What does Squad Leader do better than CM?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I believe the way the 50 cal. AAMG was mounted on most Shermans (behind the commanders hatch on a pintle) pretty much dictated that it could only be used in a hurry in an anti-aircraft role. If the commander wished to climb out of the turret and stand on the rear deck of his tank then it could certainly be used effectively in an anti-personnel role but that required time and a distinct lack of self preservation concerns when so exposed to enemy fire.

Regards

Jim R.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

I believe the way the 50 cal. AAMG was mounted on most Shermans (behind the commanders hatch on a pintle) pretty much dictated that it could only be used in a hurry in an anti-aircraft role. If the commander wished to climb out of the turret and stand on the rear deck of his tank then it could certainly be used effectively in an anti-personnel role but that required time and a distinct lack of self preservation concerns when so exposed to enemy fire.

Regards

Jim R.

Yup, that's the conclusion we pretty much came to. Probably intended for use during a road column situation where a crewmember or accompanying infantryman could sit safely outside of the turret.

Now, the TDs add some spice to it since the M-10 and M-36 both retained crappy rear-turret post mounts for their .50s but the M-18 had a nice ring mount. It was apparently not uncommon (my favorite qualifier) for TD crews to add new mounts at the front of the turret, sometimes multiples, and also use appropriated .30cals in those mounts.

So if it were me, I would make the default AA MG FP value of U.S. tanks zero, with a chance that some tanks, and more TDs, would have a useable FP value from that mount. Or something like that.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

I was disappointed that CMBO had .50 AAMGs on Canadian Shermans - they were almost universally removed. I remember one PBEM where it took me three replays to realize that it wasn't a PIAT team that KOed a Marder, but an AAMG on a Sherman that fired simultaneously and got credited with the kill.

Canadian tank crew commanders thought they were largely useless, and got tired (especially in Italy) of the guns catching on low (?) hanging branches (or vines) and bashing them in the head. If they were of any offensive value to them, I am sure they would have kept them.

Audie Murphy has created many myths...

[Wisbech_lad]

Uber cats (the fluffy kind) destroying entire positions at one pounce...

Geekiness. I played SL at school, and it marked me as a geek. Computer games are pretty mainstream.

[Wisbech_lad]

Embarassing SL confession. I and some friends taught ourselves SL, without much knowledge of boardgames (Kingmaker, stuff like that)

For a long time we thought (say) a 2-8 lmg had 8 firepower and range, and the 2 was the "grazing" number (number of hexes you could interdict).

It made 8-3-8 engineers with a LMG somewhat powerful!

When we were finally disabused of this, by someone who knew the rules, it was disappointing. Firefights became much less bloody...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Computer games are pretty mainstream.

See the GF for my experience at Electronic Boutique tonight....depends on where you are and whom you are looking at!

[Ace Pilot]

I think we overlooked a most obvious one - flexible victory conditions! I think this was what allowed for a great deal of variety in the scenarios for SL.

[Sequoia]

It's been years since I played Squad Leader, but didn't it allow at least Engineer squads to create smoke. Was there ever a thread on why CM doesn't allow for this?

[Ace Pilot]

Sequoia,

I seem to recall reading threads that suggested there is no infantry deployed smoke because BFC couldn't find much evidence of its actual use and they felt that including would result in an ahistorical overuse.

And SL's treatment of smoke was better than CM's, since SL allowed you to fire through it and the penalty for doing so was random, reflecting the uncertain nature of the stuff. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that CMx2 treats smoke more like this.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

It's been years since I played Squad Leader, but didn't it allow at least Engineer squads to create smoke. Was there ever a thread on why CM doesn't allow for this?

Smoke (and smoke and SMOKE) is incredibly broken in ASL. SL did it better by militing it to specific units making lasting smoke.

I distrusted the smoke rules in ASL long before I ever bought CM, but once I did, I began to hate them.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

Sequoia,

I seem to recall reading threads that suggested there is no infantry deployed smoke because BFC couldn't find much evidence of its actual use and they felt that including would result in an ahistorical overuse.

It's in the CMBO manual, too.

[tar]

The number one difference:

Ease of introducing special rules to handle peculiarities of some scenario.

[Thompson]

ASL has the dubious honor of doing "skulking" better...

[Ace Pilot]

Apparently, I never played enough SL to figure out skulking. I had to Google it to find out what it is (moving out of a hex to avoid Defensive Fire, only to return to it in the Advance Phase). However, I did find this – The Big Black Book of ASL Sleaze. Just browsing through it helps put things in perspective. While CMer’s debate whether splitting squads into their suppression and assault elements is gamey, ASL is dealing with real issues like whether self-breaking a unit so that it can continue in the Route Phase toward a victory location or exit zone is gamey. :cool:

I guess Lars really knew what he was talking about for once…

Originally posted by Lars:

Starting arguments.

About eight per turn, IIRC...

[pamak1970]

I think another issue that SL handled better was the grazing effect of machine guns which rewarded a fire plan designed to have MGs acheive flanking fire and crossfire in front of a defensive position.

I had an interesting discussion regarding this issue and possible ways to introduce it in the new engine.

See

here

You can also read additional information regarding the importance of this concept in real life in the followinglink

See especially the section about MG tactical employment on page 14 of the pdf document.

[dalem]

My absolute favorite mechanic in ASL is the Sniper rule. I love the fact that you can set a level of background lethality that is completely out of either player's control. I have no idea if anything like that is appropriate or possible for a game like CM, but I love the idea behind it and the mechanic used to model it in that game.

A lot of the things I think of as "better" or "worse" when comparing SL/ASL to CM, I have to admit, are mainly based on anecdotal evidence. We've all asked questions like that in the past. For instance, in the opening days of CM:BO I posted a thread asking about duds and malfunctions. I was used to boxcars=dud/failure, and I remember a particular CM game where 2 or 3 Bazooka guys loosed about 15 rounds at a couple of distant JunkenWagens, and every round exploded. Not all of them on the tanks, but all of them exploded. Now SL/ASL had me used to the occasional dud, but except for MG Jams it doesn't happen in the game.

Is it "wrong"? Hell if I know. But it gives ASL a certain flavor that CM lacks, in that one teeny weeny facet.

I think that the idea behind many of the little fiddly details of ASL was that some of these things happened some of the time, so mechanics are devised to enable them to happen in any given battle. This drives up the rate of occurrence of these things in our minds.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

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!

I don't know about Italians, but I have photos from 1941 with Afrika Korps infantry riding tanks. These particular pics were taken well behind the front though, I believe. I have zero evidence that they ever rode into battle that way and rather doubt it.

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.

This has always been a huge selling point for me with all computer games. I loved playing board games, but I spent 2/3rds. of my time looking up the rule that would tell me if what I wanted to do was legal or not. Ugh. I am just as happy not to have to go through that anymore.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tar:

The number one difference:

Ease of introducing special rules to handle peculiarities of some scenario.

Yep, that one has been on my mind more than once. The bad thing in general about computer games is that they usually require a patch from the designer to correct mistakes or to allow varying interpretations. A lot of my board games had "home brew" or "house" rules that were easy to implement or ignore as suited my fancy.

Here's one that nobody has mentioned yet: SL had fog that could lift or burn off (but not both according to Donald Greenwood). That might make an interesting occasional addition to CMx2. Also the wind shifting direction and intensity. These are not things that would often be in evidence in a short CM battle, but if we start getting regularly into longer battles or campaigns, variable weather conditions during a game would be not only plausible, but in some cases necessary.

Michael

[Paul AU]

I’ve played Squad leader.

Two cents:

Ammo re-supply vehicles/squads, yes please. A ‘tactical supply chain’ would add a level of possibility to scenarios. I just mean supply squads or trucks. I mean, all it takes is two bags/cases of ammo to re-invigorate an attack, and this did happen in real life. (Note that the Yankee’s higher fire-power in Squad Leader was attributed purely to their assumed greater supply of ammunition).

AFV “overrun” of some sort should be added. A 45 ton tank rolling towards you shouldn’t elicit, “oh, good, now I can use my grenade bundle”; it should illicit, “holy, shi… get me outta here!’

(I was never keen on “capturing weapons”, BTW. Not In The Heat, anyway).

I think that’s the pick of GJK’s (nostalgia-inducing) list.

But I like the idea that the “rubbling” of buildings be predictable. It’s gamey but it’s good.

“Oops, it appears that a rather well-placed AT-Rifle shot has collapsed the three-story Hotel Shutzenplatz. Your entire 2nd Platoon, will not be checking out. Or, rather, they will.”

“An AT Rifle!? What’s the chance of that?”

“Very very small… but it’s realistic.”

Another two cents:

In another thread, someone said that ASL’s use of “leaders” was “simplistic” and therefore “crude” I thought at the time, and I’ll say it now, No…. ASL’s modelling of the effects of leaders was simplistic, and elegant. Simple mechanics resulting in (generally) profound and “true” game-play.

[Wisbech_lad]

I never got to ASL. Stuck to SL. ISTR that the devilish 6-6-6 yankees were due to bigger section sizes, and M1 rifles, not ammo supply?

I thought the biggest weakness in SL was armour. Games were much more fun without it, IMHO.

[Ron]

Well, ASL has a much bigger manual and way more counters to go along with the way more and bigger headaches involved in playing!

A lot of what GJK said as better in ASL is false and misleading:

properly handles routed/broken units - in CM

support weapon (SW) breakdown and repair - in CM

dismantled weapons - in CM

Fanaticism - in CM

Ambushing in close combat - in CM

AFV overrun - in CM

Tunnels - in CM(sewers)

Orchards - in CM

AFV MG/MA targeting (different targets for each) - in CM

Scrounging - in CM

Jitter fire (at night) - in CM

Ron

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ron:

Scrounging - in CM

Eh? In what form? Maybe I'm not thinking right...

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Here's one that nobody has mentioned yet: SL had fog that could lift or burn off (but not both according to Donald Greenwood). That might make an interesting occasional addition to CMx2. Also the wind shifting direction and intensity. These are not things that would often be in evidence in a short CM battle, but if we start getting regularly into longer battles or campaigns, variable weather conditions during a game would be not only plausible, but in some cases necessary.

Variable fog/mist would seem a reasonable addition though. I dislike the fact that in CM - as it stands - vis is always exactly x metres in whatever the circumstances happen to be (night, dawn, fog, rain, etc). I'd like to see some randomness so that in one game in fog vis might be 200m, in the next 185m, and in the one after 211m. Heck - I'd really like to see that kind of variation from turn to turn.

But then, come to think of it, I'd like to see more random variation in just about all aspects of CM.

That BFC are modelling the motion of heavenly bodies ( ) gives me some optimism that vis at night - at least - will vary according to the phase of the moon. Although, that does mean that in addition to the year and month, scens will have to be specified down to the day, and god forbid that you should forget what day the fullmoon was in July 1942!

Oh, and early and late rising moons - don't forget those.

[Brent Pollock]

Removing MGs from vehicles...possibly rearming uncaptured units & replenishing Low Ammo units (NRBH).

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Scrounging - in CM

Eh? In what form? Maybe I'm not thinking right...

Michael </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

AFV “overrun” of some sort should be added. A 45 ton tank rolling towards you shouldn’t elicit, “oh, good, now I can use my grenade bundle”; it should illicit, “holy, shi… get me outta here!’

According to whom? German infantry, at least, were generally well trained for dealing with tanks on their own (out of necessity).

Running a tank over a squad is not a simple thing - button up, and drive in circles squashing ten men? I don't think so...