The trap awaiting all tactical, Eastern Front wargames.

[Holdit]

Originally posted by Andreas:

[QB]

Which is as it should be, although all those Paul Carrell acolytes will no doubt decry it.

QB]

Who he? :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

Spook, I agree with you about trying to pull in "external" factors into the tactical battlefield. Tough issue to deal with, but I am sure it will be tackled to some degree for the engine rewrite.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention about srtinging orders along... the penalties INCREASE the more points plotted. Works on a curve so the initial plots don't change the penalty much, but instead goes up gradually from there. The curves we use are different for at least Axis and Soviets. Not sure if the Axis is broken down differently. The curve therefore penalizes Soviet units more for long, complicated paths more than Axis units. This changes over time so that things are pretty much equal by the last phase of the war.

Steve

[John D Salt]

Lots of good points made so far.

I am tempted to make some bold and silly claim along the lines of "the history of the development of tactical wargames is the history of attempts to get the Germans to beat the Russians in 1941".

ISTM that various mechanisms (apart from straight fiddling the numbers, a tradition since Panzerblitz days) have been tried to confer that German edge:

* German tanks have "better optics", so their hit probabilities are greater (red "to hit" numbers in SL).

* Penalties for two-man turrets (WRG 1925-50 rules), which Russian designs have more often.

* Higher troop quality ratings for Germans (any game that allows for troop quality, starting with the old SPI "panic" system from the 1970s).

* More and better German leaders (SL again).

* "Soviet doctrine" rules effectively making idiocy compulsory for the Russians (more popular in Cold War games than WW2).

* Some scheme of activation rolls ("Iron Cross"), chits ("Panzer Commander") or cards ("East Front Tank Leader") that essentially allow the Germans to get more done in a game-turn.

There is some truth in all of these, but in the end the problem is going to come down to one of modelling command & control. The last three bullets are all attempts at doing so. The effect of having AFVs that are not equipped with two-way radio is also impossible to model adequately unless there is some recognition of what is being transmitted by those radios, namely, command and control information. In the absence of radios, this must either be prearranged and impossible to change at execution time, or must be passed by waving flags -- I would really, really like to see Soviet tanks in CM:BB have animated commanders flag-wagging out of their turrets, while their subordinates peer through the smoke and fail to notice the Pz III creeping up on them, or the sniper lining up on the flag-wagger. ISTM that mechanisms already exist to model the LOS needed for visual signalling, the effect of concentrating attention in one direction, and the effect of losing an AFV commander. It seems likely that Combat Mission also has the ability to model the reduced spotting capability of Soviet AFVs with relatively poor crew vision arrangements. Another Soviet weakness that I'm not sure how to model was their absolutely wretched march security at the beginning of the war (and, at levels where radios were common, poor electronic security).

The mechanism of command delays mentioned is obviously an attempt to model relative command & control advantages using the exisitng game mechanisms for giving orders. The trouble is, of course, that giving commands in CM bears very little resemblance to giving commands in a real tactical sub-unit. Unless one wishes to get into an entirely new approach to command & control modelling (which, incidentally, is still not at all well done by "professional" wargamers working for government research establishments), this is probably the best that can be done. And one can always console oneself with the good point, made earlier, that Soviet defeats arose primarily from the Wehrmacht's operational, rather than tactical, advantage over the Red Army.

Dare I hope that we'll be getting Cossacks, aerosans, ski mines, ice mines, punishment battalions? Me, I fancy one of those horse-drawn quad Maxim AA wagons...

All the best,

John.

[Keith]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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

Steve, what about the Siberian veterans from the Manchurian front? Or the highly trained and motivated Soviet Airborne troops? I think you should leave the "Veteran" experience levels in for scenario designers, but just make it extremely rare or impossible for the Quick Battle crowd.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi John,

I am tempted to make some bold and silly claim along the lines of "the history of the development of tactical wargames is the history of attempts to get the Germans to beat the Russians in 1941".

I would agree with you there. Even though we had a different approach to this than we think most games have, we knew before we started that unless we simulated things right the Soviets would either always beat the Germans (especially early on) or the Soviets would be unfairly penalized for being Soviet.

There is some truth in all of these, but in the end the problem is going to come down to one of modelling command & control.

I agree with this more than I disagree. However, simulating the problems with 2 man turrets (and there are HUGE problems with them), rate of fire, ammo loadouts, etc. neutralizes one of the common difficulties tactical wargames have. Yes, the T34 and KVs are fearsome, but they also suffer from significant defects. Same with things like the ISU-152, with a horrible rate of fire and the problems of low velocity rounds. The IS-2 is also hindered by a very small ammo loadout and slow rate of fire.

In other words, even without any simulation of C&C, the Soviet tanks do have significant downsides to them. Especially when the battle gets heated up while the Soviets are on the offensive. Most games utterly fail to simulate the shortcomings of the various Soviet tank designs, and therefore present a rather distorted picture of their effectiveness. And since most gamers love playing with tanks, it distorts the whole picture of balance between the two sides.

The effect of having AFVs that are not equipped with two-way radio is also impossible to model adequately unless there is some recognition of what is being transmitted by those radios, namely, command and control information.

Agree, and this is something which has been introduced into CMBB. Since radios were present in nearly all AFVs on the Western Front we figured it wasn't a high priority item to simulate. But on the Eastern Front this assumption would be very wrong, and therefore new things had to be done. Namely, applying C&C rules to AFVs.

In the absence of radios, this must either be prearranged and impossible to change at execution time, or must be passed by waving flags -- I would really, really like to see Soviet tanks in CM:BB have animated commanders flag-wagging out of their turrets, while their subordinates peer through the smoke and fail to notice the Pz III creeping up on them, or the sniper lining up on the flag-wagger.

While we don't have time to do a cool animiation of flag waving TCs, being buttoned up witout a radio imediately closes that vehicle off from C&C. And C&C is only as good as LOS even when unbuttoned.

ISTM that mechanisms already exist to model the LOS needed for visual signalling, the effect of concentrating attention in one direction, and the effect of losing an AFV commander. It seems likely that Combat Mission also has the ability to model the reduced spotting capability of Soviet AFVs with relatively poor crew vision arrangements.

True, which is why it wasn't too hard to add this into CMBB. We have given vehicles +/- spotting modifiers when buttoned up depending on if they have a copula or not. I am not sure if this is a binary thing or if there are shades of gray (not all copulas were created equal!), but we at least have the basic element in place.

Another Soviet weakness that I'm not sure how to model was their absolutely wretched march security at the beginning of the war (and, at levels where radios were common, poor electronic security).

This would also be extremely difficult to simulate and simulate accurately so it is a good thing it is largely outside of CM's scope

The mechanism of command delays mentioned is obviously an attempt to model relative command & control advantages using the exisitng game mechanisms for giving orders. The trouble is, of course, that giving commands in CM bears very little resemblance to giving commands in a real tactical sub-unit. Unless one wishes to get into an entirely new approach to command & control modelling (which, incidentally, is still not at all well done by "professional" wargamers working for government research establishments), this is probably the best that can be done.

What you are talking about is a "Goal Oriented Move Order" (or something like that) where you would issue "directives" rather than waypoints to your units. The problem with this is twofold:

1. Programming. Ohboy, I don't even want to think about how difficult this would be to do because it would, basically, need human skill level AI to work. Obviously this is not possible, so anything we could come up with would likely be painfully expensive (time) and seriously imperfect.

2. Role of player. In CM the player wears all the hats. It is perfectly reasonable for a Squad Leader to say "we will run 40m to that big tree, then 20m over to the break in that stone wall, cross the field on the other side, and enter the little farmhouse with the attractive looking daughter in the window" That is, basically, what players do with waypoints. But if you want to simulate a Battalion or Company level command position, this is obviously giving the player WAY too much control. To remove this control you need a Goal Oriented system or one human player for each unit.

Dare I hope that we'll be getting Cossacks, aerosans, ski mines, ice mines, punishment battalions? Me, I fancy one of those horse-drawn quad Maxim AA wagons...

No to most of this stuff. Some of these things, like aerosans, are outside of CM's scope (we had a rather lengthy and informed debate on this with our Beta Testers). Horse drawn/mounted units of all types are not included since horses were not supposed to used in a CM sized battle, and to include them would be one heckofa nightmare. Since we feel the realistic reasons for their inclusion are rather low, the effort to include them was decidedly not worth it.

One problem with long running boardgames is that they can toss in stuff like this without having to give it much thought or without sacrificing other features. Making a few special rules and a new cardboard chit is not difficult to do. I also question if some of these things have been included in the past completely incorrectly and therefore have influenced gamer thinking about how relevant these things really were to the battlefield.

Such are the differences between past and future wargmaing

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Keith:

I'd agree with that.

Here is some information about Paul Carell (real name Paul Karl Schmidt) in German. Controversial figure.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve wrote,

“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.”

As the official defender of the Great Soviet Masses, I cannot say how relieved I am. Steve and co have done it again. The way Human Wave and Assault are to be modeled was a hint of what was to come. From what I have heard, the way Human Wave attacks and Assault interact in CMBB is perfect. Simple and realistic. The way command delay is to work; with less experienced troops having longer delays within a system as described above, does the job just fine. It does not have an “artificial” feel to it. It looks as if the reasons for the delays will be realistic. A platoon commander, even a competent one, would have problems explaining and controlling less experienced troops in such circumstances.

The point about restrictions and features not being or looking “artificial” is, for me, crucial. My complaint about previous tactical, Eastern Front wargames is that the restrictions on Soviet forces, their downward tweaking, always seemed artificial. Unrealistic, and therefore not historically accurate.

Spook, I understand your point about company and battalion HQs. However, remember that the scale of CM, it is not a "command game". You are not only playing the part of the battalion/company commander, but also the platoon and squad commanders. Put too many restrictions on platoon and squad/AFV commanders and you no longer have a CM game at its current scale, even if individual squads are still running around.Such a game would be fun, but would no longer be CM, in my view.I believe one of the answers is live team play. This would slove much of the relative command/ relative spotting problem. You can only give orders to "your platoon or company" you can only spot what "your platoon or company can spot". All good fun.

Looks as though CMBB really will be as good as I was hoping for.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Steve, if you do not already have it, do just consider the book I recommended. The “Germany and the Second World War” series of books. They also cover the desert war in detail. Opinions will differ, but certainly right up there amongst the best operational military history books available. If not just taking the biscuit as the number one of their type. One point they do illustrate is that even as early as the second half of 42 the Soviets seemed to make better use of their assets than the Germans. Given the troops the two sides had available from June 42 onwards, and taking into account their quality, the Soviets used them more sensibly. They attacked at the correct times and places, they retreated at the correct times and places. That is at the operational level, got the better of things. However, the fact that we do not all agree on this, adds to the fun!

[Battlefront.com]

Keith,

Good points to consider. I'm not really sure I would rate the Soviet Far East units "Veteran", as their impact on the battle was felt more because they were fresh, trained for snow conditions, and were adequately equipped. Contrast that with German and Soviet forces, which were the opposite.

A comparison can be made (to an extent) with some of the battles fought in the West. There are plenty of stories of "Green/Regular" US units, fresh from the US or English bases, beating the living crap out of Veteran German formations.

Think about it this way... if two boxers were put in a ring, one of which had just fought 80 rounds over the last day or two, and the other was fresh and raring to go, was boxing with a hometown crowd, and was told that the other boxer just raped his sister and looted his mother's house... all else being equal, who would you put your money on? I'd go for the fresh boxer any day of the week

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

Glad you like what you see

Steve, if you do not already have it, do just consider the book I recommended. The “Germany and the Second World War” series of books.

OK, these are the books which, if dropped, could break a toe or two? Yeah, I have been aware of them for... sheesh... 7 years now when they first started being published here in the US (Harvard Press I believe). But at something like $200 per volume, I never did purchase any. I think the last I heard they were still going for $120 a volume.

Same series?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Andreas,

Wow... I didn't know that about Carell! I did know that I never liked his books as I came away with the distinct feeling that it was written with thick, rose colored glasses (English saying meaning "everything I see is all fine in my eyes and not distored in any way by my perception"). I've got several of his books and I don't recall finishing any one of them because I found the writing to be a bit obnoxious. Now I think I know why

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

Yup, same books. They are embarrassingly expensive, even I think I am not quite sane!

I am hugely relieved about all I have heard about how CMBB is to model the Soviets, it looks as though the traps will be avoided.

However, one of your above answers has brought to the fore another question. I agree fully that C&C should receive some attention in Soviet AFVs without radios. You wrote

“While we don't have time to do a cool animiation of flag waving TCs, being buttoned up witout a radio imediately closes that vehicle off from C&C. And C&C is only as good as LOS even when unbuttoned.”

However, my concern is that one of the roles we play in CM is that of AFV commander. This relates to what I wrote to Spook above. So could you give some examples of what an out of C&C Soviet AFV could and could not do in CMBB? What can I, as a Soviet AFV commander, but out of C&C, order my tanks to do? Or am I totally paralyzed?

Hope you understand what I am trying to get at.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. It will be interesting to see if in CMIII to move towards making CM a “command game”. As long as all is done to your usual high standards, I am neutral on the issue.

[Spook]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Spook, I understand your point about company and battalion HQs. However, remember that the scale of CM, it is not a "command game". You are not only playing the part of the battalion/company commander, but also the platoon and squad commanders. Put too many restrictions on platoon and squad/AFV commanders and you no longer have a CM game at its current scale, even if individual squads are still running around.Such a game would be fun, but would no longer be CM, in my view.I believe one of the answers is live team play. This would slove much of the relative command/ relative spotting problem. You can only give orders to "your platoon or company" you can only spot what "your platoon or company can spot". All good fun.

Well, you're right, and a bit wrong, IMO. It is true that the CM series must remain focused as a tactical warfare system first & foremost. But even in a tactical game, "command" is a key factor, and beyond just for the squad & platoon leaders. The future trick desired is to capture "command effect," rather than add overt amounts of command complexity to the game model.

Regarding my earlier comment on company & battalion HQ's, I have to note that I haven't yet resolved in my mind as to what the future effects and capabilities of Co/Btn HQ's should be. The fact remains, however, that these units are allowed in CM, and therefore, even in the tactical setting they are used in, their historically anticipated "effect" on the battle needs to be better accounted for in some way.

I hope to see live team play someday too. But for single-player, if the CM series allows a battalion HQ to show in some scenarios, then the utility of these need to be expanded than is the present case. Again, however, I regard all of this to be more of a future CM II issue.

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

C&C offers shorter delay times. Meaning, that if you keep 5 tanks together all in C&C they will pretty much move together (assuming same Experience level) with the same delays. However, button two of them up or lose a couple in the trees, delay times will vary. While on the attack and under fire this can become a HUGE compounding problem. Especially for radioless, 2 man turreted vehicles which can NOT fire unless they button up. Meaning that whenever your early war Soviet tanks go to shoot or protect their TC, they automatically lose C&C. This is going to be very stressfull for the control freaks out there

Steve

[Kallimakhos]

I believe the most important underlying question here is: will CMBB be not only the most realistic EF-game so far, but offer also balanced human vs human gameplay in all kinds of QBs? This is after all a GAME and this is the single most important issue. E.g., it wouldn't be fun to lose 75% of your battles as soviets in the early days against an opponent on the same level. I have every faith in BTS's approach and abilities - CMBO got it right - but still this is a huge task to achieve considering the time scale and multiple variables. So I join the other guys asking: how does it now look in testing, every side got an equal winning chance already, at all times?

[karch]

Fantastic thread.

I understand modeling TCs waving flags probably won't get done. I was just thinking, though. How will we know what TC to take out if 4 or 5 are up and unbuttoned?

If the Germans were trained to take out the platoon leader waving the flags, how will we know who is the most important to take out? Infantry is easy because the unit looks different. Will this be the case with tanks as well?

All the best.

Scott Karch

[karch]

Steve,

Thanks for all the input lately. I can't wait for the game.

BTW, did Dan forward you the database of Aberdeen artillery pieces on display? Just curious.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Andreas,

Wow... I didn't know that about Carell! I did know that I never liked his books as I came away with the distinct feeling that it was written with thick, rose colored glasses (English saying meaning "everything I see is all fine in my eyes and not distored in any way by my perception"). I've got several of his books and I don't recall finishing any one of them because I found the writing to be a bit obnoxious. Now I think I know why

Steve

Steve, I got out of reading his 'stuff' when I was about 12 or 13, and that was probably too late. Still, no lasting damage I presume.

Holdit - I understand you may not speak enough German to understand. I do not want to quote anything from the link here in order not to derail the thread - if you are interested, email me and I provide you with the gist of it.

All the best.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Kallimakhos:

I believe the most important underlying question here is: will CMBB be not only the most realistic EF-game so far, but offer also balanced human vs human gameplay in all kinds of QBs? This is after all a GAME and this is the single most important issue. E.g., it wouldn't be fun to lose 75% of your battles as soviets in the early days against an opponent on the same level.

The buy point cost and rarity system are powerful tools in managing this. The former of these two has been demonstrated successfully, as you say, in CM:BO and as long as all strengths and weaknesses are truly factored in when, say, a green Soviet 1941 squad is compared to a ditto German regular there should be no problem.

The only thing that must not happen, and this is what the thread is pretty much about it seems, is that the different nations are "tweaked" up or down to produce a stereotype result.

I for one see this more as a simulation than a game. To produce balanced games you use abstract handicap systems, in CM primarily based on buy point value. You find the same system in many sports, golf for example.

M.

hmm.. Came out a bit more lecturing than intended, but I guess that's usually the case with my posts

[ January 31, 2002, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve wrote,

“This is going to be very stressfull for the control freaks out there ”

Sounds like a good laugh.

Quick point.

The great thing about CM, or one of them anyway, is that it is both a historically accurate simulation of WW2 ground combat, and a great computer game. Some buy it because it is a great computer game; I know this because of the comments in some reviews, some like me, because it is by far the most accurate simulation available of WW2 ground combat. Because it is military history. That is where the fun comes from, for me.

Given the above, I would every time go for accuracy in modelling the individual manoeuvre units. Once that is done, then the scenario designers, can construct games/battles that set achievable goals for both sides.

All the games I play are historical, or semi-historical, in the sense that the given situation may have happened in reality, and most likely did happen at least once. Then I judge victory or defeat not by the points system, but by my own view of whether, given the circumstances and forces involved, I did OK.

All good fun.

All the best,

Kip.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Especially for radioless, 2 man turreted vehicles which can NOT fire unless they button up. Meaning that whenever your early war Soviet tanks go to shoot or protect their TC, they automatically lose C&C. This is going to be very stressfull for the control freaks out there

Elegant yet simple, sounds great! Spotting problems and vehicular moral on top of that and Bob's you uncle

Any interesting news on one of the old flogging horses.. Long range gun fire and bracketing?

M.

[Graaf Spee]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Kip,

Especially for radioless, 2 man turreted vehicles which can NOT fire unless they button up. Meaning that whenever your early war Soviet tanks go to shoot or protect their TC, they automatically lose C&C. This is going to be very stressfull for the control freaks out there

Steve

I might already have asked this question once but I can't remember the answer (IF Age++ THEN Memory--) . If the commander is killed, will the two man turreted tanks be able to fire the main gun?

/Kristian

[Stacheldraht]

Here is some information about Paul Carell (real name Paul Karl Schmidt) in German. Controversial figure.

Fascinating and disturbing. Glad I never read his books. Thank goodness for things like the Wehrmachtsaustellung opening up greater dialogue in Germany about the period from more perspectives.

[MikeyD]

Graf Sppee asks if the commander is killed will the tank still be able to fire the main gun?

In T34s up into the initial T34-85s the commander and gunner are the same person! Just think of it, if the tank's unbuttoned then nobody's sitting in the gunner's seat. If the commander's in the gunner's seat then nobody's top-side. And if BTS were to also model undermanned crews (no bow mg) I shudder to think of the C&C problems that we're going to encounter with CMBB T34s. This a guess but I wouldn't expect the main gun on a T34 to be of much use anymore after the commander's gone.

I haven't seen a nice long "historical accuracy" topic on this board for awhile. Usually the board seems to be dominated by "balanced gameplay" types.

[Battlefront.com]

Kallimakhos,

This is after all a GAME and this is the single most important issue. E.g., it wouldn't be fun to lose 75% of your battles as soviets in the early days against an opponent on the same level.

All I can say is that this was an often heard concern about CMBO before it came out. "The Allies never won any tactical battles, so how fun can this game be?" was the extreme version we heard Since this didn't happen for CMBO I wouldn't be too concerned about it happening in CMBB. Skill of the player is still the #1 factor in victory or defeat.

Karch,

I understand modeling TCs waving flags probably won't get done. I was just thinking, though. How will we know what TC to take out if 4 or 5 are up and unbuttoned?

Correction animated flag waving definitely won't happen Depending on Fog of War setting and the Intel your guys have gathered, you can identify HQ units. Otherwise, do like most likely happened in the real war... shoot 'em all!

Mattias... well said!

Kip... also well said

Mattias (again),

Any interesting news on one of the old flogging horses.. Long range gun fire and bracketing?

Charles changed around stuff quite a bit many months ago. People should notice quite a difference at long ranges for the kinds of guns that were designed for that sort of action. I don't remember what was done, only that it was done knowing that CMBO's long range modeling needed improvement.

Graaf Spee,

If the commander is killed, will the two man turreted tanks be able to fire the main gun?

I don't think you asked this before, so I'll do so now From what I recall (so don't take this as gospel) the answer is yes, just like in CMBO now. You will lose use of the ball MG and suffer a SHOCK delay, but now you will additionally suffer a morale hit, which of course could very well result in the tank buggering off. Basically, losing a TC in CMBB is worse than losing one in CMBO, and that goes double for 4 man crewed tanks. Oh, I am also certain that if a vehicle loses use of its gun through casualties, the vehicle is not automatically abandoned if the driver can still operate the vehicle.

Steve

[Stephen Smith]

BTS_

I don't quite understand the waypoint system, so I'll ask: as I understand it, better commanded units will be able to create a more complex waypoint path, or create it and suffer fewer delays in execution, than worse-commanded units. The longer or more elaborate the waypoint path, the greater the delays.

But is it possible to avoid those delays by simply not plotting long, elaborate paths, and instead plot short, simple paths? In other words, if I as a Russian player can plot a complicated waypoint path stretching over 6 turns, and suffer lots of command penalties, could I avoid the penalties by plotting a new single waypoint path each turn? And if so, how is that a penalty? I as the Russian would simply plot the same complicated path, but plot it in six smaller turn-sized chunks, and avoid any command disadvantage. Or is there something else (perhaps a substantial '1st waypoint delay' that makes this unprofitable?)?

steve