Battle Scope

[Zalgiris 1410]

Yeah, I understand what you are saying Paul AU, the workload of managing larger scale stuff is its main challenging drawback for sure. The effort though is rewarded most of the time for me as it is so much more involving and intense. BTW all of us posting here with the wish to (eventually) continue playing the Btln+ games in CMx2 are still of the opinion of both keeping and improving the Company or two size as the priority. That's because AIUI we are all seeing things in a bottom up, get it right from the lowest level first and build up from there - so that the feel is totally right from the smallest aspects which will determine the quality of the larger sized games just as much. Our concern has been to have the best CMx2 for everyone and definately just as much for the Company and lower stuff. :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

That is the right attitude to have. It is also one of the obvious explanations of the generally poor reception of CC3 and CC4 vs. the reception of CC2. Many felt that all the problems with the combat and unit behavior of CC2 were never fixed. Instead the strategic layer became the overriding focus of the sequels. So you wound up with a campaign system and tanks that still, 3 games later, spun in place and couldn't cross bridges without being baby sat (and even then, not always!).

It is ironic that some people point to these games as somehow being "proof" that it can be done, when we look at the same games and look at it as yet more evidence that it can not be. One can only imagine how much better the tactical combat could have been in CC3 and CC4 if they had instead made minor tweaks to the CC2 campaign system and full effort on the tactical combat.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Thought I would just chip in with my usual rant in support of keeping CM optimized for the same scale as was the case with CMX1.

There is no one who is more a fan of big games, with my love of Soviet breakthrough operations, but I would still be horrified if CMX2 were optimized for any scale other than platoon/company v company games.

It is the fact that CM is optimized for such small games that produces the fun. It is the mix of a big game, but with the detail one would expect in a small game, that produces the near magical effect CM comes up with.

I greatly look forward to being able to play big games with CMX2 when the hardware can cope. But those who wish for CMX2 to be optimized for a different scale of battle would I am sure get a nasty shock if such a thing happened.

All the best,

Kip.

[flamingknives]

I agree with Kip.

[mrpwase]

I'll be perfectly happy playing company-sized CM games for a while, like I was with CMBB/AK a few years ago. I gradually got bored of small games, and started making large one-player campaigns which I enjoyed immensely. But, as long as there's fresh features in CMx2 (and it looks like there are a LOT ) then I'll be fine. Thanks.

[Bonxa]

Hey, I agree with, at least, the five previous posters. It's great fun to play the game at the small level (I hope so at least) at first. And then when hardware and skillz improves one can move on to bigger games where you see tactics at a higher level become relevant.

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hey... TheCapt is back! Welcome back

Steve

Heya Steve,

Good to be back and discussing wargame stuff again.

Selection and maint of the aim is of course a very good idea and you guys are the experts at CM tactical play.

I can see that diversion into building a campaign overlay would be costly and risky to do on your own.

Have you guys looked a linking arms with another developer to build a campaign overlay and then link it into CMx2? Federated gaming is the official name of this sort of arrangement I believe.

If you take this and the coop play idea to its full extension you can see it opens up some interesting possibilities, not the least of which is MMO Wargaming.

If of course you aren't interested, have you considered licensing the CMx1 Engine?

I (and some others) no doubt have a lot of ideas, however I am left wondering how far left or right of arc you are planning to go from CMx1 is the question. I assume you fellas have done the marketing stuff and no your target audience so a lot of wild ideas from us masses may not be exactly worthwhile.

[Battlefront.com]

The problem with licensing is that it is a LOT of work for the original authors to support. So it really isn't viable. It is possible, however, to form partnerships to do things like make Modules or even a campaign system. There are issues with such arrangements as well, but they are on a technical basis easier to achieve.

The game design itself, in terms of the overall scope, feature set, and goals is very firmly set. It was for CMx1 as well. There is wiggle room for this and that feature, especially in terms of improving something we've already go going, but wild ideas are certainly not an option. At least not for right now.

Steve

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The problem with licensing is that it is a LOT of work for the original authors to support. So it really isn't viable. It is possible, however, to form partnerships to do things like make Modules or even a campaign system. There are issues with such arrangements as well, but they are on a technical basis easier to achieve.

The game design itself, in terms of the overall scope, feature set, and goals is very firmly set. It was for CMx1 as well. There is wiggle room for this and that feature, especially in terms of improving something we've already go going, but wild ideas are certainly not an option. At least not for right now.

Steve

Well if Col Sanders could make a fortune with a single chicken recipe,you guys could do worse than stick with a solid item and make it better.

I would be happy to share some wild ideas whenever you guys are in the market for em. Between Bil and I, we have come up with quite a few but we do realize we are strictly amateurs until we can retire from our day jobs and take a shot at some of these things full time.

As for CMx2, well I am pretty sure you have it well in hand. I could be cynical and say that this forum is but a marketing ploy to create buzz but I am simply not that type .

Seriously, I can't wait to play and hopefully review the new CM in whatever form it comes in.

[Private Bluebottle]

Personally, I believe that the scope of the game should be optimised for the battalion level game. It is at that level that most actions are fought, in most battles. Company sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a battalion action.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Personally, I believe that the scope of the game should be optimised for the battalion level game. It is at that level that most actions are fought, in most battles. Company sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a battalion action.

Quite.

What do you mean by "optimized". If you read over this entire thread, you'll see that a battalion commaner has a much different perspective than a company commander. See my proposal for a Battalion Command game in another thread that I started and just bumped.

[Battlefront.com]

Company sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a battalion action.

Battalion sized actions are quite rare by themselves - they are invariably part of a regimental action.

It's a slippery slope. Anybody can draw a line in one place or another and say "this is it" and, provided the rest of the sim is geared towards it, make a decent case for the scale being correct. Close Combat, which was more or less a platoon level game, did a pretty good job of simulating things realistically. Small maps, detailed terrain, small units. Unfortunately, vehicles were more difficult to squeeze into that environment since their intended use was not supposed to be up close and personal. The denser urban maps balanced this out fine, but the more open ones bordered on a bad joke sometimes

In general, I think the optimal organization is 3 levels of command and one that is more or less a paper-pusher. For example:

Squad

Platoon

Company

[battalion]

Platoon

Company

Battalion

[Regiment]

Division

Corps

Army

[Army Group]

The more levels of command that are maintained, the less realistic and the more difficult the play. Especially the latter. Few CMers, as a %, want to play monster Regimental games. Yes, it can be done and some people only want to play that way, but I'd be shocked if this were more than a few % points of our total audience. With the game as it is we get those few people and the rest. If we prevert the game design philosophy to favor monster battles the % will change because the overall number of people interested in the game will drop off dramatically.

Hence the reason for keeping CMx2 the same as CMx1.

Steve

[a-lamer]

This is bit embarassing but could somebody put man count after these groups

Squad

Platoon

Company

[battalion]

Platoon

Company

Battalion

[Regiment]

Division

Corps

Army

[Army Group]

Not that hard core military gamer, thanks in advance.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by a-lamer:

This is bit embarassing but could somebody put man count after these groups

Someone'll probably beat me to it, but here goes:

For infantry:

Squad 8-12

Platoon 30-40

Company 150-180

Battalion 500-900 British Regiments of armour or artillery are also this size

Regiment 2,400-4,000 Called a Brigade in British service

Division 14,000-20,000

Corps 50,000-100,000

Army 100,000-200,000

[Army Group] 400,000-600,000

[Battlefront.com]

Note that the modern US Army has changed its structure dramatically in recent years. The old concepts are largely intact, but not in the traditional sense. Meaning, you have a few divisions with their organic pieces representing a large array of units which used to be part of different divisions.

The new concept is called "Brigade Combat Team". If I have it right there are four types; HBCT, SBCT, BCT (standard infantry), RSTA (formarly Armored Cav). Each generically numbered Brigade is generally made up of 3 of these BCTS and assorted other units as deemed necessary. However, each Battalion eithin the Brigade retains its own Regimental number such as 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light). In reality there isn't a Regimental structure, just a retention for the sake of historical ties. This makes for some interesting Orders of Battle. For example, the 1st Brigade of 25th Infantry looks like this:

1st BN - 5 IR

5th BN - 20 IR

1st BN - 24 IR

2nd SQD (Squadron) - 14 CR (Cavalry Regiment)

Confusing matters more is the internal conversions to new formations. 1-5 and 5-20 are BCT, 1-24 is SBCT, and 2-14 is RSTA (RSTA = Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition).

So for a modern US Division you effectively have:

Division

Brigade (instead of Regiment)

Battalion (of either HBCT, SBCT, BCT, or RSTA)

Company

Platoon

Squad

Divisions aren't typically fielded in total. Usually some part remains somewhere else and rotates in.

Steve

[vincere]

I read that the divisions are going to be square, ie four BCTs. But in combat there could be more or less BCTs and each BCT will have its own support elements so will be able to opperate independently.

From what I can gather brigade combat teams are based on the kampfgruppe-battlegroup concept. Assemble forces together to match the specifics of the job.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the newly authorized BCTs are being added as they are raised. A few Divisions have them already, I think, but the bulk of them have not been formed yet. Funding and planning extends the expansion out to 2007.

Correct. The BCT concept is a response to the end of the Cold War mentality. Military response needs to be scalable and flexible, whether it be a small peace and stability operation or a large scale military action. It seems to be a long overdue concept.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, the newly authorized BCTs are being added as they are raised. A few Divisions have them already, I think, but the bulk of them have not been formed yet. Funding and planning extends the expansion out to 2007.

Correct. The BCT concept is a response to the end of the Cold War mentality. Military response needs to be scalable and flexible, whether it be a small peace and stability operation or a large scale military action. It seems to be a long overdue concept.

Steve

Canada is doing the same thing by introducing "Task Forces"; the entire Army is reorganizing in order to be able to put together more flexible organizations. Sort of like the Germans did 70 years ago.

The Army just put out a pamphlet on this recently that says almost word for word what you just described, Steve - they mention the Cold War is over, we don't need to fight large mechanized forces, and they mention the "three block war"; the third block you didn't mention is humanitarian aid.

[Ardem]

I wonder if the aussies have enough for a men or equipment for a division ahhahahhahaha.

But I heard they are handing men instead of rifles a Slab (24 cans of beer) and small BBQ, invite our friends over for a BBQ get them pissed and steal there guns, so far we practicing this methods in Iraq and we already able to get all our Aircraft updated, thanks to one plastered US president. Good on ya johnny!

[Zalgiris 1410]

I'm sure we bloody don't Ardem, we're not that far from having a NZ sized and probably worse equipt Army.

BTW the only time little Johnny pulls the sheeps wool over anybody's eyes when actually making deals is only just everytime he is doing some thing particularly unpleasent to the Ozzie public! :mad:

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Note that the modern US Army has changed its structure dramatically in recent years. The old concepts are largely intact, but not in the traditional sense. Meaning, you have a few divisions with their organic pieces representing a large array of units which used to be part of different divisions.

The new concept is called "Brigade Combat Team". If I have it right there are four types; HBCT, SBCT, BCT (standard infantry), RSTA (formarly Armored Cav). Each generically numbered Brigade is generally made up of 3 of these BCTS and assorted other units as deemed necessary. However, each Battalion eithin the Brigade retains its own Regimental number such as 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light). In reality there isn't a Regimental structure, just a retention for the sake of historical ties. This makes for some interesting Orders of Battle. For example, the 1st Brigade of 25th Infantry looks like this:

1st BN - 5 IR

5th BN - 20 IR

1st BN - 24 IR

2nd SQD (Squadron) - 14 CR (Cavalry Regiment)

Confusing matters more is the internal conversions to new formations. 1-5 and 5-20 are BCT, 1-24 is SBCT, and 2-14 is RSTA (RSTA = Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition).

So for a modern US Division you effectively have:

Division

Brigade (instead of Regiment)

Battalion (of either HBCT, SBCT, BCT, or RSTA)

Company

Platoon

Squad

Divisions aren't typically fielded in total. Usually some part remains somewhere else and rotates in.

Steve

Not quite, Steve.

The 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division is an SBCT - a Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

It is composed of three infantry battalions, an artillery battalion and one cavalry squadron (battalion equivalent):

1-24 Infantry

1-5 Infantry

3-21 Infantry

2-14 Cavalry

2-8 Field Artillery

The rest of the non-Stryker Army is converting to Heavy and Light Brigade Combat Teams, each with one cavalry squadron, two combat battalions and one strike battalion:

There is no RSTA Brigade - one armored cavalry regiment is converting to Strykers (the 2nd ACR), the other two (3rd and 11th ACRs) are converting to Heavy BCTs.

Currently, the 3rd Infantry Division and 101st Airborne Division have the new UA structure, with everyone else not deployed converting by 2007. Each division will have four Units of Action, probably another aviation unit of action and support brigades. The 3rd ID has four heavy BCTs, the 101st has four light BCTs. Both have additional aviation brigades (101st has two) and one support brigade. The 82nd is currently converting and in the end, it's BCTs will look exactly like those in the 101st, except their support brigade will probably have a rigger unit attached to it.

Essentially, the average division is increasing it's combat battalions from 10 (nine tank/infantry and one cavalry) to 12 (8 tank/infantry and four cavalry).

Stryker brigades, as far as I know, are retaining the three infantry and one cavalry battalion structure. They will be unique in this.

So a modern division is essentially this:

-Division HQ (largely a planning cell only, all support units are pushed down to brigades now)

-Brigade (BCT-H, BCT-L, Aviation BCT, or SBCT) Self contained combat and non-combat elements.

-Battalion (Combined Arms, RSTA, Light Infantry, Stryker)

[ September 11, 2005, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, the newly authorized BCTs are being added as they are raised. A few Divisions have them already, I think, but the bulk of them have not been formed yet. Funding and planning extends the expansion out to 2007.

Correct. The BCT concept is a response to the end of the Cold War mentality. Military response needs to be scalable and flexible, whether it be a small peace and stability operation or a large scale military action. It seems to be a long overdue concept.

Steve

Canada is doing the same thing by introducing "Task Forces"; the entire Army is reorganizing in order to be able to put together more flexible organizations. Sort of like the Germans did 70 years ago.

The Army just put out a pamphlet on this recently that says almost word for word what you just described, Steve - they mention the Cold War is over, we don't need to fight large mechanized forces, and they mention the "three block war"; the third block you didn't mention is humanitarian aid. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Warren, you'll have to tell me what the difference between a KG and a BG is, and then point out where I "bash our team" because frankly, I don't think you read what I wrote....

In case I muddled it, I'll restate it; everything that Steve wrote is also being adopted by Canada - Task Forces of subunits - an infantry company here, an engineer squadron there, putting together force elements into a flexible organization that can fight the three block war rather than the Soviet Army on the North German Plain.

[Ardem]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

BTW the only time little Johnny pulls the sheeps wool over anybody's eyes when actually making deals is only just everytime he is doing some thing particularly unpleasent to the Ozzie public! :mad:

True but we did get those F18 upgrades before the second Gulf War, free of charge, so I reckon he had George around the back smoking a bong while he got him to sign that one away. So he is not always screwing us, sometime he does screw other people, such as pacific islanders, boat people and others. hahaha

[Battlefront.com]

Crap... I had a nice reply to fytinghellfish... but I zapped it. Well, no time for recreating it, so I'll just skip to the high points:

Yeah, I thought 5-20 was swapped out, but I was too lazy to double check Did find a source that shows the smaller units attatched:

1st Brigade Combat Team (Stryker)

HQ &HQ Company

1st Battalion, 5th Infantry

3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry

1st Battalion, 24th Infantry

Company D, 52nd Infantry

2nd Squadron, 14th Cavalry

2nd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery

Battery C, 1st Battalion, 62nd ADA

73rd Engineer Company

184th Military Intelligence Company

176th Signal Company

25th Support Battalion

125th Combat Service Support Company

Last time I had checked in on 25th ID only 1-24 had Strykers and had been certified. I see now that I need to keep up with the times

Yup, I know RSTA isn't a Brigade sized formation. Meant the above comments to show that RSTA came along with the BCT "transformation". Didn't word that right Note that 2-14 RSTA has already converted to Strykers. I don't know when they did that, but they are deployed in Iraq so obviously they got certification. Without your ticket you don't get admission to a war.

Steve