2 Biggest Problems with CM:BO

[Stephen Smith]

These are the two most significant problems with CM that should be fixed in CM:BB (though I'm not sure that they will be).

1) Problem: Inaccurate modelling of defensive benefits. If one squad starts the scenario in position in a woodline, and an enemy squad moves into a facing woodline 100m away, within 10 seconds they are 'equal' in terms of situational awareness, sighting ability, firing ability, etc. All the intangibles related to being the defender are not modelled (better understanding of terrain, better cover and concealment, firing plan incorporated into terrain, such as sector sketches, firing sticks, range estimation, prepositioned ammunition, morale benefits of defense, etc etc). The moving squad can see the stationary squad just as well as the stationary squad can see the moving squad. Thus, the benefits of defense are not accurately modelled. As a result, the defense is not as strong as it should be (and you have strength ratios of 1.2:1 rather than the traditional 3:1).

Solution: Have tiered levels of firing ability/morale/sighting ability. Lowest for each is a unit moving. Second lowest is a unit that has been in place for, say, 2 minutes (2 turns). 3rd lowest is a unit that has been in place for 5, or 10 minutes. Highest is the unit that has been in place for 60 minutes (i.e. who started the scenario in place). Note that these benefits are independent of the benefit of being in foxholes/fortifications-they relate to sighting ability, effectiveness of fires, and morale (I assume foxholes affect morale and defensive ability).

2) Problem: No strategic map/jump map. This will be more of a problem with the bigger (3x3 km) maps in CM:BB, but nevertheless is a difficulty in CM:BO. The magnification ranges of the cameras in the game don't lend themselves to seeing the big picture of a battle. One of the main difficulties in playing big battles is simply keeping track of one's army and its location on the map! Furthermore, with a bigger strategic/jump map, it would be easier to play larger more mobile battles; to game not just the assault part of a battle, but the maneuver part of the battle as well. Ex. I would like to play a scenario with a mobile battalion choosing one of three axes of advance, probing with scouts, looking for weaknesses in the defense, and maneuvering on those weaknesses. With the current camera magnification choices, such a game is difficult because its hard to see the whole map, hard to keep track of where on that map friendly and enemy forces are, etc (even in the map editor, one can scroll for a long time to get from one side of a large map to the other-and in the time I've done so, I've forgotten exactly what was on the screen at the other end of the map).

Solution: Add a jump map option. Hit a button and the screen is replaced by a jump map of the entire map, with significant terrain features (woods, houses, roads and rivers as a minimum) and friendly/enemy units in blue/red dots. If I click on a portion of the map, I jump to that part of the map at the last set camera magnification. Really, this second one is practically a no brainer.

Steve

[CombinedArms]

The TOO most significant problems of CMBO;

1. It's TOO addictive.

2. It's TOO much fun.

Hope they won't fix that in CMBB.

[Conscript Bagger]

I'd only welcome a jump map if it didn't take up any of the screen space currently used for other information (or the battlefield view). There's room where the BTS logo currently resides at either end of the CMBO info bar, but that "unused" space might be reduced in CMBB for all I know. Anyway, something like the map in Age of Kings would be fine, but anything occupying a larger percentage of the screen would be annoying. And a full-screen map that required a keystroke to access would be no different from what you get by hitting "8" now.

In the meantime, I'll happily continue to use shift-C, shift-T, 4, 8, and ctrl-click.

[Hensworth]

* removed *

Just realized Offwhite had already said it all...

[ April 11, 2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

These are the two most significant problems with CM that should be fixed in CM:BB (though I'm not sure that they will be).

Naah. Borg spotting, failure to distinguish group cohesion from motivation, better indirect fire modelling and an end to the silly idea that British and Commonwealth companies are normally commanded by Captains all come above these two. The second one is IMHO not a problem at all. To comment a bit on the first:

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

1) Problem: Inaccurate modelling of defensive benefits. If one squad starts the scenario in position in a woodline, and an enemy squad moves into a facing woodline 100m away, within 10 seconds they are 'equal' in terms of situational awareness, sighting ability, firing ability, etc.

True, it is too easy to spot infantry firing at you from cover. Almost no wargames rules reflect the difficulty of finding the enemy; most wargamers would I think complain bitterly if the task was made half as hard as it should be.

When I was in the TA the rule-of-thumb we used was "You won't see the enemy until he shoots at you, and sometimes not even then". The third part of the section attack battle-drill (unless dame memory deals me a turd, after battle preparation and reaction to effective enemy fire) was "locating the enemy", typically by having a couple of blokes get up and dash a few paces while the rest of the section tried to spot where the fire was coming from.

On exercise, I often saw ambushes sprung because people simply could not believe that the target section could get any closer without seeing them; they almost always could have let them get closer. Junior leaders with good fieldcraft could spring ambushes in woodland from a few metres, and on one occassion (wearing NBC kit, which makes spotting much harder) an ambush was triggered when the point man of the target section trod on the ambush commander's hand.

Having said that, fire can be delivered sufficiently accurately to neutralise the enemy without having necessarily pinpointed him. A bullet passing within a couple of metres will probably be enough to make most people give serious thought to the prospect of getting their head well down, and I imagine that it must be even harder to believe that you haven't been seen when there are bullets cracking past nearby. Of course, CM:BO allows speculative area fire, so such a mechanism is in place; but fire may also have an effect even if there is no direct LOS to the target.

A good soldier can also read the ground and brass-up likely spots for fire positions. I rather spoilt one OTC training Major's fun when, after a platoon attack for which I had been GPMG gunner of the fire section, he boasted that his fire position in the defence had not been seen throughout the entire action, and he would have bagged dozens of the attackers. I pointed out where I thought his position was, said I had directed about fifty shots at this point, and suggested that the fallen tree-trunk that obscured him from my direction would not have stood up well to 7.62mm ball.

All the intangibles related to being the defender are not modelled (better understanding of terrain, better cover and concealment, firing plan incorporated into terrain, such as sector sketches, firing sticks,

Firing sticks? What are those? Is it a funny American way of saying range marks? I assume that "sector sketches" is American for what I would call range cards.

range estimation, prepositioned ammunition, morale benefits of defense, etc etc). The moving squad can see the stationary squad just as well as the stationary squad can see the moving squad.

[snips]

Ah, but as well as the defenders being really hard to spot, the attackers are a bit of a problem once the first shot has gone down the range. A properly-trained section will vanish into the ground in no time flat once it comes under effective fire -- the soldiers should have constantly in mind the place they will take cover if fired on, and it's a habit that quickly becomes so ingrained that people carry on doing it for years after they leave the forces. The way the micro-terrain works at this level is a fascinating subject, and people who haven't experienced it first-hand consistently underestimate the effect on line-of-sight that fractions of a metre can have on one's field of view when the eyeballs are at ground level. This is something you can experiment with for yourself; try spotting a friend wearing dull-coloured clothing at different ranges, in different cover, and see how much more or less you can see of each other standing, kneeling and lying.

Be advised that you may, as I did when I tried this with a pal, attract the attention of the local constabulary: A passing citizen had thought it worth reporting that two young men wearing camouflage jackets were behaving in an apparently furtive manner in the countryside.

:eek:

It would be jolly nice if the folks at BTS could come up with an elegant, convincing and computationally efficient way of handling these questions of micro-terrain and the visual abilities of eyeball Mk 1. If they do so, I think they will be rather in advance of any computer simulations currently used or planned in the military research community, where basic infantry questions have never received the attention they deserve.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

Another really good post, John. Thank you for putting it so well.

Michael

[Ales Dvorak]

Hmm.. after 3 years?

But...OK

[Captain Wacky]

John, firing sticks are sticks placed in the ground on either side of your foxhole so that in the night you now where you're aiming. Say you want to cover a strech of road, well you put one stick on one extreme end you'd like to cover, and the other on the opposite. That way when your rifle hits them in the dark you know you're going off target. Here's a fantastic and entertaining article with more info.

http://www.gamesofwar.de/Tactics/defensive.html

[Michael Emrys]

Firing sticks can also be useful in helping one avoid shooting one's buddies. A really important consideration...especially if they might be inclined to shoot back.

:eek:

Michael