The trap awaiting all tactical, Eastern Front wargames.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Of course, what I mean by “the trap awaiting all tactical, Eastern Front wargames” is that all previous such games have fallen into the particular trap I have in mind. It also follows, that I very much hope BTS have avoid the ambush in question. I will be using examples from Advanced Squad Leader, but no, this is not a particular ASL related problem. I accept fully that CM is in a different stratosphere to ASL, and more. It is just that twenty odd years back I played SL/ASL so much that the data from it comes most readily to mind to illustrate points that are common to all previous tactical, Eastern Front games I have seen.

At its heart is a contradiction,

“if the individual, Soviet manoeuvre units in WW2, tactical wargames are modelled historically accurately, the outcome of battles will not be historically accurate, during the first half of the war.”

For me, this is desirable, in an imperfect world. The priority must always be that the individual manoeuvre units, in any wargame, are modelled historically accurately. One simply has to live with any adverse side effects. I will now attempt to explain what I mean by this rather strange statement.

All the tactical, Eastern Front wargames I have seen, no exceptions, have understated the combat power; normally it is the firepower, of Soviet manoeuvre units by a wide margin. That is the firepower of Soviet infantry platoons and squads, machine guns and such. I have no way of knowing the “actual” reason for this; I was not involved in the design of any of them. However, there is a possible reason. I have always assumed that the reason is that when they play tested the games with the combat power of Soviet manoeuvre units at a more realistic level, this is probably how they started out; they found they got unrealistic results/outcomes to battles. By this I mean that if they set-up a battle in, say, October 42, with the Germans outnumbered 2 or 3 to one, the Germans got beaten every time; with the Soviet manoeuvre units set at realistic combat power/firepower. So, what then happened is that they lowered the combat power of Soviet manoeuvre units until they reached a stage when the Germans could sometimes hold out against odds of three to one. They did this from the best of intentions, believing these lower combat powers for Soviet manoeuvre units must have been the historical reality. Of course, that was not the case.

The problem is that if you set up a tactical, Eastern Front wargame between two human players they are performing the roles, in CM or SL/ASL, of the battalion commander, the company commanders, the platoon commanders, and, of course, also the squad commanders/AFV commanders. The two human players may be fairly closely matched in skill levels, or indeed, the player taking the role of the Soviets may even be the better player. And herein lays the core of the problem. The difference in skill levels between the person playing the role of the Soviet battlefield officers, battalion, company and platoon commanders, and the person playing the role of the German battlefield officers, is likely to be less than it was in reality. During the first half of the war. In reality it will normally have been the case, during the first half of the war, that the Soviet battalion, company and platoon commanders were less well trained/skilled than their German counterparts. Hence, if the Soviet manoeuvre units are given historically accurate firepower/combat power, and are present in historically accurate numbers, the German player has very little chance when two human players of similar skill fight it out.

For me, having the individual manoeuvre units modelled historically accurately is a must. The entire point of a wargame, in my view, others will differ, is that it is a historically accurate simulation. You are given the actual manoeuvre units available at the time, modelled as accurately as the current state of knowledge can deliver, and then it is down to you to try and out perform your enemy. If you perform better, relative to your human enemy, than was historically the case, so be it. Good luck to you and well done. Lowering the firepower of one sides manoeuvre units in order to achieve a certain outcome is undesirable, no matter how well intentioned the motives.

I will just give a brief example from SL/ASL to illustrate what I am ranting on about.

In ASL regular Soviet infantry are given a rating of 4, 4; that is four range and four firepower. Regular German infantry are given a rating of 6, 4. Six range and four firepower. What this means, is that in the case of regular infantry, the designers of ASL are assuming that Soviet rifle squads could only deliver half the firepower of German rifle squads at two hundred metres range. (PS. Light machine guns are modelled separately.) To my mind, this is clearly unrealistic. Remember we are comparing “regular” infantry squads, not a Soviet conscript squad against a more elite German squad. Having fired a WW2 bolt action rifle, in my case a Lee Enfield, I can confirm that have are incredible easy to use. After just a few rounds, I was hitting anything I aimed at again and again, within reason. Of course, nothing was coming the other way! Anyway… a Soviet “regular” rifleman, armed with his five round Mossin Nagant, would have delivered just as accurate fire as his counterpart armed with his five round Mauser. Even in the early years. If we turn to submachine gunners in ASL there was a similar problem. Soviet elite submachine gunners were given a rating of 2, 6. German elite submachine gunners 3, 8. Given that the Soviet PPSh 41 was the superior submachine gun, greater range and such, there is no rational reason for these ratings.

What is happening is that the Soviet units are being more harshly judged than the German units. The same rational, impartial criteria are not being used to judge Soviet and German units. If they were, in the above example, Soviet and German units would have the same firepower. (In the case of the submachine gunners the Soviet units would have a slightly longer range.)

Just to restate, my concern is not with SL/ASL. My concern is that similar distortions appear in all other tactical, Eastern Front wargames that I have seen. Given the above, the rational side of my brain tells me that “statistically” it is likely that CMBB will fall into the same trap. Of course, instinct tells me, due to the high quality of CMBO, that Steve and co will not fall into the trap of understating the performance of individual Soviet manoeuvre units in order to achieve a certain desired outcome on the battlefield when two human players of similar skill levels take each other on in CMBB. But I cannot be sure, and that drives my concern. All part of the fun of waiting for CMBB, I guess.

At this stage I feel I should point out that it is not just in the matter of firepower that the designers of tactical, Eastern Front wargames have to be careful. The same distortion can be achieved by excessive command delays for the Soviets. It is important to model Soviet manoeuvre units as they are likely to have been in reality, giving them all the shortcomings they may have had in the early years, but no more than that. I will now give an example of where I believe Steve and co have “hit the nail on the head” in modelling Soviet squads as they probably were in reality.

From what I read, in CMBB there is to be an “assault” command for infantry. However, in the case of Soviet infantry, the less inexperienced units will not have the option of “assault”, but of “human wave attack”. At a certain level of experience, the Soviets lose the option of “human wave attack” and gain the option of “assault”, i.e. they fight in a similar style to the Germans. To my mind this is perfect modelling of Soviet infantry. From all I have read, including Soviet WW2 Field Manuals/Combat Orders, it is likely that this is exactly as it was during WW2. The lack of an “assault” option for inexperienced/poorly trained Soviet infantry is important because in reality they are not likely to have had that option.

However, in WW2 wargames there is always the danger that the designers will look for, and hence “discover”, differences between the Soviets and Germans that are unlikely to have existed in reality. When it comes to Command and Control in CMBB, particularly command delays, there exists that risk. If once again, we take the example of inexperienced Soviet infantry there will be some battle drills that they were not trained to do, that more experienced German squads could perform. Hence no “assault” option. But within the limits of the things inexperienced Soviet infantry could do, there is a limit to how much longer they would take to react than their better trained German counterparts. It is to be remembered that one of the roles the human player of CM performs is that of squad/AFV commander. I can imagine a situation in which I, as a Soviet squad commander, order my men to fire on a threat, and due to excessive command delay, nothing happens for an unrealistic length of time. When in reality, even less experienced Soviet squads would have readily opened fire, of course, within all the usual limits of moral and such. This is also a risk in the modelling of command delays for Soviet AFVs. In sum, the delays should take account of the inexperience of some Soviet units, but must not be so long as to in affect “assume” the Soviet manoeuvre units are “stupid”. Soviet platoon commander could shout orders to their men, and their men hear those orders, in a similar time scale to Germans. Also, contrary to popular belief, initiative was encouraged in Soviet manuals and “documents on war experience” as early as 1942. Great care must be taken as to which commands take inexperienced Soviet manoeuvre units longer than German manoeuvre units.

I will just round off by repeating that if Soviet and German individual manoeuvre units are modelled historically accurately in CMBB, and are present in the relative numbers they often were, in a game between two equally skilled human players, the Germans will have a very difficult challenge. Will more often than not be beaten. This is how it should be. It is only when the human player is the Germans and the computer plays the part of the Soviets, that historically accurate outcomes to early war battles should be expected. The reason is that one of the major problems faced by the Soviets was that their battalion, company and platoon commanders were not as skilled as their German counterparts, during the first half of the war. In most cases. However, if two human players of equal skill face each other in CMBB you are giving the Soviet forces battalion, company and platoon commanders of the same quality as the Germans. Hence, if the combat power/firepower of individual Soviet manoeuvre units is historically accurate, as hopefully it will be in CMBB, the Germans are likely to come off worse than they did in reality. This is unavoidable, and how it should be. For an “early war experience” of fighting the Soviets, the human player can play the Germans and allow the computer to control the Soviets.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. No insult intended to the AI. It is of stunning quality. But no one would claim it is the equal of a skilled and cunning human opponent.

[Wesreidau]

Kip, i've not read that yet, but clearly the lack of beer has gone to your head. I vote for immediate emmergency toxification.

PeterNZ

ps. I do agree, by the way

[ 01-29-2002, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: PeterNZer ]

[Andreas]

Kip, I scanned it. I agree with Peter.

Having said that, I believe the core of your argument is that the maneuvre unit should not be penalised by the game design to achieve a historical outcome. Instead the historical outcome should be irrelevant in the design of the game. The premise presumably being that if we as players have a better clue of what we are doing than an August 1941 Soviet battalion commander, the game should allow a result that does not match the real result, but maybe totally different.

If that is indeed your argument, I think CMBO should be a good guide as to what BTS will do. Nowhere in CMBO are we forced to make do with diminished maneuvre capabilities, to achieve the historical result of the initial battles in the Normandy beach-head, where Allied combined arms abilities were often weak, or the last weeks in Germany, where German units were often just demoralised, dredged together, and surrendered in droves.

I have no reason to think that CMBB will be different. I would expect that the historical outcome of the border battles will not be seen in CMBB. Which is as it should be, although all those Paul Carrell acolytes will no doubt decry it.

All the best.

[Catacol Highlander]

Kip

Will effective use of command and control delays plus the cost of units within the game not solve all this? If BTS feel that a reg Soviet platoon is better armed and more deadly than an equivalent German one surely they will make it more expensive to buy. Problem solved...

Of course troops characteristics will alter between 1941 and 1945 - I am confident you will find BTS get the balance of things right when it comes down to actual gameplay. CMBO seems to have modelled troop characteristics/costs/effectivenes pretty well...

Cheers

Al

[gredeker]

Kip,

As a current ASL player (going on ten years now - oy!) I'd have to say that there are plenty of other distinguishing features between German and Russian infantry in ASL, including: quantity and quality of leadership, quantity and quality of support weapons, German inherent PF capability, differences in broken morale for various units, etc.

However, whether in ASL or CMBB, a good scenario designer will mix and match things until the right combination of historical accuracy and (lest we forget) fun arrived at for that particular scenario.

While there may certainly be some small discrepancies with relation to unit pricing, play balance and quick battles, I think a lot of it could be taken care quite simply with the following humble suggestion: Incorporate timeframe modifiers to the bonuses received by leaders. As I have NO IDEA how these are currently determined in CMBO, other than the vague notion that "better quality units tend to get better quality leaders" incorporation of such a system would allow for minor adjustments in play balance to better reflect historical reality.

Just my $0.02.

[L4Pilot]

Won't the already included factors of command quality and troop quality result in near historic results, even in the early battles of the war in Russia?

Won't many or most of the battles during the first months of the campaign involve Veteran or Regular Axis units facing Green or Conscript Soviet forces? And wouldn't there be significantly fewer Russian commanders with leadership bonuses? My guess is that these factors, when extended to all the arms on both sides, and incorporating with the human wave/assault distinction you point out, will yield results that aren't consistently out of line with those of history.

Does anyone recall if there are going to be negative command bonuses (or should I say command penalties) for truly bad commanders?

And another question I have is about "global morale." I recall that the "fitness" of troops will be modeled in CMBB. My understanding is this reflects the physical state (hunger, prolonged exposure, etc.) of the troops. And morale, as it is currently used in the game, reflects the immediate "in-game" experience of the troops. But what about the impact of the external events, the situation external to the scenario, on the game units morale and esprit de corps. Certainly there were situations on both sides where, independent of physical conditions or training, a pattern of victories or losses, prolonged advances or retreats, or extended periods of combat, siege or idleness affected the combat units disposition and abilities. Anybody know if this type of longer term morale will be reflected in CMBB? Is this something that should be included in the CM2 rewrite?

[dalem]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

In ASL regular Soviet infantry are given a rating of 4, 4; that is four range and four firepower. Regular German infantry are given a rating of 6, 4. Six range and four firepower. What this means, is that in the case of regular infantry, the designers of ASL are assuming that Soviet rifle squads could only deliver half the firepower of German rifle squads at two hundred metres range. (PS. Light machine guns are modelled separately.)

Mmm, incorrect. Inherent squad LMGs are taken into account in the basic SL/ASL squad FP numbers. Now, that doesn't mean much because the original squad values (German= 4-6-7, Sov= 4-4-7, U.S.= 6-6-6) were all fudged around. Which is fine, and those 3 sets of numbers gave the game the 'feel' that the designer wanted.

Not that I disagree with your main point. I just can't resist SL bait.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

Understand that your concerns are the same ones that we had over a year ago when we laid out the design of CMBB (and to a lesser extent 3-4 years ago when we designed CMBO).

In other words, from the very beginning we looked at the historical accounts of the war (not other wargames) and determined what historical realities (not wargame perceptions) would distinguish the various armies from each other. Not just German and Soviet, but Soviet and Finnish, Romanian and Soviet, Hungarian and German, Italian and Romanian, etc.

We knew from the start that modeling the differences between each nation was the SINGLE most important thing to get right. If we got it wrong, the whole game would be a farse which no amount of ahistorical fudging (like playing around with firepower numbers, unit speeds, etc.) would fix. If we didn't think we could do this theater RIGHT, instead of leaning on cheap short cuts, we wouldn't have even attempted it. We have better thigns to do with our time than give the world yet another compromised and conceptually flawed product.

So be reassured that we are more concerned about this than even you

I think Andreas summed up Kip's post well:

Having said that, I believe the core of your argument is that the maneuvre unit should not be penalised by the game design to achieve a historical outcome. Instead the historical outcome should be irrelevant in the design of the game. The premise presumably being that if we as players have a better clue of what we are doing than an August 1941 Soviet battalion commander, the game should allow a result that does not match the real result, but maybe totally different.

I think this is the main thrust of his concern. And we agree. Slapping firepower penalties and other "game balancing" things are things we are entirely against to our very core. This is BS way to design simulations, and therefore the thought has never entered our minds. Especially mine, because I have never played ASL or liked what other wargames have done in this regard

Redeker wrote:

I'd have to say that there are plenty of other distinguishing features between German and Russian infantry in ASL, including: quantity and quality of leadership, quantity and quality of support weapons, German inherent PF capability, differences in broken morale for various units, etc.

And L4Pilot wrote:

Won't the already included factors of command quality and troop quality result in near historic results, even in the early battles of the war in Russia?

Yup, and these are what distinguish the various nations apart from each other more than anything. Since these things are fundamental and all pervasive while playing a game, they will have a huge impact on the way the game is played.

In an early war matchup a Soviet Rifle Squad and a German Rifle Squad will not be equal. Not because of artificial constraints, but because of realistic ones.

For example, the German Squad might have slightly better firepower (might not, I don't recall) due to small differences in their weapons (MG34 is beltfed, which is better). However the Soviets have an extra SMG, so the differences are going to be variable with range. OK, so slight edge to the Germans at longer range. Headcount goes slightly in favor of the Soviets (11 vs 10 men), with the platoon being quite similar (4xSquad, 3x50mm Mortar). So even there.

The big one is Experience. German units in 1941 were VERY experienced, Soviet ones were not. Worst time was late summer when barely (or not at all!) trained recruits were the norm as most of the prewar forces had been demolished. This means that the German squad will have better fire discipline and can generally do things better than the Soviet squad. Althogh a decent shot Soviet soldier was maybe on a par with his German counterpart on a rifle range, this would not be the same in a fast moving combined arms battle.

We are also modeling doctrine to some extent using C&C delays. The Soviets had, without any question of a doubt, an artificial paralysis (at times) imposed upon them through years of purposeful training and reinforced by the lovely boys of the NKVD and Commisars. Account after account of the fighting in 1941 shows this was not fiction, but hard cold fact. Stalin killing off the best and brightest of his peacetime army was also a fact, as was the horribly poor showing during the WInter War. So we have devised a system which gives German (and other Axis units) more freedom of maneuver by penalizing them less for complex movement orders and jump off delays. If the Soviet unit were Regular or Veteran the delay wouldn't be as bad, but it would still be the worst in the game. By 1943 this will not be as noticable and by 1944/45 it won't be there at all. But in 1941 and 1942... you betcha

As for AFVs, the Soviets helped us out here by making tanks with 2 man turrets and lacking radios. Keeping Soviet armor coordinated in a fast moving battle of manuever is VERY difficult to do. Very difficult. And that is totally realistic when one looks in the history books. A stationary T-34 platoon is going to be a bitch and a half for the Germans to take care of, but if they are on the attack they will likely get themselves into trouble since the Germans can (in theory) out maneuver them.

I've seen too many pictures of entire Soviet tank platoons (even IS-2s!) totally wiped out in one spot for me to think that this is just something Western sources invented. If T-34s and KVs had 3 man turrets and radios, I doubt the Germans would have done very well against them even if their crews were Green. But they were Conscript and Green with 2 man turrets and no radios

Artillery is a whole 'nother discussion that I would rather not even get into. It is enough to say that Soviet artillery is completely different than Axis (particularly German and Finnish) for the whole war, but especially during the late 1941 through 1943 period. And we aren't just talking delays here.

Er... OK, well, that is about as good as I can do for now. To sum up... don't worry about it

Steve

[PiggDogg]

The short & simplified explanation of the 'early war' (& actually whole war) Axis tactical advantage over the Russian (& the Western Allies):

Despite the Germans having generally tactically inferior weapons (inferior firepower), they had superior doctrine/tactics [thanks, JasonC ] which allowed them to apply (usually by maneuver) that inferior firepower more times in a limited amount of time. :eek: :eek:

The real, real short & over simplified explanation is: the Germans did more while the Allies sat. :eek: :eek:

Cheers, Richard

[ASL Veteran]

I tried to resist the bait - I truly tried . When it comes to ASL though I am a "Defender of the Faith". I understand your main point is not directed specifically at ASL, but one unfamiliar with the game might get a few misconceptions about what ASL is all about by reading that post. Maybe you have just been away from SL too long - or never truly played ASL. The Germans have a whole laundry list of squads from which to choose: 4-6-8, 4-6-7, 5-4-8, 4-4-7 (yes, a German 447), 8-3-8, 6-5-8, 4-3-6 - each one representing a different type and experience level - and usable by a designer in any way he sees fit. The Soviets have a large variety of squads to choose from too: 4-4-7, 4-5-8, 6-2-8, 5-2-7, 4-3-6. Note that veteran Soviet squads have a range of 5 - equivalent to British, French, and minor nations range for their base units. There are also ELR levels, ratio of leaders to squads, Human Wave assaults, Commissars, and a whole host of other items included. ASL tried to highlight different national characteristics to add flavor to the game. It was a design choice and it worked. When you are dealing with cardboard pieces and mapboards you aren't going to have precision. Some fudging has to be done to maintain playability - and if you have ever truly played ASL you will know that they were certainly testing the limits of playability in the latest rules versions. Soviet MGs are also just as powerful as Britain's, France's, or the US. In fact, I think the only nation with a LMG rated at a 3, an MMG rated at a 5, or an HMG rated at a 7 is Germany and the MG34 / 42. Every other nation in ASL has LMG 2, MMG 4, HMG 6. Doesn't seem out of line to me.

in a game between two equally skilled human players, the Germans will have a very difficult challenge. Will more often than not be beaten. This is how it should be.

I think this pretty much tells us your point of view and what it is based upon.

Oh, and I can honestly say that I never lost a scenario as the Soviets in ASL because of the lack of two hexes of range in my base Soviet squads . My dice and leaders usually played a much larger role. :eek:

I could actually go on and on, but I know that you are a swell guy Kip and I don't want to belabor the point. ASL is the best tactical wargame ever made with cardboard, and I think it has a lot to offer the CM series in terms of ideas (not in terms of direct translation). I think any game designer could pick up a thing or two from a game as long lived and successful as SL / ASL. A game that has been evolving for some 30 years and is still going must be doing something right.

Okay, now I'm finally finished!!

[gredeker]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

In fact, I think the only nation with a LMG rated at a 3, an MMG rated at a 5, or an HMG rated at a 7 is Germany and the MG34 / 42. Every other nation in ASL has LMG 2, MMG 4, HMG 6.

Ahem.... the .50 cal HMG is modeled as an 8, but I'm somewhat hesitant to bring it up and give those "Ma Deuce is undermodeled in CM" types any more ammo. (pun intended)

[gredeker]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We are also modeling doctrine to some extent using C&C delays. The Soviets had, without any question of a doubt, an artificial paralysis (at times) imposed upon them through years of purposeful training and reinforced by the lovely boys of the NKVD and Commisars.

I can't help but wonder if there will be "friendly" fire on the Russian side if Commissars are modeled. I can just imagine hearing something similar to the "Get up and FIGHT!" .wav file followed by a pistol shot and the casualty count of the squad in question going up by one.

It's one of the most funny and macabre aspects of ASL, especially in Red Barricades. :eek:

[Grisha]

I agree with Steve on this(and Kip). What really defined the difference between Soviet and German units was war experience, training and tactical doctrine. The Soviets had some very advanced ideas on mechanized warfare, but the purges of '37-39 made not only a shell of the officer corps, but also made this doctrine very unpopular for strictly political reasons. Thus, in summer 1941, Soviet small unit officers did not possess the training for proper maneuver combat, nor if they did would the average officer have been able to apply it in practice. The fact of the matter is that after the Winter War and then the fall of France the Soviet government uttered a collective "uh oh," and immediately re-started a crash program for a mechanized force. When the Germans attacked this program was just getting underway. Any effects from it were negligible in summer of '41, and it wasn't until the STAVKA instituted the War Experience Committee that effective means of combat were collected and published in annual combat regulations(I think it was started late in 1941, possibly fall/winter).

So, inexperience within the Red Army in the first period of the war was across the board, from small units to General Staff. Of course there were bright spots like Katukov or Rokossovsky, but your average Soviet Army officer was out of his depth in summer of 1941.

Even if we as a player may actually possess a better understanding of tactics than your average Soviet small units commander in 1941, there will still be the inexperienced of those subordinated under your command. In essence, the best you should be able to do is as good as a 'Katukov' or a 'Rokossovsky'.

On the flip-side, by 1944 the Soviets strongly encouraged and promoted commanders who showed initiative and decisiveness(actually, there were officers like this during Operation Uranus, but the combination of leaders with highly effective troops didn't really 'blossom' until 1944), giving them wide freedom of action. This decentralization of command could have tragic consequences within a centralized army, since support was usually slow to respond, but it could also have tremendous payoffs in securing critical objectives. Also, informal groups were being tailored to address specific enemy units/emplacements, so that loss of life was minimized. What this would amount to is units with high experience. So, by 1944 one could expect to play a Soviet force that contained very well trained and experienced troops.

[ January 30, 2002, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redeker:

However, whether in ASL or CMBB, a good scenario designer will mix and match things until the right combination of historical accuracy and (lest we forget) fun arrived at for that particular scenario.

I think Redeker has really hit the nail on the head here. While the 'problem' will be pronounced in QBs (but who cares about them anyway when there are scenarios to play ), I would assume that historical and semi-historical scenarios of the border battles take things like inexperience, level of preparedness, supply etc. as much into account as the game engine allows. Tog give you an example, you may get the mighty KV-1, but unfortunately it has a conscript crew (because they never really trained on the tank) that is fanatic, and it has 3 shots of AP and 4 of HE. Or you may get a bunch of well equipped grunts with a conscript platoon HQ, low ammo, and in disturbed state at the start of the scenario. All that and more.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We are also modeling doctrine to some extent using C&C delays. The Soviets had, without any question of a doubt, an artificial paralysis (at times) imposed upon them...

How are you going to model the relative differences in doctrine between the Germans and the Soviets when the Red Army starts getting it right (around 1943) ? Will there be any allowances/penalties given for mobile defensive tactics and high command induced static defensive lines and "must hold" objectives ?

And that is totally realistic when one looks in the history books. A stationary T-34 platoon is going to be a bitch and a half for the Germans to take care of, but if they are on the attack they will likely get themselves into trouble since the Germans can (in theory) out maneuver them.

Will the generic map sizes be generated differently to give more space to manouver ?

(particularly German and Finnish)

I hope you get the differences in the artillery doctine between these two right.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I feel I should just start by saying I did not intend to offend fans of ASL. Due to my advanced years, mid forties, I am more a Squad Leader than Advanced Squad Leader man; however I do have all the ASL modules. And yes, I have played SL/ASL a lot, but many years ago. At university playing SL was really what I did; the study of economics just had to fit in around my SL habit! In its time, SL was as much a brake through as CMBO is today, in a different stratosphere to the rest. However, I stand by the point I made above. The difference in the treatment of elite submachine gunners is the most extreme example, and generally, typical of all previous tactical Eastern Front games I have seen. (PS. I still visit the websites that cover this stuff, Multiman Publishing and Critical Hits.)

Steve,

I am re-assured by what you say, and when it comes to BTS I do indeed “keep the faith”. However, do just remember that you and I, the players of CM, are the platoon, company and battalion commanders in CMBB so care must be taken when it comes to tying our hands. This is my view of all wargames. For example, in an operational wargame I would be against tying the hands of the German player because in reality Soviet generals and staff officers tended to have the edge over their German counterparts, for most of the war, but certainly not all of it.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. When it comes to my above comments on Soviet and German generals I should point out that I am no more a believer in “uber” Soviet generals than I am in “uber” German company commanders. In both cases the reasons why one side may have had the edge will have been institutional, doctrinal, and training. Until very recently it was my view that the Soviets only started to out perform their enemies, at the operational level, from mid 43. However, I have just started to read the Eastern Front sections of Germany and the Second World War, volume VI. http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-822888-0 . At the operational level the reason for the any German failings were not just down to Hitler, even in 1942.

PPS. The above book is the first from the series I have read; the early war does not interest me so much. Anyway… they are very authoritative, right up there with books by Charles MacDonald and David Glantz. Like so many that come out of military educational establishments, they are seemingly unbiased and balanced in their judgements. Plus, stuffed to exploding point with data, facts and figures.

[Mattias]

It has already been touched upon but it is important to remember that what really landed the Soviet forces in a world of hurt was (in my opinion) the skill and speed with which the Germans managed to carry out the building of Schwerpunkten on the operational level. When this veritable storm struck the Soviet forces they were unable to respond in a flexible way, for numerous reasons mentioned above and elsewhere.

Thus the Soviet squad, platoon or company might fight on bravely and skillfully but it was still not "enough" because the whole division has been outmaneuvered. and those that faced the German spearheads where outnumbered and overpowered by the most effective fighting force of that time.

It seems to me that this issue becomes something of a problem when we try to balance reality on the tactical level with our expectations formed on the operational level. Read any war time diary of a German infantry division and you'll see that they certainly did not cut through the Soviet forces like a warm knife through butter if the Red army was faced on equal ground.

M.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The big one is Experience. German units in 1941 were VERY experienced, Soviet ones were not. Worst time was late summer when barely (or not at all!) trained recruits were the norm as most of the prewar forces had been demolished.

it

Steve

Will the Rarity Factor be applied to infantry types as well - ie you would be restricted from buying crack or elite troops if playing Soviet in 1941?

[Spook]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We are also modeling doctrine to some extent using C&C delays. The Soviets had, without any question of a doubt, an artificial paralysis (at times) imposed upon them through years of purposeful training and reinforced by the lovely boys of the NKVD and Commisars. Account after account of the fighting in 1941 shows this was not fiction, but hard cold fact. Stalin killing off the best and brightest of his peacetime army was also a fact, as was the horribly poor showing during the WInter War. So we have devised a system which gives German (and other Axis units) more freedom of maneuver by penalizing them less for complex movement orders and jump off delays. If the Soviet unit were Regular or Veteran the delay wouldn't be as bad, but it would still be the worst in the game. By 1943 this will not be as noticable and by 1944/45 it won't be there at all. But in 1941 and 1942... you betcha

Steve

As always, Steve, your input is appreciated and illuminating. However, for me, I still regard myself to be a little "in the dark" on how command delays will be fundamentally revised or improved upon from CMBO.

Would you, or a beta tester, be willing to lay out an more explicit case of a 1941 scenario setting between a German infantry company and its Soviet counterpart, relating some of the relative delays and command options between the two sides?

Understandably, you might feel a bit reserved to provide such info here, while CMBB still is in development. (Although dontcha feel that most of us still here are like family now!!! ) Regardless, my curiosity compells this posting.

[Battlefront.com]

Some answers...

Yes, one has to be VERY careful about how this works. Our philosophy is to get all the "physical" things correct first, like gun capabilities, squad sizes, rarity, etc. THEN see how to make it all work together logically, fairly, and above all realistically.

Mattias' point about much of the Red Army's problems being of a more Operational or Strategic nature, not tactical, is partially correct in my view. Certainly much of the death and destruction caused to the Red Army for the first 2 years of the war was in no small part the result of superior German flexibility and ability when executing large scale operations. The Soviets didn't get this down pat until after the summer of 1943 (mixed results in 41, 42). However...

When you read AARs from battles you find that at the lowest level, where the Germans were almost in awe of the Red Army's abilities, you find fundamentally flawed use of their assets while conducting offensive operations. When the Soviets came out to fight they generally were decisively beaten at the tactical level, even if it caused the Germans considerable casualties and effort. When the Soviets hunkered down, they were ultimately defeated time and time again, but the fighting was of a different nature more favorable to the Soviets.

A prime example of this would be the battles of the Yelnia area in late Summer, early Fall of 1941. Operationally and tactically the Germans lost the initiative. The Soviets beat the Germans senseless there for nearly 2 months, causing large numbers of casualties and laying waste to several divisional sized formations. But when you look at the actual battles you see that the Germans always bounced back and caused more casualties than they received. Quite a feat considering the superiority of firepower and numbers on the Soviet side.

The conclusion here is that even when the Red Army was at its best during the initial battles, which Yelnia was IMHO, at the tactical level they still just didn't quite have the ability to carry through with their operational goals. This was seen time and time again until about 1943, and even to some degree later in spots.

Spook, the new system is based on CMBO's C&C and waypoint systems. The big change is that for every waypoint you plot you get a delay added to the initial start time delay. However, the closer the point is to the pervious point, the smaller the delay is. The further away, the greater. Meaning that if you plot 5 short moves around a building it costs you little more than say one point out to the same destination (i.e. careful does not equal "expensive" if it is limited). But if you did 5 points in a complex zig zag over 1/2 the map... be prepared for a substantial penalty. And like in CMBO, editing moves is allowed but adding new ones means suffering brand new C&C delay as noted above.

All of the above is HEAVILY influenced by Experience. The more Experienced the unit, the less the penalties are for numbers and distances of waypoints. This means that a Conscript unit is VERY limited in terms of tactical flexibility. It can move from A to B fairly quickly, but it can not do a complicated zig zagging motion all over a village without taking a serious up front delay hit.

It is hard to explain this to someone who hasn't played with the new system, but it definately has the desired result. Either I do quicker, clumsy moves or I do longer ones which are much harder to coordinate and "repair" when the unexpected happens. I remember one time when I tried to make a company of Conscripts do a typical village "hopping" maneuver, where each platoon did bounding overwatch. It started to do OK, but then some of the units took fire and ignored my orders (like happens in CMBO). My other units kept going and got themselves all out of position vis a vis the other units. Because delay times were so bad, I basically had to abandon my plan and settle for several turns of just trying to sort things out. I suffered heavy casualties and was pretty much helpless during this time because I asked my men to bite off more then they were able to chew. A lesson that I think many gamers are going to learn the hard way

As for Experience levels... you will not see Veteran Soviet units in 1941 for example. I can't remember if we are going to simply outlaw the upper range (like we do for Volkssturm in CMBO), or just beat the crap out of the prices with Rarity

Steve

[Mr. Johnson--]

Come on guys, are you just trying to be difficult?

Lets look at Kiev in 1941. The Russians were putting up a great operational defense in front of Kiev, until Guderian and Rundstedt parked 5 fast divisions on the high ground behind the city.

It could have happened diffrently but Stalin did not want to lose Leningrad. Those reinforcements could have be sent to Smolensk-Gorky and Kiev might have held out for the winter.

The victories of the Germans in 1941 were not all tactical.

[Commissar]

Here is an article that someone has brought up before but seems somewhat relevant. Although the author does talk about operational affects of inaccurate modeling in wargames (beyond CMBB's scope), it does highlight some of what others here have said.

Wargamer Article

An interesting article, especially if you're a member of the Wehrmacht cult.

[ January 30, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Commissar]

Originally posted by redeker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We are also modeling doctrine to some extent using C&C delays. The Soviets had, without any question of a doubt, an artificial paralysis (at times) imposed upon them through years of purposeful training and reinforced by the lovely boys of the NKVD and Commisars.

I can't help but wonder if there will be "friendly" fire on the Russian side if Commissars are modeled. I can just imagine hearing something similar to the "Get up and FIGHT!" .wav file followed by a pistol shot and the casualty count of the squad in question going up by one.

It's one of the most funny and macabre aspects of ASL, especially in Red Barricades. :eek: </font>

[Spook]

Originally posted by Commissar:

Here is an article that someone has brought up before but seems somewhat relevant. Although the author does talk about operational affects of inaccurate modeling in wargames (beyond CMBB's scope), it does highlight some of what others here have said.

Wargamer Article

An interesting article, especially if you're a member of the Wehrmacht cult.

Ah yes, Joe Kussey's article. It kicked up some contention when it published last year, but it's still very compelling to read. And from I recall of Joe from days past, he tries to do his homework on military historical issues.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Spook, the new system is based on CMBO's C&C and waypoint systems. The big change is that for every waypoint you plot you get a delay added to the initial start time delay. However, the closer the point is to the pervious point, the smaller the delay is. The further away, the greater. Meaning that if you plot 5 short moves around a building it costs you little more than say one point out to the same destination (i.e. careful does not equal "expensive" if it is limited). But if you did 5 points in a complex zig zag over 1/2 the map... be prepared for a substantial penalty. And like in CMBO, editing moves is allowed but adding new ones means suffering brand new C&C delay as noted above.

All of the above is HEAVILY influenced by Experience. The more Experienced the unit, the less the penalties are for numbers and distances of waypoints. This means that a Conscript unit is VERY limited in terms of tactical flexibility. It can move from A to B fairly quickly, but it can not do a complicated zig zagging motion all over a village without taking a serious up front delay hit.

Steve

EXACTLY the kind of thing I was wanting to hear about. Thanks.

However, for future CM iterations, like CM II, I still hold an added opinion in that the company & battalion HQ's will need to play a bigger role, or have a bigger C&C effect (both positive & negative), than is the case in CMBO. But that can be taken up in a later topic someday.