Battle Scope

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Nobody simulates company centric wargmes. Name me one to prove me wrong So we already are filling a niche, just not the one you want. And if we did go up to Grand Tactical then we would dispense with squads and teams. We'd have to in order to make the system viable to all but the few nuts that are crazy enough to want to play Regimental sized battles with the existing system.

Steve

I'll name one immediately - Combat Mission, your own game. It is capable of simulation actions from section through to battalion, quite adequately, as it stands now.

It appears to me though, that we may be speaking at cross purposes.

Tell me - will it be possible to have multiple companies of infantry/troops of tanks on the map, at the same time? Will it be possible to co-ordinate their movement/fire?

If the answer is yes, then you're not doing IMHO a "company sized game" but rather a battalion sized game.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

[qb]

Tell me - will it be possible to have multiple companies of infantry/troops of tanks on the map, at the same time? Will it be possible to co-ordinate their movement/fire?

EDITED - see post below.

[ September 14, 2005, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[hellfish]

Not if that wasn't the intended purpose. I don't play battalion level CM games much (in fact, the only battles I play tend to be 1000 points are less - enough usually for an infantry company and a tank platoon) simply because commanding a battalion in CM is ponderous. When I was in the first Combat Mission Meta Campaign I routinely had to fight with a battalion-sized force against an enemy of often equal strength, I think one time I had to fight with two battalions. It sucked and was a prime motivation for not participating in CMMC 2. It was very difficult to maintain cohesiveness when playing the game at that level - I'd constantly be losing troops or spend so much time working out the intricate maneuvering of a single squad that my already short attention span would lapse and I'd lose sight over the overall battle.

What you're playing is not a battalion-sized game. You're playing a company-sized game at battalion level. If you've got that kind of attention to detail, discipline and free time for a game, I salute you.

Until CM lets me move an entire company easily, besides simply click-and-dragging a box over a group and issuing them all a single order, it's not a battalion level game.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

Mind you, one of the main reasons why I don't like playing the Company or so level in CMx1, apart form my preferance for the multi-Btln / Rgmt level, is that I don't think it actual is best able to depict it, sorry Steve.

I agree with this in many ways. I think you could mainly call CMx1 a platoon focussed game, because platoon HQs are the only ones that had their role actually simulated in any way.

However, playing CM at platoon level is an excercise in frustration sometimes, because of the abstractions that went into the depiction of a squad. I'm sure everyone knows what I mean; problems with morale and TacAI that come from the whole squad reacting as a single entity, and lack of controls of platoon support weapons like mortars.

So to balance out the abstractions at the lowest level, it becomes neccesary to play at least a single company, but then the game suffers from not having a company level command structure.

The same complaint could be made for batallion C&C when playing multiple companies.

Everything Steve has said points to the squad abstraction issues at the small end being solved by 1:1 etc. He also points toward a higher level C&C system indicating that all my CMx1 worries from squad to company level would be solved. Considering ~90% of my CM games have been a reinforced company or less, I guess I'm fine here.

But I do hope it is possible in CMx2 to play a reinforced batallion scale game. In my opinion playing anything bigger in CM is just masochistic.

I hope a real batallion level C&C system is implemented. I would even like to see a batallion HQ on the map, as long as he does something of his RL role. But I won't lose sleep when it doesn't happen.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Tell me - will it be possible to have multiple companies of infantry/troops of tanks on the map, at the same time? Will it be possible to co-ordinate their movement/fire?

If the answer is yes, then you're not doing IMHO a "company sized game" but rather a battalion sized game.

You still haven't read the old posts. Having multiple companies on the map doesn't mean you're commanding a battalion.

The problem is not that you are co-ordinating their movement and fire, the issue is the ease with which you are doing so. Suggest you do some reading. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

What you're playing is not a battalion-sized game. You're playing a company-sized game at battalion level.

According to my last post, he is playing a battalion-sized game at company level.

Battalion sized = enough units for two or more companies on the map

Battalion level = player orders more than two companies around

I'm thinking this is an accurate distinction - just so we keep our terminology straight? Though I think each side has presented their case well enough by now.

[Zalgiris 1410]

I find Pltn sized games and even single Company sized games masochistic at least to the extent that they are frustraiting and probably not going to involve enough gore and massacurism that the bigger ones can.

I think the way that Steve et al are constantly posting in terms of CMx2 being a "Company" sized game in scope is scaring a few of us who have taken this to mean that our accompliments are not gonna be eough to allow for combined arms actions.

That's not what I hope is the sense in which they are using this word as a description of what is going to be the scale for CMx2 in the early stages.

This is to say that it is still their intention for maximum force sizes to be able to handle one or two full Infantry Companies with their support weapon teams (HMGs, THs, mortars etc.) a few ATGs, AAGs, IGs etc and a Pltn or three Of AFVs and any FOOs with their off board Artillery batteries and planes for airstrikes. Of course there will also still be trenches, mines, barbed wire and other extras accordingly.

I think I'm right anyway, though it would be good to be sure! :confused:

[Vanir Ausf B]

Not that it much matters, but I was just thumbing through the CMBO and CMBB manuals and ran across some interesting parts.

CMBO manual page 6:

It is our opinion that pure "real time" works only at a very small scale, where there are perhaps just a few soldiers under a player's command. It does not work well at the scale of a full company or battalion, which is the level simulated by Combat Mission.

page 18:

Designer's Note: We would have loved to have shown every single man on the battlefield, but current computer hardware does not allow this if we want to keep the scope of Combat Mission at battalion level.

And on the "role" the player assumes in the game, CMBB manual page 99:

Unit in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin represent squads and teams of soldiers as well as individual vehicles and guns with crew. These are (with few exceptions) the smallest tactical elements that can recieve orders - in other words, in Combat Mission you are not telling every individual soldier what to do, but issue orders from the position of a squad or team leader to the whole group.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Oh thanks Vanir Ausf B those Battalion scope of CM is music to my ears, warming my heart and given this thread making me chuckle just a little bit. Can we be sure that the BFC and everyone else who posts heavily devoted to the myopic "Company" scale reads this and in some cases reminded of these, what shall I call them - Combat Mission Statements!

[Battlefront.com]

Honestly, I think some of you guys are pretty thick headed about the whole thing.

FACT Combat Mission was never designed for battles where more than about a battalion sized force was available for one side.

FACT The original hardware when CMBO came out couldn't even handle forces larger than that. Heck, it couldn't even handle battalion sized formations on most people's systems.

FACT Every design decision made for CMx1 was made with a Company sized force in mind. If we wanted multiple battalions as the norm, we would have designed an entirely different game. Squads would have been Platoons, Platoons Companies.

FACT Even though all of the above is 100% accurate, we also did not put in artificial restrictions that would prevent people from playing a bigger game. Confusing the game's design and intent with what is technically possible is a foolish thing to do. So don't.

FACT As hardware improved the ability to play with forces larger than a battalion became technically practical. However, the game design didn't change one bit. It was still the same game we designed back in 1997 even though people were playing the game on 2002 or later hardware.

FACT CMx2 is being designed exactly like CMx1 in terms of the intended scale and scope. Anybody arguing that we are changing the scale downwards is a fool, because only a fool can make an argument that is so obviously contradicted by fact.

So there you have it fellas... if you want to play a game of CMx1 with a Regiment... knock yourselves out. The game still is Company centric even if you personally enjoy larger battles. And on that note, the precentages of CMers that play games that size is probably measured in the single digets. I know I'd never play a game that large. I'd rather smack myself in the forehead with a board an a large rusty nail on the end. The game system wasn't designed for it and therefore does, IMHO, a very poor job of handling such large units. Some of you obviously disagree, but that doesn't matter. The game design will be unchanged. Period.

Hopefully that will clear things up for those of you who still DO NOT GET IT.

Whoever wishes to debate me on this, BTW, had better have their names in the design credits of CMBO, BB, or AK. Otherwise you might as well argue that you are the Queen of England and have a pet alien from Venus named "Gilbert" for all the good it will do your credibility.

I don't mind people saying the like things a certain way, but to argue that I'm mistaken about how and why CM was designed... two final words come to mind... eat me.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Amen.

I smell a padlock coming...

[stoat]

Originally posted by Battlefront,com:

Otherwise you might as well argue that you are the Queen of England and have a pet alien from Venus named "Gilbert" for all the good it will do your credibility.

Now, you're not going to believe this, but...

I am more than happy with company scale battles.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's not my fault if the manuals are wrong

I too am quite pleased with the present scale, regardless of what label is placed on it.

[Battlefront.com]

There is nothing wrong with the manual. The quotes you put up in this thread are absolultely consistent with what I have been saying. Or are the words "Regiment and Division sized forces" hidden in there somewhere and I'm just not seeing it? Or perhaps a glance back at Page 8 where I defined simulated levels might be more relevant.

Tell you guys what... how's about a quick test:

Question - whose interpretation of the manual's passages is more valid?

The two choices are:

A. Some random Joe playing the game

or

B. The guy who designed the game and wrote the manual's passages in question

I only wish guessing the wrong answer came with some sort of painful penalty. Oh... like having to drive a car off a cliff to demonstrate that simply because you can do something with a product doesn't mean that is what it was designed for. Especially when the car designers would tell you that if asked.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Way to go, ausf B, you've driven (sorry) him to car analogies again. :yuck:

[Battlefront.com]

I find it more than a little annoying that people are nitpicking over subjective wording of what the game is, or isn't, when I have made crystal clear, non subjective statements about the focus of the game's design and what the implications are in terms of how many of what type of units are the central focus of the game. You can argue that Battalion Level = a game that supports 100 battalions or just a single Battalion. What's the point?

I've already stated that the game design is centered around a couple of companies, just like CMx1 was designed. An argument about symantics is fine, but it shouldn't be confused with an argument about what the design philosophy is. There is no room for ambiguity on that point.

Steve

[Barrold]

So let me get this straight. What I hear you saying is....

BFS5

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Tell you guys what... how's about a quick test:

Question - whose interpretation of the manual's passages is more valid?

The two choices are:

A. Some random Joe playing the game

or

B. The guy who designed the game and wrote the manual's passages in question

I only wish guessing the wrong answer came with some sort of painful penalty.

I got a different quick test for ya: Who offered up an interpretation of the manual's passages? Keep your eyes on the road, Steve.

[Ardem]

Guys I asked this thread at the beginning and Steve has been kind enough to answer the question three times during this post on exactly the same detail. Please read the whole lot before posting.

I am sure will be able to play regimental size battles but you have to wait for hardware 2010.

All we needed to hear was artifical constraints are not in place meaning we have the options to atleast try and put as many units on the battlefield before our computer burst apart.

Jeez even i getting fed up with my own thread. Someone please lock it

[samurai man]

Just to throw my two cents in... without having read much of these threads. I want ETO but I love CMAK (so I hope we don't loose what we already have) but would be thrilled to see a few modifications thrown into CMX2.

My "nich" is the huge campaign (for example a large KG Peiper Ardennes scenario would be fabulous which would incorporate the multiple US taskforces which cut off KG Peiper and destroyed it). Now I know CM is not optimally designed for this but I hope it will allow for it.

*A simple follow the leader or formation command should alleviate much of the tedious movement problems with huge numbers of units.

*Some kind of grouping function would be great. For example a platoon, company, or whatever could be assigned as a group that can be selected and placed or moved without the tedious placement or plotting of each unit individually. Turn off the grouping function and you're back to squads - for fine tuning. Thus you can treat platoons as squads in terms of placement and movement - saving much tedium.

In operations, rather than having reinforcements appear as a blob of units. What if they appeared as a grouping in formation for easy placement - platoons/companies - perhaps set up in the editor. Thus if my reinforements are two companies, rather than a blob they might appear as 8 platoon groups in two company groups - each group having a designation. so if I want to place 1st Co two km away, I just find the desired spot, hit the designation key for 1st Co, place it on the desired spot, and then do the same to position each of it's platoons, then turn off grouping mode for fine tuning.

Some kind of tactical overview/map mode allowing similar placement would be nice also.

*How about command posts and command vehicles?

*For operations I want the editor to allow reinforcments to come into the enemy rear or flank so that counterattackes could actually cut off the enemy - while his reinforcements try to break through.

*Of course atmosphere is a major attraction. More realistic infantry. More dynamic looking weather (haze, fog with snow for instance). Sounds of crows near a field... tank commanders swaying in the canopy... radio chatter when you click on a tank... or a "yes sir" when clicking on a infantry unit... smokey vehicles... etc

*Larger map potential would be great - 16/8km? Larger?

Anyway, such is my wishlist.

[stoat]

Originally pasted by Ardem:

Please read the whole lot before posting.

Now, Samuraiman. You may not have read the whole thread, but what about the post before yours? If you had taken the time to read the thread (you really should have), you would find that most if not all of your points had been addressed, many of them several times. Many times. Inumerable times.

[samurai man]

My apologies but we ronin samurai are known to be a stubborn lot. I've not had time to read the threads, but if my points are already addressed I'm glad.

[Barrold]

Good thing it's not too late for that ritual suicide thingie to cover your shame and dishonor though.

BFS5

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir,

I got a different quick test for ya: Who offered up an interpretation of the manual's passages?

I don't know, who? Not me. Or do you mean the exact same thing that I said on Page 8 that matches the exact same thing that's in the manual? My message has been 100% consistent from the very beginning. The fact that some people don't get it by now is almost as baffling as why some people are arguing with me in the first place. Again, I can see people saying they don't agree with my position, but trying to argue that even I don't agree with my position is... well... rather stupid.

Steve

[Andrew Kulin]

Steve:

Why not just unlimit the number of units/points a person can run a scenario with and then put a disclaimer at the beginning of the user manual to the tune of:

"At the time of release (2005/2006), this game is optimimized for a reasonable play experience at the company sized (or battalion) level on a computer that meets the minimum (or recommended) specifications identified. If the user wishes to simulate an engagement comprising every single soldier and vehicle of an Army Group, and they enjoy a play experience simulating one honkin' big screenshot, then they are welcome to go knock themselves out. Larger scale engagements may be playable in the future as computer hardware becomes more advanced, but Battlefront makes no claims, warranties, etc. that this game will provide a playable experience at anything over a company sized (or battalion) level engagement for which it was designed."