The passage of time and CMBB

[James Crowley]

In the recent "flamethrower" thread BTS's Steve said;

Quote

-------------------------------------------------

In CMBB we have made probably two dozen code and feature changes that will change the entire way the game works.

-------------------------------------------------

This is an intriguing statement which begs futher explanation. No doubt this will be forthcoming, as and when BTS feel it appropriate to release the information. In the meantime we can only hazard a guess as to the implications of those recently announced feature changes/additions.

At this stage I am wondering if the overall changes will have an impact on what I will call the "passage of time"

Anyone who has read a goodly amount of accounts of WW2 land combat, in pretty much any theatre but especially NW Europe, will realise that much of what happens in CMBO tends to happen somewhat quicker than it did historically.

This is not meant as a criticism. CMBO is absolutely head and shoulders above any other offering covering similar material. Indeed it remains virtually unique.

IT does however, IMHO, share the aforementioned trait common in other wargames of the same period.

In reality it was very rare for an objective at the tactical level, such as a town or village or any other dominant feature, to be captured in half-an-hour. Which is, after all, the default time of a QB and the basis time of a large number of scenarios. These things were usually measured in hours, sometimes a day or longer.

Of course there were exceptions but for the most part things just generally took longer in real life than they do in CMBO.

Why?

Without going into too much detail, I feel that this results from deficiencies in two main areas.

C&C and fog of war, both of which have been discussed endlessly on previous threads.

Since both of these areas appear to be on the "changes" list, I just wonder if one of the effects will be to increase the time that it takes to "do" things generally, so as to more closely resemble the historical actions that they portray.

[dalem]

James-

In my opinion, I would think nothing will change in that area due to any direct manipulation of the game engine, because BTS understands "Gaming" as much as it understands "Simulating". Deliberately adding cycles simply to achieve greater realism would mean that the Game factor would take a hit. But with all the changes that are being made I would suspect that some individual tasks may indeed take longer to perform, which may mean that certain 'missions' (i.e. assault the building, flank the SPG) may take more time for the game units to execute successfully. Whether that will dictate an automatic increase in average scenario duration I don't know.

-dale

[Mattias]

Could it simply be a matter of the players risking the men and materiel to an extent that would never be acceptable in real life?

It seems to me that the majority of all victories I see are more or less Pyrrhic ones...

M.

[Redwolf]

The reason is that command and control is much better in CM, because it is a the non-stressed player and excellent communitions.

On the individual, low-level scale, CM troops, especially low-quality troops break correctly when facinf a tank etc., but on the high level all CM forces behave like super-determined US Marines with brain-integrated radio and no screwups prior to actual combat. That is what makes combat short in CM.

[TSword]

James, very true !!

CM really focuses on the small slice of actions were troops massively clash together.

I would really like to have more choices in that respect, for instance to simulate a whole day for instance, but that's asked to much and we have to wait some time before that. Maybe flexible roundtimes could be an aspect to achieve correct "passage of time".

I'm also of the opinion that fighting in CM ,though tightend up, also is less "dangerous" then in real, i could list many, many examples of that (When an enemy squad is down to 1-2 men surrounded by 3-4 squads within 10 m they regularly live for 1-2 turns for example, or a squad running in the open into crossfire of 4 HMG, they survive for some minutes always..). So the cramped time and space leads to more static fighting then in real where things changed very rapidly and firefights were very short but much more murderous and dangerous (Of course the God like view of the player is an important aspect too..).

Every move of CM towards expansion of time and space is highly welcome...

[Hensworth]

I think CMMC players (I am unfortunately still not one of them) should be able to cast some light on this. There the long periods of relative inactivity are resolved outside of CM. It's only when 2 sides meet that the action gets fast and furious, which is probably realistic.

Also, commanders are not encouraged to fight whatever the odds there, so you're less likely to have the 'you win narrowly or I win narrowly' effect that - say - QB players experience.

Another factor is the relatively low ammo load that CM troops carry. There's no point in having day long engagements, because all the troops will end up with nothing left to shoot with.

All the CM battles such as they are should really be seen as do or die missions, where you've been told to achieve the objective at all costs and in the allotted time. This gives you a sense of strategic imperative, but it doesn't give you the opportunity to decide that it's not worth it.

Scenario design also plays an important part here. There are some scenarios where the briefing, the force composition and the initial positioning of the troops give you the feeling that the fight has been prepared. I.e. that all the painstaking and time-consuming stuff is already behind you.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I agree with Sgt. Kelly. As he said, CMBO does not model resupply of units. Logistics would have to come into play if you changed the scale of the game. Tactical fights is what its all about.

There is a teenager in the UK working on a CMMC style of game for Norm Kroger's "The Operation Art of War". Would be interesting to see that and CMMC combined. But that requires some massive man hours doing number crunching, and organinzing the armies. The department of defense has those resouces to do it right.

In most of the scenarios I make, I have most of the heavy weapons brought forward to the point where they can cover an advance. Everything is ready for the assault. All you have to do is plan excatlly how you are going to do it.

Who wants to spend all day sending out small patrols that don't find anything? And you can't really force CMBO players to worry so much about computer soldiers. Unless the computer game electrocrutes the player when the lose a soldier. That might force them to worry about every computer sprite.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Could it simply be a matter of the players risking the men and materiel to an extent that would never be acceptable in real life?

It seems to me that the majority of all victories I see are more or less Pyrrhic ones...

M.<hr></blockquote>

I think this is exactly it. Try playing CM in a campaign (or a team) setting and you will notice a large difference.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

My view is that the reason why most games take half an hour, note, not in my games, they take more like an hour, is nothing to do with C&C or fog of war. I believe, like others, that it is due to the ruthlessness of the virtual world commanders. I feel that moral, and fog of war are well handled in CM, but “players” of CM tend to be a lot less concerned by causalities than was the case in the real world.

BTW, I am hoping that in CMIII there will be multi play, team play. With each player only able to see what his own platoon or company units can see, both friendly and enemy. This would go a long way to solving the “relative spotting, relative command” problem. In fact, in my view, it is the only realistic way to deal with the “relative” problems.

All the best,

Kip.

[Keith]

I think the high amount of casualties that units in CM can absorb and continue to fight is a bit unrealistic. Real life units would disengage at a much lower casualtiy threshold. Also, it seems the only times I capture prisoners is typically when enemy weapons teams are down to one man. Squads seem to fight to the death unless the enemy morale is in the toilet < 20%. This occurs even if an enemy squad is adjacent to or even surrounded by my friendly squads and the enemy squad is getting absolutely destroyed.

I agree with the above poster that in "Real Life" Tm battles take much longer than the simulated CM world and a big reason is the instantaneous communications we have with are digital men - a mere mouseclick

[Swift]

I disagree with the statement that the battles last shorter because players don’t care about losses. A lot probably don’t (I didn’t used to) but even if you play “carefully” the game is faster.

The C&C definitely speeds things up and eliminates much of the hesitation and uncertainness that plague a “real” battlefield. But in a “real” war a commander would most likely engage the enemy at a larger distance by shelling him from tanks and guns instead of storming with infantry which I feel you are forced to in CM by limited time and ammunition.

The tactic used by the allies during the Normandy campaign to hold and call for air/artillery support when in trouble is, in my opinion, not included in CM where air support is (by necessity) more simplified and ammunition and time is shortened.

I think that the game is designed to be both fun to play and realistic. The enemy is more equal to your forces than in most “real” attacks and the game is shorter so it doesn’t get boring.

-------

Waiting for a battlefield command in CMMC

[kipanderson]

Hi,

As usual the fact that we do not all agree adds to the fun.

For me, others will differ; one “battle” in CM is in fact no more than a single “assault” phase within a long real life battle. What I mean is that a typical battle in WW2, for say a given village, will often have lasted 2-5 hours even if things went relatively well. Of course, sometimes it was all over in half an hour. However, within each 2-5 hours battle there will often have been a number of assaults, pushes if you like. It is these real life individual assaults, that in CM, are called “battles”, and tend to last half an hour, although I like long games.

For these reasons I have always thought of CM operations as potentially the most realistic way to use CM.

When it comes to the question of high causalities in CM it remains my view that it is the ruthlessness of the CM players that is the problem. But, of course, some take great care not to loose men. I am one of them. Every one to their own.

All the best,

Kip

[Priest]

CMMC it is all about CMMC!

The operational art of war idea is interesting but CMMC would have to change dramatically to adhere to the level OAoW simms. The number of players for example would need to be ballooned to unheard of levels in the current command structure.

Really if you want a CORP level experience then join CMMC. It simms everything from logistics to intel to engineering. If you have the time and want an experience like no other then CMMC is the way to go.

Nothing like a CMBO battle where everything is on the line and your entire team is relying on you to come through for them!

[James Crowley]

Some interesting ideas coming out of this.

High casualties often occur because the C&C system, in its current form, allows us, as "commanders", to give orders far more easily than our real-life counterparts.

How can you order a squad to advance towards the enemy when it is "out of command"? Especially if that squad is (possibly) hundreds of metres away. The command delay might cover a situation where a runner has to travel fourty or fifty yards but not one where a platoon is strung-out over hundreds of yards, which potentially it could be.

If you had to keep your squads together (as per reality) enough to excert command control, or not be able to control them at all (easily caused in battle), this would start to "slow-down" the pace of battle and possibly the often unrealistic casualty rates that occur.

After all, squads that break or panic cannot be controlled and that often prolongs their survival.

Many attacks faltered and subsequently failed not because of high losses per se but because of loss of officers and NCO's, hence lack of C&C.

[Mr. Johnson--]

bippty bibbity bump

[Yowie]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Who wants to spend all day sending out small patrols that don't find anything? And you can't really force CMBO players to worry so much about computer soldiers. Unless the computer game electrocrutes the player when the lose a soldier. That might force them to worry about every computer sprite.<hr></blockquote>

That's the key why battles happen/finish in relatively short time in the game (compare with historical battle/operations). CMBO simulates the intensive part of the battles only, and that makes it a great gaming experience. After all, imagine playing a 50 turns scenario, after scouting, occupying positions, etc, etc, etc.... and not encountering any enemy at all....

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Bad Dog ]</p>