Defender Readiness in CMx2

[Cpl Steiner]

In CMx1, the defender in a "probe", "attack" or "assault" scenario is free to move any of his units from turn 1 onwards. This, to my mind, is unrealistic. The defender in such a scenario should be at a reduced state of readiness, and unable to move until the attacker makes his presence known.

In CMx2 I would like the option to have some or all of the defender's units in a "frozen" state, unable to move from their setup positions until they become aware of being under attack. This could be expressed in simple and familiar wargaming terms as being "inactive" or "active".

In addition, I would like the option to have predefined patrol paths for some of the defender's units. A small percentage of units would follow a simple user-definable patrol path within scenario-prescribed limits. Such units would be effectively "inactive" although moving. At each way point of the patrol path, they could also pause for some user-definable period like a minute or so.

It would also be nice if some units could start unarmed, resting in barrack facilities. They would have to arm themselves when they became active, at predesignated arming points on the map. Some could be designated as being lightly armed only (e.g. pistols) rather than completely unarmed.

Using these tools, it would be possible to set up realistic defensive positions including perimeter patrols without the defender being effectively aware of imminent attack. This would be very useful for multiplayer games as well as games in which the AI is the attacker.

[Peter Cairns]

Cpl Steiner,

I've mentioned the idea of "awareness" a few times before, especially with regard to raid type scenarios, or in a Thunder Run type situation where a fast moving unit appears out of nowhere, but BF doesn't seem to have ever taken the idea up.

But then as they haven't commented I don't know if it will be in or out.

Peter.

[mrpwase]

That sounds like a great idea - I've tried implementing something similar in my scenarios, but it rarely works properly. A good thing to add into CMx2.

[MikeyD]

Ooooh, you brought up an old CMx1 gripe. Defenders that refuse to stay put in their trenches and carefully selected defensive positions! :mad:

You construct all these clever firing positions in a scenario for the opposing AI to use, then two turns into the game your forward elements spot the enemy scampering from those carefully pepared position to a clump of scattered trees! That was also my gripe with the sandbag emplacements in CMAK. Your troops didn't seem to recognize it as legitimate cover. With CMSF set in built-up areas I hope we'll be able to set up some sort of generic orders to the opposing AI troops at scenario setup. "Sit here and watch for armor" or "If threatened fall back to position 2".

[Battlefront.com]

CMx1 had the ability to lock down units so that the player could not redeploy them during Setup Phase. That functionality is alive and well in CMx2. So no steps backwards there.

Locking down units DURING gameplay is a bad idea, IMHO. This is completely unrealistic, unless of course the unit is simply incapable of moving during tactical play (eg. an 88 Flak). Defenses built around such things behoove the defender to stick with the defensive setup once the game is in motion because failing to do so means risking some high valued equipment.

The primary problem in CMx1 is that the defender, after a small amount of time, can tell exactly what the enemy has, where he is coming from, and probable time table for various phases of the enemy's plan. At least this is what an experienced defender can surmize. This is not necessarily true of the attacker, since he is less likely to know as many things about the defender before the defender knows them about the attacker.

What this means is that the defender, at least a good one, can shift his forces around unrealistically to concentrate firepower in ways that could be potentially difficult for the attacker to deal with. Sometimes this is realistic, but often times it is "gamey".

To understand this issue, we must first understand how the defender can pull this off (in theory at least). Remember, our design philosophy is to create realistic simulations through mimicing real life rather than slapping in abstract rules. The latter usually creates more problems than it solves, while going to the roots of problems has far better chance for success. So without further ado...

1. Absolute Spotting - the defender likely sees more of the attacker than he should due to the "accumulated eyes" problem inherent with Absolute Spotting. This allows the player to make more informed calculated risks in terms of shifting forces on the fly. Such decisions are where and when it is safe to move, roughly how much force should be shifted, what type of force, etc.

2. Support Assets - an artillery FO on one side of the map can call down support fire on an attack route even if the defender is surprised to find the attacker there. The reason is that Absolute Spotting and indistinct C&C rules means the system must assume that the FO has some reason to know that he should be hammering that spot, even if in real life he wouldn't.

3. Flags - defenders with multiple flags to defend are less apt to abandon the flags in order to denny the attacker a quick flag grab. However, this is not always the case. In any case it is the defender's choice to hold or abandon a flag in order to use his forces where and when he wants. If he doesn't control a flag, and neither does the enemy, then it is a wash from a point perspective. However, shifting of those forces might win the battle for casualty points, thus winning the battle.

4. No C&C penalties - in WWII, at least, most forms of C&C were based on certain knowledge of where other units in the chain of command are. Relocating HQs was very difficult to do without negative consequences because wire communications were the prime method and could not be adjusted on the fly. Radios, when available, were bulky and not guaranteed to work when redeployed (FM transmissions are fussy!).

That seems to be the major factors, at least. So how does CMx2 fix this?

1. Absolute Spotting - take what I said above and turn it on its head because Relative Spotting is totally different. This is a MAJOR factor in so many things game wide, but especially stuff like this.

2. Support Assets - they will be slaved to C&C rules and coupled with Relative Spotting stuff. If you don't have your FO in the right spot, you will pay for it.

3. Flags - are, as a concept, tossed out the window. Much more elaborate mission parameters and objectives mean far more accountability to the scenario designer's concept of victory. Abandoning spots might not be an option!

4. No C&C Penalties - CMx2 is all about C&C and penalties, so let's just say this one is also no longer an issue

Well, what do you guys think?

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Will Relative Spotting extend to friendly units as well? (i.e. I'd like to see potential for friendly fire in poor viz/close terrain).

[kipanderson]

Steve,

I agree 100% that it will be a mixture of factors coming together to create the chaos and confusion we all wish for and that real war is seemingly full to overflowing with.

One you did not list, no doubt because it will only make it into the second title, is Co-Op/live team play. My guess is that the mixture of Relative Spotting and Co-Op play, with maybe four or more on each side, will combine to create a far more realistic Fog Of War effect than was possible with CMX1.

In saying this I am assuming that in Co-Op play one will only be able to see/spot what the units one individually commands can see/spot. So if there are four players on your side, and you command a company, you will only be able to see/spot what units in your company can spot. “If” such a thing is possible it will be a huge help in modelling FOW realistically.

BTW… when there is only one player on each side there will always be a major Borg or God effect unless you move far towards making a command game which you have repeatedly said is not going to happen. Happily .

Having said all of the above by now you have no doubt have actually played some real scenarios ( given that the editor was finished a few weeks ago ) so I am guessing and you must “know” what the overall effect of the changes you listed are.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, CoPlay will have an even more fundamental effect on gmeplay. Relative Spotting will not apply to friendly units until CoPlay. There is little point to adding this feature until then.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

To understand this issue, we must first understand how the defender can pull this off (in theory at least). Remember, our design philosophy is to create realistic simulations through mimicing real life rather than slapping in abstract rules. The latter usually creates more problems than it solves, while going to the roots of problems has far better chance for success.

In the game, the defender can send out a patrol right at the start to look for the attacker's units. In reality, on many occasions he wouldn't even be expecting an attack. The attacker thus loses the element of surprise, which is a big factor in the success of such attacks.

Your design philosophy is to ask the question, "How does the defender pull this off?" The answer is, "Because he knows he is under attack even though none of his units have spotted or heard the enemy."

In such a situation, I don't think it is unreasonable to say to the defending player, "I'm sorry but you must stick to your starting positions and predesignated patrol routes until you spot the enemy, as you are not expecting an attack right at this very moment."

[cassh]

Cpl Steiner - You make a valid argument.

I agree this needs addressing as designing out the defending player's knowledge of an impending contact/attack will remove the chance of gamey play. This will help with realism and prevent the defence being too active in the pre-contact phase of play.

Might I suggest one amendment to prevent misuse of this feature? You mentioned predefined patrol paths – now it seems to me those player who are by their nature gamey are going to exploit this feature to send suicide patrols out forward of FLOT or across the FEBA laterally to spot and draw fire.

However, if only the scenario designer can plot patrol routes, and this feature is not available in quick battles, then the defending player can either assign units to the patrol routes or not, but the designer's intent and realism is then not compromised.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by cassh:

Might I suggest one amendment to prevent misuse of this feature? ... if only the scenario designer can plot patrol routes, and this feature is not available in quick battles, then the defending player can either assign units to the patrol routes or not, but the designer's intent and realism is then not compromised.

I agree this would have to be carefully restricted or left for the designer to decide. Some sort of random element could be employed here. For instance, there could be a certain chance in a given time frame of a patrol returning to base from one of the neutral map edges, following a route set by the designer. Alternatively, the player could have two or three possible patrol paths set by the designer and would only be allowed to assign units to one. There are lots of possibilities.

[Battlefront.com]

Your design philosophy is to ask the question, "How does the defender pull this off?" The answer is, "Because he knows he is under attack even though none of his units have spotted or heard the enemy."

Good point, of course. There is the flip side of that too... the attacker is expecting a spirited, and probably "balanced", defense. He knows that the second he has a unit on the map that it can come under fire, meaning his guard is up and on full alert from the first second of the scenario. In real life the attacker often doesn't know when or where he is going to encounter significant resistance.

The real life attacker also has few opportunities to make educated guesses about the enemy's force size and motivation to defend. In real life this leads to large attacking forces getting held up by a tiny defender or moderate sized attacking forces getting wiped out by much larger defenders. Not so in a game of CMx1, though less so in CMx2 (at least in the campaign that ships with the game).

My point here is that BOTH sides come into the game with certain unrealistic advantages. They are inherent in the game itself. Some of these we can overcome, some of them we can not. The problem is that if we try to remove one from one side we risk giving the otherside an advantage. I think restricting the defender's ability to "patrol" is one such thing that is unbalancing. The counter to that would be to make the attacker unaware of where the enemy might likely be and that is impossible to do without massive maps and hours of tedious "not here!" results.

In short, I don't think this sort of defender restriction is a good idea.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Given what you said, isn't there an arguement for a "random" element option in CMx2 games, where once the game was set up the actual units would be altered. I know you can do this already, but as far as I am aware, you can't get more than you started with, only less.

With up to 16 slot Co-play, there would also be the option of adding or subtracting AI controlled slots. Thus in an eight player (four each side) game you could actually add 4 extra AI slots one for the defender and three for the attacker, with each side only being informed of the extras at the depolyment stage, you would only learn about added, or indeed subtracted AI slots (sorry that unit has been pulled it's needed elsewhere) slots for your side.

This might also help in attacks in that although the attacker would be a superior force, the none AI elements would be the same size for all players.

Similiarly a mix of AI and human on each side would be usefull for "Iraq" scenarios, where the insurgent player had only one of four defending slots, simulating control over only part of a disorganised irregular force with no over all command, while the three US slots were in conjunction with eight or nine AI Iraqi army slots with the US players working together and with there allies without directly controlling them.

Peter.

[Sergei]

I thought co-op was not going to be in CMSF?

[Battlefront.com]

CoOp is not going to be in CM:SF, correct. It's just being thrown into this discussion because of what it can (eventually) acheive. But I'd rather not talk about what CoPlay can do in any great detail because it is not relevant to CM:SF. There are SO many ways to do it and SO many practical issues that to start discussing them now would be pointless.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The real life attacker also has few opportunities to make educated guesses about the enemy's force size and motivation to defend. In real life this leads to large attacking forces getting held up by a tiny defender or moderate sized attacking forces getting wiped out by much larger defenders. Not so in a game of CMx1, though less so in CMx2 (at least in the campaign that ships with the game).

I played a board wargame ages ago called "Assault" (GDW, 1983) and this had an interesting way of simulating the force level confusion you describe. Each player randomly and secretly picked a force level for his side. The force levels ranged from a couple of platoons to a full battalion, with a variety of different OoBs for each. Victory was determined not only by positions held and casualties, but also by relative strength, which was only revealed at the end of the game. Thus, if the attacker had a much larger force than the defender, the defender would get loads of victory points for holding the objectives, whilst if the defender was of equivalent size or bigger, he would get hardly any victory points for holding the objective, and the attacker could win just by inflicting a lot of casualties.

Something like that in CMx2 would add an extra layer of confusion and might be worth the effort.

[Peter Cairns]

Cpl Steiner,

I am not sure about confusion, but certainly asymetric force levels where you don't have a fixed ratio like, meeting engagement, attack , assault, could be quite good in that you wouldn't know exactly the strength of your opponent ( although an approximate idea, including some details of type would always be good).

You would then be judge more on what you had achieved with what you had, than on winning as such, inded you could even have sceanarios where both sides won or lost. I.e., You lost because you didn't defend all your key points, but he lost because with his superiority he should have walked all over you and didn't.

Not really knowing what was out there would also probably make people a bit more cautious and realistic in attack.

Peter.

[cassh]

Steve said -

The real life attacker also has few opportunities to make educated guesses about the enemy's force size and motivation to defend. In real life this leads to large attacking forces getting held up by a tiny defender or moderate sized attacking forces getting wiped out by much larger defenders. Not so in a game of CMx1, though less so in CMx2 (at least in the campaign that ships with the game).

Not sure I agree that the attacker doesn't often know more about the enemy than the defender in symmetrical warfare.

This may well be true of a meeting engagement or probe, but in an attack, and certainly in a deliberate assault in symmetrical warfare quite the opposite can be true.

This is one of the slightly unreal elements in CMx1 that I hope you can fine tune better in CMx2.

For a deliberate assault, reconnaissance patrolling, infiltration and CTRs are sine qua non. They allow you to identify surface and gaps in the enemy's defences. These include a breath of recce and intel data that the company commander can call on that have varying degrees of accuracy. This data is merely what a rifle company's own recce patrols and OPs can gather with a bit of stealth, the mark-I eyeball/nightsight and basic tracking skills that identify sign:

</font>

• approach march routes and deadground (likely to be unsighted to enemy OPs or defences)</font>
• obstacles</font>
• navigation and reference points to highlight in O-Groups for attacking forces (e.g. gap in hedgerow just past burnt-out Nissan)</font>
• enemy forces (EF) location & dispositions/orientation</font>
• EF strengths</font>
• EF type & quality (fieldcraft & noise discipline, uniform, weapons, NCOs and officers)</font>
• EF fatigue, supply status, alertness</font>
• EF habits (stand-to routine, patrolling etc)</font>
• EF heavy weapon</font>
• EF likely reinforcement routes</font>
• EF depth</font>
• EF OP overwatch</font>

Now add to the mix the modern array of sensor platforms, electronic intel and recce capability available to battalion commanders and the picture of the enemy can in some cases, and quite often in a deliberate assault be very detailed and accurate.

If you have seen an O-Group for a platoon or company deliberate assault the level of detail gathered by your recce teams can be quite astounding.

This is not reflected currently in the game, and this is a shame.

The standard by which one judges troop quality and basic infantry skills is their ability to aggressively patrol, dominate the FEBA and conduct detailed reconnaissance. Using sniping, patrolling, OPs and CTR an infantry company can work its patch and make life bloody difficult for the enemy and pin them back in their own defences. They become blind as you gather a more detailed picture.

You can then hit them when they are least prepare, where they are weakest and/or most vulnerable.

Therefore, in short I am arguing to get the recce-battle put into the CMx2 engine to allow infantry combat to occur as it often does.

[Peter Cairns]

You could go for a to part system, where you only get a small part of your force for the first ten turns ( or real time equivalent).

You would use this for recon.

This could be done by making either most of the attacking force reinforcements, or by preventing the bulk from moving for a period of time.

Peter.

[C'Rogers]

Here is a question for the grogs on this issue.

How often during WWII during a company level engagement did one side defending an area get attacked and was taken completely by surprise? And by taken completely by surprise I mean when the bullets started flying no one was remotely expecting it. How often was one company able to sneak within 1 km of the other without the defenders knowing about it?

Correct me if I am wrong but too my understanding this would be a very rare situation. A platoon or so might be able to sneak in very close but getting a company, that may have had tanks and vehicle assets in close would be incredibly difficult. Now if you took out the tanks and heavy equipment for a side so they only had infantry I could see it as more possible, but it does not sound like BFC is going to try a game like that any time soon.

If anyone was too be surprised it would be attackers moving through an unknown area where they were ambushed. But this really wouldn't be much of 'battle' and so not really something seen in the game.

Of course surprise was a major issue but more on a strategic than a tactical level. Something like “the Soviets have flanked us with fast moving light vehicles, maybe even tanks, we do not have time to get you any heavy armor or anti-tank weaponry so you will have to defend the town with what you have”. In which case one side has been “surprised”, though when the actual battle occurs the defenders have been expecting it. They may not have known that “the battle will take place at 8:30 AM, everyone be in your best position” but unless the game adds a complex recon system (which would be out of scope) it would be impossible to tell how much readiness would be available.

I think the worst case scenario that would have happened is that the defenders would have had little knowledge of who/what/how many they were being attacked by, which again can be modeled by the system. But I highly doubt that a company of troops assigned an area to defend would not be aware when another company has got within a few kilometers.

And I expect that we will see some of this strategic surprise with CM:CC, were one side attacks with overwhelming superiority that catches the other player off guard. But as for the ability to have units locked in place at battle start for CM:SF, I think it is an unnecessary and unrealistic feature given what I know of tactical combats.

[Cpl Steiner]

C'Rogers,

I have no idea how often units were caught completely by surprise in WWII, but you make a good point regarding vehicles etc. In a scenario in which the attacker has a lot of armour and other heavy equipment, a stealthy attack would be practically impossible.

However, I would simply factor this into any proposed "alert" rules for the game. Defending units would start inactive but would become active if they heard enemy movement near their position. For enemy heavy armour, "near" could mean several hundred metres, so it would be quite likely that lots of defending units would become active in the first few minutes of an attack. Once active, these units could then be moved towards the sound contacts to investigate if the player so wished.

[cassh]

Cpl Steiner said -

Defending units would start inactive but would become active if they heard enemy movement near their position.

A simple and elegant solution, bravo.

This makes the most sense in game play - higher troop quality in either attacker or defender will determine the ability to either remain undetected in their approach or detect the advancing enemy.

It would also elevate infantry to an arm of battlefield utility (as a high stealth asset), and mean the tank heavy scenarios that dominate the CMx1 games would hopefully be lessened in CMx2 for more predominantly infantry engagements as the noisy dusty AFV alert the enemy and draw arty…

C'Rogers said -

And by taken completely by surprise I mean when the bullets started flying no one was remotely expecting it.

That would be the standard result of a well conducted infantry night-attack.

Well trained units were, and are, more than capable of performing this mission (game level veteran/crack). The company lays-up stealthily short of the enemy position in the FUP and then conducts the assault. Often the defender only has a small quarter-strength stag/sentry posted and therefore surprise is high and overruns can occur. If the moonlight/cloud cover permits, one can stealthily approach a platoon strength element to within 20 meters and remain undetected. At that distance your grenade volley will kill, shock and stun most defenders in the forward areas of the enemy location and allow the attackers to overrun.

C'Rogers also said -

How often was one company able to sneak within 1 km of the other without the defenders knowing about it?

Day time

This would depend on ground and cover, but 1 km is a fair distance. Unless it is billiard-table flat terrain, or the enemy has control of all terrain features that allow observation of all approaches as we see in some Italian campaign battles, often one can approach relatively closely without compromise.

Night time

This would depend on Moon state and cloud cover but generally this would be a cake walk. If you can see 300m at night with the mark-I eyeball, then you've been eating far too many carrots! At night getting within 20m - 50m is the name-of-the-game so to speak.

C'Rogers also said -

Correct me if I am wrong but too my understanding this would be a very rare situation.

Whilst it was not common (as you needed well trained and disciplined troops), it was not uncommon either. The New Zealand divisions got quite a reputation for night fighting, as did the Germans.

Night fighting has been at the centre of British Infantry doctrine since the war, and the sea-change really occurred following the experience of being on the receiving end of Chinese night attacks in Korea where overruns were common.

Likewise US forces were often on the receiving end of NVA/VC night attacks where infiltration and stealth were used to great effect.

[Cpl Steiner]

Cassh,

I'm glad you appreciate this idea. I also echo your point about it increasing the power of infantry, which in CMx1 is relegated to a fairly minor arm when armour is around. With alert rules in place, it would make more sense for the attacker to have an all-infantry force on map at start, with armour arriving later only once contact had been made with the enemy.