Battle Scope

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hence you see the battlefield from the point of view of the squad commander, not the company and battalion commanders. One way to think of CM is that you are playing the role of squad commander and platoon commander, but from reasons of fun, and greed , enjoy simultaneously playing the roles of lots of squad and platoon commanders. But even when you have a reinforced battalion to commander, your primary role is still that of squad and AFV commander. Just lots of them at once .

Umm...not really.

A "squad commander" would give orders to individual infantrymen - "Number One Rifleman, take out that trench!" - "LMG, set up in that ditch 10 yards further down, move!" You don't get to do this in CM. In fact, you don't get to do anything remotely like it in CM. You can split your squad and tell them where to shoot, but that's a platoon commanders job as much as a squad commander's.

A tank commander would order his loader to use specific types of ammunition, or tell his gunner to engage certain targets. You don't really get to do that with much precision in CM either.

Nor, from the sounds of it, will you do it in CMX2.

So, no, your primary role is not "still that of squad and AFV commander"; more like that of a platoon or troop commander. You generally tell your squads and AFVs where to go and what to shoot at, but they override your orders to engage targets of greater threat, decide on which route to take around obstacles, etc. If you were truly a squad commander, you'd be doing all that stuff yourself. And you don't.

[Vanir Ausf B]

But in the case of sharpshooters you are giving orders to individual men, so sometimes it is like that.

As for OOBs, I don't see why the problem with having battalion HQs on the map should prevent the purchase of battalion formations. Just leave the HQ unit out of the formation. It's a small fudge we can live with.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

But in the case of sharpshooters you are giving orders to individual men, so sometimes it is like that.

As for OOBs, I don't see why the problem with having battalion HQs on the map should prevent the purchase of battalion formations. Just leave the HQ unit out of the formation. It's a small fudge we can live with.

Of course there are exceptions like sharpshooters and AT teams, but that's why folks are saying that in some ways CMx1 being an effective Company Commander sim is "accidental". It is not a perfect Coy Co. sim, but its strengths and shortcuts make it more strongly that than anything else. And we are arguing that those same strengths and shortcuts make it a weaker, much weaker, Battalion CO. sim.

-dale

[Sergei]

PLATOON LEVEL is where IT is! I never play with reinforced Platoons or above!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Whether you are the squad or platoon commander does not really matter. But I understand your point.

What matters is that in any wargame there tends to be primary manoeuvre element, a primary playing piece if you wish; in CM it is the squad and individual AFV/AT gun and such. Hence they also spot for you. You see the battlefield for the perspective of your primary playing pieces. This is what generates the fun/magic of CM . In my view.

All the best,

Kip.

[junk2drive]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Bah! Company level is for wimps, battalion level for amateurs... Regiment scale is where IT is in!

Originally posted by Sergei:

PLATOON LEVEL is where IT is! I never play with reinforced Platoons or above!

?

[Andreas]

Finnish platoons equal regiments in other armies.

[Battlefront.com]

If you have more than one company to control would you not need a higher HQ of some sort above that of a single Co. HQ?

BN HQ is currently slated to be represented offmap. That means the highest onmap HQ possible is Company. You can have two Companies, and they will communicate with the offmap BN HQ.

Support units, organically attached to BN, BGD, RGT, DIV, or even higher can be simulated no problem. You just don't get all the other crap that is tagged to those levels.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by dalem:

Of course there are exceptions like sharpshooters and AT teams, but that's why folks are saying that in some ways CMx1 being an effective Company Commander sim is "accidental". It is not a perfect Coy Co. sim, but its strengths and shortcuts make it more strongly that than anything else. And we are arguing that those same strengths and shortcuts make it a weaker, much weaker, Battalion CO. sim.

If CM is less crappy at being a company CO sim than at being a battalion CO sim that's fine. I don't see why it matters since it doesn't try to be either one, nor should it IMO. My point, which I can see may not have been clear, was more along the lines of what Kip said below, which I agree with completely:

You see the battlefield from the perspective of your primary playing pieces. This is what generates the fun/magic of CM . In my view.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

DIV, or even higher can be simulated no problem.

Steve

In other words, <font size=5>CMx2 will be a Corps level game.</font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

w00t! LOL!

[Brent Pollock]

Hmmm...I think I see part of the company vs battalion scale problem. It comes down to battle type & force proportions. If the system is only supposed to be running a reinforced company at the upper limit, then that suggests that defensive positions should always be understrength companies or reinforced platoons, yes? If someone defends with the overstrength company, you really need to be coming at it with a significant chunk of a battalion.

[Battlefront.com]

Optimal attack ratios are 3:1, though most often it is lower than that. So that could mean two companies on attack, one on defense.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

What matters is that in any wargame there tends to be primary manoeuvre element, a primary playing piece if you wish; in CM it is the squad and individual AFV/AT gun and such. Hence they also spot for you. You see the battlefield for the perspective of your primary playing pieces. This is what generates the fun/magic of CM . In my view.

Yes. As dalem and others have pointed out, in agreement with you, the basic building block unit is "squads of infantry and individual AFVs", rather like Squad Leader and its progeny.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

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

Bah! Company level is for wimps, battalion level for amateurs... Regiment scale is where IT is in!

Originally posted by Sergei:

PLATOON LEVEL is where IT is! I never play with reinforced Platoons or above!

? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Sergei is just being his usual nutty, Finnish, contrarian self.

Bah, you're just jealous of my nuts. :mad:

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Optimal attack ratios are 3:1, though most often it is lower than that. So that could mean two companies on attack, one on defense.

Steve

Well that pretty decisively nixes East Front and Soviets as the first module.

Not that it comes as a shock or anything. *Sigh*

[Zalgiris 1410]

Origionally posted by Battlefront.com:

BN HQ is currently slated to be represented offmap. That means the highest onmap HQ possible is Company. You can have two Companies, and they will communicate with the offmap BN HQ.

Support units, organically attached to BN, BGD, RGT, DIV, or even higher can be simulated no problem. You just don't get all the other crap that is tagged to those levels.

[Andreas]

Why do you need a BN HQ in CM1 to fight BN (or even regimental) battles?

[Zalgiris 1410]

Andreas when I'm on a 3x3 map playing for an hour I think the Btln Tactical HQ ought to put in an appairance.

The other better context is for when Btlns and Rgmts have been fighting with drastically reduced numbers in the usual way that they do after getting atrited.

This I would say is the most critical reason for having them. (BFC i hope you are reading!)

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

Andreas when I'm on a 3x3 map playing for an hour I think the Btln Tactical HQ ought to put in an appairance.

I think a cheese-cake now would be nice. Seriously though, that does not explain what role they are playing, other than being pretty and on the map.

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

The other better context is for when Btlns and Rgmts have been fighting with drastically reduced numbers in the usual way that they do after getting atrited.

That I think is a better reason than the first one, but it implies full modelling of their actions. If after attrition they are acting just like a company command, again no need to have them. Just call the company commands 'BN HQ', and the platoon command Company HQ, and you are off.

All the best

Andreas

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

You are saying BFC that you will still allow for or at least are not going to hinder the possibilities of larger unit purchases in CMx2.

I also have said, more times than I care to think of, that the focus of the game is at the COMPANY level. I also specifically said that we won't be doing anything to SUPPORT Battalion or higher level play, though we are not going to purposefully restrict it. There is a HUGE difference between supporting something and not purposefully restricting something. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Steve

[Andreas]

Steve

I think that some people may think the decision to leave out battalion HQs is 'purposefully restricting' the scope of the game.

But I am just guessing.

All the best

Andreas

[Philippe]

Just so I understand the concept, isn't that also the case for CMx1 ? Or is CMx1 platoon level with company and battalion not restricted ?

[Michael Dorosh]

Description of Battalion Commanders in action

Just in case anyone missed it, here are some notes I put down on what a battalion commander actually does in battle - posts 8, 9 and 10. They're long, but would be interested in further discussion. I also apply the examples given to BigDuke6's example in this thread. I think it demonstrates pretty well the limited role an actual battalion CO had in directly shaping the battle tactically.