CMx2... a little more to chew on...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Other units like tank crews should not fold in but rather get out of the battle.

So should 1 man squads - or even 5 man squads...

In CM, the auto surrender applies to the force as a whole, and the squads also have autosurrenders built in...

I think each multi man squad should have a threshhold also at which the survivors simply rout, hors de combat, and take no more active part. For some squads, this could be after 1 casualty, for others, perhaps will never happen til the last man is dead. Would help bring in, as Kip suggested, national characteristics that are realistic - ie Japanese soldiers rarely simply skulking off, ditto the Finns, British commandos, the First SSF, etc.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You won't be allowed, for example, to take two 12 man squads and make an übersquad of 24.

Steve

Curses! You've foiled my plans once again, Mister Battlefront!

twirls mustache

[Kip Watson]

I'd also like the option, during setup, of re-assigning squd commands.

('first squad, you'll be assigned to second platoon to help hold this gap here')

And I'd like it if this was reflected in the tab-through order (I assume this obvious feature will remain). Just a little thing, but it would help in keeping things organised.

And (this is a really pedantic one), As a scenario designer I'd like to define what command inheritance different units have. For example, it would be cool if a reserve platoon (or whatever), could have a 'place' in the whole command (eg. 5th Co, 2nd Platoon). Really pedantic I know, but just one of those little aesthetic things... (... a sure sign of undiagnosed OCD).

[junk2drive]

In CMx1 bunkers are dug in tanks as I understand it. Squads could be thought of as 12 gun equipped AFVs. As the squad takes losses, it is if the guns were damaged on the AFV. The footprint stays the same. Am I thinking correct?

If so, how does this work in 1:1 ?

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Other units like tank crews should not fold in but rather get out of the battle.

So should 1 man squads - or even 5 man squads...

In CM, the auto surrender applies to the force as a whole, and the squads also have autosurrenders built in...

I think each multi man squad should have a threshhold also at which the survivors simply rout, hors de combat, and take no more active part. For some squads, this could be after 1 casualty, for others, perhaps will never happen til the last man is dead. Would help bring in, as Kip suggested, national characteristics that are realistic - ie Japanese soldiers rarely simply skulking off, ditto the Finns, British commandos, the First SSF, etc. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Other units like tank crews should not fold in but rather get out of the battle.

So should 1 man squads - or even 5 man squads...

In CM, the auto surrender applies to the force as a whole, and the squads also have autosurrenders built in...

I think each multi man squad should have a threshhold also at which the survivors simply rout, hors de combat, and take no more active part. For some squads, this could be after 1 casualty, for others, perhaps will never happen til the last man is dead. Would help bring in, as Kip suggested, national characteristics that are realistic - ie Japanese soldiers rarely simply skulking off, ditto the Finns, British commandos, the First SSF, etc. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

It is correct to say that when a unit, be it a crew or a squad, crosses a threshold, the whole unit goes down the tubes as a unit. In vehicles this is, unfortunately, sometimes the work of one man (i.e. the driver). In squads it depends completely on the specific squad and the specific circumstances.

In general terms, the more men that "flake away" the greater the chance that the unit will cease functioning and become combat ineffective. Sometimes this threshold is as little as 1 in 12 ("they got the Sarge!! Oh what to do, what to do!!") while on the other extreme 11 in 12. Again, totally depends on the specifics.

In general when a unit crosses that threshold there is a reluctance to return to combat, even if unit cohesion is maintained and the unit no longer in danger. Sometimes this is pragmatic because the unit is no longer combat effective, and knows it (eg. a tank with a dead crew in the turret or an AT gun with a busted gun barrel), sometimes it is borderline insubordination (eg. we got our asses handed to us, we're sitting tight until the armor moves up and you can kiss my ass if you don't like it), and someimes it is pure irrational (eg. WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!).

The above is well known to military strategists. A well timed artillery strike or cleverly placed minefield can often have a much larger effect than the casualties it causes, to the point of stalling a much superior force in an otherwise superior posture.

Friendly fire or some other totally FUBAR situation can also trigger such behavior, such as a friendly airstrike on a march column or watching the lead platoon get completely wiped out. In one night attack on the Western Front a German assault was turned back because a few tanks backed up over friendly troops, which took the cohesion and the fight out of the attack without much other action taking place. It didn't matter that they had a good sized force and the American defenses were weaker... Gefreiter Schultz is track cheese and that is all that matters.

Given time, circumstances, and motivation (eg. a well respected CO or the NKVD) such units could well find their way back into the fight fairly soon. But at CM's scale that might be a whole 'nother battle.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, I'm glad we agree on something, then, Steve.

Good example, by the way ie the tank accident.

[dalem]

Steve-

Aside from the map editing, a groggly item that I will admit interests me is the way crew served weapons might be handled differently in CMx2, if at all. Is it possible/feasible/reasonable to treat heavy weapons as objects to be manned or unmanned, then possibly re-manned? i.e. my ATG is in an obvious woodline so I keep the crew in foxholes until the bombardment is over, then assuming the gun is still functioning, man it for awhile, break and hide a little, then re-man it, blah blah blah?

Is there a direction you guys are leaning on this kind of thing?

-dale

[Kong]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You won't be allowed, for example, to take two 12 man squads and make an übersquad of 24.

Steve

Well that's the last straw for me, no supersquads?!?! And you have the audacity to call yourselves wargamers!! I'm off to torture myself playing GIC!!

(Note: The above paragraph is sarcastic in nature, no animals were harmed during it's creation.)

This fanboy is already preparing a spot on the floor in front of my computer so that when my jaw hits it the first time I play CMx2 I won't hurt myself!!

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In general terms, the more men that "flake away" the greater the chance that the unit will cease functioning and become combat ineffective.

Is it a binary though? Wouldn't be the case that a units effectiveness would degrade before it disolves? In CM this might be analogous to losing the assault and advance orders, perhaps in extreme cases being unable to move closer to enemy units (I fink some unit states are already handled like this?), then eventually vapourising.

The above is well known to military strategists.

Sources?

Cheers

Jon

[John Kettler]

What a juicy thread! I have a morale idea I'd like to explore, along with a few other things.

In the pre CMx2 games, a force started with some global morale X, and unless reinforcements were provided, that value only went one way. Down. Would it be possible to model morale more dynamically, based not just on a given unit's casualty situation, but the terrain it occupies, some sense of the threat level to which it is exposed, proximity to friendlies, proximity to hostiles, and apparent combat success of that unit, these in addition to baseline morale, fatigue, etc.? Naturally, I'd expect armor, fire support and air support presence (friendly or hostile) to be a significant factor in such calculations. What I'm driving at is that I'd like to see something equivalent to or preferably better than what those wargaming in miniature have long had, for example, in the Wargames Research Group rules. The current games certainly model "when bad things happen to good troops," but not the upside. From what I can tell, all the earlier CM games have no provision for modeling any sort of morale bump tied to combat

performance. Killing one enemy tank confers no advantage whatsoever upon the successful crew as it switches fire to the next one. The accounts I've read suggest that victory, even when small, often engenders further success, a fact well known to sport fans. Likewise, beating off an infantry attack, assuming cohesion holds, losses are bearable and ammo's available, builds soldiers' confidence and determination. Sometimes, as in the famous "swinging gate" downhill bayonet charge of the 20th Maine at Little Round Top, even ammo isn't needed.

If something like this could be done, might it not then be possible to introduce historically based modifiers for things like first use of nasty new weapons (e.g., Nebelwerfer freaked the Russians, and the later Katyusha freaked the Germans), surprise fire/ambush, Jabo terror, tank terror and the like. The Russian literature on the effects of surprise, much of which is available in translation, is extensive, insightful, and rich in historical examples. Would suggest perusing the Soviet Military Thought series as a start. I believe the Russians calculated the value of a major surprise as being around a 50% temporary boost in combat power. If we had something like the above in the morale system, would it then not make sense to use these factors when, say, having troops close assault a tank, storm an MG nest, or duke it out with a superior enemy AFV?

If we're getting a much more detailed wind and weather model, could we please have, with a nailbiting random factor or two thrown in, working combat gliders and paratroops? Even TRACTICS had a better system (fluttering paper squares dropped from three feet above the playing surface for airborne drops) than what we have now. Failing an all-up system, something based on selecting a DZ/LZ

and then randomizing where the units wind up and in what shape (function of terrain, wind velocity, gustiness and variability). Given the above, smoke generators and smokepots would be naturals.

That's it for now. Thoughts?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

I always wondered why the crews of vehicles are even modelled.

Sure, it's realistic, but the crews should not participate in battles if their vehicles are shot to pieces. Realisticly, 99% of the time, the crew would NOT begin to advance like infantry does. They would seek to return to a safer zone, towards friendly territory - if for no other reason because they are a more valuable asset in a new vehicle, rather than acting as stop-gap infantry. Also, crews would probably be in a state of shock.

Furthermore, on the CM battlefield, they exacerbate the borg spotting problem and confuse the TacAI, who will fire at the crews and waste ammo, rather than conserving it and look for more valuable targets (arguably, a crew IS a valuable target for the reason outlined above, but it is irrelevant, as long as there is no campagin to consider).

Get rid of 'em, I say!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by dalem:

Steve-

Aside from the map editing, a groggly item that I will admit interests me is the way crew served weapons might be handled differently in CMx2, if at all. Is it possible/feasible/reasonable to treat heavy weapons as objects to be manned or unmanned, then possibly re-manned? i.e. my ATG is in an obvious woodline so I keep the crew in foxholes until the bombardment is over, then assuming the gun is still functioning, man it for awhile, break and hide a little, then re-man it, blah blah blah?

Is there a direction you guys are leaning on this kind of thing?

-dale

Hi

Steve has hinted that they think it is realistic to model voluntary manning and unmanning of crew served weapons and vehicle crews may be allowed to voluntarilly dismount.

He did not say that exactly, but it has been hinted at here somewhere.

-tom w

[Captain Scarlet]

Well, I have just dropped into have a quick look at the stuff about CM2. :cool:

Firstly, I can remember reading and article in a magazine, about a couple of guys working on a squad level WW2 PC game. Then after tracking them down, and ordering a copy, of Combat Mission, beyond overload, which arrived in a plastic envelope, with a manual from the states, I was overjoyed to play a realistic WW2 squad level game on my PC at last.

But since then, PCs have moved on, and I am pleased to see, that the battlefront boys are moving on to, with a new version of combat mission. Everything I have read looks good.

But unless I missed something, it seems to me we are still keeping moves? Surely that is the most abstract piece of the game. I am sure, that works fine for large scale combat, with divisions and Corps, but at squad/section level? In my humble opinion, combat at this level was about quick thinking, planning, and reaction, in the heat of battle, not having a time out, after a minute to think about what you’re going to do next.

All the same, I cannot wait for the demo, and of course I will be buying it! Taking orders yet Steve?

Scarlet

[aka_tom_w]

Great handle there Captain Scarlet, you MUST be over 35 yrs of age

Sadly this is not SPECTRUM, and BFC is NOT an organization dedicated to battling the ongoing threat of the evil Mysterions...

sorry

back to our regualary scheduled program

Real TIme play with no breaks cannot work here because that down time is needed for the "crunch", that is when the Magic of armour penetration calculations takes time to make the game and the penetration results work historically realistically, it is somewhat understood that with home computers, (even fast ones of next year) these calculations cannot take place on the fly in Real Time.

So we will be happy with WEGO and the 1 minute action phase.

sorry

-tom w

Originally posted by Captain Scarlet:

Well, I have just dropped into have a quick look at the stuff about CM2. :cool:

Firstly, I can remember reading and article in a magazine, about a couple of guys working on a squad level WW2 PC game. Then after tracking them down, and ordering a copy, of Combat Mission, beyond overload, which arrived in a plastic envelope, with a manual from the states, I was overjoyed to play a realistic WW2 squad level game on my PC at last.

But since then, PCs have moved on, and I am pleased to see, that the battlefront boys are moving on to, with a new version of combat mission. Everything I have read looks good.

But unless I missed something, it seems to me we are still keeping moves? Surely that is the most abstract piece of the game. I am sure, that works fine for large scale combat, with divisions and Corps, but at squad/section level? In my humble opinion, combat at this level was about quick thinking, planning, and reaction, in the heat of battle, not having a time out, after a minute to think about what you’re going to do next.

All the same, I cannot wait for the demo, and of course I will be buying it! Taking orders yet Steve?

Scarlet

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

... Mysterions...

Mysterons! SIG

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In general terms, the more men that "flake away" the greater the chance that the unit will cease functioning and become combat ineffective.

Is it a binary though? Wouldn't be the case that a units effectiveness would degrade before it disolves? In CM this might be analogous to losing the assault and advance orders, perhaps in extreme cases being unable to move closer to enemy units (I fink some unit states are already handled like this?), then eventually vapourising.

The above is well known to military strategists.

Sources?

Cheers

Jon </font>

[flamingknives]

In any case, do you think that it's possible to play the part of every unit leader in a company, much less a battalion, in real time?

Because that's how CMX1 works, and, by the sounds of it, the first two CMX2 games as well.

[Wartgamer]

Actually you now play many PFCs as I pointed out before. The driver of the Kubelwagon? The two man bazooka team? The sharpshooter (not really a sniper but why quibble), etc.

Unit leaders to me means a NCO (minimum). A corporal being perhaps marginal. The german half squad would certainly be led by a corporal with the squad NCO staying with the LMG as an example.

But a flamethrower? A BAR team?

[DrD]

Some great ideas about morale here! I think increased morale is modeled a bit in CMx1 in so far as the assault move gives a morale boost. I like the idea of morale being based on many other factors, especially proximity of friendly troops. This would further reduce gamey tactics of sending unsupported units behind enemy lines for recon purposes. It also allows for well-trained troops such as paratroopers to stand out more, as presumably these troops would take only a small, if any, morale hit when unsupported. As far as morale increasing with success, this is realistic, but may unbalance the game. If a player wins the first few turns, his troops will gain morale, while the enemy loses morale, and the rest of the game will be a massacre. Not too fun.

With individual soldier modeling, all sorts of possibilities open up. Steve alluded to the idea of the sarge getting hit, which to me implies they will be modeling morale to some extent based on which particular soldiers in a squad are hit. Perhaps individual experience will also be modeled, with more experienced troops being less likely to be hit but having a greater effect on morale if they are. I'll never forget "All Quiet on the Western Front," in which replacements died like flies while the veterans tended to survive. I've read similar accounts of WW2, it was a tradition in a squad not to get too friendly with replacements (or even learn their name!) until they had survived a firefight or 2. Squads could then have alot more variety, some may be all veteran, or all green, or some combination. Such squads would all act very differently under fire, the latter would be the most unpredictable.

[Brent Pollock]

If we're doing the micromorale, a little status indicator (e.g. red vs green light) for the squad/team/crew's NCO would be nice.

[DrD]

Another thought, I wonder to what extent the individual soldiers will be modeled? I know we won't have seperate movement orders (thank goodness!) or LOS, but what about status? Will we see some soldiers in a squad panicking while others hang tough?

[David Chapuis]

The above is well known to military strategists. A well timed artillery strike or cleverly placed minefield can often have a much larger effect than the casualties it causes, to the point of stalling a much superior force in an otherwise superior posture.

Friendly fire or some other totally FUBAR situation can also trigger such behavior, such as a friendly airstrike on a march column or watching the lead platoon get completely wiped out. In one night attack on the Western Front a German assault was turned back because a few tanks backed up over friendly troops, which took the cohesion and the fight out of the attack without much other action taking place. It didn't matter that they had a good sized force and the American defenses were weaker... Gefreiter Schultz is track cheese and that is all that matters.

IMO, this somewhat relates to the chaos that seems to dominate a real battlefield, but is almost completely absent in CMx1.

For example, I just finished reading a book about the battle for Khafji in Gulf War 1. A platoon of LAVs was advancing towards Iraqi MBT's in order to support the withdrawel of a Marine recon platoon. A TOW vehicle that was advancing with the LAVs got killed by a friendly TOW in overwatch. That stopped the advance, because the CO wasnt sure what had just happened.

Hopefully you guys can think of a way to capture some more battlefield chaos and uncertanty in CMx2 than in CMx1 ... while still keeping the game fun. Obviously multi-player would be the biggest help in that area.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Actually you now play many PFCs as I pointed out before. The driver of the Kubelwagon? The two man bazooka team? The sharpshooter (not really a sniper but why quibble), etc.

Unit leaders to me means a NCO (minimum). A corporal being perhaps marginal. The german half squad would certainly be led by a corporal with the squad NCO staying with the LMG as an example.

But a flamethrower? A BAR team?

You may want to be more specific in terms of terminology - the Germans didn't have "corporals" and those armies that did used them very differently. A corporal in the British army was a full blown section commander in charge of 10 men. In the US Army, a squad leader was a sergeant (in normal circumstances).

The German lower ranks included Schütze/Grenadier, (and Obers, generally those found unsuitable for advancement), Gefreiter and Obergefreiter (with career privates eventually making Stabsgefreiter) - but in practical terms, none of them were "corporals" - they were private soldiers with pay raises. The next rank was Unteroffizier, a full blown NCO rank with attendant rank and privileges - equal to a corporal in the British Army but surpassing what a corporal in the US Army was normally expected to do.

To use your examples, an LMG team might be led by an Obergefreiter but he would compare more directly to a PFC - as per your example - in terms of responsibilities and authority. (CM uses that rank to distinguish drivers and team leaders, both, incidentally, whereas you feel a "corporal" should be in charge of one and a "PFC" the other - but in the German Army they are the exact same thing).

How's that for obsessing over a cupholder. We also want to see Lieutenant Colonels in charge of battalions.