What do you think is not realistic about CM?

[Nemesis Lead]

Guys,

I think CM is the most realistic wargame of all time. Having said that, there are a few areas that are not realistic. What do you think is not realistic in CM? These are minor nitpicks of a truly great game--but I am interested in other perspectives that we can pass on to the designers of CMX2.

My nominations:

1) Tanks that are destroyed (especially those that get hit by a high velocity AT gun) have too many survivors. In CM, it is very rare that a whole crew will die, while in WW2 this was often the case (Read Belton Cooper's "Death Traps"--great book).

2) Mortars are underpowered. A 81mm (on-map) team firing at known targets in the open or in trees (airbursts) would inflict heavy losses. Mortars are very accurate and very deadly--they inflicted heavy losses on both the Allies and the Axis in WW2. The bocage fighting in Normandy is a great example--mortars accounted for nearly half of all US losses. Hence, the game does not model them correctly and their lethality should be doubled or tripled (how many times do you play a game where your mortar teams fire all their rounds and only hit 1 or 2 men)?

3) Artillery in general is underpowered. I have some military experience and if 105mm or (worse) 155mm arty fire is on target (i.e., within a hundred meters or so), you and most of the men in your squad stand a 50%+ chance of being hit (unless you in in foxholes/trenches/heavy buildings in which case you stand a MUCH better chance of living). The challenge is getting the rounds on target and it seems like this is too easy in CM (US spotters seem to almost always be on target). Hence, I think it should be harder to get rounds on target, but rounds that ARE on target would be more lethal to infantry.

4) Tanks seem to have better "situational awareness" than they should. Anyone who has ever been in a WW2 tank (or any tank for that matter) knows that it is VERY hard to see what is going on outside because of narrow vision slits, etc.. CM tanks always seem to know where that PIAT shot came from and return fire immediately and accurately. A tank's strength is in seeing things VERY well (especially at long distance) that are in the very narrow vision field of its optics. All else is very hard to spot/hear.

5) Related to the above...open topped tanks/TDs/assault guns should have vision advantages. In CM, having an open topped vehicle seems more like a liability with no benefits at all to having the good views that come from having an open top.

[Urchin]

Regarding #4.. it may seem that way but they really don't. What happens is some other unit sees your guy, then the tank is automatically made aware of it..

If it is just the tank, they are dead easy to sneak up on with infantry. I played a scenario in CMAK that was a remake of a CMBO scenario. Tiger with infantry vs Sherman firefly with infantry (1 each). Well, my main body got into a pretty nice firefight with his main body right about down the center of the map (there was a road there). The AI moved the Tiger up to support his infantry. I moved my Firefly around the Tigers flank (had some woods I could run behind).. and was moving my poor guy up not 30 meters from the Tigers ass when "whoosh, bang... boom" Panzerfaust gets the drop on my tank.

I was a little peeved.

Anyway, I moved a platoon around the flank with a PIAT. Cleared all the infantry out from around the Tiger, moved the PIAT up and took out the Tiger with that. Took 3 shots to the side at pretty close range, but the Tiger had no idea where my PIAT was.

[Nemesis Lead]

Urchin,

You are right on target--other units do tell the tank what is happening. The issue is that the communication happens instantaneously and with perfect accuracy--the tank wheels its turret around and nails the AT team.

There should be a delay for radio communication, spotting, etc..

[roqf77]

General point.

is it me or do infantry not movc through cover, i seem to remember that in close combat if you ordred a unit to move they chose cover over open ground rather than boringly having to set all the waypoints. also alot i often move infantry a little to far and threfore they move out in the open especialy in firefights, especialy on slopes when they could find cover and fire over not just walk over it and stop.

Also tanks sometimes can be retarded as ive had tanks move out in front of my tanks shoot at my tank and my tanks just sat there despite being in los and occasioanly when my tank survives to the end of the turn i order it to target the tank but for some reason often chooses to just fire at an infantry squad 400metres away.

doesnt happen very often but it does occasionaly.

[flamingknives]

Welcome to the world of CM and 'fuzzy logic'.

Your tanks will not always spot things that, as 'god', you can. They don't always do what you think is best either. They're not chess pieces.

As for infantry in cover, there's benefits to both options, so always using cover could end up being a problem. (it slows them down.)

[Andrew H.]

(1) Is quite realistic. I believe the overall statistics for crew losses in tanks were something like 1.1 or 1.3 crew members lost per tank; however, in pre-wet storage Shermans, the number was something like 2.3 per tank - which was high enough for people to see it as a problem that needed to be fixed ASAP. The number of deaths varied quite a bid depending on the particular tank matchup, of course - but keep in mind that you basically had to make the ammunition stored in the tank explode to kill the crew in the turret and the hull. Or else hit a light tank with, say, a 150mm shell.

2. While the artillery model needs work, mortars are realistically powerful. Keep in mind that a lot of mortar casualties in WWII were outside of CM's scale - i.e., the Germans routinely hit suspected and known US concentrations with 30 or 60 minutes of mortar fire for harrasment purposes, even in parts of the front that were mostly quiet. Lots of villages during the bulge were hit with a 30 minute barrage at dusk and another 30 minute barrage at dawn - and other sides used arty in a similarly harassing manner.

Battles in CM represent the extreme pointy end of the fight, and in that fight (which is not what generated most casualties), mortars are appropriately lethal.

3. Yeah, a lot of people have pointed out problems with arty modelling. I'm not sure that there's really a lethality problem, though - 155mm shells with VT fuzes (probably the closest equivalent to modern arty) is extremely devastating. Of course, because these are so effective, they are also quite expensive, so you don't see them as often as would have been the case historically, since people want to play "fair" battles...

4. Is the Borg spotting problem - if one unit spots an enemy unit, all units with LOS, including tanks, automatically spot it. I've forgotten exactly how it works with buttoned tanks - I think that there's a built in delay before they can target something to reflect their inability to really see it. Doing relative spotting is on the top of the list for CMx2.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:

I think CM is the most realistic wargame of all time. Having said that, there are a few areas that are not realistic. What do you think is not realistic in CM?

Ah, "realism", what does it mean? I take it to be a theatrical term, not a simulation modelling one -- it's about how far someone can suspend their disbelief, not about how "accurate" or "high-fidelity" the model's representation is of real life. This means, of course, that something one person finds jolly convincing and thus "realisitc" might be utterly incredible to someone else.

For myself, there are broadly four things I generally find unconvincing about tactical wargames (and CM is probably the least-worst offender on these points, which are common "wargamerisms").

1. The "edge of the world" effect. The world stops at the map edge; time stops at the end of the game (with a little fuzziness in CM). This means that players disregard what is on the next map-square or in the next hour in a way I find dramatically unconvincing. Playing campaigns alleviates the effect slightly.

2. The "god's-eye view" effect. You know much too much about everything that's going on. To some extent you have to, to make the game work; and players get grumpy when deprived of the ability to act on things they "know" in the game, but wouldn't in real life. Real soldiers on real battlefields spend a lot of their time on "R" groups and "O" groups. I never see this in wargames. Staff planning and orders processes are seldom represented at all, and "time spent in reconaissance is always wasted" in most wargames.

3. The "I'm the hero" effect. There is an intrinsic artificiality in the fact that you know, at the start of the game, that there is going to be a fight -- something you might not know in real life. You also know that it is going to be against a reasonably fairly-matched force, for that is the nature of "heroic" battles. Perhaps inevitable in the world of entertainment, but a complete misrepresentation of military relaity, where surprise is a battle-winner (one side thought they were having a game, the other thought they were having a day off) and the whole art of tactics is not fighting fair.

4. The "armour and infantry" effect. Everybody wants to play with tanks; sophisticated wargamers want to play with infantry. Wargames almost always deal (probably this is an aspect of the "hero" effect) with mobile forces fighting mobile battles in mixed terrain. Artillery, engineers and, most of all, loggies are more or less neglected (alhough we know that artillery is the God of War, and that "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics"). Urban terrain, field fortifications and night fighting tend to be modelled superficially, where they are modelled at all.

Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:

1) Tanks that are destroyed (especially those that get hit by a high velocity AT gun) have too many survivors. In CM, it is very rare that a whole crew will die, while in WW2 this was often the case (Read Belton Cooper's "Death Traps"--great book).

I don't have any great disagreement with the other points, but I'm not sure about this one.

WO 291/1186, "The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII.", dated 24 May 1950, gives the following figures for percentage personnel casualties, by type of tank:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Tank type Mines AT guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka

Sherman 24.6% 41.4% 60.5% 54.3% 44.7%

Churchill 14.7% 45% 46.7% 30% 14.7%

Stuart 34.6% 29.8% 51.7% * *

Crusader * 38.5% 41.7%

Cromwell, Valentine,

Matilda, Grant 17.4% 34.4% 28.6% * *

Mean values 21.8% 40% 46.4% 48.4% 38.6%

Of which killed 4.8% 18% 21.8% 20.4% 18%

Of which wnded 17% 22% 24.6% 28% 20.6%</pre>

[Nemesis Lead]

John,

You are correct on tank crew casualties and make my point--in real life you get extremes. It is often the case that everyone gets out of a tank alive or no one does. CM seems to (almost always) give you average (very funny for me to see a tank explode catastrophically and only 1 guy gets injured--reminds me of the old A-Team TV series or the GI Joe cartoons--lots of shooting and explosions and no one gets hurt).

As to your other points...you are generally correct. Actually, the most realistic wargame might consist of you giving and receiving radio transmissions/using runners/fielding other communications and fighting the battle off of a map for everything except for things that occur right in your LOS. You would also have to give orders in REAL TIME and not in a turn-based format (I like to play with time limits on turns for this very reason--I hate when guys take 30 minutes to give orders for a turn that will last one minute). There was a game for the ancient Commodore series of computers that was like this. I liked it, but almost not one else did because it had no graphics.

Good point on logistics--while forward stocking points and ammo trucks are probably beyond the tactical purview of the game, it would be cool to have an option where infantry get (for example) 150% of stated ammo levels, but cost more and pay a price in lost mobility. Artillery could also pay for ammo on a "per round" basis in QBs. If I want a spotter with 100 155mm VT shells, let me have him (but force me to pay the exorbiant price). In both of these cases, you can build this into scenarios, but can't do this in QBs.

[David I]

Roqf77,

If I order a squad, platoon or company to move down a road, it's because I want them to. I would be pissed if they all scattered into the trees. I think the game does a pretty good job of handling infantry movement.

David

[roqf77]

true david but what i mean is in cmak there is an advance order to move through cover, i just mean cmbo there is not. so if you want to move through cover you have to personaly set the way points which is time consuming and boring.

Also its about selecting exactly where they stopped aswell, instead of send them up the road when they get there they look for cover.

Addmittedly the move command should stay as it is. Its just i find my self playing cmak alot more because i dont have to baby sit my infantry. it is generaly good in cmbo but on the point of realism the infantry should if there not moving look for cover in there immediate area.

i mean they did in close combat brilliantly and does it pretty well in cmak.

The move command should stay the same its just irritating to constantly check your move line in a big battle to check you didnt accidentaly send your troops outside of the woods.

Plus im aware of the god effect its occasionly in fact playing a scernario in cmak it happend twice in two turns. my tank advance spotted enemy tank, enemy tank spots my tank then just before my tanks about to shoot despite have los and being orderd to (note tank had los at start of turn but ignored it) turns to shoot at a halftrack crew over 300 metres away despite not having any he shells. the next tank did the same thing. i lost two churchills to one mark 3. and the second one again decided to switch targets despite being in los and ordered to and just sat there and didnt even react.

[Paul AU]

1) Surviving AFV/gun crews: what’s the point?

Either give them some chance to re-man their vehicle/gun, or list them as ‘alive’ - but take them off the map. It’s annoying to have ‘crews’ on the map when they have no further (realistic) use. That bugs me. (I use them for all kinds of silly purposes (see below) - that bugs me).

2) Regarding the “Borg Spotting” problem; on the other hand - a really “fuzzy”, “realistic” system would (and has, in other games), leave one with no confidence in what the AI can, and is, doing.

If that tank seems to come out of nowhere…. There will always be the possibility that it literally did.

In other games, I’ve ‘seen’ (deduced) massively impossible AI events masked under ‘fog of war’. I don’t like that. The ‘Borg’ effect, while unrealistic, gives one some confidence about what’s happening with the AI.

In a two-player games, I’m all for increased FoW. ( I think)

If a game was truly realistic, at say the Company or Battalion level, it would basically be a role-playing game. You give a few orders, and then wait to see what happens.

The unrealistic level of knowledge and control makes it a game.

[rum]

Game engine does not handle non-penetrating hits of large-caliber HE shells.

In real life, direct hit of 122/150/152mm shell, then not penetrating armor, usualy render tank useless. Engine cut off, hidraulic pipes rupture, crew shocked/incapacitated e.t.c

In CM, such non-penetrated hits affect only crew morale.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:

CM seems to (almost always) give you average (very funny for me to see a tank explode catastrophically and only 1 guy gets injured--reminds me of the old A-Team TV series or the GI Joe cartoons--lots of shooting and explosions and no one gets hurt).

Err - I have played the game a few times. I never saw any survivors in a catastrophic explosion. You also tend to lose any embarked infantery units. If you are talking about a simple brew-up, that is quite another story.

[Ace Pilot]

My vote goes to being able to see what enemy units are targeting. It may make sense in some cases, especially where shots have been fired. But, being able to tell that the ATG that is 500m away is pivoting to target a specific tank in a platoon is a bit too prophetic for me.

[MikeyD]

Not realistic? Hmmm... I'd say sitting in my home in front of a cathode ray tube pushing a mouse around.

But beyond that a big breaker of my 'suspension of disbelief' is the automaton movement of the troops. Sure its only 'eye candy' but other games out there show that people are wiling to put up with a lot of crap as long as their virtual soldiers move in a realistic manner.

Second would be unconvincing environment (yes, more 'eye candy'). Some times at some angles you have a genuine "you are there" experience. At other angles it looks like houses from a Monopoly board.

Third, getting into tactical, would be the AI's tedancy to reinforce defeat - just feed his men into the meat grinder if you've manged to set up a killing zone. That a 'human vs AI' problem only.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Third, getting into tactical, would be the AI's tedancy to reinforce defeat - just feed his men into the meat grinder if you've manged to set up a killing zone. That a 'human vs AI' problem only.

Clearly, you've never played me. Hmmm - does that make me unrealistic?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by rum:

Game engine does not handle non-penetrating hits of large-caliber HE shells.

In real life, direct hit of 122/150/152mm shell, then not penetrating armor, usualy render tank useless. Engine cut off, hidraulic pipes rupture, crew shocked/incapacitated e.t.c

In CM, such non-penetrated hits affect only crew morale.

I don't think so. I've seen plenty of guns taken out and tracks broken by HE of all calibres, and tanks killed by 15cm IGs that, according to the pen stats displayed, could not penetrate tham.

All the best,

John.

[Treeburst155]

The time problem could be eliminated easily. I don't think CM needs time limits at all, unless a designer wants time to be a factor. We have auto-ceasefire when morale gets below 25%, we have auto-ceasefire when ammo gets too low, and we have auto-surrender.

For the board edge problem, it might be fun if heavy arty was triggered when and if a player ordered too much movement near map edges. When the total distance moved within 100 meters of a map edge reaches, say 300 meters, a half dozen VT 155mm shells come down...on target. The trigger point should be unpredictable, sometimes 300 meters total distance travelled by all troops, sometimes more, sometimes less.

Treeburst155 out.

[Nemesis Lead]

Paul/AU,

Really like your point on allowing crew members to occassionally reman their abandoned (not knocked out) AT guns / tanks. It is often strange to see the crew of your 6-pounder (armed with pistols!) sitting in the same foxhole as their abandoned gun which is in perfect working order.

While I do think that most of the crews should be "routed" and be unable to reman their weapons, some might be only rattled and able to reman their weapons (but they would be very likely to break and run again).

I do, however, like to have crews on the map. It is often a fun "mini-mission" in a game to rescue a downed tank crew or slay the crew of a particularly nasty Panther tank that gave you a lot of trouble. Crews are also worth a lot of points in CM and they should be--well trained tankers were often in short supply. You don't want to let them die (if it is your crew) or let them get away (if it is an enemy crew) and CM recognizes this. In fact, I often giggle when my human opponents use crews as scouts--they invariably die and my opponent loses a lot of points for doing this.