On being a proper micromanager! :-)

[Shosties]

I often find my attention in any given orders phase tends to concentrate on wherever the "key action" is going on, and I end up underutilizing other forces. I'm wondering what tricks other people use to stay away from overfocus and stay patient and stick to their plan (unless they make a deliberate decision to alter it on the fly).

Thinking about this made me realize just how strange it is to micromanage troops like we do in this game compared to what a commander above platoon level actually does in reality. I think it would neat variation on this type of game if you could role game/simulate what it would actually be like to be the officer-in-charge at an engagement, with limited knowledge of what was going on, issuing orders that may not be followed exactly or even correctly, being dependent upon those one step down on the chain of command, and answering to those a step up. Such a game would be less vulnerable to issues cropping up from "Borg spotting" and gamey tactics (units, particularly Americans , say, could outright refuse to follow suicidal orders that actually would work out or give some advantages due to the game mechanics). Just wondering what your thoughts on this would be, or if there might actually be a game like this out there.

[Sarge Saunders]

Shosties4th- I am not sure of your exact question but I can take a crack at answering it anyway.

Nothing wrong with becoming so immersed in small unit action. Here are some suggestions though to get better at the "big picture". Play larger games. Say 3000 points to 5000 points. Then you will be thinking in terms of companies instead of platoons, etc. Be aware of how a smaller fight within your battle fits in with the overall plan.

i.e. If you have a hot and heavy engagement going on with a platoon, then know how important or unimportant it is to the overall plan. If it goes badly, should you retreat those guys, etc. Have plenty of manuevering behind your lines to quickly press forces into action.

I dunno if this answers your question or not....

BTW, What does Shosties4th mean? Is it refering to Shostakovich 4th symphony or somefink? Here's a tidbit: Shostakovich wrote his 7th symphony while under the German siege of Leningrad in 1941-43.

-Sarge

[Shosties]

Sarge,

I guess your recommendation boils down to playing larger games to force the issue!

I may just be in too much of a hurry to end the orders phase so I can see the movie! I think I may also be overfocusing selectively on my armor because I am less familiar with infantry tactics.

The richness of the game is such that playing it without rushing onesself takes longer than 2D hex games with the same number of separate units.

Maybe I should just give myself a limit of number of turns played in a evening so I take things at a more leasurely pace.

To clarify my first question, I am wondering how people go about playing this game such that they don't end up focusing too much attention on a select group of units where the action is fiercest to the detriment of the conduct of the whole battle.

The second part of my post goes off on a tangent that came to my mind as I thinking about this problem of mine. Wouldn't it be just "simpler" to give broad outlines to units and let some sort of AI make the detailed decissions on which shrub to hind behind, what to shoot, etc. rather than have to play a God-like puppeteer to the whole force? I've seen some on this board complain that "sometimes my units don't do exactly what I order them!" To that sentiment I say, isn't that closer to real battle?

Sorry if I'm being confusing, but then Niels Bohr once said "never speak more clearly than you can think"!

[Off topic digression]

Oh yeah, Sarge, you guessed correctly on my handle. I am aware of the circumstances surrounding the writing of his 7th. The 4th is an interesting piece that is not recorded as often, and is really impossible for me to describe now how it goes, I need to get more familiar with it. The unconventionl nature of the 4th and his opera, Lady MacBeth of Mtsenk District landed Dimitri in hot water with the Party. It is said Stalin himself suggested the headline "Muddle Instead of Music" for the scathing review printed in Pravda. The more classically heroic 5th was intended as his rehabilitation work, which suceeded wildly although you can't help but wonder how much irony there is behind it. A controversial biography of Shostakovich (Volkov's "Testament") has him remarking privately about the finale of the 5th: (paraphrasing roughly) "it is clapping and cheering at gun point, then being told to go home and be happy, or else."

Lemme guess, your handle is a refernce to that old TV-series "Combat!", with Vic Morrow starring as Sgt. Saunders.

[ July 21, 2002, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

[Redwolf]

I actually found that my results improved when I did more micromanagement.

Fast and halfway safe infantry movement is absolutely decisive in CMBO, and it requires a lot of clicking. Better massing may win you the battle, too, but unless you micromanage you lose more victory points for the same results.

With tanks I found that proper massing is extremly difficult since you have no "advance until you have LOS to point <x>" in CMBO. In CMBO vehicle combat I found timing to be decisive, timing as in simultaneous attack from different directions. And very precise positioning, for hulldown and for side cover, to keep LOS narrowed to the unit you want, and no detractions.

[ July 20, 2002, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Shosties]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I actually found that my results improved when I did more micromanagement.

Fast and halfway safe infantry movement is absolutely decisive in CMBO, and it requires a lot of clicking. Better massing may win you the battle, too, but unless you micromanage you lose more victory points for the same results.

This is certainly the case! What I was proposing in the second portion of my original post would be a somewhat *different* game than CMBO with a more mission-orders approach ("Lt. So-So, I want you to take this village in a flanking movement") than "click-on-squad-to-go-to-this-bush" approach which is what I mean by "micromanaging" and being God-like or a puppeteer. I'm not being very clear. How's this? It's the effort to really give such detailed instructions that ensure good results (for that unit) that I think makes me tend to confine my focus to a select few units for each turn, which is not a good habit certainly, and which I want to break. Really every other wargame I know of makes you a supreme micromanager, the RICHNESS of CMBO is what makes this pop out at me so much.

Maybe I should go back and just delete the last portion of that post as it really has nothing to do with Combat Mission proper! Sorry for muddying the waters!

Originally posted by redwolf:

With tanks I found that proper massing is extremly difficult since you have no "advance until you have LOS to point <x>" in CMBO. In CMBO vehicle combat I found timing to be decisive, timing as in simultaneous attack from different directions. And very precise positioning, for hulldown and for side cover, to keep LOS narrowed to the unit you want, and no detractions.

Redwolf, Amen! Timing is crucial! And such a order along those lines (advance so as to make LOS to this point) would be indeed be a help and I can imagine using it quite a bit. Indeed, it's opposite would be useful too (reverse until you break LOS with this point).

[willbell]

Shosties4th

I have had the same problem with focus.

My solution was to break down the whole conflict into several interesting elements. So I have maybe three or four problems to solve, staying within the parameters of my tactical goals, which are different.

In a turn I will visit the different elements seperately and I will bounce back and forth if my interest in one flags. This also helps me notice little details easier.

In a turn though you need to force yourself to step back and make sure you are not losing sight of your tactical goals. This is a process for keeping focused, it is not a way to execute your tactics. It is a mind game.

I hope this is clear, the idea is a little abstract.

As for your other question, yes, I have often thought that a game where there is a type of lower unit AI that carries out the specifics of a general order would be really cool. You could even have unit leaders with different personalities that would react differently. Also, unit leaders could have technical specialties. In fact, if a Napolenonic type game were to be successfully created along the lines of CMBO I think it would have to incorporate exactly that kind of game AI. But that would take a really good programer to figure out.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Sarge,

I guess your recommendation boils down to playing larger games to force the issue!

I may just be in too much of a hurry to end the orders phase so I can see the movie! I think I may also be overfocusing selectively on my armor because I am less familiar with infantry tactics.

Yes, I understand what you mean. As I became a better CM player I focused less on armor engagements (read luck) and more on infantry. Some micromanagement is required IMO with infantry tactics. Especially with infantry scouting tactics and "very" especially with keeping your main infantry force hidden. Infantry can rule the CM battlefield and is also key to armor victory IMHO.

What I meant mainly was that you can and should still micromanage but keep track of the bigger picture. Playing larger infantry battles gives you the practice you need for that to work. BTW, this works best with PBEM when you have a bit of time to consider moves.

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Oh yeah, Sarge, you guessed correctly on my handle. I am aware of the circumstances surrounding the writing of his 7th. The 4th is an interesting piece that is not recorded as often, and is really impossible for me to describe now how it goes, I need to get more familiar with it. The unconventionl nature of the 4th and his opera, Lady MacBeth of Mtsenk District landed Dimitri in hot water with the Party. It is said Stalin himself suggested the headline "Muddle Instead of Music" for the scathing review printed in Pravda. The more classically heroic 5th was intended as his rehabilitation work, which suceeded wildly although you can't help but wonder how much irony there is behind it. A controversial biography of Shostakovich (Volkov's "Testament") has him remarking privately about the finale of the 5th: (paraphrasing roughly) "it is clapping and cheering at gun point, then being told to go home and be happy, or else."

I am impressed! Very astute observations. I can't remember ever hearing or playing the 4th symphony. Perhaps I'll find the first movement and download it later today...

The 5th has always been one of my favorites, partly due to the "classicly heroic" nature of it, but mainly because it is so much fun to play!

(played it 5 times as DoubleBass in a Symphony orchestra.) You know the march in the 5ths last movement with trumpet fanfare? IIRC, the Soviets required 32 measures of "patriotic" march in all of Shostie's symphony works. Exactly 32 measures. The idiotic censors counted them. Yet, the one in Sym. 5 is so incredibly tongue in cheek and comical (with the brash tri-tones) that it passes for individuality and yet still passes the censors who are not listening but counting!

Shosties4th - Very interesting to meet you. Perhaps we should play a PBEM game. I'd be happy to show you something of coordinating infantry tactics and such.

Originally posted by Shosties4th:

Lemme guess, your handle is a refernce to that old TV-series "Combat!", with Vic Morrow starring as Sgt. Saunders.

Yep. Before my time, but I enjoyed the re-runs.

Cheers,

Sarge

[ July 21, 2002, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by willbell:

As for your other question, yes, I have often thought that a game where there is a type of lower unit AI that carries out the specifics of a general order would be really cool.

Just head over to the Airborne Assault forum.

[Shosties]

Originally posted by willbell:

Shosties4th

I have had the same problem with focus.

My solution was to break down the whole conflict into several interesting elements. So I have maybe three or four problems to solve, staying within the parameters of my tactical goals, which are different.

In a turn I will visit the different elements seperately and I will bounce back and forth if my interest in one flags. This also helps me notice little details easier.

Actually I do something of the sort you're suggesting now, willbell, along the lines of a (mini)task force concept, though probably not as sophisticated and as well executed.

Originally posted by willbell:

As for your other question, yes, I have often thought that a game where there is a type of lower unit AI that carries out the specifics of a general order would be really cool. You could even have unit leaders with different personalities that would react differently. Also, unit leaders could have technical specialties. In fact, if a Napolenonic type game were to be successfully created along the lines of CMBO I think it would have to incorporate exactly that kind of game AI. But that would take a really good programer to figure out.

Yeah, you got what I was driving at. The complexity of the mission orders you could give to a particular officer under your command would depend upon his experience level and abilities.

I'm curious, why do you think such an approach would be especially suited to a Napoleonic wargame?

Originally posted by redwolf:

Just head over to the Airborne Assault forum.

redwolf, thanks for this heads up, I'll check it out!

[Hensworth]

A trick to help you keep disciplined about issuing orders is to set a fixed sequence in which you will deal with units (or groups of them).

At the start of the fight when everything is still pretty organized, I usually work from one end of the map to the other. When engagements start to develop, I set a fixed sequence in which I will deal with them every turn.

I even observe this while watching the movies to make sure I haven't missed out on any details of local importance.

[Michael Emrys]

Sgt_Kelly took the words right off my keyboard!

At the very beginning of a game, in the set-up phase, I decide on my battle plan and assign (in my head) an objective and a role to each platoon. Then I work methodically from left to right (or sometimes if the fancy strikes me, from right to left) until I have checked every unit and if necessary given it orders. I do this every turn and try to work in a steady, unhurried fashion. It's slow; it takes me half an hour to an hour for each orders phase, depending on how big my forces are, but it works and I enjoy it.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, on the subject of Dmitri Shostakovich and his symphonies, I think I may have heard the 4th. sometime in the last year, but if so it would have been the only time I have heard it and I have formed no impression of it yet.

But I am a terrific admirer of S.'s music in general, and of the 5th. Symphony in particular. If I had to pick out a single work of the 20th. Century to be its hallmark, that would be the work. It contains virtually all the emotions that were prominent to and characteristic of that era.

Almost two years ago I heard an absolutely stunning rendering of the 7th. by the NY Philharmonic under the direction of Kurt Masur. I cannot imagine a more perfect performance. I wish I could have that one on record.

Michael

[Ozzy]

The trick I use to not get too focussed on one spot is

a) determine operational/tactical objectives

determine their priority

c) determine several ways to achieve each of them

d) compare the ways (considering time, terrain, weather daylight, etc.) and choose the most likely successful

e) assign "Gefechtsstreifen" (axis/avenues of advance) in attack or MLR sectors in defense

f) find the appropriate force composition and support for each avenue of advance/MLR sector (e.g. stealthy units for flanking operations)

g) setup units

Once battle has begun, I check the movies per avenue of advance/MLR sector (i.e. not per single unit). Units should not cross the boundary of a sector!

Thus you have maybe 3-4 parts of the map to monitor.

As for armour/infantry movement. In CM it is very likely to find both weapon branches simultaneously. In such case neither the armour tactic nor the infantry tactic is important - but the tactic of deploying these forces TOGETHER and in MUTUAL support. Let me citate from Guderian's "Panzer vorwärts": "In the attack, the battlecry of the infantry must be 'Protect our Panzers!!' while the cry of the Panzers must be 'Protect the infantry!!'"

If you are not so familiar with infantry tactics search this forum (e.g. Anthology of Useful Posts) and you will find many sources with excellent explanations and training scenarios on infantry tactics.

[Shosties]

Thanks Sgt_Kelly, Michael, and Ozzy!

Those are all excellent suggestions. I guess it pays to at least give each unit a moments thought as you work your way through your OOB (right to left, left to right, or from Gefechtsstreifen to Gefechtsstreifen [thanks for that compound word, Ozzy]) even if it's just waiting out that turn.

Time to trot out the sig for it's premiere. Thumbs up or thumbs down? I think it is a classic!

[Redwolf]

In big games I found it to be required to seperate my units into fixed combat groups of about reinforced company size (mixed arms, usually), with fixed objectives.

It does not work for me, not even in PBEM where you have all time of the world, to always consider where which units is best employed, when you consider all units and all places. Instead, each forward group has its fixed area of oprations and has to do with what equipment it has. If that is not sufficient, then use the reserve. If that doesn't work or you would have no reserve left afterwards, then reorganize, but reorganization will usually mean stall combat, doing both at the same time overloads my brain.

[ July 22, 2002, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[willbell]

Shosties4th

Yeah, you got what I was driving at. The complexity of the mission orders you could give to a particular officer under your command would

depend upon his experience level and abilities.

I'm curious, why do you think such an approach would be especially suited to a Napoleonic wargame?

One of the defining technologies that changed warfare is the radio, in Napoleon's battles there were none. Consequently, a brief order was written and sent by messenger and the recipient had only that much to go by, the rest relied on his intelligence, initiative and tactical sense. Your sub-level officer AI would be a major defining element in a Napoleonics game. In CMBO there a constant remote updating by radio that is assumed so the focus is more on the overall commander's point of view and control.

[willbell]

Sorry Shosties4th, I'm lame at this quote stff.

[Shosties]

willbell,

No problem. My thinking was that the dispersed nature of combat, the greater variety of arms, and more intricate tactics in WW2 placed a greater burden on the decision making ability of officers at the lower levels than in the past.

I can see where you are coming from though, better communications offsets dispersion and greater mission complexity to a greater or lesser extent.

Certainly, light infantry and cavalry in the pre-radio days were absolutely dependent upon the skills of the junior officer on the scene. Perhaps this was one of the reasons why many armies were reluctant for their importance to expand relative to the heavy, set piece, forces until Boney came along? I'd read that it was due to the aura of "uncivilized" fighting of small units dashing about taking advantage of cover, raiding, and such, as no one wanted a repeat of the Thirty Years War.

Since light infantry gains in importance with the Napoleonic Wars, then I can see a strong case for your way of looking at it.

[willbell]

Shostie,

Exactly. The lack of small unit action in a large organized army was due to inability to communicate rapidly, they had to focus on larger goals.

I disagree with your first comment. There is a ton of detailed tactics to get involved in with Napoleonics. It has just never been included in games because of the tremendous amount of record keeping required to keep it realistic. Voila, the computer. The large unit movement belief is derived from traditional ways of playing Napoleonics, not from the actual historical facts.

In my opinion, in my opinion, etc, etc.

[Shosties]

Why am I suddenly thinking of Sharpe's Rifles???

"Men are dirty, sir. Rifles are clean."

I can see it now... Combat Mission:Peninsular Campaign, with the inevitable Sharpe's mods (including rather fetching Spanish partisans in low-cut bodices)

[Shosties]

And I didn't even intend upon a double entendre on that quote from the series!!!

[willbell]

Shosties4th

Why am I suddenly thinking of Sharpe's Rifles??? "Men are dirty, sir. Rifles are clean."

I can see it now... Combat Mission:Peninsular Campaign, with the inevitable Sharpe's mods (including rather fetching Spanish partisans in low-cut bodices)

LOL, preserve me from the infamy of trash novels.

Seriously though, a Sharps Rifles concept is a too literal an interpretation of CM for Napoleonics.

Think total rewrite, not CM, but the spirit of CM applied to Napoleonics.

In traditional Napoleonic games the company unit is almost totally abstracted, thus giving the impression that only Battalion or Regimental size maneuvers are possible. But does that have to be the case? With a computer's ability to keep records and with a carefully balanced Company AI you could experience all kinds of tactical situations.

There are a lot of other considerations, but you don't want an essay do you?

[Michael Emrys]

I'm not about to get into an argument over Napoleonics with a couple of studs who obviously have studied the matter more closely than I, but I want to warn you about assuming too much when it comes to C&C via radio in WW II. As far as infantry goes, I think only the US consistently had them down as far as platoon level, and those didn't always work. A lot of communication between HQs and subordinates was still done by runner. The Germans used a lot of whistles; maybe some other armies did too. Flares (Very lights) were used extensively for various signals, like "Objective taken", or "Begin/cease (artillery) fires", etc.

BTW, during Napoleonic times (and both before and after) weren't simply commands communicated via drum or bugle?

Michael

[Frunze]

One way to avoid leaving out any units, if you're having a problem with that, is to click on one, then scroll through all of them with the + or - keys. The tab key (view lock to unit) is helpful for orienting yourself (where on the battlefield am I?) as you jump from unit to unit. I recommend camera view 4.

The show all moves/targets key (Shift-P, I think) gives you an overall view of your orders, though I haven't used it so much...

In CM, you're not just standing in for the battalion/company commander, but for lower-level officers as well. This is almost unavoidable, as no AI's been written that I'd trust with command of my platoons. Just look how the computer opponent puts Platoon HQs out in front of the squads and does other stupid things.

[willbell]

Michael emrys

I'm not about to get into an argument over Napoleonics with a couple of studs who obviously have studied the matter more closely than I, but I want to warn you about assuming too much when it comes to C&C via radio in WW II. As far as infantry goes, I think only the US consistently had them down as far as platoon level, and those didn't always work. A lot of communication between HQs and subordinates was still done by runner. The Germans used a lot of whistles; maybe some other armies did too. Flares (Very lights) were used extensively for various signals, like "Objective taken", or "Begin/cease (artillery) fires", etc.

BTW, during Napoleonic times (and both before and after) weren't simply commands communicated via drum or bugle?

Michael,

I can guarantee you I don't claim any expertise in WWII or Napoleonic History, but I have done some studying and thinking.

As for radios etc, you are absolutely right. I didn't explain myself well. The modern radio and phone communication system in WWII allowed for a long, spread out front which could be monitored and controlled more or less accurately. In the 19th century and before there was no way to communicate quickly over long distances, so armies stayed more compact with massed power so they could find each other then try to knock each other out. The organization of forts and units across a large area were based on lag times of days for communications. Modern communications literally changed the face of warfare.

That is all I meant.

As for bugles and drums, they were used to signal what movements smaller units were to make and also to start or end major large scale movements. But throughout a battle the commanders communicated tactical instructions to sub commanders with written orders that were delivered by staff messengers. Many an interesting turn of fortune in Napoleonic era battles were based on poorly written, misunderstood or missing written orders.