What does Squad Leader do better than CM?

[Ace Pilot]

I think everyone would agree that there are hundreds (thousands?) of things that CM does better than the board game Squad Leader (SL). But I was thinking recently that there are a number of things that SL does better and are worth considering for CMx2. Some of the things that jump to mind:

Vehicles blocking LOS (already considered for CMx2)

Captured weapons

Entering/exiting bunkers

Remanning guns

Molotovs

Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention:

Horses

Any others?

[Michael Dorosh]

Removing wire/obstacles

breaches in same, also hedges and walls - create a breach so trucks and jeeps can move through

multi-level rubble (ie rubble only the upper storey of a building, or blow out a single wall

boats (portaging, for one thing)

man-portable pontoon bridges

Now that we are not using terrain tiles, I hope minefields will cease to be in tile format also (identified by the minefield marker!) - perhaps just a red indication on where a mine has been detonated will be good. SL was just as bad, with minefield factors "per hex" that you could easily avoid by going around.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

multi-level rubble (ie rubble only the upper storey of a building, or blow out a single wall

I also liked how the chance to rubble a building was more randow than the predictable nature of CM buildings.

boats (portaging, for one thing)

Good point. Didn't SL allow for transporting boats in vehicles, as well?

[Brent Pollock]

...and motorcycles

Operations (aka HASL) with flank entry points & reinforcements entering during the battle.

Night/starshells/illumination rounds/illumination from fires.

[Brent Pollock]

That counts as a strike against SL for some folks, including myself.

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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

[qb] multi-level rubble (ie rubble only the upper storey of a building, or blow out a single wall

I also liked how the chance to rubble a building was more randow than the predictable nature of CM buildings.

</font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

That counts as a strike against SL for some folks, including myself.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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

[qb] multi-level rubble (ie rubble only the upper storey of a building, or blow out a single wall

I also liked how the chance to rubble a building was more randow than the predictable nature of CM buildings.

</font>

[GJK]

Wow, you can open up a can of worms with this one.

Perusing my ASLRB, in addition to what was originally mentioned, I would suggest:

properly handles routed/broken units

support weapon (SW) breakdown <u>and repair</u>

dismantled weapons

SW self-destruction

Fanaticism

Beserkers

Ambushing in close combat

AFV overrun

Wounds (not just dead or alive)

White Phosphorus

Tunnels

Climbing and falling

AFV in woods (trail breaks)

Orchards

Building levels > 2

Kindling/flame extinguishing

Wall breaches

Movement within buildings other than factories

Rooftops

Fortified buildings

Falling rubble

Wind gusts

Lost radio contact (with battery access)

AFV MG/MA targeting (different targets for each)

Scrounging

Lost units (at night)

Jitter fire (at night)

Starshells

Interrogation

Paradrops

Gliders

Winter camoflage (that really acts as camoflage)

Snow drifts

Swimming

Aerial dogfights

Ammo vehicles

and maybe a few others that I missed.

[Gpig]

Cool! There was "interrogation?" Heh heh. I missed out on a lot of fun.

But some of that list above we've already got in the CM series;

support weapon (SW) breakdown and repair (Jam and clear?)

Fanaticism

AFV overrun (against AT guns, anyway)

Wounds (not just dead or alive) (do you mean walking wounded?)

Tunnels (sewer movement)

AFV in woods (trail breaks) (scattered trees, but I know what you mean)

Orchards

Building levels > 2 (currently CM has 2-4 story buildings. But they are abstracted.)

AFV MG/MA targeting (different targets for each)

Jitter fire (at night)

Paradrops (random reinforcement all over the map)

Swimming (fords)

Might have to break out the old board games . . .

Gpig

[Michael Dorosh]

Ah but...if CM doesn't do it, does it count (ie paradrops, gliders, etc....)

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by GJK:

and maybe a few others that I missed.

Nope – I think you got them all.

I agree with most of the list, but I do have some questions on a couple of items.

properly handles routed/broken units

I never played ASL, which I understand made some improvements in this area, so my question is based on my SL experience. I thought CM handled broken units much better – why do you say otherwise?

Fanaticism

Have to respectfully disagree with this. I like CM’s method better, since the uncertainty prevents the player from exploiting what should be an unidentifiable trait.

support weapon (SW) breakdown <u>and repair</u>

Could you elaborate, please? I was never comfortable with SL’s abstraction of a failed repair roll could mean the weapon was permanently broken OR completely out of ammo.

[Brent Pollock]

It was usually very unlikely that a building would get dropped after absorbing quite a lot of HE. It was also possible for a single round/salvo to drop a house.

The chance of a 75 mm HE round rubbling a wooden shack in SL is 1/36 * 1/6 = 1/216. It had zero chance for a stone building.

150mm HE versus stone is:

3/36*1/6 + 2/36*2/6 + 1/36*3/6 = 10/216

...[although with my current headache, that might be the wrong-way-round for calculating probability.]

Some of us felt this made them a tad too tough, without comparing it to actual data, of course. However, there's this quote from Doyle, Chamberlain & Jentz regarding the 150 HE from the StuG 33B:

"capable of demolishing houses with two or three rounds"

This seems much more in tune with the CM model than the SL one.

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

That counts as a strike against SL for some folks, including myself.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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

[qb] multi-level rubble (ie rubble only the upper storey of a building, or blow out a single wall

I also liked how the chance to rubble a building was more randow than the predictable nature of CM buildings.

</font>

[dieseltaylor]

I think ASL was/is far superior to the CM series -

if you wish to put people of playing WW2 tactical. A rule book jungle AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaRRRGH!

[dalem]

ASL has better counters than CM.

-dale

[Lars]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

Any others?

Starting arguments.

About eight per turn, IIRC...

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

It was usually very unlikely that a building would get dropped after absorbing quite a lot of HE. It was also possible for a single round/salvo to drop a house.

I see now. Perhaps the best solution would be a combination of the two systems - an initial pobability of rubbling the building that increases (but never reaches 100%) as the building absorbs damage.

[simovitch]

How about "mounted fire" from Halftracks and tanks? and if you mention horses you gotta wonder where are the reindeer... and puulka's?

[Ace Pilot]

I’ll throw this one out, knowing full well that I’ll probably get flamed for it. But I thought SL did a better job with AFV hit location, in regards to turret vs. hull. There, I said it.

Despite all of the incredible work that BFC put into their armor modeling (and it is very impressive), I think the hit location abstraction they use is inferior to the method SL used. I say this because, in SL, turret hit probability was independent of hulldown status. A hulldown target had the same probability of being hit in the turret as a hull up target. In CM, a hulldown target has an increased probability of being hit in the turret as compared to a hull up target. The end result is that CM AFVs with thinner turret armor than what's on the hull have an incentive to avoid hull down. There was no such incentive in SL. Hence, SL “felt” more right.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

I’ll throw this one out, knowing full well that I’ll probably get flamed for it. But I thought SL did a better job with AFV hit location, in regards to turret vs. hull. There, I said it.

Despite all of the incredible work that BFC put into their armor modeling (and it is very impressive), I think the hit location abstraction they use is inferior to the method SL used. I say this because, in SL, turret hit probability was independent of hulldown status. A hulldown target had the same probability of being hit in the turret as a hull up target. In CM, a hulldown target has an increased probability of being hit in the turret as compared to a hull up target. The end result is that CM AFVs with thinner turret armor than what's on the hull have an incentive to avoid hull down. There was no such incentive in SL. Hence, SL “felt” more right.

Very good point

I hope they look hard at this very issue for CMx2

We want much greater fidelity with regard to hull down"ness".

This part:

" In CM, a hulldown target has an increased probability of being hit in the turret as compared to a hull up target. The end result is that CM AFVs with thinner turret armor than what's on the hull have an incentive to avoid hull down. There was no such incentive in SL. Hence, SL “felt” more right."

IS BANG ON!

They did the best they could on CMxx but the hull down abstraction was a notable comprise in realism that resulted in more (not less) shots that hit the turret (or UPPER hull, as ONLY the lower hull was truly hulldown) so hulldown was not always really as advantageous as it could or should have been.

thanks for the reminder

-tom a

[ February 01, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[PzTwt]

Being a good ASL player (and I played for over 8 years) involved a comprehensive knowledge of an extensive set of rules, thus penalizing players whose capacity for absorbing written information was less than others.

CM allows pure concentration on the tactical aspect, without having to remember an arcane rules reference to know if something is possible.

For that reason alone, I find CM a far superior solution. I regularly play CM with a guy I used to beat all the time in ASL (because my rules knowledge was better than his) and he is a really tough opponent.

Now he's freed from rules lawyering and can concentrate on his tactics, he is an excellent CM opponent.

My most hated ASL rule (always heard at tourneys moaned in a really whiny voice): "A2..."

[dalem]

Originally posted by simovitch:

How about "mounted fire" from Halftracks and tanks?

Things like this make me pause. I "learned" about such things from SL/ASL, but I can't recall actually reading about squads firing from inside the HT in any of the many WWII accounts I've read. Now that may be just me not reading the right accounts, of course.

Same thing with using the AA MGs on Shermans. I've started a thread or two about that question in my time on the boards.

-dale

[Carl Puppchen]

I love CMAK (look at my handle) but I think that SL / ASL was better at differentiation by nationality - unique aspects like Finn self rally, American repair and plentiful ammo, and of course the Japanese.

The ASL / SL model for leadership was maybe not better overall but I liked the fact that a dead leader caused a morale check for a unit that it was stacked with, and the fact that the Germans had a higher # of leaders relative to the Russians which abstracted a lot of items well.

I also like the pre-AFV morale check - it takes a lot of guts to run and assault an AFV - although CM does do a good job of showing the reaction to this item (general routing and running away).

Their method of handling panzerfausts may not have been superior in terms of realism but it made them more effective weapons - mine tend to never shoot!

I also liked the deliberate immobilization option for AT guns and ATRs... can't do this in cmak, but it tends to be an outcome (or a gun hit!) if you ping a tank enough that you can't kill outright.

I think that CMAK allows tank "riders" too soon - in SL / ASL it was the russians in 1942 (I think) and everyone else in 1943... I have the Italians riding tanks in 1940!

Platoon movement was a requirement for AFV's without radios - I don't know if this was more realistic, but is surely made these weapons more difficult to handle.

But I couldn't agree more that, overall, the CM series is far superior because you don't need a PHD in arcane rules to play the game. I also routinely made mistakes (in terms of rules, not tactics) that impacted the outcome. This doesn't happen in CMAK because it can't.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

How about "mounted fire" from Halftracks and tanks?

Things like this make me pause. I "learned" about such things from SL/ASL, but I can't recall actually reading about squads firing from inside the HT in any of the many WWII accounts I've read. Now that may be just me not reading the right accounts, of course.

Same thing with using the AA MGs on Shermans. I've started a thread or two about that question in my time on the boards.

-dale </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

I also like the pre-AFV morale check - it takes a lot of guts to run and assault an AFV - although CM does do a good job of showing the reaction to this item (general routing and running away).

I’ve wondered whether there isn’t something similar in CM, based on how squads frequently seem to pause before close assaulting an AFV. I’m also impressed by how early war infantry seems less effective against, as well as more easily driven away by, AFVs. I think SL had a similar rule for the terrifying effects of early war AFVs. Whether this was intentional by the CM designers, or a consequence of accurately modeling the individual pieces (or, just my imagination), I can’t tell – but it’s a nice effect.

I also liked the deliberate immobilization option for AT guns and ATRs... can't do this in cmak, but it tends to be an outcome (or a gun hit!) if you ping a tank enough that you can't kill outright.

I’ve thought this would be a nice addition to CM, either as a player option (sort of like Fire main gun?), or as a possible AI action when faced with unpenetrateable armor.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

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

How about "mounted fire" from Halftracks and tanks?

Things like this make me pause. I "learned" about such things from SL/ASL, but I can't recall actually reading about squads firing from inside the HT in any of the many WWII accounts I've read. Now that may be just me not reading the right accounts, of course.

Same thing with using the AA MGs on Shermans. I've started a thread or two about that question in my time on the boards.

-dale </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

M. Hofbaeur actually pointed to a German panzergrenadier manual that insisted mounted fire was supposed to be used in the breakthrough battle, but a follow on discussion revealed that it really wasn't done all that often, nor was it intended to be (referring to men shooting from SPWs) in most circumstances.

[ February 01, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]