Historical battle length, time compression, resupply in combat, pauses in battle

[Runyan99]

I don't want to go off on a huge rant, but I am going to beat my drum again about the issue of time.

Panzer Commander just posted a Mortain battle at the Proving Grounds. He mentions that the historical battle for the particular village took 6 hours.

I wondered...how would he chose to translate this into a CM scenario? How did he simulate this 6 hour time period? How long was his scenario?

25 turns, variable.

Another example of extreme time compression in the CM universe.

Now, I am not indicting Panzer Commander for his design choice. Time compression is not a bad thing, per se. It is a wargame, and he can do whatever he wants with his scenario.

But, I wonder. Do all of these short scenarios warp people's understanding of history? Is history shaping the design of our wargame, or is our wargame shaping our understanding of history?

I suspect CM is shaping people's conception of WW2 combat. Most CM players seem to believe that WW2 was fought in 30-40 minute chunks. After all, most scenarios are 30-40 turns long, and small arms ammo in CM can only sustain 30 minutes or so of actual combat.

But when you read the history, battles take hours. A typical village or small town assault seems to have averaged 4-6 hours historically. I am also reminded again of John Salt's data, which showed the average cross country advance of 800 meters (in France or Italy) took about an hour and a half.

Historically, things generally happened slowly. In CM everything happens quite fast.

This gets me back to the conclusion that we have a game of highly accurate mechanics that is typically used to simulate totally unrealistic battles. They are unrealistic because they are too fast.

Played any 6 hour CM battles lately? No.

What about CMx2? This is, I think, an important question for our wargaming future. How will our understanding of the pace of combat shape the next generation of the CM engine? Do we want another engine that tends to compress action into 20 minute, ASL like bits? Or do we want a system that can realistically encompass the 5 and 6 hour engagements so common at the company and battalion level?

Getting back to the present, and Panzer Commander's Mortain scenario. There is the option to simulate the engagement as an operation in CM. Break the 6 hour battle into six 40 turn battles. This is far more realistic than a 25+ turn battle, and is, in my opinion, the 'state of the art' in realistic scenario design for the current engine.

However, even such an operation makes the assumption that the battle will pause every 40 minutes or so. Is this a proper assumption?

I am not convinced that is wholly accurate or realistic (at least, not in all cases). Given the slow pace which the historical record seems to indicate, I believe there were many many occasions where companies and platoons were engaged in more or less constant combat and/or maneuver for longer periods of time. That is to say, without a pause to reorganize and resupply. I think these periods of action could last anywhere from 60 minutes to three hours, commonly.

This also draws the secondary inference that while units were engaged longer than the typical CM scenario would indicate, the intensity of the combat would tend to be much lower in real life. Simply, less bullets flying and less dying than in a CM scenario, given the same amount of time. I doubt many here will dispute that point. CM is a slaughter compared to history.

So, on what do I base this understanding? What forms my opinion? Admittedly, I have only anectodal evidence to point to. As an example, the Grossdeutschland Regiment taking the village of Kamienka in 1941. The whole engagement took something like 5 hours, but consisted of at least two phases. One phase to clear the village itself, and a follow up phase to clear some woods just beyond the village. How long was each phase of the battle? Given the length of the engagement, I infer each to be 90 to 120 minutes.

Panzer Commander, how do you suppose the 6 hour battle for your village actually played out? Just for another example.

Honestly, I can do little more than make an educated guess, but infering longer combat periods seems more probable than a total of four 30-40 minute phases. Why? Because disengaging from an enemy is fairly hard to do, so it stands to reason that combat will tend to be longer, not shorter. It takes time. To borrow an idea from Newton, it seems to me that units engaged tend to stay engaged, unless acted upon by an outside force. Even CM seems to teach that. Take a random 30 turn QB. A battalion or even a company on each side. I would wager that the bullets will still be flying on turn 30 of that game, yet the game ends just the same. Now play a 60 turn QB, and attack for the first 30 turns, but then attempt to break contact, for ressuply and reorganization. Try it, and tell me how long it takes to actually break off all combat. I am curious.

In any case, I am not currently conviced that the 'combat phase' (as might be represented in a CM scenario), consisting of advance to contact, combat, and withdrawl from contact, encompasses only 30-40 minutes. Not unless the defender is only offering token resistance.

But, I am sure some of you disagree with me.

If you disagree, my questions are:

1) How long did combat typically tend to last at the company level? Define one 'combat' as the period of time from pause to pause. Define a pause as a period where no element of the company is moving or shooting.

2) If combat periods tend to be longer rather than shorter, how did a company in a defensive position resuppy ammuntiton during combat? What are the mechanics for actually bringing rounds to the guys in the forward trenches and foxholes? Could this be achieved when actally under enemy fire, or only during a break in the fighting? How much ammunition could be supplied in this manner? How often were units in defensive positions exhausted of ammunition, and forced to withdraw or surrender?

3) Getting back to my original point, are we sure that wargaming (ASL, CM, SP, etc) isn't shaping our understanding of WW2 combat in inaccurate ways?

[Moon]

Historically, things generally happened slowly. In CM everything happens quite fast.

A "battle" in real life isn't the same as a battle in CM. A 6 hour "battle" doesn't mean that people were shooting at each other continuously for 6 hours. In fact, most of those 6 hours they weren't even in sight.

A CM battle represents the culmination of those 6 hours, after maneuvering is done, recon is done, supply is done. It's the moment when forces close in, prepare and launch that decisive push.

Obviously some "speedup" in a typical CM battle does happen due to the fact that the all-seeing player can issue fairly complex orders in no time. Stuff like getting two platoons to move out simultaneously from two flanks could take an hour or more to setup in real life! But this will remain a problem with all wargames that let the player hover above the battlefield.

A more accurate depiction of a real life 6 hour battle would be an "operation" in CM. Play 3 or 4 battles of 20 turns each or something like that.

Martin

[Sergei]

Cory, your argumentation is logical, but I fail to see your point. What kind of game do you want? One that simulates soldiers eating bread or one that simulates those soldiers in combat? Since this game is called 'Combat Mission', not 'Smorgasbord Mission', I personally expect combat. It would be nice to see these things taken better into consideration in the future, of course, but even then the game is fun when used properly. It can be difficult when designing historical scenarios, but you just have to make some concessions to the game system and rather put emphasis on making the scenario feel good than making it a 1:1 reenactment of the real thing. If you can't fight against the Borg Command model, then you have to make do with it.

Wargames invariably distort our views of war history. On the other hand, I presume for many people the base knowledge is not massive enough for much damage to take place.

[flamingknives]

I see an opening for a shameless plug.

Currently at The Proving Grounds I have an Operation called "All in a Day's Work" for CMBB.

It's a 3 battle op over a single day with 40min battles.

I think that it's quite good in that it shows a slower pace of action than most battles/ops. However, no-one has yet reviewed it, despite there being repeated requests for just such an Op. :mad:

Sometime in the far distant future, Andreas and JonS may finally finish playing their PBEM of it, but this seems unlikely to happen before CMX2 comes out.

[Sergei]

CMx2? With Andreas playing? Don't be so optimistic. It takes him a week just to view a replay.

[zukkov]

the only way to simulate a 6 hour battle would be to have 480 turn scenarios(NOT!), or abstract the game by having a single turn represent 10 minutes or more of real time. again, not a useful solution. just consider a typical cm battle to be a hilight reel of the action...

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Sergei:

CMx2? With Andreas playing? Don't be so optimistic. It takes him a week just to view a replay.

He's finished the first battle of three, so there's still hope.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Sometime in the far distant future, Andreas and JonS may finally finish playing their PBEM of it, but this seems unlikely to happen before CMX2 comes out.

We are actually getting close to the end. I'll write you an email with comments.

Cory

One way to simulate combat breaks at irregular intervals is to put the attacker in the driving seat. Say you do a 3-battle, 40 turns each operation. In the defender briefing, you instruct the defender to have to accept a cease-fire request from the attacker, at any given point in time. That way you leave the attacker with the choice to either use the time, or forego time allocated, but reorganise. In many (but by no means all) situations, this would reflect combat quite well, I feel.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Andreas:

We are actually getting close to the end. I'll write you an email with comments.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Cool

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by zukkov:

the only way to simulate a 6 hour battle would be to have 480 turn scenarios(NOT!), or abstract the game by having a single turn represent 10 minutes or more of real time. again, not a useful solution.

Neither will give you a realistic result. The only way to simulate a 6 hour batle is to present it as a few 25-30 minute point of contact scenarios

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

3) Getting back to my original point, are we sure that wargaming (ASL, CM, SP, etc) isn't shaping our understanding of WW2 combat in inaccurate ways?

I think for some people it is exactly the opposite; they see things possible in games that were never possible in "the real deal."

[Jim Boggs]

I believe that Moon's explanation is sound. Let's apply that theory to another event that we all have experienced.

Consider having a date with a pretty girl. The date lasts 6 hours. The first 5 hours are pretty much obligatory and ritualistic in nature (ie; BORING). Then at last you arrive at your place and the events of the evening rush to their inevitable climax. (Heh Heh)

What CM gives the war gamer is the thrill of this final hour without the headache and boredom of going through the motions of the 5 hour approach march.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

I believe that Moon's explanation is sound. Let's apply that theory to another event that we all have experienced.

Consider having a date with a pretty girl. The date lasts 6 hours. The first 5 hours are pretty much obligatory and ritualistic in nature (ie; BORING). Then at last you arrive at your place and the events of the evening rush to their inevitable climax. (Heh Heh)

What CM gives the war gamer is the thrill of this final hour without the headache and boredom of going through the motions of the 5 hour approach march.

Heh... CM as a expurgated date, with the gameplay as an orgasmic payoff. There's one mental picture I can do without.

Talk about your "war porn".

Geez... if 5 out of 6 hours of one's date with a pretty girl are boring and ritualistic, one is dating the wrong pretty girls.

OK... back on topic...

I never really saw CM as terribly accelerated or unrealistic in this aspect. The designers make clear in intros and here on the board (and again just above in Moon's post) that this is the part of the battle when all the preliminary manoeuvring is done.

I suppose if you wanted to get that feeling of marching to contact, you might make a huge (huge!) map, scatter small objectives all around it, and then plunk a tiny force (company sized or smaller) for both sides on opposite ends. Make the briefs vague, letting the commanders chose their own objectives. Set the turn limit at something ridiculously high, and let the forces go at it. (Maybe that's what flaming knives did already in his scenario... I don't know)

You'd spend a good fifteen to twenty minutes finding the enemy, if at all. He might end up going for a completely different set of objective flags. If you want to prolong the "foreplay" (as it were) don't give either side vehicles of any kind and let your little virtual soldiers hump it everywhere.

Hmmm... if this isn't what flamingknives has done already, I just might...

[flamingknives]

I forget what normal frontage is for a 'normal' front, but I recall Andreas posting about the early stages of Bagration, where two rifle brigades advanced, with tank and artillery support, across a 2km front.

Small units lost on a big map aren't really accurate for the majority of battles fought.

A reinforced battalion on a 2km square map works quite nicely, IMHO.

"All in a Day's Work" is about 800m wide and 1.5-2km long, and features between a company and a battalion on each side (It's been a while since I made it and I can't be bothered to find my CMBB disk, swap it over...)

Maybe you could download it and find out!

[Andreas]

Kozure, I don't think that your vision of a battle has even a very slight resemblance to what went on during combat in world war two (or many other wars for that matter). That does not mean it would not be fun, I am sure some people would enjoy it, but it does not sound very realistic.

Company commanders do not choose their own objectives. Small forces do not just roam about in the hope of meeting the enemy somewhere.

[Andreas]

FK - at the end of the war the Red Army would routinely put a division on a 2km frontage, or less. In many cases that division would not attack in echelon, but with all three regiments 'up'. The example I posted was from the Iassy-Kishinev operation in August 1944. There one division had a breakthrough sector of 1.5km assigned to it, in which it assembled seven battalions, plus about a brigade worth of tanks, supported by probably ten battalions of artillery, for the breakthrough.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

CMx2? With Andreas playing? Don't be so optimistic. It takes him a week just to view a replay.

Message from Off-topica

@Sergei:

Nonsense. He's done 12 turns in just under 6 weeks - and there was a cable problem and holidays in those 6 weeks.

@Cory,

Yes it is that 120-turn scen I ranted about. I am still pissed at this StuKa. Another such hit and the battle is over without the enemy firing a single shot.

@flamingknives:

Maybe nobody tested cause it is based in '39 and has only 300 points - according to TPG

Gruß

Joachim

________________________________________________

Yes, I do play 120 turn battles - Me

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Joachim:

@flamingknives:

Maybe nobody tested cause it is based in '39 and has only 300 points - according to TPG

Curses!

It's '44 and about 1500-2000pts.

Fixed it.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Kozure, I don't think that your vision of a battle has even a very slight resemblance to what went on during combat in world war two (or many other wars for that matter). That does not mean it would not be fun, I am sure some people would enjoy it, but it does not sound very realistic.

Company commanders do not choose their own objectives. Small forces do not just roam about in the hope of meeting the enemy somewhere.

*Sigh*

No, it isn't very realistic. Within the context of what Runyan was asking for, however, you get long periods of not seeing anyone, the chance of never running into anyone and the slim possibility of having a small or very intense firefight. It was a hypothetical situation based on trying to simulate the idea of having an very long and uncertain battle, where the exact position of the enemy has not yet been determined.

I am well aware of start lines, FEBAs, staging areas, FUPs, objectives and the limitations of company commander initiative. I know what platoons, companies, battalions, regiments and brigades were expected to cover which frontage and such.

Runyan is specifically asking about trying to simulate the long ramp up to the climactic battle which is typically depicted as the main event.

To expand on the scenario hypothesized above, you could alternately set-up recce teams only on the very first turn, with main forces and reinforcements arriving well after first contact. You place objective flags on logical strategic, operational or tactical objectives and let the player (simulating higher command, not the company commander himself) direct his forces towards the objective he or she deems worthy of attention.

My example was not intended to represent a "typical" battle, nor was it my "vision" of what all battles were like. It was an idea about how to simulate that feeling of rising tension as forces probed towards objectives that were set by their superiors but not known to the opposing side - a long and dangerous portion of the battle which is not usually depicted in CM.

[edit]

If you wanted to be more realistic, have the initial on-map force comprised of only recce-type units, with main force units arriving well after the start time... for example, in a 120 turn game, have them only show up on turn 80 or something to that effect. That way, the advance recce units would make contact, fight it out, and probably start to run out of ammo. Then they would have to break contact, and allow the main forces to pass through the lines to the attack.

You've got initial uncertainty, a movement to contact period, a small clash as recce units come under fire, a brief period where one or both sides tries to break contact due to losses or ammunition, and then a larger conflict as the main force enters the fray.

Sounds more like a WWII battle, Andreas?

[ January 14, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Kozure ]

[Los]

If for some reason you really did want to do a 6 hour battle, better to break it into operation with 6x60 turn battles. That way you get some resupply in there!

Los

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kozure:

[edit]

If you wanted to be more realistic, have the initial on-map force comprised of only recce-type units, with main force units arriving well after the start time... for example, in a 120 turn game, have them only show up on turn 80 or something to that effect. That way, the advance recce units would make contact, fight it out, and probably start to run out of ammo. Then they would have to break contact, and allow the main forces to pass through the lines to the attack.

I think this is exactly what Cory was advocating, actually. It's certainly a change of pace from the standard 30 turn game. As to "more realistic" - if anyone has claimed that - the answer is, no, it isn't. Just a different way of simulating the battle. The 30 turn game has recce already done (though scenario designers might make better use of briefings or even landmarks to identify enemy positions to simulate this recce), while the 120 turn game would make recce part of the battle.

That being the case, one would need to dispense with victory flags; these are a form of recce in themselves.

[flamingknives]

Another large Op (CMBB) to play with here.

2km square job, '43, mainly infantry.

I'm still working on one for CMAK, but it's largely similar.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Kozure:

Runyan is specifically asking about trying to simulate the long ramp up to the climactic battle which is typically depicted as the main event.

No. I think most people misunderstand me here.

I am arguing that the 'climactic battle' itself takes longer than 20-30 minutes. I am arguing that it will often take 60-180 minutes, of actual bullets flying, before contact is broken, units reorganize, ammo is brought up, and the advance is resumed.

I am arguing that a six hour battle, for example, to take a small town, may consist of two or three of these 'climactic battles'.

I am suggesting that a CM engine better able to encompass 60-180 minute combat periods would be more realistic than what we have now.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Kozure:

Runyan is specifically asking about trying to simulate the long ramp up to the climactic battle which is typically depicted as the main event.

Well you see, I don't necessarily think this is what he is asking for at all, but maybe I completely misunderstand him and we should let him clarify. In reality, there was not the long ramp-up and then a 25 minute firefight in which it all would be resolved. Instead the battle for e.g. a village would consist of taking out a strongpoint at the approach to the village. Then assault into the village. Then clear the remains of the village. Inbetween, you may have an enemy artillery strike, and maybe a counter-attack. Inbetween all that, you reorg and resupply, and get some rest. There was not always this linearity that you seem to assume in your 'long ramp up, climactic firefight' idea.

You can also do a search for the post by John Salt, in which he brings the PRO quote on the 800 yards in 1.5 hours. Those may well have been long approach/climactic battle type assaults. They are also not very interesting.

I can't really see why you get your knickers in a twist, BTW. The theatrical sighing is so much more appropriate on the general forum.

Edit: now that Cory has clarified it, and keeping in mind that he wants it to be more, not less realistic, what do people think of the idea of operations with special briefing instructions?

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Andreas:

FK - at the end of the war the Red Army would routinely put a division on a 2km frontage, or less. In many cases that division would not attack in echelon, but with all three regiments 'up'. The example I posted was from the Iassy-Kishinev operation in August 1944. There one division had a breakthrough sector of 1.5km assigned to it, in which it assembled seven battalions, plus about a brigade worth of tanks, supported by probably ten battalions of artillery, for the breakthrough.

Andreas, do you have any time information for this particular operation? How long did the breakthrough battle last? How long were individual battalions engaged?

On a side note, when talking about a division on a 2km front, are we talking about a full strength, or a reduced division?