New Battle Type: Static

[tar]

I was wondering if it would be difficult to add a new type of battle to the Meeting Engagement, Probe, Attack, Assault lineup?

What I had in mind was something like a Static battle. This would be similar to a Meeting Engagement, except that both sides would begin in foxholes.

It would seem that this might actually not be too difficult to code into the game engine.

For support in Quick Battles (more difficult to add), the basic setup would be similar to a Meeting Engagement, but instead of being in the middle, Victory flags would be placed in both setup zones using the same method as for the defender in an Attack.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Why don't you make a batch of Static style scenarios. Only problem is you can;t have both sides in foxholes. So make the Germans the attackers in a ME, and give them some bunkers, and let the allies have the foxholes.

[Boo Radley]

This may be a stupid question, but why couldn't both sides be in foxholes?

[Captain Wacky]

only the defender can dig in on a map

[CombinedArms]

OK, I'm trying to visualize the appeal of a static battle and now I think I see it, but I'm not sure "static" is the right name for it--maybe it would be better to call it "fluid"or "dynamic"

What I have in mind is that, in a normal CM attack or assault battle, the attacker has no real defensive responsibilites. That way, the attacker can concentrate all his forces on one flank, or on a flank and the center, or on both flanks and not center, and leave the other areas completely open. I think this is part of what allows CM attacks to succeed so often without the traditional 2/1 or more force advantage. But what if the potential attacker had VLs of his own to defend? He'd have to worry about holding those too, and maybe keep part of his force on the defensive. You might have the Axis attacking from the right side of the board and the Allies attacking from the left and each would have to decide whether to push the attack or fall back on defense. As one of many options, it might make for some interesting games, and it does suit some historical situations.

I suspect this would be easy enough to program in CMBB--maybe we'll even get it. No doubt it's too late to ask. A scenario designer can of course set this up in CMBO (except for the foxholes) but you can't do it in a QB.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[109 Gustav]

I have set up some battles like this for other people- I call them Capture the Flag battles. It's basically an ME except that the flags are on opposite sides of the map, so you have to attack and defend. They're kind of fun, except that you have to have a lot of flags to make it worthwile to attack.

Letting both sides have foxholes would be a nice twist on this, except that it might encourage both players to sit in their dugouts gaurding their flags and not going after the enemy's.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: 109 Gustav ]</p>

[TigerChow]

One way to keep the opponents from sitting still would be to give one side a point advantage in troops and the other an advantage in flags. Of course, that's not technically a "meeting engagement" style balanced battle, and would more than likely end up as an attack/probe battle. But I think it would give an added dimension to the battle.

In fact, I think you would probably see a lot less battles end up as slaughter-fests, with the attacker pressing home an attack with the last man to take the defender's flag. In this manner, you might see what I would consider more realistic attack and defense, where commanders are a little more careful with their troops.

TigerChow

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

In fact, I think you would probably see a lot less battles end up as slaughter-fests, with the attacker pressing home an attack with the last man to take the defender's flag. In this manner, you might see what I would consider more realistic attack and defense, where commanders are a little more careful with their troops.

TigerChow[/qb]<hr></blockquote>

I think you're right about avoiding slaughter fests. You can't attack to the last man if you've also got to hold a flag or two.

I remember attacking as Allies in the demo "Valley of Trouble" and suddenly realizing, about the tenth time I played it, "Hey, I've got nothing to defend!" That made me realize I could really concentrate my forces wherever I chose and not worry about safeguarding rear areas or strategic points. At worst, an FO might get overrun.

Also, its funny, but I too was thinking of capture the flag!

The other way to think of it, though, is that that 0.5 group of troops is implicit. You see the 1.5 attackers on the battlefield, but not the 0.5 holding the defensive line a few 100 meters behind.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[BlackLathe]

I have desired something similar in my QBs.

I think I read somewhere that in CMBB, you will be able to do QBs with a set map (as opposed to generated). If that is the case, then this kind of battle could be done without a third party setting it up.

I also would like to see battles like, "protect this command unit" or something like that. Mostly battles that didn't revolve around Victory Locations.

[Michael Emrys]

CA, I think the kind of battle you are looking for happened mostly at the operational level where the force would be an entire division or corps and the units would be battalions or regiments, not squads.

On the level that CM represents, units (in this case companies or battalions) were given fairly specific missions to perform: they either attacked or guarded flanks, and only to a very limited extent tried to do both.

I think that the tactical problems you are interested in are indeed very worthy of attention, but I think you are looking in the wrong game to find them. I think Airborne Assault might prove a more fruitful battleground.

Michael

[Kuma of Finland]

I find this idea of Static battle type grand. It would be used to simulate many typical situations in East Front.

And as being interested in Finnish-Russian fights I would be delighted to see the battles of Finland-SU during the perod 1942-44 where the front was somewhat fixed and loads of trenches and bunkers etc. were built up on both sides.

There was also attack trenches used ie. trenches towards enemy lines. If I've understood correctly they were usually digged in night. Then troops would enter them silenty and first thing in the morning jump on attack from there.

Imagine a CMBB scenario: first round drops heavy artillery barrage on your neck. Then you notice attack trenches just 50 meters away from your front line. But you wouldn't have time to care about it as you see hordes of Russians shouting 'URAAAAA' running towards your front lines while T-34's and KV-2's start roaring and shooting around and meanwhile IL-2's are harrassing your reserve troops heavily. And what was that?! A lucky Katjusha barrage just blew up your only 75 mm bunker! ... Better stop here before somebody gets a heart attack

/kuma

[CMplayer]

While you're at it, defending units should have the option of NOT starting in a foxhole.

[Patgod]

i havent fired up the editor, but cant you place foxholes? if not how about craters(the ones that act as a terrain type)

[Hensworth]

Don't see the point of this.

ME's excepted, you always have an attacker and a defender. The attacker has no interest in having foxholes since he's going to have to leave them anyway.

Suppose I was in a type of battle where I know my opponent is in exactly the same situation as me : about the same strength, dug in and in control of an equal number of VL's. I can do 2 things : get up and attack him or stay put and let him come to me. Either way, the attacking force is doomed because they don't have the necessary advantage. The percentage play would be for both players to stay put and settle for a draw. Not very interesting.

Now, say forces are still equal, but one side controls more VL's. Try and win this from the side starting out with less points... If you do manage to take a flag from the opposition, your casualties will more then likely offset the points you gained.

If you start experimenting with unbalanced force sizes you automatically peg one player as the attacker and it becomes irrelevant whether he starts in foxholes or not. You're back to your standard attack / defense.

From a reality point of view you're talking about a stable front where both sides are dug in either side of a no man's land. The kind of activity that takes place under such circumstances (patrols, setting up observation posts) can't be modeled in CM as it involves too much sub squad level tactics.

[Cpl Carrot]

Now I may have the wrong end of the stick, but if you made the scenario an operation, both sides would be dug in at the start of the second battle.

So all you need is a willing third party to hotseat the first battle - giving cease fire orders in the first turn for both and then mailing the start of the second battle to the appropriate player.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:

Don't see the point of this.

The point is to give scenario designers as much flexibility as possible, rather than forcing them into a few, rather stiff, categories thought out by the game designers. Reasoning a priori about what might or might not be needed is less interesting than just giving the players all the tools they need to modify the game. (in my opinion, of course)

[Kuma of Finland]

I think Cpl Carrot's scenario trick would do it even with CMBO. Thanks for idea!

But what I would like to see is a trench war situation made possible: both sides have trenches to start from. This makes completely new ways of fighting possible and also bears loads of new kind of problems: like do I have enough fire power, can my troops run over nobody's land fast enough, can I surely suppress that bunker for long enough, can my troops roll the enemy trenches etc. It's a completely a way of fighting of it's own and makes players to rethink everything they've already learned.

Heck, one could even recreate the battle where Finns tried to catch one bird (!) in the noman's land. (Somebody told this story here on this forum, but I can't find it just now).

IMHO Static type battle would be great. Although I understand - once again - the limitations of the game engine and I'm quite realistic with the possibility that this plea for Static is actually answered. I just wonder if one day we'll see the CMGW (Combat Mission: Great War) in shops

/kuma

[Deadly Dave]

one way to force action would be to allocate a caught flags more points than a defended one. so in some situations it may be strategic to abandon one position to the enemy if you could in turn capture two of theirs. Not sure if the computer could work this but ther must be a calculation you could put in place after the game

it woud also initiate raiding parties and exploitation of terrain advantages. ie some flags would be easier to defend than others thus forcing more scheming and bluffing as troops are positioned ( or not) around flag areas

[MikeyD]

I was going to say the Western Front was about maneurver warfare and static wouldn't trench lines would be of little value... then I remembered the stand-off in Normandy and the G.I.s 'going over the top' at the start of Cobra.

I honestly don't know if both sides will be able to purchase trenches at the same time in CMBB. The topic's never come up! This'll be something worth investigating. It sounds like it would be handy to represent the stand-off at Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc .etc.

[MikeyD]

Geepers, isn't that first paragraph above a word jumble! I'm an awful typist.

[YankeeDog]

Actually, I think this is an excellent idea. Considering that the upper limit on map size is going to be larger in CMBB (I believe 9 sq. km is the limit), it is much more likely that dug-in positions for both sides would be present on the map. With maps this size and highly mobile units like T-34s running around, you are certainly getting to the and engagement size where you could concievably have an attacker pushing forward on the left flank, but trying to hold in place on the right against a 'spoiling' counterattack on the right. A couple of tanks in your rear area is going to really mess up your attack. The old cliche "The key to a good defense is a good offense" applies. Depending on the details of scenario design, I think it would be quite realistic for attacking units to get foxholes as part of support or flank guard positions.

IMHO, what you really need is a tool that allows the existence of foxholes to be dictated by setup zone. IOW, attacking units placed in one area (presumably farther away from the enemy) get foxholes. Those in setup areas closer to the enemy do not. This allows the attacker to choose where he is simply going to 'hold the line', or perhaps offer DF and/or observation support for units advancing elsewhere, and where he is going to try to advance.

I'm less familiar with the Eastern Front, but in Europe it was actually quite common for the attacker to have foxholes far enough forward to be used as support positions for an attack.

I have read a number of AARs from the Italian campaign describing how American units would take the high ground around a defended town, and then use the cover of night or smoke to dig mortars, MGs, and light guns (37mm) into the heights. Then these assets could be used to provide direct support for an advance into the town.

I don't know if this tactic was used on the Eastern front, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. In any event, it strikes me as a great starting point for a CM mostly infantry scenario. For example, the attacker could be tasked with clearing an enemy-held town, but without off-board arty (it's needed elsewhere, or has been neutralized by counter-battery fire or whatever). He does have some MGs, mortars, and a few small guns that have been dug into the heights around the town, though.

Without the attackers' MGs and IGs dug in, they are at a cover disadvantage against defending MGs and guns in foxholes or buildings in and around the town. With foxholes, though, even just a few MMGs and light guns as DF support assets become a pretty powerful tool for the Attacker at least as far as covering his advance to the outer edge of the town. The problem is that he's going to outrun his support once he gets inside the town and then he'll have the choice of either waiting to bring the MGs and light guns up, losing time and perhaps exposing them to fire, or going it alone with his infantry squads in the buildings, making them more vulnerable to ambush.

I like this idea for a scenario, and I'm sure the many talented scenario designers out there can come up with other uses for foxholes on the attack that are both realistic and fun to play.

Actually, I think there was a remark on one of the CMBB thread by somebody at BTS that you can now place shell holes (ostensibly from previous battles) in the scenario editor. Since CM treats Shell holes and foxholes pretty similarly as far as the amount of cover they offer, I suppose a scenario designer could just use shell holes to simulate attackers' foxholes.

The problem here is that shell holes are going to be visible to the defender from the start of the game, giving him a good idea of where the attackers' starting positions are likely to be, which would not necessarily be the case with foxholes dug under the cover of night. Also, this work-around would not give the attacker the freedom to place his dug-in support assets where he pleased unless he wanted to forgo the additional cover of the shell-holes, limiting tactical options.

As mentioned, probably too late now to put in a new feature like this, but maybe we'll all be surprised and BFC is one step ahead of us. They've done it before.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I'm less familiar with the Eastern Front, but in Europe it was actually quite common for the attacker to have foxholes far enough forward to be used as support positions for an attack.

I agree with this part. I could never see the reason why attackers didn't get dug in postions as well as defenders, since that was pretty standard for anything except a mobile battle.

BTW, ISTR someone reporting a month or so ago that CMBB does permit both sides to start with entrenchments. Unless I am :confused: .

Michael

[ August 16, 2002, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Runyan99]

I do not know about QBs or scenarios, but I was told that CMBB WILL have Static operations.

[flammenwerfer]

Any definitive word?

[WWB]

Well, you can load maps with forces. And trenches are forces, so getting both sides to have dug in positions is not an issue. Just pre-generate map with trench lines, then make it a QB ME.

Also, I think there should be dug in attackers, especially in assault type battles. While your infantry will advance, many of your support weapons probably should be dug in at the start of a deliberate attack.

WWB