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

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In CMx1 a scenario designer can specify reinforcements to come in on a given turn and then set a random chance it will actually show up. What I was thinking was to keep that system pretty much the same, but also allow the designer to specify the same exact thing for removal of particular unit/s. For example, the player will have a chance of losing a platoon of tanks 10 turns in, but of course not knowing this This is not the ONLY thing planned, just a way to extend a feature that worked quite well to another concept (i.e. leaving the battle instead of entering it).

Steve

Yummy.

-dale

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Reinforcements at CM's scale should be far less variable than some of you are suggesting. In a 1/2 hour to 1 hour engagement pretty much anything not on its way to the battle would not be involved in that battle. Once in battle an asset would likely stay in combat until a lull developed. Again, this is at the CM scale, totally different once you go up to larger scale/scope simulations.

In CMx1 a scenario designer can specify reinforcements to come in on a given turn and then set a random chance it will actually show up. What I was thinking was to keep that system pretty much the same, but also allow the designer to specify the same exact thing for removal of particular unit/s. For example, the player will have a chance of losing a platoon of tanks 10 turns in, but of course not knowing this This is not the ONLY thing planned, just a way to extend a feature that worked quite well to another concept (i.e. leaving the battle instead of entering it).

Steve

If reinforcements are "locked-in" to the half/one hour battle, realistically IMO, then I'm not really sure that any units should be factored to leave during the battle, for much the same reasons.

Having a platoon of tanks attatched to an infantry company to, say, capture a village; it seems highly unlikely that they would be re-assigned in that relatively short time period. Maybe afterwards but not during.

It would also make planning very difficult, knowing that key components may vanish at any point in time.

Really not sure about that one.

[Philippe]

You're the local commander assigned to take some objective or other. You've just been told to go ahead and take it, but send that platoon of tanks we just sent you back to battalion, someone needs it more than you do.

In game terms you go ahead with the assault and the platoon starts on the map. If you hijack it and use it in the assault and it doesn't leave intact by the end of the scenario you lose a lot of points.

The variation is that you get a message in the middle of the scenario saying that if such and such a platoon isn't sent back by the end of the scenario, there'll be hell to pay (= you lose points).

I think both those situations work within the time-frame of a 30-45 minute battle. And allow for a bit of insubordination.

Maybe deduct a point or two for every shell fired...

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But that isn't up to the man on the ground commanding the battalion. He doesn't decide what is best for the brigade, and doesn't care. [...]

Unless someone can provide examples of battalion commanders actually using the principle of opportunity costs in a real life setting?

Don't forget that in CM you wear a lot of hats - secco, pn commander, CO, OC, CRA, etc.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the scenario designer will have more control over how the reinforcements come into play. Things like having infantry already mounted, guns limbered, etc.

True, as I said the amount of movement of units into and out of a CM scale battle should be minimal over the course of many scenarios. But yes, you should be able to lose an asset after the battle starts. The reason is that USUALLY in a WWII setting if your Company/Battalion sized force is getting hit, chances are someone next to you is being hit too (or the other way around if on the attack). Say your sector only has 5 tanks spotted and your neighbor has 50 tanks spotted. Guess what is likely to happen to that platoon of TDs you had in your sector? Because tanks generally had good radio nets they are more likely to move in and out of a 30-60 minute battle. Infantry and less mobile assets would be highly unlikely to be moved.

The point of removing units from your battle is to simulate someone higher up surprising you. Say you have the most "perfect" defense and then suddenly find that 50% of your AT capability gets yanked from you. Bitch and moan as much as you want, but you will have to make do with less. While this should not be the NORM for scenarios, it is a tool that should be available.

Steve

[junk2drive]

The reason is that USUALLY in a WWII setting

Does this cement CMx2 volume 1 in WWII?

[Philippe]

How would the removal mechanics work? The reason I was thinking in terms of point penalties is that I would hate to see several tanks suddenly vanish. That strikes me as much less convincing than moving them off the map yourself.

Now, on the other hand, if it were possible for units on your side to suddenly come under irreversible AI strategic and tactical control, and for the AI to march them off the field, that's another story altogether.

But that assumes things like the battle is reinforced company size, the map is big enough for three reinforced companies, and you only control the reinforced company in the middle, with the AI in charge of whatever is to the left and right of you.

[Philippe]

If the designer has more control over how reinforcements come in, I wonder if that implies that a column of vehicles entering as reinforcements along a road can be made to be or look like a column of vehicles (as opposed to semi-deployed)?

That would be truly satisfying, especially for those of us that really love moving large columns of vehicles around the map (with as little micromanagement as possible).

[Cull]

Originally posted by RMC:

To tag onto Cull's post about FOs.

A distinction needs to be made between two types of Forward Observers. In the modern US Army every infantryman is trained in the basics of calling for fire. When these guys are the ones calling for fire, it is as Cull described. They identify a target and adjust the fire, but the Fire Direction Center of the firing battery is the one that determines sheaf, round type, fuzing and total numbers of rounds to be fired.

The other kind of FO, is a trained artilleryman who is attached to the infantry for a mission. This guy can call in a fire mission with more particulars. He can select fuzing, sheaf and can also select to have the battery fire on "At My Command" or Time On Target.

That's an excellent point, and I meant to clarify that in my post.

In fact I always imagined the real deal happening and one of us MPs getting on the horn to request fire, then promptly being laughed at.

[Cull]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

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

Reinforcements at CM's scale should be far less variable than some of you are suggesting. In a 1/2 hour to 1 hour engagement pretty much anything not on its way to the battle would not be involved in that battle. Once in battle an asset would likely stay in combat until a lull developed. Again, this is at the CM scale, totally different once you go up to larger scale/scope simulations.

In CMx1 a scenario designer can specify reinforcements to come in on a given turn and then set a random chance it will actually show up. What I was thinking was to keep that system pretty much the same, but also allow the designer to specify the same exact thing for removal of particular unit/s. For example, the player will have a chance of losing a platoon of tanks 10 turns in, but of course not knowing this This is not the ONLY thing planned, just a way to extend a feature that worked quite well to another concept (i.e. leaving the battle instead of entering it).

Steve

If reinforcements are "locked-in" to the half/one hour battle, realistically IMO, then I'm not really sure that any units should be factored to leave during the battle, for much the same reasons.

Having a platoon of tanks attatched to an infantry company to, say, capture a village; it seems highly unlikely that they would be re-assigned in that relatively short time period. Maybe afterwards but not during.

It would also make planning very difficult, knowing that key components may vanish at any point in time.

Really not sure about that one. </font>

[Cull]

Originally posted by FGM_Smashing:

Can we have a spectator mode...for IP battles....

This is a great idea, as long as the spectators are allowed to comment to the players during the game.

[dalem]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

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

Reinforcements at CM's scale should be far less variable than some of you are suggesting. In a 1/2 hour to 1 hour engagement pretty much anything not on its way to the battle would not be involved in that battle. Once in battle an asset would likely stay in combat until a lull developed. Again, this is at the CM scale, totally different once you go up to larger scale/scope simulations.

In CMx1 a scenario designer can specify reinforcements to come in on a given turn and then set a random chance it will actually show up. What I was thinking was to keep that system pretty much the same, but also allow the designer to specify the same exact thing for removal of particular unit/s. For example, the player will have a chance of losing a platoon of tanks 10 turns in, but of course not knowing this This is not the ONLY thing planned, just a way to extend a feature that worked quite well to another concept (i.e. leaving the battle instead of entering it).

Steve

If reinforcements are "locked-in" to the half/one hour battle, realistically IMO, then I'm not really sure that any units should be factored to leave during the battle, for much the same reasons.

Having a platoon of tanks attatched to an infantry company to, say, capture a village; it seems highly unlikely that they would be re-assigned in that relatively short time period. Maybe afterwards but not during.

It would also make planning very difficult, knowing that key components may vanish at any point in time.

Really not sure about that one. </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The point of removing units from your battle is to simulate someone higher up surprising you. Say you have the most "perfect" defense and then suddenly find that 50% of your AT capability gets yanked from you. Bitch and moan as much as you want, but you will have to make do with less. While this should not be the NORM for scenarios, it is a tool that should be available.

Steve

I think I just wet myself.

For those reading that don't understand why this kind of thing can be exciting, you have to understand that I've been playing cardboard and tabletop and PC wargames for 25 years now, and one of the hardest things to achieve in games, most especially playing solo, is "reasonable surprise".

Even if I only use or encounter this feature once in 50 games, it would be a great thing for players like me.

-dale

[kipanderson]

Hi,

When it comes to assets being ripped out of a battle unexpectedly I agree it could be fun , if used wisely by the designer.

The asset that may have been most vulnerable in a real world setting is artillery. Simply because this is an asset that can sometimes be most rapidly “moved”, fire being assigned to other sectors. Or the “process” of reassigning artillery may be one of the first things to happen in an expected emergency. “Cancel all fire missions immediately… we are going to need the ammo elsewhere.”

Yes… the idea gets my vote… would be fun to visualise the shock and horror on players faces as their much loved artillery assets are unexpectedly ripped from them .

All great stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, in a WWII setting (I'm keeping with this since everybody else is, for the most part) armor assets left the battlefield more frequently than I think some of you guys believe. It isn't only the "2nd Platoon, you're needed on the left flank" but also "you expect us to hang around with King Tigers? See ya!" and also "we're low on ammo and fuel, we'll be back later", as well as "we've lost 2 tanks and we're not going to lose another 2, see ya", etc., etc. Lots and lots of situations DURING a small scale engagement where things go all FUBAR and non-organic units (especially) start doing their own thing.

When an asset is to be removed from play the Human should not be responsible for this. They can't be trusted If a platoon of tanks is ordered off the map then the AI can assume control of them and do exactly what the player should do, but is likely not to do.

Kip is correct, though, that the most common assest that a player would lose during the course of a battle would be artillery. Not only could it be reassigned but it could also be because the batteries needed to vacate ahead of a sudden enemy breakthrough, or worse... overrun! Communications can also be knocked out so while in theory the batteries would LOVE to help out, they can't hear you so you're SOL. Lots of reasons here.

Having said that... these tools should be used sparingly by scenario designers. They are realistic, but like many things they can be turned into something unrealistic through excessive use. There is no way we can control this so we'll just have to hope we don't see this as much as we saw King Tigers in CMBO scenarios

Reinforcements coming onto the map... we'll just have to see how well we can do it, but yes... in theory it would be super cool to have a column come onto the map instead of a big pile plop in one spot. It's at least part of the plan!

Steve

[Soddball]

Are vehicle fuel levels going to be included so that we can model out-of-fuel vehicles in the middle of a battle?

That would rule.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[...]But yes, you should be able to lose an asset after the battle starts. [...] The point of removing units from your battle is to simulate someone higher up surprising you. [...] Bitch and moan as much as you want, but you will have to make do with less. While this should not be the NORM for scenarios, it is a tool that should be available.

Count me in too.

Everything that gives designers more flexibility is a welcome addition. Sure these features will be abused, sure a well balanced scenario may be harder to achieve, but that's what playtesting is for anyway.

Now I'm not sure if suggestions are called for at this point, but if I may add, FWIW:

- Ingame messages asking reassignements for specifics [on-map] units and ordering you to release them could be all it takes to make this work. You could decide to override that order, and the designer could decide in advance what would happen in that case, up to demotion . Artillery, I suppose, will simply stop firing anyway.

- Reassigned units could perhaps have some sort of "availability status", anything from "under command" to "reassigned, should exit for points". Even though it was said that the point system might get out altogether...

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Kip is correct, though, that the most common assest that a player would lose during the course of a battle would be artillery. Not only could it be reassigned but it could also be because the batteries needed to vacate ahead of a sudden enemy breakthrough, or worse... overrun! Communications can also be knocked out so while in theory the batteries would LOVE to help out, they can't hear you so you're SOL. Lots of reasons here.

Steve

Will you model the common problem of landline communications with artillery batteries being cut by enemy artillery fire, armor running over the lines, or enemy infiltration? Could the new game model sending wire teams back to find and repair the broken line?

That would be very cool.

Steve

[Philippe]

I'm sure you can come up with a better solution to the entry-in-column problem than I can. But one approach might be to have the game-map include a 20-40 meter wide entry strip around the entire playing map. Lines of sight should be blocked into or out of any spot in this zone, and anywhere a road leaves the playing map it would continue, abstractly, to run along the side of the map through this zone. The edge of the map would be blocked for purposes of entering this zone (but not for leaving the map), and it would also be blocked for purposes of entering the map, except where the designer chooses to open it up. Reinforcements would arrive by appearing in a blob in the reinforcement zone, as they do now, but they would be able to get onto the road (if there was one) before they entered the playing part of the map. If the designer wanted them to enter the map in road column, all he would have to do is to make the map access very narrow (e.g. slightly less than the width of the road). You would also probably have to add some firewalls in the arrival zone to prevent people from moving around the edge of the playing map outside the playing area, before they entered it. With a little conceptual retooling you might even be able to turn that into a strategic feature, sometimes giving a player perhaps unrealistic control over the arrival route of a particular set of reinforcements (not so sure about that one, though).

I don't pretend that this is elegant, but it might (or might not) be easier to implement than figuring out how to get the tanks entering in column and in motion (i.e. without a first-turn command penalty). Or it might help you come up with something that would work better with the CMX2 system. (I'm a big fan of progressinve movement penalities when entering from offboard hexes).

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Tero - same for you. The uber-Finns unter-thought this one

Really ?

http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm#uof

The "unit of fire" is a unit of measurement, which is used both to simplify munitions logistics, restrict munitions consumption and to keep the rate of fire in such limits that it won't wear down the barrel too much. So the Finnish "Tuliannos" could also be translated as "required supply rate".

.....

The amount of shells used with different forms of fire by an artillery battalion, according to the 1936 regulations.

How the reality met with the theory:

To put it short, the shell situation was catastrophic. If the artillery would've fired the different forms of fire, as required by the artillery regulations, the Finnish artillery would've expended all it's shells in 7 - 8 days! This was, by far, the most severe Finnish handicap in the Winter War.

During 1941-44 things were infinitely much better than they had been during Winter War. Yet the improved ammo supply did not change use of the unit of fire as the basis of each and every fire mission.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Kip is correct, though, that the most common assest that a player would lose during the course of a battle would be artillery. Not only could it be reassigned but it could also be because the batteries needed to vacate ahead of a sudden enemy breakthrough, or worse... overrun! Communications can also be knocked out so while in theory the batteries would LOVE to help out, they can't hear you so you're SOL. Lots of reasons here.

On the other hand there are (admittedly Finnish ) sources which indicate arty units being overrun, being forced to move and/or out of contact with the FO would dump ordnance on the preplotted targets (or even on apparently overrun friedly positions) as presented by the fire plan according to a "fire at the sound of the guns" type of judgement call by the battery/battalion commander.

The key element here is the presence of the fire plan as SOP for virtually all operations.

[Kong]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"we're low on ammo and fuel, we'll be back later", as well as "we've lost 2 tanks and we're not going to lose another 2, see ya", etc., etc. Lots and lots of situations DURING a small scale engagement where things go all FUBAR and non-organic units (especially) start doing their own thing.

Steve

So then will we see this? Meaning can you code it where 2 tanks of the platoon get KO'ed and the rest of the platoon runs home to momma? I love that idea.

I think one of the greatest aspects of CMx1 is the randomness. The Crack Panzerschreck misses 5 shots from 50m and not under duress, and the Green one get's a first hit kill from 175m while under fire.

Any work done to further simulate the randomness of combat I am in favor of!!

[Philippe]

This is starting to sound like there could be some interesting exploration of group morale.

Right now there's global morale and unit morale, and nothing in between.

In Napoleonic games you often have to worry about a panic in one unit spreading for no apparent reason to nearby units -- one unit in your line panics at the sight of those Cuirassiers barrelling down on them, and when they turn tail and run they take three or four adjecent units with them.

I don't pretend to know enough about crowd panic behavior to suggest what should and shouldn't apply to CM, but I would think that the state of mind of a cluster of units smaller than everyone on your side would influence fight and fright behavior. Panic by platoon may be too artificial (unless the platoon leader -- probably an NCO -- just got wasted), but it should be considered. And I seem to recall stories of soldiers worrying about their officers getting killed, not because they were good leaders or that the men cared one way or the other, but because the men knew that the captain was the only person who could influence events going on outside of his foxhole, who had a map and battalion hq's phone number, and who generally knew what was going on.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by dalem:

You know Steve, another neat thing would be a reinforcement randomizer for QBs.

-dale

That gets my vote. Especially if units are cheaper when selected as reinforcements. So if select reinforcements to come after 10 turns, you can save 10%. If you select reinforcemts to come after 20 turns, mayb save 20%.

[Battlefront.com]

I am not sure how exact the controls will be for the Scenario Designer regarding asset withdrawal, but there will be some sort of ability to influence how things happen.

Random reinforcements in QBs is something that I'd also like to see. At least as an option.

Steve