for the designers style of play what the time limit should be.

I often will make the time limit on the short end though to give the player a little anxiety. Sitting in your easy chair at home in front of a computer monitor has nothing like the stress of a combat commander in the field. So, making the scenario short on time is one of the ways I add just a bit more realism to the situation.

Those guys make mistakes and lots of them. We get borg spotting and God view, etc... they have none of that. So I figure being a bit short on time evens out the historical balance a bit.

Most commanders don't have all the time they want to do an attack either so it's not like it's only something that happens in CM.

[SteveP]

Some additional thoughts:

CM randomly generated QB maps are unrealistically wide and shallow (a point that JasonC has made quite effectively in other threads). That makes things more difficult for the defense. Hence, a tight time frame may make sense as a "balancing" element in that context, since the defense can employ delaying tactics to get a "victory" even when the defense is really losing.

In scenarios and operations, however, I'm bothered by the possibility that designers are using short time frames to balance things. If so, then when I extend those timelines I feel a little like it's "cheating". It's different if designers are only doing that in order to get people to play the scenarios in the first place. But in reality, I don't know what the designers are thinking.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by SteveP:

Some additional thoughts:

CM randomly generated QB maps are unrealistically wide and shallow (a point that JasonC has made quite effectively in other threads). That makes things more difficult for the defense. Hence, a tight time frame may make sense as a "balancing" element in that context, since the defense can employ delaying tactics to get a "victory" even when the defense is really losing.

In scenarios and operations, however, I'm bothered by the possibility that designers are using short time frames to balance things. If so, then when I extend those timelines I feel a little like it's "cheating". It's different if designers are only doing that in order to get people to play the scenarios in the first place. But in reality, I don't know what the designers are thinking.

I don't understand. You say a tight time frame is a good idea to balance a QB but not a scenario or operation?

I don't know about other designers, but I don't use the time frame to balance the scenario, I sometimes use it to add a bit of stress and realism. You need to "feel" a bit pushed like the real commander would. It is just something I do.

We all have different playing styles anyway and what may seem tight to me may be alright for you. Or what may seem tight for you I will have finished the battle 3 full turns earlier. I think it is just a matter of preference in the end.

[joesnuffy]

Obviously the objective of some battles is to capture a hill or some advantageous position in a certain amount of time as part of an overall strategy or to delay an enemy attack until reinforcements arrive, etc.

However, it just plain sucks on either the winning or losing side when a battle ends simply because time ran out. Both sides have ammo and morale left to slug it out, but the final whistle has blown. It would not be that satisfying to win a battle knowing that a few more turns would have reversed the outcome. If a battle is too long, then someone will run out of ammo or morale and have to surrender. And, if you are playing a human opponent, you can simply send an email saying, "Had enough?" to which he can reply, "Nuts", whatever the hell that means. So it seems like it would be better to err on the side of too many turns as opposed to not enough. On occasion, you can have a battle where time is of the essence and has very specific time objectives laid out in the briefing. But it seems that should be the exception, not the rule.

[joesnuffy]

Also... JasonC has pointed out that his objective is to eliminate the enemy, not to focus on the flags in and of themselves. All else will then take care of itself if the opposition has been rendered ineffective. I personally like this approach because flag grabbing is pretty gamey. With this in mind, longer battles would be better. If the enemy is gone, the battle will end, no matter how many turns are left.

Shortening time a bit to add anxiety is an interesting idea, but it won't work in all cases. The nature of a turns based game by definition takes the real time axiety out of it. I'm guessing (having not been in a battle myself) that much of the anxiety comes from plans gone bad and lots of your men dying - basically surprises. In the best case, shortening time will add the desired anxiety. The worst case, you will have an unplayable scenario.

[DTrill]

I have found that the turn numbers for a ME seem to feel right at about 35-40 (Variable). As stated before it is more then about flag capture and long extended firefights. I try to time the engagement to begin later, when my units are in place, and then strike hard, push the opposition back and take the victory flags that are then exposed. Prepare for a short counterattack by the opposition and we're done. I think that in context, a Meeting Engagement is just that, a quick decisive battle of oppertunity, not a drawn out affair. That being said, to play on some larger maps and be able to use the terrain effectively does require more time then 25-30 turns.

[yuvuphys]

I always create my own maps for my QB's so I can give the defender a deeper set-up zone to do a defense in depth. So if anything, I need to add more time for the attacker because he has more ground to move over.

I can understand in some situations you need a time constraint because of some desperate situation, but I figure that wasn't the norm. I like to press a little with my infantry, with some overwatch, and then if something 'big' pops up that I have to kill, I pull back a little and bring up a big gun, which takes some time. Once I get more heavily engaged, I tend to shift my forces over a sizable distance to hit my enemy where he's weak, which takes time, especially if you're trying to keep everyone well-rested for later in the attack.

For a ~2000 point attack, I like to give the attacker around 60 or 70 turns to get the job done against a custom QB map that'd deeper than randomly generated ones. But, games that long tend to be quite tedious for a PBEM game...

[yuvuphys]

After reading some of the old threads on the matter, Battlefront always says that CM is should simulate the 'hot' part of the battle after all the recon etc. has been done. The problem I have with this is I don't have any recon info...where's the enemy's weak point? Where are his strongpoints? Where are his pillboxes, trenches, or even his MLR? Where do I need to commit my tanks, deploy guns, etc etc. I want to have this info before I commit my troops to attack, and so I want to do full recon in my CM battles to get this info; hence why I prefer much longer battles.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by yuvuphys:

After reading some of the old threads on the matter, Battlefront always says that CM is should simulate the 'hot' part of the battle after all the recon etc. has been done. The problem I have with this is I don't have any recon info...where's the enemy's weak point? Where are his strongpoints? Where are his pillboxes, trenches, or even his MLR? Where do I need to commit my tanks, deploy guns, etc etc. I want to have this info before I commit my troops to attack, and so I want to do full recon in my CM battles to get this info; hence why I prefer much longer battles.

That is the fault of the designer. All that information should be in your personal briefing. If it isn't blame the designer...

[yuvuphys]

It's impossible for that info to be there for QB's...

[joesnuffy]

Even if recon has been done, you likely won't know exact enemy positions until you see them for yourself. So you have to do some light recon in every battle. There should be some time for this. Then, during the battle, things certainly won't go as planned. There should be enough time to reposition troops, bring up your reserves, make adjustments, bring up heavy weapons, etc. Otherwise, it becomes a one-shot type affair, where you pick your avenue of attack and try to punch through as hard and fast as you can regardless of what the enemy does.

[SteveP]

I agree that we have to recognize that 20 minutes in CM time is probably equal to 40-60 minutes IRL (or maybe even longer -- I don't know). Also, I agree that IRL there was often an upper limit to the time available to take an objective, or the time that a defender needed to hold an objective, which had nothing to do with ammo or morale. For example, the time it would take to bring up reinforcements from the rear. It is very reasonable that CM game time limits reflect considerations like that.

Also, I was trying to say that in a randomly generated QB, a shorter timeframe may be a reasonable concession to give a defender a fair chance, given the shallow defensive position.

However, what I find happens with me when confronted with a scenario that has a tight timeframe, is that I end up replaying it solely for the purpose of figuring out just what set of tactics and movement the designer had in mind for winning his scenario in the available time. The scenario actually starts to feel a little like a tutorial, which may not be what's intended. Also, somewhat ironically, I'm taking advantage to some extent of "recon" I've done in previous attempts. While I think this can be interesting as a mental exercise, it still bothers me. I really would like to have time to reconfigure my plans, and redeploy my forces, and work my way towards a win the first time I play the scenario. And if I run out of ammo, or morale, or some reasonable upper limit of time, in the attempt then it's more clearly the result of my tactical shortcomings (which I can readily believe ).

The same considerations don't necessarily apply for the defender, of course, but even there I'd rather error on the side of giving the defender more depth of space to defend, then the luxury of a time limit that often feels artificially short.

JasonC's point that CM is overly reliant on flag points in battle outcomes also intrigues me a great deal, but I haven't yet come to any tangible conclusions about it. I do think there is something flawed about the fact that when you generate a QB, the game assigns flags and flag points based on battle type and force size, but is completely silent about what would be the appropriate time limit given the other parameters -- not even an adjustable default level. I, for one, would like to have the game give me more guidance on what are appropriate time limits (which we could all then argue about ad nauseum in this forum) and also the ability to adjust flags and flag point parameters when starting a QB.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by SteveP:

I do think there is something flawed about the fact that when you generate a QB, the game assigns flags and flag points based on battle type and force size, but is completely silent about what would be the appropriate time limit given the other parameters -- not even an adjustable default level. I, for one, would like to have the game give me more guidance on what are appropriate time limits (which we could all then argue about ad nauseum in this forum) and also the ability to adjust flags and flag point parameters when starting a QB.

Very good point, and solution. That would help a great deal.

The problem as I see it is what took 25 turns in BO, takes 30 in BB, and 35 in AK. If you have not played obsessive amounts of multiplayer with each game, you might not intuitively just "get" that. But it's so true. I notice with scenario design in particular, the attacker is shorted on time in BB and AK. Likewise, QB opponents tend to undershoot on attack/defense games.

[DTrill]

Why not allow some points to be spent that allows some portion of the opponents positions be known. Like Inf Sounds ect. It would only apply to QBs, as the canned scenarios should be taken care of in the description.

[joesnuffy]

Case in point: I just read "The Dirt Road" AAR by Krautman in the CMBB forum. It describes exactly my issue with the time limits. He had a right flank assualt that broke through the enemy line and captured a minor flag. The major flag was another couple hundred meters to the enemy's rear. Krautman was a couple turns from taking the major flag more or less uncontested. But, time ran out. If the attack had been repelled a couple times before the breakthrough, this outcome would be justified. But this was still part of the first assualt attempt. It went pretty smoothly, and yet still time ran out. It just shouldn't happen.

[SteveP]

Since we're on a roll here, let me add a related aspect of CM game design that is a bit of a pet peeve. How many times has it happened, particularly in a smaller scenario or QB, where you complete your set up and hit the GO button -- and the next thing you see is a line of wire, or roadblocks, or trenches just where you were planning your advance?

The problem for me is not that I suddenly see I have some obstacles to contend with. It's that I'm suddenly seeing stuff that obviously I should have been able to see before I made my plans and did my setup. In short, I'm dealing with a unrealistic fog-of-war situation.

Now, I understand that this is a difficult problem to solve in terms of game design and efficient game play, but it does become doubly frustrating in a scenario with short time limits (since I can't redeploy). What do I do? Well, if I'm playing the AI in a scenario, I may just abort the scenario and start over -- but now having the recon info, I lacked before (is this being gamey?). But of course that doesn't work in a QB or when playing someone else. Frankly, I would really like the game design problem solved, since that would make the game more realistic, but don't know if that's possible.

I think this may just be a rant, but I couldn't resist bring it up.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by SteveP:

Since we're on a roll here, let me add a related aspect of CM game design that is a bit of a pet peeve. How many times has it happened, particularly in a smaller scenario or QB, where you complete your set up and hit the GO button -- and the next thing you see is a line of wire, or roadblocks, or trenches just where you were planning your advance?

The problem for me is not that I suddenly see I have some obstacles to contend with. It's that I'm suddenly seeing stuff that obviously I should have been able to see before I made my plans and did my setup. In short, I'm dealing with a unrealistic fog-of-war situation.

Now, I understand that this is a difficult problem to solve in terms of game design and efficient game play, but it does become doubly frustrating in a scenario with short time limits (since I can't redeploy). What do I do? Well, if I'm playing the AI in a scenario, I may just abort the scenario and start over -- but now having the recon info, I lacked before (is this being gamey?). But of course that doesn't work in a QB or when playing someone else. Frankly, I would really like the game design problem solved, since that would make the game more realistic, but don't know if that's possible.

I think this may just be a rant, but I couldn't resist bring it up.

It isn't a hard situation to remedy. The designer just needs to put in obstacles belonging to both sides. They get setup one on top of the other.

That way they show up during setup for both players.

At The Proving Grounds there is a scenario design section that includes this very subject. You guys really should take yourselves over to The Proving Grounds with your complaints. That is where a lot of the scenarios that you play are playtested. That is where designers try to learn to make their scenarios better. If you have observations, comments or complaints they will get addressed there.