Battle Scope

[Ardem]

I notice that there is some hints the battle scope will be reduced to 1-2 companies per battle, I think this will be a bit of a disappointing aspect for me.

Currently we have 2-3 developers making company based WWII RTS games of a high quality, I would hate to lose what CMx1 is known for which is good battalion size battles, which incorporates a range of different tactics with different equipment.

I think it would be sad to reduce the battlefield scope to 5 tanks and 2-3 AT guns and a company of infantry, even if the all the squads are split it eye candy is nice, you will not be able to recreate some really good conflicts that are historical, it would be all based on fictional battles, or minor engagements.

[Gpig]

WWII RTS bit the dust, I think.

Wait and see, Ardem. It will be smaller, all right. But the devs have also said that it'll eventually get bigger again, with future releases. So, no worries . . .

Gpig

[Ardem]

Yeah I am not talking about the number of types, more like the amount of units you can have on the battlefield at one time.

I understand with module aspect and that will be cool to add onto the games, but I am more concerned by the amount of units allowed on the battlefield at one time.

I think WWII RTS is still going or so I read last, Company of Heroes would be another at trying to do company level engagements.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Currently we have 2-3 developers making company based WWII RTS games of a high quality, I would hate to lose what CMx1 is known for which is good battalion size battles, which incorporates a range of different tactics with different equipment.

I think it would be sad to reduce the battlefield scope to 5 tanks and 2-3 AT guns and a company of infantry, even if the all the squads are split it eye candy is nice, you will not be able to recreate some really good conflicts that are historical, it would be all based on fictional battles, or minor engagements.

I don't think CM shines at battalion size fights in the least. The player isn't forced to make decisions as would a real battalion commander, nor are some of the burdens of battalion command modelled realistically, or at all in some cases.

So I'm not sure why you make that statement.

Nor do I understand why you think company level actions can't be recreated "historically". Most of the battalion level actions I've looked at in any detail could very much be broken down into company sized engagements; in fact, most of the infantry battalion attacks I've read about employed two rifle companies or three at most. Thinking about Canadian and British battalions in Normandy or the Scheldt here. Two companies up, two back. Almost all battalion histories I've looked at break up the action into company engagements, and that was how they were fought by the battalion commanders.

[Gpig]

MD pretty much summed it up. What he said.

Gpig

[Ardem]

Some of my best fun has been battalion size battles, I prefer a lot of the russian front myself, then another american front *yawn* no offence.

I can name many actions or battles over towns and villages where battles where in regiment size. The bridge crossings over the Luga is one.

And to see russian infantry in company level games would be as boring as hell.

For me my average fun maps are 3000 to 5000 points with a 2-3km square maps. Anything smaller is too small for my enjoyment.

Michael you might like it smaller which is no issue with CMx1 you can set it how you like, with me I like them large so I am hoping they don't restrict the amount of units on the map at one time. Especially for a latter Eastern front module.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Some of my best fun has been battalion size battles, I prefer a lot of the russian front myself, then another american front *yawn* no offence.

And to see russian infantry in company level games would be as boring as hell.

For me my average fun maps are 3000 to 5000 points with a 2-3km square maps. Anything smaller is too small for my enjoyment.

Michael you might like it smaller which is no issue with CMx1 you can set it how you like, with me I like them large so I am hoping they don't restrict the amount of units on the map at one time.

No, to each his own, so no offence taken, but don't dream for a second you're doing anything like realistically recreating a battalion sized action - because you're not. I don't have a preference, and have enjoyed the occasional larger scenario, especially if done on a well designed map. But they don't make me think at all like a battalion commander would have to - more like a super-sized company commander.

I think you may be surprised at how good a realistic company level game would be - if we ever get one. Lord knows that Close Combat wasn't it. I think CM is it - and you just don't know it.

Shall wait and see, eh?

[Ardem]

I recreated a historical scenario from General Raus notes on a river crossing, across the Luga, which included the setup and men involved in the fight.

It wasn't a company level engagement, but I could still do it in CMBB. I enjoy the odd 1000-1500 point fight but not as mush as the big ones.

If you scroll through the historical CMBB battles they usual are not small engagements, I just been reading Mainstein's Lost Victories and any battle in the Crimea are not what I would call company level engagements as the divisions were packed thick next to each other in such small areas, that companies fought sholder to shoulder from different batalions.

Let change it to the historical creation of the para droppings at the 'crete' airport, IIRC that was a battalion designed scenario very historical, where the whole battalion was involved.

As you can see many historical battles were more then a company or two.

MD I know your a wealth of knowledge but I have a little as well. <smile>

[ August 30, 2005, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[Zalgiris 1410]

I have to agree with Ardem on the playability of large scale battles, it has been IME much more fun for me to fight with Battalions up in CMx1 than with single or only a handfull of Companies. I find them too small and frustrating at times.

IMO CMx1 allows for the Rgmt vs Rgmt scale battles quite well, I'm not denigrating Coy vs Coy scale arrangements it handles them well enough if they're to your taste. However I haven't enjoyed Pltn vs Pltn scale battles in a serious way, though they can be a lot of fun when I treat them trivially.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ardem:

If you scroll through the historical CMBB battles they usual are not small engagements, I just been reading Mainstein's Lost Victories and any battle in the Crimea are not what I would call company level engagements as the divisions were packed thick next to each other in such small areas, that companies fought sholder to shoulder from different batalions.

Sure, but of the histories you have read, how many were divisional (or higher) histories and how many were battalion histories? I can probably guess what perspective Manstein's book uses.

Reading the former will be looking through a much different lens than the latter. My reading has been largely battalion histories, which might explain some little bias on my part...

Not trying to denigrate your knowledge, you obviously have more than 'a little' - and I'm not trying to suggest larger fights aren't fun. My Ortona op has two Canadian battalions (or more accurately, 9 companies or so) against a German para battalion. For 20 battles. Am having fun with it right now PBEM.

I just don't think the large battles do anything in the way of modelling actual command burdens, and really only add more units to the player's control without any attendant penalties one would see in a game actually designed to model same. You said CM was designed as such, I am disagreeing strongly that this is the case. (EDIT - hmm, on rereading your post, you actually say that CM is known for "good" battalion sized battles. I won't argue that, in fact, I agree - where "good" = "fun" rather than "realistic".)

I certainly won't argue about what you consider fun since that's a personal opinion - and my tastes run pretty close to yours in any event. Not my point.

I stipultate further that realistic isn't always fun; in fact, the two rarely equate when both are present to the nth degree.

Just saying - CMX1 can be played with 800 men per game, but that alone doesn't qualify it as a battalion-level game. I think those kinds of descriptions are only accurate when based on the level of decision making by the player. CMX1 doesn't qualify.

Doesn't mean it ain't fun to throw a zillion points on a huge board and slug it out.

[Cull]

I definitely like options, and I like that I can fight huge battles currently, but the truth is that I never do. I much prefer managing a couple of companies on average, so I guess I've lucked out with the new scale.

That said, the main reason I don't like playing larger battles could probably be solved with some additions to the UI, namely movement orders and commands. If I could act realistically as a battallion commander and issue one order to the effect of "move forward and occupy the high ground at Hill 99" and have the AI make that happen, then heck yes I would play larger battles.

(See also: column/road movement )

In other words, the tedium kills it for me. I think the dream solution would be a Strategic Map screen where one could issue battallion movement orders and....well, you get the idea.

But then that's not the design focus of CM, and I'm fine with that. Truthfully it's not just the tedium of movement/manuever really; I don't generally want to manage huge fights period. I'd much rather be down there in the muck with 8 or 10 platoons or so.

I would have no problem, however, if Battlefront decided to try their hand at a larger scale version of CM---in a seperate series, of course---that puts the player at say battallion or division level. But I like it right where it is now, and where it's going.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Cull:

The main reason I don't like playing larger battles could probably be solved with some additions to the UI, namely movement orders and commands. If I could issue one order and have the AI make that happen, then heck yes I would play larger battles.

(See also: column/road movement )

Yeah, I agree with you about making it easier and quicker by having the StratAI take a load of tediuos movement plotting into its hands for sure. It's still painfull to plot the path of a column of vehicles along a road even in a small senario! :mad:

Truthfully it's not just the tedium of movement/manuever really; I don't generally want to manage huge fights period. I'd much rather be down there in the muck with 8 or 10 platoons or so.

A battle with 8-10 platoons is practically a battalion, 8-10 squads though would be a company fight but too small for my liking. (Sorry to nit pick.)

[Ardem]

I hope with the new CMx2 that the limitations are not hard coded and just because machine ability such-like CMx1 ability to do 5000 point battles were not easy on machines 2 years ago, now are a walk in the park with no hitches.

I think we can all differ on realism and pick examples during WWII where all sorts of battles were to take place.

But I am hoping the option just like in CMx1 for unit sizes is available for designers, lets not limit CMx2 for limit sake I say.

P.S I read all types of WWII strategy books from the single soldier perspective to the Corp and Army Commanders. But always on the lookout for good battalion books so if you got a favorite list you welcome to shoot it over to me.

[ August 31, 2005, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[Soddball]

One of my requests in the thread at the top of the page was for CMX2 to retain its scalability - that is, the ability to scale up.

As we've seen, CM:AK offers the chance to play on a 32sqkm map. I've built one of these, and there's room for a division on each side. It's very time consuming to play, and setups are a exhausting, but it's great to know that the CM engine, designed at the company scale, is capable of offering play at such a large scale.

I love it.

[Tero]

Hell, if limited scope means PBEM is in I'm OK with it.

Besides, all-infantry games will become practicable and less tedious when limited scale is coupled with the new game engine. Me thinks.

[Mies]

P.S I read all types of WWII strategy books from the single soldier perspective to the Corp and Army Commanders. But always on the lookout for good battalion books so if you got a favorite list you welcome to shoot it over to me.

I recently enjoyed reading (amongst others) the following 2 books on battalion level actions:

Seven Days in January With the 6th SS-Mountain Division in Operation NORDWIND

Biography of a Battalion The Life and Times of an Infantry Battalion in Europe in World War II

Mies

[Andreas]

Mies - the first one looks great.

Regarding the scope - those of us who have been around long enough know that CMBO (and by implication the following titles) was designed for a 1,000 point force level, IIRC. Quite below battalion, and Mike is quite right that Battalion organisation/CoC/etc. is not properly modelled (IIRC full battalions as purchaseable units (with support coys) did not exist immediately?).

Despite this, it can be argued that CM1 is flexible enough to do reinforced battalion actions reasonably well. I draw the line beyond that, regardless of what some people say. I have tried larger battles, and for me they, as a general rule, suck. The latter is a statement of taste, but that CM1 was never meant to model this high level and does it poorly from a simulation perspective is a statement of fact.

So far I have not seen anything to indicate that Cmx2 won't be able to work on larger formations than it is designed for, in the same way that CM1 did, even though these may then be proportionally smaller than in CM1. I have not seen anything about restrictions to maps that would make battalion actions impossible (and Mike is again right when he says that many battalion actions are in fact 1-2 company actions, so they would be fully in the core design as Steve has explained it).

I also do not agree that company level fights are somehow irrelevant. Even when packed thickly, companies still need to work through their tactics to produce success.

Finally, I think it is necessary to wait a bit and see what BFC offer. At the moment the section is the smallest infantry unit, but you can not really do a lot with it, also due to the terrain. In CMx2, it maybe more interesting to work on the platoon/section level, due to the much higher detail in the terrain. If it is possible to create environments in which section tactics matter more than they do now, this should keep us all occupied.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ardem:

I hope with the new CMx2 that the limitations are not hard coded and just because machine ability such-like CMx1 ability to do 5000 point battles were not easy on machines 2 years ago, now are a walk in the park with no hitches.

I think we can all differ on realism and pick examples during WWII where all sorts of battles were to take place.

But I am hoping the option just like in CMx1 for unit sizes is available for designers, lets not limit CMx2 for limit sake I say.

P.S I read all types of WWII strategy books from the single soldier perspective to the Corp and Army Commanders. But always on the lookout for good battalion books so if you got a favorite list you welcome to shoot it over to me.

Bloody Buron, if you can find it, highlights the Highland Light Infantry of Canada in Buron in July 1944 - one day's battle, with 262 casualties (of a regular strength of 800 men or so). Just the HLI and a company (squadron) of Sherbrooke Fusilier tnaks against II Battaillon, SS Pz Gren Regt 25 (or was it 26?)

Good read, but probably not the best detailing of how a battalion operated.

[Cull]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

A battle with 8-10 platoons is practically a battalion, 8-10 squads though would be a company fight but too small for my liking. (Sorry to nit pick.) [/QB]

Sorry, I meant squads. Or let's make it simple and say "about 10-20 units", whether they be squads, HQs, vehicles, or anything I have to give orders to.

[Philippe]

Maybe another way to approach this is to think about how many command issues you should expect someone to keep track of comfortably in the space of a turn.

If you have to examine the position of too many units and ask yourself if you need to do any micromanaging, the game can become a bit of a chore.

Depending on your personal stamina and levels of obsessiveness, I suspect that the outer comfort limit is probably something like a hundred decisions, with a quarter of that being what you really want to have the game flow smoothly.

I don't know if CMx2 will increase, decrease, or net out to about the same number of decisions per company. I suspect that it will be about the same, 1:1 notwithstanding. If that's the case, then we're talking about controlling a couple of companies each.

I agree that CM doesn't really address what goes on much above the platoon level. I would really like to see some of this filled in, which is why I've sometimes called for prisoner collection points, first-aid stations, field kitchens, ammo dumps, and the battalion motor pool. The problem is, just representing these elements on the board is a bit like making a Napoleonic mod of Rome Total War and calling it a Napoleonic simulation: if you don't include several fairly complex layers of underlying mechanics, it just looks like the real thing.

If you have a system that accomodates really big maps, you might want to consider simulating more than thirty minutes out of the life of a battalion. I'd love to see a tank recovery vehicle (the german ones looked stort of like stugs) come down from (divisional?) motor pool to pull your immobilized Tigers out of the hypothetical mud. I'd love to see German bakers making bread in their white aprons in the field kitchen (I have some great photographs of that, somewhere). And I think what Steve would say to me at this point, if he were feeling polite, is that what I am really talking about is WW II: The Sims, and not CMx2. But I can still dream.

How can you refight the battle of Islandhwana or Carrhae without ammo resupply rules?

[Ardem]

I guess in some respects its also dependant on PBEM being in as well, and I like your ideas on decision making verus units, that is quite a good point.

But say they split the squads now into 1/2 squads even though the representation is 1 to 1 you can still have the decision making of what is already available.

Look a reinforced battalion battle are the sizes that I have liked, but if you look at armoured conflicts and ignoring the infantry side of things, 2 platoons of tanks while tight and fun will never have the apppreciation like armoured conflicts in CM:BB or CM:AK

Think for instance Caen and the Canadian Armoured formation against some 88's.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Cull I find 10-20 units too small even if that means a Coy and a Pltn of tanks.

I like to play at the minimum with a re-inforced Btln against a re-infoced Rgmt for a serious approach to playing the game, although the time factor of plotting could be reduced and especially so for even larger sized battles by having the the option of using the CPU to order my troops. That would solve a lot of other problems too such as ensuring a quicker orders phase and help players in unit heavy solo games and for human vs human play make it more likely that turns are returned and that games are finished. Of couse this would require an improved Strat AI and should also include some sort of tactical rational options which would help create a better CPU opponent as well as give player the choice of having differrent advisers or substitutes.

P.S. It is a matter of taste as to going for large or small sized number of unit games, but most of my reading has been of Battlegroups and of Rgmts and Btlns down to Coy level however the Coy level has mostly been in fairly brief descriptions at most.

[ September 01, 2005, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Panzer_M]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ardem:

Some of my best fun has been battalion size battles, I prefer a lot of the russian front myself, then another american front *yawn* no offence.

And to see russian infantry in company level games would be as boring as hell.

For me my average fun maps are 3000 to 5000 points with a 2-3km square maps. Anything smaller is too small for my enjoyment.

Michael you might like it smaller which is no issue with CMx1 you can set it how you like, with me I like them large so I am hoping they don't restrict the amount of units on the map at one time.

No, to each his own, so no offence taken, but don't dream for a second you're doing anything like realistically recreating a battalion sized action - because you're not. I don't have a preference, and have enjoyed the occasional larger scenario, especially if done on a well designed map. But they don't make me think at all like a battalion commander would have to - more like a super-sized company commander.

I think you may be surprised at how good a realistic company level game would be - if we ever get one. Lord knows that Close Combat wasn't it. I think CM is it - and you just don't know it.

Shall wait and see, eh? </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

Cull I find 10-20 units too small even if that means a Coy and a Pltn of tanks.

I just finished 2 QBs against the AI in a couple of hours. Each 500 pts and Small maps.

The latter was a scratch infantry defense force defending against a mechanized AI force. Terrain pretty much dictated a slaughter of the attacker and that's what I got after a couple of turns of murderous fire once the AI finally found my MLR.

But with only a platoon of supporting infantry to start with, the two ATGs would have been hurting for support with some bad luck. As it was one squad got spotted in its holes early and got the crap shot out of it before I was able to spring my trap.

Prior to that, I got randomly assigned a couple of below-strength platoons (1xrifle 1x eng), a Stuart, a recon jeep and an M2 HT with a .50cal + some FTs, an MG, and a bazooka. 500 pt ME.

Jeep got into good scouting position but got wasted quick by a prowling Stug. I got my infantry into the first row of buildings and started getting hammered by MG42 fire from 3 HTs on my left. I moved the Stuart up the right flank of the buildings to get a good shot on the StuG's last known position, and stumbled right into its sights - smoke one Stuart.

That left the .50cal to take on the HTs and the zook to take on the StuG.

I was able to do a bloody advance using FTs and demo charges and some concentrated squad fire, the zook scared off the Stug, and I finally wormed the HT into position to take out some HTs.

So I had a blast. Twice! And you're probably still setting up your battalion.

I relate this not to one-up your preference, but merely to illustrate the different scales of CM, even now.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

As Andreas reminded everybody, the CMx2 scope is just about the same as CMx1 was designed for. Cripes, when we were first testing the game even a Company sized battle was a strain on the hardware!

Hardware capability increased and allowed for bigger battles. But offically, we have never sanctioned anything beyond Bn vs. Bn. And even then we did so knowing that there were inherent problems with this since the game design was never meant to handle such large engagements.

CMx2 is being written with the limitations of hardware in mind, but with future hardware capabilities (and settings) also in mind. The system is scalable. The first release will focus on sub-battalion engagements and we think people will find it a much more challenging environment. Three reasons:

1. The C&C system is totally different. Keeping units organized is going to be a rather big part of battles. That means the freeflowing, helter skelter, BN battles people play now would not be possible. At least not without the frustrations of C&C real commanders would face.

2. Relative Spotting. This should prove to be a huge factor in the way games play out. All on its own it should people to have to think a lot more about what they do, when they do it, and how they do it. That means more thinking will go into doing things, which in turn means that you'll be equally challenged with fewer units.

3. Immersion. The 1:1 system will make you a lot more interested in what's going on down at the soldier level. And because of that, less attention available for handling massive numbers of units.

All I can say is people are picturing CMx1 played out on a smaller (and I stress ORIGINAL) scale and thinking it will suck. Well, we disagree

Steve